Bill Pierce
Well-known
I suspect a fair number of the RF Forum are using the Fuji cameras, introduced to the system by the RF lookalike Fuji XPro. Although Lightroom has improved its performance with the unique Fuji files, I still prefer to process the Fuji raw files in Iridient developer and import low contrast files with full highlight and shadow detail into Lightroom for finishing. If the particular file has an exceptionally long brightness range, I’ll also take a look at it in Capture One and, once again, import a low contrast, full range tiff into Lightroom. Those are my two basic image processors for Fuji files (although I’m experimenting and learning PhotoNinja because of its color palette and sharpness with the X-trans files).
There are now a lot of image processors that will handle the Fuji files from those early days when it was SilkyPix or else. Each of the independent processors has its adherents and probably its advantages. With Bayer arrays, tiffs and jpegs in abundance, it’s unlikely that the standards, Lightroom, Photoshop, Aperture, e.t.c., will be displaced. But most of the folks I know who use Fuji digitals are using their old standby in conjunction with another processor used primarily to produce tiffs from the Fuji files. For me it’s Iridient with for its ability to produce a “sharp” tiff and Capture One for its ability to handle files with the longest brightness range in a pleasing way. By the way, neither is a slacker in the area in which the other excels; so, I could probably settle on one if I had to.
So what do you use for Fuji files - Lightroom, Photoshop, Aperture, SilkyPix, AccuRaw, Capture One, Iridient Developer, RPP, PhotoNinja or the internal raw converter built into Fuji cameras (which ain’t bad)??? Most important - WHY?
There are now a lot of image processors that will handle the Fuji files from those early days when it was SilkyPix or else. Each of the independent processors has its adherents and probably its advantages. With Bayer arrays, tiffs and jpegs in abundance, it’s unlikely that the standards, Lightroom, Photoshop, Aperture, e.t.c., will be displaced. But most of the folks I know who use Fuji digitals are using their old standby in conjunction with another processor used primarily to produce tiffs from the Fuji files. For me it’s Iridient with for its ability to produce a “sharp” tiff and Capture One for its ability to handle files with the longest brightness range in a pleasing way. By the way, neither is a slacker in the area in which the other excels; so, I could probably settle on one if I had to.
So what do you use for Fuji files - Lightroom, Photoshop, Aperture, SilkyPix, AccuRaw, Capture One, Iridient Developer, RPP, PhotoNinja or the internal raw converter built into Fuji cameras (which ain’t bad)??? Most important - WHY?
rybolt
Well-known
I've spent the past 30 days elbow deep in both iridient and C One. I found basically the same thing that you found, they're both good. However, i didn't care for the C One interface so i ruled it out. Irididient did a great job on sharpening. My problem with Iridient was that I had a problem with chromatic aberration in the specular highlights. Something that I didn't have with any other developer. Brian Griffith was very responsive to the problem and even though he had some work arounds I didn't feel that Iridient, in it's current release, was better than LR with the settings that I had put in place. I liked it, and Brian, well enough to buy it, though.
So, it's Lightroom for me but I'll revisit Iridient at every update.
So, it's Lightroom for me but I'll revisit Iridient at every update.
kshapero
South Florida Man
Bill, I wish I was more advanced so I could understand you better. My bad. I shoot my X-Pro1 in RAW+Fine JPEG. I PP the JPEG only unless I really screwed up and need wider exposure latitude. Then I use SilkyPix on the RAW file. I'm sure my methods are quite primitive but I still shoot film most of time.
willie_901
Veteran
I use ACR (LR 5.3). The rendering workflow is very different compared to the methods I use/used for Bayer raw with the X100, D300/300/700 files.
The major differences are much less sharpening and careful selection of the color temperature parameter. A small change in color temperature rendering can make a big change in the rendering quality. I also noticed the XTrans raw file brightness range can be very broad. These images require quite different approaches with ACR. I haven't settled on a method yet since I've just stared to generate images like this recently. Right now I'm starting with custom tone curves. This may change when ACR 8.4 makes it's debut in LR as it will have XTrans camera profiles that simulate Fujifim's in-camera JPEZg rendering. Maybe using these will make a difference with those images with a wide brightness range. Who knows?
I tried the other raw rendering platforms. Tiffs from OS-X's native rendering seem no better than using ACR. Iridient had some advantages, but they were not worth the inconvenience of using the large TIFF files. Capture One looked promising, but the UI was annoying and I could not export flat TIFFs no matter what I did. The program just spit out error messages and the export destination folder remained empty.
Of course raw rendering can be just as subjective as preferred methods for developing and printing film. I would never declare one method (or platform) was the only one someone else should use.
It is accurate to state X-Trans raw requires more effort and attention during raw rendering than the Bayer raw files I've used. I also think it is accurate to state all the major raw rendering platforms can deliver great images from XTrans raw. People just need to spend some time deciding which platform is best for them.
The major differences are much less sharpening and careful selection of the color temperature parameter. A small change in color temperature rendering can make a big change in the rendering quality. I also noticed the XTrans raw file brightness range can be very broad. These images require quite different approaches with ACR. I haven't settled on a method yet since I've just stared to generate images like this recently. Right now I'm starting with custom tone curves. This may change when ACR 8.4 makes it's debut in LR as it will have XTrans camera profiles that simulate Fujifim's in-camera JPEZg rendering. Maybe using these will make a difference with those images with a wide brightness range. Who knows?
I tried the other raw rendering platforms. Tiffs from OS-X's native rendering seem no better than using ACR. Iridient had some advantages, but they were not worth the inconvenience of using the large TIFF files. Capture One looked promising, but the UI was annoying and I could not export flat TIFFs no matter what I did. The program just spit out error messages and the export destination folder remained empty.
Of course raw rendering can be just as subjective as preferred methods for developing and printing film. I would never declare one method (or platform) was the only one someone else should use.
It is accurate to state X-Trans raw requires more effort and attention during raw rendering than the Bayer raw files I've used. I also think it is accurate to state all the major raw rendering platforms can deliver great images from XTrans raw. People just need to spend some time deciding which platform is best for them.
Darthfeeble
But you can call me Steve
After trying LR 5, Capture one, CS 6 and Elements 12 I finally settled on Aperture. It took a couple updates but now creates beautiful clean "smudge" free files.
GaryLH
Veteran
Aperture for me.. I use the raw fine tune option and have setup a camera body default profile for my xp1 and xe1. It tunes the sharpness during direct raw processing before I apply any additional work. It knows that Fuji is different. The raw fine tune options are different from the ones for a Bayer sensor like a Olympus omd em5 for example.. If u don't use this option, apple just provides a simple default setting for processing the raw.
Gary
Gary
Bill Pierce
Well-known
Truth is, I think that is a completely acceptable, especially if you are able to correct the in camera jpg "in camera" and make a second version if the first one is too far off.
kshapero
South Florida Man
Yes that happens quite a bit.
markrich
Enthusiatic amatuer
I use Lightzone under Ubuntu. It handles the RAF files with ease and very nice to use once you abandon the Apple/Adobe methodology for editing.
gavinlg
Veteran
Lightroom is more than adequate. Most of the other converters I see with posted examples on forums don't look great to me - almost grainy and overly sharp. The big advantage of the x-trans sensor is its smoothness IMO and ACR does it well.
Bike Tourist
Well-known
Sorry Bill, I like the jpegs out of the camera. Call me uncritical, An un-perfectionist. For me, good enough for big prints. Good enough, even second generation, to pass the critical eye of the microstock reviewer.
Many, especially, those who are not involved in critical professional work with specific and specialized demands, are being led to think that if they don't engage in some sort of raw processing they cannot be competent photographers.
The content within the frame is still the thing that matters most. One picture is worth a thousand raw processors.
MCTuomey
Veteran
What Dick said - I need to sticky his post to my monitor.
Gid
Well-known
I am also very happy with the OOC jpegs and have a lot more room left on my hard drive.
rybolt
Well-known
The question is being missed, I think. It wasn't " Are you happy with jpeg files"? It was "What are you using for raw files"? Jpeg files are great right out of the camera. The question remains, what do you use for raw files from the Fuji camera.
Jamie Pillers
Skeptic
I use Aperture and find that it produces lovely prints. Are they the best? I wouldn't know as I've never used anything else. But I certainly can say that Aperture produces images that are good enough for me. And, as with all the other native Apple software, I find Aperture enjoyably intuitive. 
Bike Tourist
Well-known
I see what you mean. Still, if the answer to the question is "I do not use raw at all", then the reasons why are probably within the parameters of the question. Plenty here will answer the narrow question so I don't think the thread is being led astray.
Gid
Well-known
rybolt
Well-known
f16sunshine
Moderator
Still Aperture for me although I did like CO7 (not enough to switch).
There is more than just IQ involved when talking about Imaging software.
Aperture is a great catalog software as well. It does more than enough very well in regard to developing Fuji-X files.
I have not come across any limitations yet other than perspective control. I wish Apple would add a Perspective control Module to Aperture. That would complete the program imo.
There is more than just IQ involved when talking about Imaging software.
Aperture is a great catalog software as well. It does more than enough very well in regard to developing Fuji-X files.
I have not come across any limitations yet other than perspective control. I wish Apple would add a Perspective control Module to Aperture. That would complete the program imo.
Bill Pierce
Well-known
Dick, the Fuji jpegs are the only ones I save. But I save the raw also. Storage for files is getting pretty cheap. Usually I keep the jpg shadows and highlights at -2, producing a flat original that I can manipulate on the computer. I will go back and adjust exposure in the camera if the jpeg is obviously off, but that’s about it. I’m very fond of some of the Fuji film simulations. That said, I still end up using the raw files quite often because I want to make tonal adjustments to the final image that are beyond the capability of the jpegs.