Alternates to Aperture for Fuji raw users

[GaryLH]

http://www.fujivsfuji.com/best-xtrans-raw-converter/

An interesting writeup on Fuji raw converters. I guess I need to check out irrident one day. On the comments on aperture, the author has not mentioned the use of the fine raw file adjustment that is available.. I find that I can tweak that for better fine detail.

Right now.. I have decided to keep trucking w/ aperture for now. I was using internal libraries. But next year I will go to external library structures. Start playing w/ other photo sw before I make a final decision.

My personal plan is to start learning LR first to c and it looks like I need to add irrident to the list. I just picked up the latest LR..

I figure Aperture has about another 2 years worth of support since they said they would support it up to this coming os release. By then we should be able to get a better idea of Apples new photo sw for those that going to stay w/ apple. For myself, I not sure I will stay w/ Apple photo sw but apple computers I plan to stay w/.

Gary

 

[f16sunshine]

Who knows Mate.... Apple may just expand on Aperture with Photos rather than abandon it completely.
With all the tools and brushes Apple has created for Aperture why would it make sense to abandon them.
Any bait apple can have to obtain and keep new customers to it's ecosystem is good.
Use all your tools sort of thing.
Yes, it may create a bit more weight for the new Photos SW but... with todays hardware offerings it seems inconsequential.
Anyway... I'm hoping for the best. I guess we can start testing Photos in a few weeks or less.
I hope there will be support for Plug Ins. Can't imagine not ... for the same reasons as above. Attracting more users 🙂

Cheers!

 

[willie_901]

LR 5.X is capable of producing great results with XTrans raw. I find all the Fujifilm Camera Calibration Profiles produce better results than the default Adobe Profile.

However LR's rendering parameters have different effects with XTrans raw than they do with Bayer raw. This means there is a learning curve to climb.

My experiences with XTrans raw file rendering probably is irrelevant for OOc JPEGs.

Color Temperature - The Temp parameter can make a huge difference in rendering detail. Small changes can make a big difference. In some cases the color fidelity responds very differently than expected. For instance, some people complain about white borders between deep blue sky and dark objects such as roof lines or signs. These artifacts can be eliminated by careful adjustment of the Temp parameter. If eliminating the border results in an unsuitable sky hue rending, the Hue Parameter for Blue and Aqua restores the appropriate sky rendering without the white outline. I have never seen anything like this with Bayer raw.

Sharpening - Xtrans raw requires very little sharpening and small changes can have a large effect. The LR default parameters rarely do well.

Clarity - XTrans raw responds differently to Clarity changes than Bayer raw.

Defringe - This parameter can have a huge effect on pinks and lavenders. It solves some other XTrans rendering issues as well.

Foilage - Many maintain the LR simply can not render foliage cleanly. In my experience this is no longer a problem. Once again one has to pay careful attention to green Hue, Saturation and Luminance parameters. Sharpening, Clarity and Defringe must be optimized as well. I revisited and pixel-peeped my D700 raw files and detail with greens wasn't any better than XTrans green detail.

Moiré - The LR Moiré Adjustment Brush has handled every XTrans image with visible moiré. I also saw moiré in some of my D700 images. Moiré can occur, but it is not an issue.

Optimizing XTrans raw with LR 5 requires a different workflow than Bayer raw. I tried all the OS alternates last spring and none of them seemed substantially superior to LR.

I realize a large number of photographers have a very different view about LR and XTrans rendering. Others could not be bothered to adjust to the change in workflow. I have no issue with these conclusions whatsoever. Different people prefer different products. All I know is I can render images that meet my needs. The total quality of XTrans raw is impressive.

 

[MaxElmar]

The good news is LR just keeps getting better and better with RAF files. We're to the point where they are different to work with, but not really inferior. Massive kudos to Adobe (and Fuji, I presume) to keep working on this and moving closer to optimum with every update to ACR.

The bad news is I'm pretty certain that LR will succumb to the subscription model, eventually. I use a boxed version of LR along with the CC suite and they keep bugging me to "update" to Lightroom CC. At work, my employer has enough juice that they forced a very reasonable discount for CC. About what we were paying for CS! Of course, we held out for about a year and made active plans to use other products. Adobe, who insisted there would be no discounts, caved. But I have no leverage like my employer who bought almost 1000 licenses for the full CS products.

I will probably use Irrident and/or the new Apple product at home.

 

[MCTuomey]

Willis, I just want to say thank you for taking the time to share your hard-earned observations and practices. It is extremely useful, saving time and effort, allowing us to narrow the options to what works. You're a credit to this forum.

 

[GaryLH]

LR 5.X is capable of producing great results with XTrans raw. I find all the Fujifilm Camera Calibration Profiles produce better results than the default Adobe Profile.

However LR's rendering parameters have different effects with XTrans raw than they do with Bayer raw. This means there is a learning curve to climb.

My experiences with XTrans raw file rendering probably is irrelevant for OOc JPEGs.

Color Temperature - The Temp parameter can make a huge difference in rendering detail. Small changes can make a big difference. In some cases the color fidelity responds very differently than expected. For instance, some people complain about white borders between deep blue sky and dark objects such as roof lines or signs. These artifacts can be eliminated by careful adjustment of the Temp parameter. If eliminating the border results in an unsuitable sky hue rending, the Hue Parameter for Blue and Aqua restores the appropriate sky rendering without the white outline. I have never seen anything like this with Bayer raw.

Sharpening - Xtrans raw requires very little sharpening and small changes can have a large effect. The LR default parameters rarely do well.

Clarity - XTrans raw responds differently to Clarity changes than Bayer raw.

Defringe - This parameter can have a huge effect on pinks and lavenders. It solves some other XTrans rendering issues as well.

Foilage - Many maintain the LR simply can not render foliage cleanly. In my experience this is no longer a problem. Once again one has to pay careful attention to green Hue, Saturation and Luminance parameters. Sharpening, Clarity and Defringe must be optimized as well. I revisited and pixel-peeped my D700 raw files and detail with greens wasn't any better than XTrans green detail.

Moiré - The LR Moiré Adjustment Brush has handled every XTrans image with visible moiré. I also saw moiré in some of my D700 images. Moiré can occur, but it is not an issue.

Optimizing XTrans raw with LR 5 requires a different workflow than Bayer raw. I tried all the OS alternates last spring and none of them seemed substantially superior to LR.

I realize a large number of photographers have a very different view about LR and XTrans rendering. Others could not be bothered to adjust to the change in workflow. I have no issue with these conclusions whatsoever. Different people prefer different products. All I know is I can render images that meet my needs. The total quality of XTrans raw is impressive.

Thanks for this.. This give a lot of information as I explore LR as a replacement to aperture.

Gary