Fuji Folk

Bill Pierce

Bill Pierce

Well-known
Local time
8:40 PM
Joined
Sep 26, 2007
Messages
1,407
There seem to be a lot of folks on the RF forum who, attracted by the bright line finder in the Fuji X Pro 1 and X100s, started using Fuji cameras with their unique digital file format. At first it was a bit of a hassle because the most popular image processing software (Photoshop/Lightroom) didn’t do a particularly good job with the new files and the furnished software (Silkypix) had an interface that was quite different from most of the programs photographers were used to.

Over time more processing programs appeared that did well with the non-Bayer Fuji files. Capture One was among the first and still is one of the best. Iridient Developer, AccuRaw and RPP convert both Bayer and Fuji raw files to jpegs or tiffs that can be handled by a range of image processing programs.

Recently, PhotoNinja, which can process files independently or in conjunction with Photo Mechanic, Lightroom, Photoshop and Aperture was introduced. If you are familiar with any of the major image processing programs, you can put PhotoNinja to work immediately. But if you want to get the most out of it, read the online guide as it has some controls that are not front and center with many of the other programs.

While the programs differ in their interfaces and base sharpening and color characteristics, they all do a good job. Photographers who use Fuji gear (often along with other gear) are going nuts trying to figure out which processing program is best for them. I use three of the programs to make tiffs that I export to Lightroom for minor adjustments and printing. And I still haven’t figured which is best for me. Obviously, this is not the most efficient way to process images. So, Fuji folk, what processing program do you prefer - and, most important, WHY.
 
Yea, most of the time I go with the ooc jpeg. They are really nice (usually). I shoot both, and if I blow the exposure, I'll deal with the raw in Lightroom 5.
 
I've found that the best processor for Fuji files is already in the camera. I shoot the XP1 in jpeg both color or black and white and seem to get the best results that way. I've used Capture One and agree that it seems to be the best of all the programs out there but I chose not to buy it as I have some half a dozen programs already and wanted to draw the line. All that said, I haven't printed out much from the Fuji and that should be the final word on what program does the best so I'll just have to go to work on correcting that oversight.
 
Lightroom is really good with the x-trans files. There are people who obsess over capture one, but I don't rate it as a converter - the files are over sharpened and overcooked from the get-go. Yes it extracts a little more detail than lightroom but if you are looking at your files that close you are most likely kidding yourself.
 
I use Lightroom 5.2 with raw. I pay attention to the sharpening, clarity and sometimes the defringing rendering parameters. Even mis-set color temperature parameters can occasionally cause problems. I find different scenes/subjects and different XF lenses benefit from a more diverse range of these parameter values compared to Bayer sensor raw files. For instance I rarely change sharpening when I render X100 or D700 raw in LR.

Different rendering programs have their own strengths and weaknesses. I don't find the most recent ACR to be deficient for X-Pro 1 raw rendering. At the same time, other raw solutions are strongly favored by others. This just means we have different priorities and workflows.

Recently I was about to purchase Aperture and see how it handles XTrans raw. Then I read a report on another forum (with photos) where LR release candidate 5.3 included improvements for XTrans raw. But I don't use release candidate versions so I can not evaluate this report. I decided to defer trying Aperture until the situation with LR 5.3 becomes clearer. Evaluating LR 5.3 RC for XTrans further confounded because there are other reports that the current 5.3 RC has significant problems with the it's color profile for the XE-2. Of course this is not the final release, but these you can see how this sort of thing just muddies the water even more,

At any rate, the XTrans rendering in LR 4 was problematic. The legacy issues with LR 4 and the need to use different rendering parameters for different scenes and lenses with LR 5 just confounds the issue.

It's sad that Fuji could have avoided much of this trouble by simply including uncompressed (or loss-less) TIFF output as an option with the XTrans cameras. This even could be done post acquisition as Fuji already supports in-camera output of different JPEG renderings.
 
lightroom pour lens correction and CS3 for B&W

Why ? because that's how i use to do and I am not a specialist in softwares....

Stupid answer I know, but that's the only one I have
 
I primarily use OOC jpegs. During a recent wedding I used the x100s as a backup body and shot RAW. Some of the images had artifacts after processing. Jpegs work well enough in most situations with that camera as you can pull a lot from the highlights/shadows.
 
i recently started using aperture (new mac pro owner here), and i like what it does with my x100 jpegs in black and white. i had been using photoshop, picassa and windows live gallery in a weird mixture ...
 
I shoot RAW 100% of the time - use ACR with Photoshop. Why? That's what I use for the D800 files and I want to keep the workflow simple. The latest ACR does very well with the raw files from the x100s.
 
Capture One Pro v7 for me although I agree that the sharpening and saturation needs to be reduced a lot. However, for extracting detail it reigns supreme IMHO. Very intuitive interface enables me to breeze through files. Then into Niks Color Effects for further tweaking and Silver Effects for B+W. Iridient RAW for really tricky images where I want a flatter, more linear type file.
 
I use Aperture and find it meets my needs splendidly. I suppose I could hunt around looking for the 'perfect' option, but I see no need since the images that come out of my printer are good enough. Maybe someone out there has prepared the same image using more than one processing software? It would be interesting to hear from anyone that has done so.
 
ReeRay said:
Capture One Pro v7 for me although I agree that the sharpening and saturation needs to be reduced a lot. However, for extracting detail it reigns supreme IMHO. Very intuitive interface enables me to breeze through files. Then into Niks Color Effects for further tweaking and Silver Effects for B+W. Iridient RAW for really tricky images where I want a flatter, more linear type file.
Click to expand...

ReeRay, you say here that Capture One Pro v7 "reigns supreme". Have you tried other processors? If so, what is it that Capture One does that the other processors didn't? Thanks.
 
I don't have calibrated monitors or printers, and send my JPG digital files out to be printed.
So . . . I shoot RAW only these days and use the X100's in-camera RAW processing menu to generate several different jpg files, whenever any image looks "printable". Pull the JPG's into the GIMP for (usually) minor tweaking (cropping, "curve" adjustment, "soft effects"?).

Thanks to willie_901 a few months back who alerted me to the X100's RAW converted menu. Really a wonderful intedmediate process for those of us who don't want to take the BIG harware/software move into RAW conversion-&-printing.
 
Having more than enough room in today's memory cards, I usually shoot JPEG fine + RAW. Why?
95 % of my images are correct enough as JPEG out of camera. IrfanView is my tool for minimal PP.
The remaining 5 % may need additional exposure processing. I process those RAW files with Silkypix and store it as TIFF. Afterwards GIMP or IrfanView will do the rest.
 
daveleo said:
...

Thanks to willie_901 a few months back who alerted me to the X100's RAW converted menu. Really a wonderful intedmediate process for those of us who don't want to take the BIG harware/software move into RAW conversion-&-printing.
Click to expand...

Dave,

I happy to learn the in-camera option made a difference.
 
Capture One, mainly because I'm accustomed to using it w/Leica files, to generate TIFFs that I then work on in Photoshop (have yet to get the hang of Lightroom because of the differences in terminology/tools between it & Photoshop). If I'm in a real hurry I'll do raw + highest res JPG & thence to Photoshop.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom