LIGHTROOM/ACR: Incorrect exposure of Fuji X100 RAW files

  • 2
  • Problem
  • Updated 4 years ago
  • (Edited)
RAW files of the original Fuji X100 do not always show correct exposure in Lightroom 4.4 and 5.3.
With automatic DR selection the DR value is not detected (Fuji uses a different EXIF tag for these files, "Auto Dynamic Range" instead of "Development Dynamic Range"). This results in a 1EV too low exposure for DR200 and 2EV for DR400 files with ISO up to 1600. For files with AutoDR and ISO greater than 1600 DR400 is 1EV too dark. DR100 and DR200 seem correct.
With manual DR selection all files with ISO greater than 1600 and DR values 200 and 400 are 1EV too bright.
Photo of Sebastian Krey

Sebastian Krey

  • 11 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes

Posted 4 years ago

  • 2
Photo of Steve Sprengel

Steve Sprengel, Champion

  • 2611 Posts
  • 333 Reply Likes
I have the same sort of issue with my Canon DSLR if I use Highlight-Tone-Priority, which exposes 1 EV too low and then boosts the shadows digitally when it produces JPGs to keep the highlights from overexposing.

However, I don't expect LR to replicate this non-linear proprietary Canon-specific behavior because Adobe has no idea what Canon is doing.

If you are going to be developing raw photos from your camera, then stop using DR modes that only affect the camera's JPGs, and do your own dynamic-range adjustments using the toning controls in LR.
Photo of Sebastian Krey

Sebastian Krey

  • 11 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Manual selection of DR200 and DR400 with ISO up to 1600 results in correct exposure (not identical to in camera JPEGs but I do not expect this). So it should be possible for Adobe to correct this behaviour. It should not make a difference if I set the DR value or the camera. And there should be no difference between ISO values up to 1600 and higher.
Photo of Steve Sprengel

Steve Sprengel, Champion

  • 2611 Posts
  • 333 Reply Likes
So what you're expecting, in part, is that the automatic selection of DR200 and DR400 act the same as manual selection of DR200 and DR400.

If what is recorded on the sensor is the same I would expect Adobe to treat them the same, yes.

I don't have a Fuji camera. Can you supply a raw file where DR400 has been selected automatically and a raw file of the same scene where DR400 has been selected manually? I would like to examine them to see if the data recorded on the sensor is actually the same or if there is something different. You can use something like www.dropbox.com as a staging area and post a public download link to them, here.
Photo of Sebastian Krey

Sebastian Krey

  • 11 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Yes, I would like to have a consistent behaviour between automatic and manual selection of the dynamic range options.
In a perfect world the behavior between ISO values up to 1600 and above would also be the same (but this can be fixed with ISO dependent camera defaults).

I have created a few test files (of my messy desk). For each dynamic range setting I took 4 photos (ISO 1600 AutoDR, ISO 1600 manual DR, ISO 3200 AutoDR and ISO 3200 manual DR). The ZIP files also include the out of camera JPEGs for comparison.

Here are the download links:
http://t1p.de/fpx5
http://t1p.de/d772
http://t1p.de/76bl
Photo of Steve Sprengel

Steve Sprengel, Champion

  • 2611 Posts
  • 333 Reply Likes
Having seen the raw files, themselves, I concur with what you're seeing and your request:

Comparing the ISO 1600 Auto DR400 (top) and manual DR400 (bottom) raws, raw-digger shows that the underlying raw data is nearly identical, both via a histogram and by looking at the greenish raw composite, but for some reason, LR is making the Auto DR400 version darker:


With ISO 3200 something more complicated is going on. The ISO 3200 Auto DR400 LR rendering is darker than the camera rendering, and the ISO 3200 DR400 rendering is lighter than the camera rendering, while the raw-digger histograms and raw-composites (not pictured because they are similar to those above) are the same between the
Auto DR400 and DR400:
Photo of Sebastian Krey

Sebastian Krey

  • 11 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Thank you for investigating the RAW files with RawDigger.

What we see here in both cases ist the expected 2EV exposure difference between respecting the DR400 setting and not. The ISO 3200 files have an additional 1EV shift to the right (maybe this has something to do with the fact, that ISO values above 1600 are digitally boosted, see Fuji user manual). This probably also explains why AutoDR200 files with ISO greater than 1600 seem on first look correct. They use the wrong contrast curve, but the DR200 1EV underexposure (like Canons HTP) is compensated by the 1EV brightness shift for these files.

Summary:
1. DR100 files are always correct.
2. Adobe has implemented a method to mimic Fujis in camera processing of DR200 and DR400 files and it is working if these values are selected manually.
3. In AutoDR files the DR values 200 and 400 are ignored. These files have the DR value in a different EXIF tag ("Auto Dynamic Range" instead of "Development Dynamic Range").
4. DR200 und DR400 files with ISO greater than 1600 are always 1EV too bright.

Requests to Adobe:
1. Please respect the DR values in the "Auto Dynamic Range" tag.
2. Correct the exposure for DR200 and DR400 files with ISO greater than 1600.
Photo of Eric Chan

Eric Chan, Camera Raw Engineer

  • 617 Posts
  • 121 Reply Likes
Unfortunately, for now we are not planning to change our handling of this metadata for the X100 because that would negatively impact users' existing images that were captured in these modes (i.e., any automatic / adaptive compensation that we added would apply both to new shots as well as existing shots that users had already edited in earlier versions of ACR/Lr).
Photo of Sebastian Krey

Sebastian Krey

  • 11 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Exactly that was done for the Fuji X-T1 in LR 5.5. So for a new camera this is obviously possible...

I had hoped that this fix would propagate to other Fuji X Series cameras, but it does not seem to happen.
Photo of Sebastian Krey

Sebastian Krey

  • 11 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
I am sad to here that. It makes using LR/ACR for this great camera very uncomfortable.

Maybe you could consider implementing this as an additional camera profile (if possible). This would not affect existing photos and the user could decide which profile to use as default.
Photo of Steve Sprengel

Steve Sprengel, Champion

  • 2611 Posts
  • 333 Reply Likes
It would take custom coding to interpret metadata differently, which is what seems to be needed, here, not a camera profile that merely sets various parameters of color conversion.

The normal way for a user to select one way of doing things vs another is using the Process Version, so without a new Process Version, after 2012, a differing handling of Fuji X100 Auto DR modes wouldn't be under the control of the user. Maybe when the next PV is released, the properly handling of Auto DR for the Fuji X100 files could be added.

It could also be accomplished, perhaps seen as somewhat of a kludge, would be for Adobe to create another camera profile for the Fuji X100, named Adobe Standard Auto DR or something, that could be reacted to by the code like a private Process Version for the X100.
Photo of Eric Chan

Eric Chan, Camera Raw Engineer

  • 617 Posts
  • 121 Reply Likes
Sorry Sebastian. Yes, while technically a change of this type is possible also for older camera models, the chances of affecting (a large number of) users' existing images is also much higher, given the much longer time these older camera models have been released and in users' hands. For this reason, we decided not to make a similar change to our raw support of the X100.