Fuji X-Trans & RAW converters

[Lss]

What's the latest on RAW converter performance with the Fuji X-Trans files? Is Lightroom so much behind that everyone (who mainly uses RAW, btw) is using something else such as Iridient?

I have looked at some recent Lightroom samples, and in many samples there are still some serious issues for example with foliage. While some comparisons show a huge difference between converters, others show not much and I have seen some where I prefer Lightroom. Do you find Lightroom usable in general? If yes, how often do you need to take a file to some other developer?

 

[rybolt]

I use only Lightroom, either CC or LR5 and I use Pete Bridgwood's presets for sharpening. I have tried Iridient and found more problems with it than I ever saw with either LR app.
My workflow and filing is dependent on LR and I'm very pleased with the way it works.

 

[mani]

http://alikgriffin.com/iridient-developer-vs-lightroom-detailed-comparison

I haven't used Iridient Developer with any of the Fujis, but I loved it with my digital Leicas. There was always way more visible detail, and better color rendering than with Lightroom or (in my opinion) even Capture One.

This doesn't cover the Fuji sensor - but there are some interesting findings in this very thorough, multipage comparison.

 

[MCTuomey]

I use only Lightroom, either CC or LR5 and I use Pete Bridgwood's presets for sharpening.

This is my present situation too.

C1 and ID seem to me to differ from LR in the degree of capture sharpening, LR using much less. I get "flatter" more unfinished files from LR conversion than others, which I actually prefer. Makes comparisons of initial conversions among the various developers more apples-to-oranges than anything. More meaningful would be comparing finished files, but then one has user skill variables introduced. So, no simple answer imho.

The high contrast edge blurring issue (i.e. foliage etc) is still there. It can be mitigated in my experience by careful color balance adjustments and sharpening, but not fully nor reliably for me.

 

[xyz3450]

Iridient seems well regarded by some....

http://www.iridientdigital.com/

(off topic, for non-X-trans sensors I've found that DXO optics pro 10 is an excellent raw converter, especially for dealing with noise in m43 cameras...)

 

[willie_901]

LR CC with Fujifilm Camera Profiles applied eliminates obsoletes practically all of the what you may read about LR and XTrans prior to LR CC.

I have written many times that using LR techniques one used with Bayer raw will be frustrating.

Having processed thousands of home interior and exterior XTrans raw files I can tell you what the disadvantage is with LR and XTrans. You have to adapt to a completely different workflow because Development Panel sliders do not behave the same way with XTrans raw that they do with Bayer raw.

Since LR CC, the major differences involve color temperature (fringing and outlining of high contrast areas) and sharpening. When you discount foliage that's clipped, out-of-focus or moving due to wind, foliage renders well. There are other differences as well.

 

[jarski]

curious, even after Fuji and Adobe co-development/improvement of raw support, some people still seem unsatisfied of using Adobe products for Fuji raw.

nobody seem to mention Fuji's own development tools. aren't those usable?

 

[Lss]

LR CC with Fujifilm Camera Profiles applied eliminates obsoletes practically all of the what you may read about LR and XTrans prior to LR CC.

Is there a specific difference between regular LR and the subscription version in this respect? I understand Adobe does not give some improvements to the non-subscribers.

 

[rybolt]

Is there a specific difference between regular LR and the subscription version in this respect? I understand Adobe does not give some improvements to the non-subscribers.

LRCC in the subscription version will have updates that LR5 or 6 will not have. Adobe has announced that there will be no further updates for the stand-alone versions of LR or CS.

 

[GaryLH]

Which is why I personally am not looking at Adobe for my long term solution to Fuji raw after Aperture is no longer usuable due to the next Mac OS X updated. For now, the present OS X supports Aperture.

Gary

 

[Jamie Pillers]

I'm using Aperture and Nik software on my Mac Mini with Yosemite OS. No problems at all with RAW files from X-Pro1, X-T1, or X100T.

 

[MCTuomey]

Adobe has announced that there will be no further updates for the stand-alone versions of LR or CS.

Do you happen to have a link to this announcement? My understanding (lacking confidence) is that updates will continue to be offered selectively at least to LR 6 licensees (non-CC).

 

[willie_901]

curious, even after Fuji and Adobe co-development/improvement of raw support, some people still seem unsatisfied of using Adobe products for Fuji raw.

I can only speculate these people do not realize the LR Development Panel Sliders have different effects on Bayer and XTRans rendering. I can produce completely unsatisfactory LR CC rendering with Xtrans raw whereas Bayer raw rendering requires is less susceptible to sub-optimal slider parameters. I tried to make it clear these difference are the real disadvantage of XTrans rendering with LR/ACR.

nobody seem to mention Fuji's own development tools. aren't those usable?

There is only one way ways to render raw with Fujifilm's own development tools. That is using in-camera raw rendering to produce in-camera JPEGs. This does not corrupt the original raw files. In-camera, one can produce many different JPEGS from a single raw file.

Fujifilm X-Series cameras come with SilkyPix which is a third-party (Ichikawa Soft Laboratory Co., Ltd.) raw rendering platform. From day one Fujifilm worked with SilkyPix to render XTrans raw. SilkyPix also supports raw from Canon, Casio, Konica Minolta, Epson, Hassleblad, Kodak and Leaf raw.

Unfortunately the SilkyPix user interface is user hostile. Most people find it unpleasant to use. I know I found using it to be torture. To be complete, there are a minority of photographers who think SiklyPix is has no disadvantages whatsoever.

 

[willie_901]

Is there a specific difference between regular LR and the subscription version in this respect? I understand Adobe does not give some improvements to the non-subscribers.

I doubt it. As far as I know ACR is identical for LR 6 and LR CC. This may not be true in the future.

 

[Kent]

You can also try PhotoNinja. This program does a pretty good job on X-Trans RAW files.

 

[gavinlg]

Lightroom renders excellently - don't over sharpen. Maybe don't even sharpen at all, the files don't really need it. Lightroom importantly has the best color rendition - flat with the standard development and 99.8% perfect with the fujifilm color profiles.

 

[jarski]

LRCC in the subscription version will have updates that LR5 or 6 will not have. Adobe has announced that there will be no further updates for the stand-alone versions of LR or CS.

Lightroom 6.4 (and CC 2015.4, ACR 9.4) just came out, including support for latest Fuji cameras, among other improvements.

 

[MCTuomey]

Nothing mentioned relative to the xtrans smearing/foliage issue at Adobe's blog:

http://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjou...-4-6-4-now-available-html.html#comment-204261

Well, I'm going to give C1 another try. I can get good xtrans output from LR6.3, but it takes more time and effort compared to my non-xtrans processing. Even after spending the time and effort, I still see flare-y high contrast edge detail. For my money, Adobe should do better.

 

[jarski]

Nothing mentioned relative to the smearing/foliage issue ...

I don't have Fuji camera, so cant comment that issue. but new LR 6.4 works fine in my Mac Air and El Capitan 🙂

 

[GaryLH]

Light room tutorial on how to develop xtran raw

Light room tutorial on how to develop xtran raw

http://www.fujirumors.com/x-transii...-ex-2-0-available-free-classicchrome-profile/

Just posted by Fuji rumors. Skip the part about dxo mark and head to the bottom where the imbed utube video is. I'm still using aperture, so haven't seen the video yet.

Gary