seany65
Well-known
Hello all, Do fuji Raw files need to be processed in Adobe Lightroom, or are there any non-subscription programs that can do it?
Any help would be much appreciated.
Any help would be much appreciated.
Do Fuji Raw files need adobe lightroom?
- Thread starter seany65
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 14
- Views 765
Darthfeeble
But you can call me Steve
Fuji offers a decent program themselves. Just about any raw developer is going to work I believe. Things were a little weird when the Xtrans first came out but not any more.
I much prefer Capture One over LR with Fuji files. Then again, I much prefer C1. 😛
Dan
Let's Sway
A simple Google search will keep you reading about this long-beaten-to-death topic for years! It all comes down to picking one software package and spend your time learning how to use it.
skahde
V for Victory!
With lightroom fuji-raws can only be sharpened to a certain amount, much smaller than what came from more conventional sensors. This has been much worse with early versions of LR, before about LR6 where you got wormy artifacts quickly, but is still true today. I have used Capture One for several versions but never got used to its workflow and went back to LR.
Oren Grad
Well-known
Oren Grad
Well-known
Right... Fujifilm Raw Converter EX will certainly handle basic raw conversions. The Fuji converter is actually a simplified version of Silkypix. Those who want all of the bells and whistles can license the full version from Silkypix - it costs money, of course, but it does not require a monthly subscription. Among its other features, full-version Silkypix provides the various Fuji film emulation flavors as processing options for RAF files.
seany65
Well-known
Thank you to everyone for the replies and the useful info. and suggestions for various programs.
It seems that I ought to try the Fuji thing first and see what that does and if I can get the hang of it. That way I'll get an idea of what to do and how to do it and then I'll be able to decide whether to try other things. Being an utter cheapskate, (and having used two free photo processing programs that I got from the front of computer magazines in 2001, ad learned how do almost everything that I want to do with JPEGS and Bitmaps, apart from "Layers") I'll probably try Raw Therapee if I need other things doing that the Fuji may not do or not do in the way I like.
It seems that I ought to try the Fuji thing first and see what that does and if I can get the hang of it. That way I'll get an idea of what to do and how to do it and then I'll be able to decide whether to try other things. Being an utter cheapskate, (and having used two free photo processing programs that I got from the front of computer magazines in 2001, ad learned how do almost everything that I want to do with JPEGS and Bitmaps, apart from "Layers") I'll probably try Raw Therapee if I need other things doing that the Fuji may not do or not do in the way I like.
rulnacco
Well-known
This is a bit of an old data point, but I just wanted to relate my experience with different RAW developers for Fuji X-Trans sensors--and mention an app you might want to give a trial to.
I once owned a Fuji X100S (we're talking approximately a decade ago). At that time I was using Photoshop CS6 and Lightroom, so was familiar and proficient with Adobe's RAW processor. I'd heard great things about Iridient Developer (which is still in production it appears) so I decided to try it out.
I had attended a concert at the Royal Albert Hall (Damon Albarn on his solo tour, a friend of mine was drumming for him) and had seats above and approximately 40 feet from stage left. I brought the X100S along as I was sure they'd let me bring it in.
The shots I developed with Adobe Camera Raw were okay, but lacking in fine detail--which I initially put down mostly to the fairly high ISO I shot at. However, I was stunned when I tried Iridient Developer with the Fuji RAW files: the stage monitors had a diamond-patterned grille, which in ACR was rendered as simply a blur. Iridient developer not only rendered those with crisp detail, I could see individual strings on Damon's guitar quite clearly. And the rest of the image was similarly suffused with much more detail than ACR could extract from the file. The Iridient-processed image was superior in every way, far superior, than what I was getting from ACR.
I'm sure things have changed considerably since then, but this really pointed up to me that all RAW processors are not created equal--and even the behemoth didn't do nearly as well with Fuji files as a smaller app developer's product. While you're trying different apps, and if it's a free trial, I'd download Iridient Developer and see what it can do with your RAW files, too, as I'm sure it has improved in the interim as well--and it was already starting from a considerable lead over Adobe.
I once owned a Fuji X100S (we're talking approximately a decade ago). At that time I was using Photoshop CS6 and Lightroom, so was familiar and proficient with Adobe's RAW processor. I'd heard great things about Iridient Developer (which is still in production it appears) so I decided to try it out.
I had attended a concert at the Royal Albert Hall (Damon Albarn on his solo tour, a friend of mine was drumming for him) and had seats above and approximately 40 feet from stage left. I brought the X100S along as I was sure they'd let me bring it in.
The shots I developed with Adobe Camera Raw were okay, but lacking in fine detail--which I initially put down mostly to the fairly high ISO I shot at. However, I was stunned when I tried Iridient Developer with the Fuji RAW files: the stage monitors had a diamond-patterned grille, which in ACR was rendered as simply a blur. Iridient developer not only rendered those with crisp detail, I could see individual strings on Damon's guitar quite clearly. And the rest of the image was similarly suffused with much more detail than ACR could extract from the file. The Iridient-processed image was superior in every way, far superior, than what I was getting from ACR.
I'm sure things have changed considerably since then, but this really pointed up to me that all RAW processors are not created equal--and even the behemoth didn't do nearly as well with Fuji files as a smaller app developer's product. While you're trying different apps, and if it's a free trial, I'd download Iridient Developer and see what it can do with your RAW files, too, as I'm sure it has improved in the interim as well--and it was already starting from a considerable lead over Adobe.
joe bosak
Well-known
Silkypix is quite intuitive. It's the full-blown version of the software that Fuji used to ship with early X Trans models at least. Personally I like it, up to version 11 - from 12 they started the modern disease of changing buttons and ordering just because. You get 3 perpetual licences, and at upgrade time you get 3 more for the latest version. You can check camera compatibility on the website.
Affinity 2 is another one to look at. Perpetual licence per major version. Cross platform. Has some cool features.
Affinity 2 is another one to look at. Perpetual licence per major version. Cross platform. Has some cool features.
Dogman
Veteran
I don't shoot Raw anymore. But when I shot Fuji Raw I found Iridient X-Transformer gave the most detailed files. But I always opened the converted files in Lightroom to finish processing. I always use LR on my JPEGs as well. It's my personal favorite.
..............................
..............................
seany65
Well-known
Thanks to everyone for the further replies, info and suggestions. It seems that there's quite a lot for me to think about. I'm afraid my humble X-S1 only has an EXR CMOS sensor with primary colour filter and I don't even know if it's a backlit one. I'm presuming the quality I can get from it will be a bit lens than with X Trans sensors, but I ain't that good so I presume it doesn't matter.
joe bosak
Well-known
If it's using a standard Bayer rather than X-Trans colour filter array, that means there's a bit less esoteric-Fujiness for the software to deal with, which used to be a big deal when some of them couldn't get it right (and people insisted on continuing to use ther favourite product rather than shell out for Silkypix). The versions you'd be buying should have no trouble.
I suspect much debate about cameras, lenses and software is out of proportion to the skill of those taking part and software choice doesn't ultimately make as much difference as one might think.
I suspect much debate about cameras, lenses and software is out of proportion to the skill of those taking part and software choice doesn't ultimately make as much difference as one might think.
seany65
Well-known
joe, Thanks for the info. No, the pixels are arranged differently than Bayer. Rather than straight vertical/horizontal arrangement the pixels are a little offset giving a more diagonal look and there are always two photosites of the same colour next to each other, so I presume that "preserves" some of the esoteric Fujiness that would've been lost had they used the Beyer array.
Oren Grad
Well-known
FWIW, the X-S1 is included in the compatibility list for both Fujifilm Raw Converter EX and the full version of Silkypix, including the latest version Pro 12.
Similar threads
