Bill Pierce
Well-known
This post won’t interest everybody. This is a post specific to the Fuji X Pro and X E1 with their unique sensor and files that required existing imaging programs to update to process them.
A number of processing programs can now handle the files, the Fuji furnished SilkyPix based program, the current SilkyPix, Lightroom, RPP and Capture One. All of them do an adequate job, but which one is “best” seems an issue. In part this is based on what you do with the images; in part, on how you like to do it. I’ve been running comparisons with my Fuji images. I don’t have the full SilkyPix program and as much of my opinion of Capture One is based on experience with the beta program as the current release version. But I do have an opinion based on my images and the way I like to work as do other folks. Hopefully, if we pool our experiences, we can all benefit.
I find all the programs sufficient for small prints, web displays and, in many cases, black-and-white prints. Since I use Lightroom as my standard image processor, that’s primarily what I use for those purposes even though it is one of the weakest programs for large prints. For big prints, Capture One is giving me the best blend of image quality and ease of operation. I make a tif file that encompasses the entire brightness range with a little safety margin at the top and bottom of the histogram and import that tif into Lightroom. I tweak it a little in Lightroom and print it in Lightroom. Probably most important, it’s stored with the rest of my images in a Lightroom catalog. I do not create a Capture One catalog.
Currently, I’m getting my best results with the Capture One suggested sharpening - a bit of a surprise as I am an inveterate sharpness tweaker. I also find myself relying on the Capture One 7.0.2 improved high dynamic range settings to make sure that every bit of the tonal range in the original raw file makes it into the tif exported into Lightroom.
That’s currently what I do. it’s a work in progress, but I’m pleased with what it’s doing with the unique raw files. Unlike a lot of folks, I now actually like the raw files better than the Fuji in-camera processed jpegs. I like them a lot better.
Ok, so what are you doing (successfully) with your Fuji files? The rest of us could benefit from your thoughts.
A number of processing programs can now handle the files, the Fuji furnished SilkyPix based program, the current SilkyPix, Lightroom, RPP and Capture One. All of them do an adequate job, but which one is “best” seems an issue. In part this is based on what you do with the images; in part, on how you like to do it. I’ve been running comparisons with my Fuji images. I don’t have the full SilkyPix program and as much of my opinion of Capture One is based on experience with the beta program as the current release version. But I do have an opinion based on my images and the way I like to work as do other folks. Hopefully, if we pool our experiences, we can all benefit.
I find all the programs sufficient for small prints, web displays and, in many cases, black-and-white prints. Since I use Lightroom as my standard image processor, that’s primarily what I use for those purposes even though it is one of the weakest programs for large prints. For big prints, Capture One is giving me the best blend of image quality and ease of operation. I make a tif file that encompasses the entire brightness range with a little safety margin at the top and bottom of the histogram and import that tif into Lightroom. I tweak it a little in Lightroom and print it in Lightroom. Probably most important, it’s stored with the rest of my images in a Lightroom catalog. I do not create a Capture One catalog.
Currently, I’m getting my best results with the Capture One suggested sharpening - a bit of a surprise as I am an inveterate sharpness tweaker. I also find myself relying on the Capture One 7.0.2 improved high dynamic range settings to make sure that every bit of the tonal range in the original raw file makes it into the tif exported into Lightroom.
That’s currently what I do. it’s a work in progress, but I’m pleased with what it’s doing with the unique raw files. Unlike a lot of folks, I now actually like the raw files better than the Fuji in-camera processed jpegs. I like them a lot better.
Ok, so what are you doing (successfully) with your Fuji files? The rest of us could benefit from your thoughts.
Jamie Pillers
Skeptic
I'm (naively?) happy with the jpeg output from my X-Pro1. I only have Aperture for post-processing... and love it. However, as you know, Aperture doesn't yet have the capability to process the X Raw files. But since the jpegs appear to me to be 'good enough', I'm not missing the Raw workflow.
back alley
IMAGES
been waiting for pse to add raw converter for my fujis...so just using the jpegs ooc with a bit of tweaking...came to realize that maybe i don't need raw...
willie_901
Veteran
Bill,
Thanks for sharing your findings. This is very helpful.
Thanks for sharing your findings. This is very helpful.
rhl-oregon
Cameras Guitars Wonders
A bit too soon for me to say anything useful beyond except concurring with Bill's preference for the Fuji RAW. I just upgraded to LR 4.3 after years with LR 2, and see a clear disparity between the few in-cam JPGs I mocked up (before getting LR 4.3), and what I'm able to do with RAW/LR 4.
I don't have experience with Capture One, but my Epson 3800 keeps pestering me to print big (I do try to ignore it), so I'm glad to have the example for trying out.
On a related subject, it has been a challenge for me to shift my post-processing perspective from a 13" Macbook to an additional 24" iMac. This will be news to no one, but some images that proof quite well on a 13" screen lose their magic at 24". Yet I'm inclined to seek method rather than be driven mad by the differences. I'm starting to think more in terms of using the larger monitor/computer to develop (in LR) only what I really want to print large, and trusting the smaller computer to handle the more intimate pieces. This will create some cataloguing inconsistencies and redundancies, but I can live with that.
I don't have experience with Capture One, but my Epson 3800 keeps pestering me to print big (I do try to ignore it), so I'm glad to have the example for trying out.
On a related subject, it has been a challenge for me to shift my post-processing perspective from a 13" Macbook to an additional 24" iMac. This will be news to no one, but some images that proof quite well on a 13" screen lose their magic at 24". Yet I'm inclined to seek method rather than be driven mad by the differences. I'm starting to think more in terms of using the larger monitor/computer to develop (in LR) only what I really want to print large, and trusting the smaller computer to handle the more intimate pieces. This will create some cataloguing inconsistencies and redundancies, but I can live with that.
dcsang
Canadian & Not A Dentist
Lightroom with my custom color profiles seems to be fine with me...
I can't afford $300 for Capture One and I can't afford the time to "re-learn" the C1 process - so, right now, I seem to get pretty decent results with Lightroom.
Without the custom profiles it's a bit more work though.
Cheers,
Dave
I can't afford $300 for Capture One and I can't afford the time to "re-learn" the C1 process - so, right now, I seem to get pretty decent results with Lightroom.
Without the custom profiles it's a bit more work though.
Cheers,
Dave
edge100
Well-known
Lightroom works about 95% of the time for me, for prints up to 13" wide (Epson R3000 here). But then again, I'm not a landscape photographer who needs to extract every last bit of sharpness from my images.
For those images that suffer from the Lightroom-induced "watercolour" effect, I simply open in RPP, set WB and a reasonable exposure (with blacks and highlights preserved), and export a TIFF back to LR. But this is really a tiny fraction of my images.
And by shooting RAW, I can always go back later in C1 or Aperture or LR5 (if Adobe gets it together).
For those images that suffer from the Lightroom-induced "watercolour" effect, I simply open in RPP, set WB and a reasonable exposure (with blacks and highlights preserved), and export a TIFF back to LR. But this is really a tiny fraction of my images.
And by shooting RAW, I can always go back later in C1 or Aperture or LR5 (if Adobe gets it together).
I just use Lightroom and do not compare it to other programs. I'm hoping that by the time I have the need for large prints, Adobe will have it all figured out. Right now, I concentrate on making books instead.
dcsang
Canadian & Not A Dentist
Here's a curiosity - how "big" is "big" ?
Bill, you've said
But how "big" are we talking here?
A good friend of mine, Sean Galbraith, prints big; a 24x36 is postage stamp size to him. So, I'm curious just how big people are talking here? (Robert and Michael have mentioned their limitations but one person's "big" is another person's "not big enough")
Cheers,
Dave
Bill, you've said
But how "big" are we talking here?
A good friend of mine, Sean Galbraith, prints big; a 24x36 is postage stamp size to him. So, I'm curious just how big people are talking here? (Robert and Michael have mentioned their limitations but one person's "big" is another person's "not big enough")
Cheers,
Dave
Bill Pierce
Well-known
Here's a curiosity - how "big" is "big" ?
Bill, you've said
But how "big" are we talking here?
A good friend of mine, Sean Galbraith, prints big; a 24x36 is postage stamp size to him. So, I'm curious just how big people are talking here? (Robert and Michael have mentioned their limitations but one person's "big" is another person's "not big enough")
Cheers,
Dave
There are a lot of ways to lose sharpness in a print. But, presuming that you have a sharp original and your only problem is the Fuji raw file and pixel peepers who rest their nose against your print - guess what… It’s still all over the lot. My standard large prints (not super large which seems popular in exhibits these days) is 17x22. I certainly have seen color bleed in Lightroom prints at that size - but not always. There isn’t any hard and fast rule.
So, at the present time, I just skip processing the image in Lightroom. I’ve used the Fuji program, RRP and Capture One to make tifs I could import back into Lightroom for fine tuning and printing and filing. I currently am using Capture One because I like the interface and the results. Not the clean, specific answer you wanted. But, since the results on my standard “large” print are sometimes better in Capture One than Lightroom, and because I hate to waste paper making comparisons, I just process the raw files in Capture One for anything that isn’t just going on the web or into a stack of 81/2 x 11’s.
Bill Pierce
Well-known
Reid Reviews (an excellent pay site) has just published a review of 3 processing programs for the Fuji sensor that includes Lightroom and Capture One comparisons. They are thorough and intelligent. I'm not going to spill Sean's conclusions, nor should anyone else. But I certainly recommend subscribing to his site to anyone interested in using and learning about that broad range of cameras that are smaller than a DSLR (and a DSLR every once in a while),
back alley
IMAGES
i just finished reading sean's review...i don't see what he sees in his example photos...
konicaman
konicaman
The whole idea - for me at least - buying an X-E1 was to stop shooting RAW. I have been shooting Canon DSLRs for the past 10 years, and with Canon there is a world of difference between OOC jpgs and processed RAW files. You would think that the pics were done with 2 very different cameras. I don't see all that much difference between jpgs and RAW with Fuji, so my choice was right.
I have not tried to batch process 500 images from the X-E1, but doing that with Canon RAW files would lock up my Quad Core 3 Ghz. machine for a day. I was really fed up with that...
Now this is not to totally exclude RAW, which still might come in handy in certain situations, so at the moment I a experimenting with RAWTherapee. Will post about this when I have some results.
I have not tried to batch process 500 images from the X-E1, but doing that with Canon RAW files would lock up my Quad Core 3 Ghz. machine for a day. I was really fed up with that...
Now this is not to totally exclude RAW, which still might come in handy in certain situations, so at the moment I a experimenting with RAWTherapee. Will post about this when I have some results.
Herjulfr
Established
I mostly shoot jpgs. When I know some shots might require some tweaking, I then use Fine jpg + Raw and process the raw files in SilkyPix. Surprisingly, I like this program (at least, I do not dislike it), so I'll keep this workflow for now.
But I'm not a pro (or even a very serious amateur) that have established and polished a workflow with a certain software (Aperture, Lightroom etc) over the years so I do not mind the change.
But I'm not a pro (or even a very serious amateur) that have established and polished a workflow with a certain software (Aperture, Lightroom etc) over the years so I do not mind the change.
willie_901
Veteran
I wish I had the secret powers Sean Reid has. Will drones shoot me through the window while I sleep if I divulge what he says?
Why on earth would it be wrong to briefly summarize his results? If Reid happens to like RPP best (just as an example) but it's only for OSX, how is wrong in any sense to write those words in a post? Am I cheating Consumer Reports if I subscribe and tell somebody, "hey - I just read CR thinks the new Subaru MudSlapper LX is the best buy in SUVs"? God forbid if I give a friend my copy of Consumer Reports magazine to read.
Please explain what the precident is for this level of secrecy?
Why on earth would it be wrong to briefly summarize his results? If Reid happens to like RPP best (just as an example) but it's only for OSX, how is wrong in any sense to write those words in a post? Am I cheating Consumer Reports if I subscribe and tell somebody, "hey - I just read CR thinks the new Subaru MudSlapper LX is the best buy in SUVs"? God forbid if I give a friend my copy of Consumer Reports magazine to read.
Please explain what the precident is for this level of secrecy?
SausalitoDog
Well-known
Gotta say, unless you are a sick pixel peeper, you will never notice the "problem" when converting using ACR.
In all truth, I rarely print larger than 8x10 and I can't see any bleeding or anything else not to like at that size. Hopefully, by the time I want to print some 16x20s or larger, adobe will have gotten their act together and fixed ACR
In all truth, I rarely print larger than 8x10 and I can't see any bleeding or anything else not to like at that size. Hopefully, by the time I want to print some 16x20s or larger, adobe will have gotten their act together and fixed ACR
That's an exaggeration. I'm not a peeper, but what I see in green foliage in the background of my X-Pro1 files is something I can see on screen.
edge100
Well-known
I agree. On most images, I can't see any issues at all. But on certain ones, the ACR-induced artifact is easily seen, even at 1:2 or less.
ZlatkoBatistich
Established
I think I agree. The LR examples look excellent to me. The differences between LR and C1 seem very minor.
What's up with Silkypix (Raw Converter) color? Does not look very appealing.
Bill Pierce
Well-known
Sometimes I have the same problem. Don't know whether it's the limit of web jpgs, the limitations of my monitor or a voodoo curse. But, when I'm working with my own images, I usually see what he is talking about. Sometimes my own comparisons show a subtle difference; sometimes the differences are huge. Wish I could offer more information than that, but I have come to trust his conclusions.