I have this RAW file I got off the FUJIFILM front end at the photolab where I work. That being said, its not like any particularly normal camera-sensor RAW file. I've tried a bunch of programs and I couldn't get any of my programs (PS 7, GIMP, etc) to open it properly. Please help a neighbour out and see if you can read this file, and then if you do get it open tell me how I can do the same. I know CS2 and CS3 have better RAW support, so it might be readable in one of those, but so far its been pretty impossible to get this thing open. I have a back up plan once I get to work tomorrow, but the odds that it will work are not certain.

Get the file here -> http://www.megaupload.com/?d=WNH29A40

Here's what I know about this RAW format:
- Its compressed. JPG files of the same image are the same size, which probably means compression similar to JPG compression but encoded differently.
- Its FUJI specific. Never designed to be used in any other software than FUJI lab software, so chances are general RAW packages may not support this format.
- Its OLD. Probably 7-8 years old at least. Software that only reads the newest formats is likely not going to be able to open this.

I've got to do a batch conversion job on about 200 of these to JPG for a customer and it needs to be done by Monday, so if anyone could tell me how to get these open that would be swell.

I loathe camera RAW files. They're just a waste of time. JPEG is standard, contains same amount of color/light information, smaller file size, doesn't require processing. Ugh.

I attempted to open it in CS3, and couldn't get a tangible image out of it.
EDIT: I tried another program called XnView and it came up with a similar image: lines of junk.

Yeah, I usually shoot in JPG myself, but these files came out of the digital interface for the lab photo-printer (one of those big honkin' thing with the moving racks). I think that these actually had been converted from TIFs or JPGs (seeing as how they were once scanned in and probably needed to go through the TWAIN source) for export to the printer, but I don't know how to get them to convert back. I've planned a couple workarounds to try and trick the frontend software tomorrow to export them for burning as JPGs, but I really don't know if its going to work.

JPEG is for people too cheap to buy a decent-sized SD card.

Have you tried IrfanView with the plugin pack?

Even if I could open it with IrfanView, it doesn't have save or convert support for RAW files.

You could just take a screenshot at that point.

Edit: do these help
http://www.dcresource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=13854
http://www.geocities.co.jp/SiliconValley-PaloAlto/9919/s7raw.html
http://www.whisper-wood.co.uk/FujiRawConv.pdf
http://photo.net/digital-darkroom-forum/00MyJY

Thanks goat, but again, these raw files (while image files) aren't like normal camera sensor raw files, so support or programs that work with camera-specific raw formats aren't going to be much help.

With Irfanview, I couldn't get it to open properly. Even if I could I'm not willing to screencap 200 pics and then crop and convert them, I'd rather scan in the originals again (although that's also really something I'd like to avoid). I'm going to try my workarounds tomorrow, and I'll let you guys know how it goes.

JPEG is standard, contains same amount of color/light information

hhahahhahahahahahhahahahaha

what i mean to say is no, not by far

I took care of it. Found a way to convert the files at work. Thanks for your efforts guys, consider this topic kaput.

yeah RAW is lossless, JPEG is not.

Incorrect. Most cameras (all cameras?) - to my knowledge - save lossless jpegs.

what i mean to say is no, not by far

Actually you're right, but the RAW advantages are often overstated and overhyped. I did some experimenting myself, and yes, improperly exposed images contained more details in the darks in the RAW file. RAW is more flexible... no doubt. That said, it tends to be a waste of time if you're printing 4x6's.

I shoot in JPG for the simple reason that not all RAW formats are supported by different softwares and I don't like having the extra step of converting the files. Most of the keepers are just more readily consumable/printable if they don't need editing, which means I can take it right to the lab instead of going home and touching it up first.

If I was doing something more serious like a shoot or a concert then yeah I'd shoot in and then keep the RAWs but I don't do anything with them. Once they're converted, they just sit on a CD in this milkcrate here and I'll never look at it agian because the first converts and subsequent touchups are in JPG on my XHD.

Incorrect. Most cameras (all cameras?) - to my knowledge - save lossless jpegs.
Actually you're right, but the RAW advantages are often overstated and overhyped. I did some experimenting myself, and yes, improperly exposed images contained more details in the darks in the RAW file. RAW is more flexible... no doubt. That said, it tends to be a waste of time if you're printing 4x6's.

Lossless Jpeg? Unless there is something I don't know about, this seems like an oxymoron of sorts
Although the amount of quality loss that does occur is usually negligible

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lossless_JPEG

However, as the wiki article says I have not seen this used in that many places. Though I'm sure there's bound to be someone more knowledgable on this subject.

There's not much point in saving as lossless JPEG when you can just save as RAW because i really doubt the compression on lossless JPEG is very sizeable (because it's REALLY hard to compress photographic images losslessly)

I was going to do this yesterday and I feel like kind of a jackass for bumping this but I wanted to clear this up. I wasn't even aware that there was a lossless format jpeg... it seems rather unnecessary as jpeg can be lossless as is.

I was going to do this yesterday and I feel like kind of a jackass for bumping this but I wanted to clear this up. I wasn't even aware that there was a lossless format jpeg... it seems rather unnecessary as jpeg can be lossless as is.

My experiment. Subject: my dog. (Click to reveal)

Images on left are JPEG originals. Images on right are RAW. Both saved as PNG (lossless).




As you can see, the pixel layout is identical -- indicating to me that there are no artifacts present from any sort of jpeg compression on the part of the camera. The pixel layout is lossless, as far as I am concerned.

Toggling them through browser tabs, the jpeg seems brighter. Not sure if that's good or bad, but definitely different. I would say theres loss there if it is ANY different from the original.

The RAW picture was processed through Photoshop CS3. I matched the white balance and brightness as close as I could without getting too picky. Sorry if there's a little brightness variation... with a little more time, I could have made a perfect match. Also, I don't know if it matters, but the ones on the right are 16 bit PNGs, while the ones on the left are 8 bit.