Gid
Well-known
Here is a more considered answer. I have tried Siklypix, LR 4 and more recently LR5. I couldn't see a great deal of difference between any of these and particularly between LR4 and 5. I tried converting raw to jpeg in camera, but couldn't see the point of ending up using the Fuji jpeg via raw. When LR has the Fuji jpeg film simulations as part of its options I may go back to raw, but for the time being I'll stick with what the originators of the format thought was the best conversion. BTW I have found a great deal of latitude in the Fuji jpegs - more than enough for my purposes. However, I am just a hobbyist.
I don't think I need a post count boost, but another won't hurt
.
Bike Tourist
Well-known
Yep. I can understand that. I think that the key to jpeg success is in having dead-on exposure. Those of us who used to shoot transparencies have had some pretty rigorous training in that department. I didn't mean to turn this thread. I think it's just fine that people work with raw. If that's what they have chosen to do, as opposed to thinking they must.
Bill Pierce
Well-known
Working for the “colorful news weekly,” i.e. occasionally shooting Kodachrome in war zones, really fine tunes your highlight oriented exposure skills. Just what’s needed for digital exposures. I still bracket exposures at times and sometimes even go so far as to use an incident meter instead of TTL Incredibly old fashioned, laughably so, but it does give you good jpegs.
M4streetshooter
Tourist Thru Life
Seems to me that LR does about the best job. I'm also considering that it has great organizational capabilities. That coupled with the processing engine and the fact that everything is intuitive keeps me there. I have used most of the good programs out there and have been asked to write a review to put in our magazine but I won't. I can't deal with software that's not intuitive.
C1v7 made a great file but just was too much work. PhotoNinja is good, real good but once again it's not intuitive. There is a difference between habit and intuitive. I could make habits to use these other programs but they will never compete against LR for being intuitive.
I use raw only and the files from the XP1's are very clean. For me, most times too clean and I bugger them up to my taste. I'll stick with LR because the time I'd have to spend trying to figure out the other programs is better spent on the street.
C1v7 made a great file but just was too much work. PhotoNinja is good, real good but once again it's not intuitive. There is a difference between habit and intuitive. I could make habits to use these other programs but they will never compete against LR for being intuitive.
I use raw only and the files from the XP1's are very clean. For me, most times too clean and I bugger them up to my taste. I'll stick with LR because the time I'd have to spend trying to figure out the other programs is better spent on the street.
Paul Jenkin
Well-known
I've only recently got an XPro-1, so I'm fairly new to the nuances of processing its files compared to those from my Nikon DSLR (for which Capture NX2 and LR4 do great jobs).
I have, so far, shot RAW+JPEG Fine and, in all honesty, the JPEGs have been "fine". When I've processed RAW using LR4, the results have been more than acceptable for my limited requirements (I'm an amateur and not particularly tecchie savvy).
I have, so far, shot RAW+JPEG Fine and, in all honesty, the JPEGs have been "fine". When I've processed RAW using LR4, the results have been more than acceptable for my limited requirements (I'm an amateur and not particularly tecchie savvy).
sebastel
coarse art umbrascriptor
me too only recently started processing RAFs.
so far, i found dcraw a nice program to prepare TIFF files, which i then enter into my usual LR workflow. still need to gain some more experience to tell whether it works out.
so far, i found dcraw a nice program to prepare TIFF files, which i then enter into my usual LR workflow. still need to gain some more experience to tell whether it works out.
willie_901
Veteran
Paul,
Should you decide to use raw more often, LR 5.X is well-worth the upgrade for your X-Pro 1.
Should you decide to use raw more often, LR 5.X is well-worth the upgrade for your X-Pro 1.
kbg32
neo-romanticist
I find that CS6 does a great job with Fuji RAW files for me.
porktaco
Well-known
lightroom because of workflow. IQ is good enough for my layman's eye.
willie_901
Veteran
This morning I upgraded to LR 5.4.
Now I am very aware that initial impressions of rendering with new software releases are often overly optimistic or just plain wrong due to the placebo effect.
After an hour of looking at .RAF files from the XT-1 with the 56/1.2 and 10-24/4 Fujinons, I am willing to stick my neck out and state I notice an improvement compared to using Adobe DNG converter 8.4 RC and LR 5.3. The new Camera Calibration Profiles are worth using. Images with different exposures and contrast benefit from different Fujifilm Profile simulations. Of course you can alter the saturation, vibrance and contrast to suit your tastes. For instance, the Velvia/VIVID Camera-Calibration Profile may improve with flat .RAF image and you can reduce the Saturation and Vibrance parameters as needed.
I find the extended brightness range Bill mentioned in an earlier posts is less of a factor than before. The Adobe Standard Profile is only slightly better. But I noticed the Fujifilm Profile simulations make a difference. The .RAF files respond more like (but not exactly like) the .NEF files I have worked with since 2008. I think the XT-1 .RAF now responds more like the X100 .RAF responds.
The XT-1 .RAF detail quality is still sensitive to the color temperature parameters, but less so. Again, this is different for different Fujifilm Profiles. I am using slightly modified (more typical) default sharpening parameters too.
I will not be surprised to learn others see no benefit at all with LR 5.4 compared to 5.3. For myself, I just deleted the Iridient and Capture Pro One trials from my computer.
Now I am very aware that initial impressions of rendering with new software releases are often overly optimistic or just plain wrong due to the placebo effect.
After an hour of looking at .RAF files from the XT-1 with the 56/1.2 and 10-24/4 Fujinons, I am willing to stick my neck out and state I notice an improvement compared to using Adobe DNG converter 8.4 RC and LR 5.3. The new Camera Calibration Profiles are worth using. Images with different exposures and contrast benefit from different Fujifilm Profile simulations. Of course you can alter the saturation, vibrance and contrast to suit your tastes. For instance, the Velvia/VIVID Camera-Calibration Profile may improve with flat .RAF image and you can reduce the Saturation and Vibrance parameters as needed.
I find the extended brightness range Bill mentioned in an earlier posts is less of a factor than before. The Adobe Standard Profile is only slightly better. But I noticed the Fujifilm Profile simulations make a difference. The .RAF files respond more like (but not exactly like) the .NEF files I have worked with since 2008. I think the XT-1 .RAF now responds more like the X100 .RAF responds.
The XT-1 .RAF detail quality is still sensitive to the color temperature parameters, but less so. Again, this is different for different Fujifilm Profiles. I am using slightly modified (more typical) default sharpening parameters too.
I will not be surprised to learn others see no benefit at all with LR 5.4 compared to 5.3. For myself, I just deleted the Iridient and Capture Pro One trials from my computer.
Kent
Finally at home...
I use Lightroom 5.4. Have updated about an hour ago.
Lightzone (V4) for Windows cannot read the X-T1 RAFs.
Lightzone (V4) for Windows cannot read the X-T1 RAFs.
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
I have been completely satisfied with Aperture, except for one thing: my version of it has no RAW processor for my Fuji X10, nor my Leica D-Lux 6. I bought Lightroom for that purpose, but then don't use it, as I find it hard to use, whereas Aperture is completely intuitive. So I just shoot JPEGS with those two cameras. They are very good. There are times when I wish I could do RAW files with them, though. I don't have the X-Pro1, but I'm sure the JPEGS must equally as good as on my X-10 and X-100.
Johann Espiritu
Lawyer / Ninja
So far, CS6 + ACR is working well for me.
sebastel
coarse art umbrascriptor
after trying LR 5.4, i must tell that i like it. but i'll keep using dcraw in parallel, as LR just doesn't work on linux. never wrong to know alternative approaches.
Jim Evidon
Jim
Bill,
Like Diogenes looking for the honest man, I have tried several different image processors for my raw images. I started with Photoshop (now CS5) and LR (now LR5). When I bought my FujiXPro-1, I wasn't happy with either. I now have installed C1v.7, Photo Ninja (mostly because I think that P.N. has the best noise suppressor), Accuraw and of course LR5. Of them all, I like the results with C1v.7 the best. I open the Fuji files with C1v.7 and then open the saved C1v.7 files with LR5 to complete my post processing. I just love the intuitive tools in LR. If needed, I will open the LR files in CS5 to utilize the few of it's features that work better than on the other two applications.
At this point I have pretty much discarded my Diogenes lamp and settled for this workflow.
Like Diogenes looking for the honest man, I have tried several different image processors for my raw images. I started with Photoshop (now CS5) and LR (now LR5). When I bought my FujiXPro-1, I wasn't happy with either. I now have installed C1v.7, Photo Ninja (mostly because I think that P.N. has the best noise suppressor), Accuraw and of course LR5. Of them all, I like the results with C1v.7 the best. I open the Fuji files with C1v.7 and then open the saved C1v.7 files with LR5 to complete my post processing. I just love the intuitive tools in LR. If needed, I will open the LR files in CS5 to utilize the few of it's features that work better than on the other two applications.
At this point I have pretty much discarded my Diogenes lamp and settled for this workflow.
Bill Pierce
Well-known
Like you, the Fuji raw files caused me to look at a number of raw processors outside of Lightroom and Photoshop, which were my standards. I looked at the same programs as you, plus Iridient Developer, which is an excellent processor for Fuji files. And, like you, I then imported the converted raw files back into Lightroom for a final polishing and printing.
But exploring all those processing programs also led me to looking settings for these programs that weren’t the standard ones and to do the same thing with processing Bayer files from other cameras. What I found was that it wasn’t just the sensor and the lens that produced the killer print, but the camera and the image processing program and the way you used it - or, if you will, the camera and the digital darkroom. As in the old days when you needed a good enlarger, probably one with a glass carrier, a good enlarging lens and a good working knowledge of papers and developers,you needed a good knowledge of the digital darkroom if you wanted to get the most out of your camera.
I wonder what other folks are doing, what helpful tips are out there. Here’s one for the Fuji files and Photo Ninja. Set the sharpening radius at .5 rather than .6 and boost the sharpening level to 100. Then, when you’re back in Lightroom or whatever program you use to print, see if a tiny bit of more conventional sharpening from that program is of benefit. Are you pixel peeping? Of course you are. But with some pictures where fine detail is important, the difference is important. Puppies in a basket, not so important. Landscapes, probably.
Anybody else have some tips?
Jim Evidon
Jim
Bill,
I bow to the master. I download a trial version of Irrident. I opened three versions of the same image in Irrident, LR5 and my standby C1 v.7. No adjustments were made
LR5 has more saturation and as expected, loss of detail and IQ.
C1 v.7 needs pumping up in saturation but IQ is head and shoulders over LR5 as I expected, since I have been using it since getting my Fuji XPro-1.
I was frankly blown away by the detail and overall IQ in the Irrident image
although, like C1 v.7, the color saturation needs pumping up. But saturation is a matter of taste. Sharpness and detail are not except for artistic purposes.
Images are: 1. LR5, 2. Irrident and 3. C1v7. Unfortunately, because of the attachment size limitations of RF Forum, you may not be able to see enough detail.
All three images are as opened in the three application and no adjustments have been made. Pay particular attention to the Phillips screw head on the light rim.
I bow to the master. I download a trial version of Irrident. I opened three versions of the same image in Irrident, LR5 and my standby C1 v.7. No adjustments were made
LR5 has more saturation and as expected, loss of detail and IQ.
C1 v.7 needs pumping up in saturation but IQ is head and shoulders over LR5 as I expected, since I have been using it since getting my Fuji XPro-1.
I was frankly blown away by the detail and overall IQ in the Irrident image
although, like C1 v.7, the color saturation needs pumping up. But saturation is a matter of taste. Sharpness and detail are not except for artistic purposes.
Images are: 1. LR5, 2. Irrident and 3. C1v7. Unfortunately, because of the attachment size limitations of RF Forum, you may not be able to see enough detail.
All three images are as opened in the three application and no adjustments have been made. Pay particular attention to the Phillips screw head on the light rim.
Attachments
Last edited:
Godfrey
somewhat colored
One of the reasons I don't like the Fujis is the twitchy processing issues with the XTrans sensor. I'm not willing to revise my entire workflow to deal with their oddities when my standard processing with LR works so well for every other camera I've used, and the level of benefits from all the twitchy processing work is barely noticeable if at all.
The Sony sensors in my GXR, X2, and A7, the Kodak sensors in my E-1 and M9, and the Panasonic sensor in my E-M1 all produce outstanding quality without having all the issues I see with the Fuji XTrans raw files.
G
The Sony sensors in my GXR, X2, and A7, the Kodak sensors in my E-1 and M9, and the Panasonic sensor in my E-M1 all produce outstanding quality without having all the issues I see with the Fuji XTrans raw files.
G
Jim Evidon
Jim
The APSC sensor used in the Fuji X cameras is in fact the same Sony sensor you are in love with. The difference is that Fuji forgoes the sharpness stealing anti-moire filter and uses the XTrans filter array instead of the Bayer array. The only sensor manufacturer that could equal and sometimes exceed Sony in IQ was Kodak now out of the business. I suspect that nearly all camera manufacturers now use either Sony or Panasonic sensors.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
.. Which is what causes the twitchy processing issues. Yes, I'm fully aware of their intent, I just don't think it gives enough benefit to be worth sacrificing the robust processing of the standard Bayer array, particularly since with the recent high resolution sensors the need for the AA filter has decreased to the point where three of my five cameras have dispensed with it as well. I see very few if any issues with them that resolve to the lack of an AA filter.
Fuji took an alternative path that had some promise, I just don't feel the benefits outweigh the disadvantages.
G