Hey @lep, welcome!
The simulations in RawTherapee are approximations of Fuji’s film stocks.
The OOC jpeg for Fuji’s digital cameras are tweaked on a per-camera basis. That means two different fuji models’ won’t produce exactly the same OOC jpeg if given the same input.
If you want to match the OOC jpeg exactly, then you need to calibrate your camera using a color target, then make a LUT from your particular camera’s JPEG.
I have an X-T20. To match the OOC I raised the raw white point (1.65 if I recall correctly) added some local contrast, enabled highlight reconstruction (luminance) and compressed some of the extreme highlights.
I did all this by eye and saved it as a profile. I then use it as a springboard to do my own further edits.
Also very important is to disable the automatic tone curve. If you read the comments above you will see that the last simulation versions already have a tone curve included.
You’re right. I had to increase the exposure compensation quite a bit (1.xx). It still doesn’t match the exact OOC results, but it’s good enough.
I set the profile to neutral. I think that should do it, right? I’m very new to Rawtherapee and editing RAW in general.
AFAIK there’s no DCP input profile for the X-T100 bundled with RT. If you can find (or create) a DCP profile for your camera, then make sure in the Color tab > Color Management that the DPC profile is picked up, and that “Baseline exposure” is checked. This should automatically correct at least part of the underexposure you see (Fuji cameras are known to underexpose by ~2/3 stops).
Try the raw white point instead of exposure
http://rawpedia.rawtherapee.com/Raw_White_Points
Hi,
pretty nice overall.
However, when I zoom in a little more, looks like a lot of color detail is lost.
Not sure what is is…
When I apply other haldcluts, I don’t see this issue.
I loaded the raw file, starting from a neutral profile and then applying the film simulation.
those artifacts look a bit like the ones I have found in my experience, see this thread for details: out of the box RAW rendering not up to JPEGs.
Pixls says: “Are you sure you want to continue this old conversation?” (it being over 3 years since the last update and the topic itself being 6 years old).
My answer is ‘yes’, even though the 3 year hiatus might imply a clear answer to my doubts about whether this is a sensible question, or not.
What question?
Why is there no update to the X-Trans III LUTs, made available by Stuart Sowerby in 2018, so as to cater for X-TRANS IV sensors? Is it because the differences between X-Trans III and X-Trans IV are irrelevant to the LUT technology, so that I can apply the X-Trans III LUTs to my X-T30 RAFs without losing or sacrificing anything ?
In general, I find X-trans III and IV pretty similar, so the same LUT should look fine on both.
You could also create a LUT that transfers X-Trans IV to III, and apply that to Sowerby’s LUTs.
