David_Manning
Well-known
:bang:
I'm buying Adobe Lightroom 4 today, because Apple won't update Aperture to handle the RAW files from the X-Pro 1.
I knew this when I bought the Fuji, I'm just now dealing with reality.
I'm in a funk, and thought I'd share my rant.
Oh well...still enjoying the X-Pro 1 though.
I'm buying Adobe Lightroom 4 today, because Apple won't update Aperture to handle the RAW files from the X-Pro 1.
I knew this when I bought the Fuji, I'm just now dealing with reality.
I'm in a funk, and thought I'd share my rant.
Oh well...still enjoying the X-Pro 1 though.
35photo
Well-known
:bang:
I'm buying Adobe Lightroom 4 today, because Apple won't update Aperture to handle the RAW files from the X-Pro 1.
I knew this when I bought the Fuji, I'm just now dealing with reality.
I'm in a funk, and thought I'd share my rant.
Oh well...still enjoying the X-Pro 1 though.
I've used both didn't like Lightroom early on say version 1 and 2 but now at v4 its great and once you get the work flow down, plus LR is more versatile you can work with jpgs, tifs, psd files, and RAW files or course. Once you get the work flow down and all the short cuts...Your going to be wondering why you used Aperture for so long...
Godfrey
somewhat colored
The Fuji sensor demosaic process is quite a bit trickier to get right than other, more standard Bayer mosaic sensors. Adobe has had difficulties with it. Use the latest LR v4.4 Release Candidate for best results.
Whatever else about the Fuji cameras might thrill or annoy me, this fact about the sensor design makes them less desirable for my use. I have not yet seen any solid evidence that the more complex processing required leads to noticeably improved image quality. It's hard to see such proofs when the number of good raw converters that do it correctly is still so small.
Apple may simply not be convinced yet that their raw conversion is up to the quality spec you want to see ..
Whatever else about the Fuji cameras might thrill or annoy me, this fact about the sensor design makes them less desirable for my use. I have not yet seen any solid evidence that the more complex processing required leads to noticeably improved image quality. It's hard to see such proofs when the number of good raw converters that do it correctly is still so small.
Apple may simply not be convinced yet that their raw conversion is up to the quality spec you want to see ..
David_Manning
Well-known
Short of re-investing in a slew of new software, maybe the answer is shoot RAW+jpeg. Use Aperture and jpegs to select, and then send my select RAW files through ACR then PS5 exporting to .psd files, and reimporting them into Aperture.
A couple of caveats...since I WON'T be upgrading to PS6, I have to convert with the new X-Trans-capable Adobe Camera Raw to .dng files which are compatible with PS5. It sounds like a pain in the butt, but I can do this now without shelling out for new software, and it keeps me in the Aperture world, which is preferable only because I'm already there with tens of thousands of other files.
Geez...it's beginning to sound a lot like my scanning workflow, minus the dust and scratches
A couple of caveats...since I WON'T be upgrading to PS6, I have to convert with the new X-Trans-capable Adobe Camera Raw to .dng files which are compatible with PS5. It sounds like a pain in the butt, but I can do this now without shelling out for new software, and it keeps me in the Aperture world, which is preferable only because I'm already there with tens of thousands of other files.
Geez...it's beginning to sound a lot like my scanning workflow, minus the dust and scratches
f16sunshine
Moderator
I don't think they make any money with this program (aperture).
That said, Aperture3 is my preferred organization software. I like it simple and it is simple and will keep it for filing purposes and basic conversions and formatting.
After trying Capture one 7 I don't see using Aperture3 for more complicated RAW conversions. CO7 is far more comprehensive of a photographers tool. Even more so than LR4 which is excellent but, I personally just don't get on with LR very well.
That said, Aperture3 is my preferred organization software. I like it simple and it is simple and will keep it for filing purposes and basic conversions and formatting.
After trying Capture one 7 I don't see using Aperture3 for more complicated RAW conversions. CO7 is far more comprehensive of a photographers tool. Even more so than LR4 which is excellent but, I personally just don't get on with LR very well.
David_Manning
Well-known
I didn't really like LR when I tried it previously (earlier version), maybe because I can get Aperture to do what I need it to do. I just wonder if Apple realizes it's frustrating customers who need professional solutions.
nightfly
Well-known
Just my personal opinion but since the advent of all the "i" devices, Apple seems to be moving away from the core creative professional clients and toward the more general market and iOS devices. I understand from a business perspective as it's a bigger part of their revenue stream but am disappointed as a professional user that their products seem to get dumbed down a bit. The hardware is still great.
That said I really like Lightroom but I've never been an Aperture user.
That said I really like Lightroom but I've never been an Aperture user.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Just the opposite here. I've used both for several years and just can't seem to get my head around the organization of controls and features in Aperture. It's always a hunt and peck when I'm trying to get something done.
Lightroom, on the other hand, worked pretty much the way I wanted to work even at Public Beta time in 2006, and has only gotten better since. I now go into Photoshop or other image processing software only once in a very rare while, it does nearly everything I need/want in a seamless way.
I used to use Aperture primarily for its book output capability, importing completed TIFF and JPEG files after rendering them with Lightroom, but since Lightroom incorporated the Book module in v4 I haven't touched Aperture at all.
G
back alley
IMAGES
and for the simplest answer yet...i am shooting jpegs and doing my normal post processing with pse...so far working for me...
i have lr4...came free with my xp1...and i have loaded the release candidate as well...but i am just too lazy or unmovitated at this time to learn it.
i have lr4...came free with my xp1...and i have loaded the release candidate as well...but i am just too lazy or unmovitated at this time to learn it.
willie_901
Veteran
I agree that you should immediately install LR RC 4.4 after you have purchased LR 4.
The improvements in XTrans demosaicing in RC 4.4 are significant. There is still room for improvement. But when I inspect X100 raw and even D700 raw with the same scrutiny I paid to the XTrans renderings, I find trivial, but different, issues in those as well. I can not compare the results to in-camera jpegs because I have never used them with the X-Pro 1.
I saw huge improvements in the edges of the 18/2 XF that I attribute to better handling of the on-board firmware barrel distortion correction parameters. I also saw better performance in high-contrast areas, especially in the rendering of thin vertical lines. LR 4.4 RC really is important for this lens.
I rarely saw issues with the 35/1.4 XF lens before RC 4.4. This is not to besmirch those who did report problems. I just didn't happen to see significant issues in my work.
In the few examples I previously saw problematic color bleeding, the results with RC 4.4 were at least ten times better and I do not feel color bleeding is a problem now. However if you examine 10 x 10 pixel blocks you may observe small effects. For instance, I have seen reports where RC 4.4 begins to have some color saturaion issues at ISOs greater than 1600. Again, these effects are only seen with extreme zooming and are otherwise irrelevant.
At this point my opinion is most of the remaining issues and comparisons between different raw options for XTrans cameras have more to do with differences on rendering parameters than important differences in intrinsic rendering quality.
I also find that image optimization for XTrans raw requires a slightly different approach than I used for Bayer raw. This is important because if you use presets for Bayer images you may see problems. In particular I approach the sharpening, clarity and defringing processes differently. The differences depend greatly image content so I don't think any general advice is useful. I believe some of the differences have are related to the absence of an AA filter.
I take the same care with my personal images that I do with client images. So adjusting to the XTrans rendering parameter differences doesn't bother me. I can see where adjusting to the XTrans demosaicing differences and could annoy others.
I will say just about everything you may have read about Adobe and XTrans before the 4.4 RC is irrelevant.
The improvements in XTrans demosaicing in RC 4.4 are significant. There is still room for improvement. But when I inspect X100 raw and even D700 raw with the same scrutiny I paid to the XTrans renderings, I find trivial, but different, issues in those as well. I can not compare the results to in-camera jpegs because I have never used them with the X-Pro 1.
I saw huge improvements in the edges of the 18/2 XF that I attribute to better handling of the on-board firmware barrel distortion correction parameters. I also saw better performance in high-contrast areas, especially in the rendering of thin vertical lines. LR 4.4 RC really is important for this lens.
I rarely saw issues with the 35/1.4 XF lens before RC 4.4. This is not to besmirch those who did report problems. I just didn't happen to see significant issues in my work.
In the few examples I previously saw problematic color bleeding, the results with RC 4.4 were at least ten times better and I do not feel color bleeding is a problem now. However if you examine 10 x 10 pixel blocks you may observe small effects. For instance, I have seen reports where RC 4.4 begins to have some color saturaion issues at ISOs greater than 1600. Again, these effects are only seen with extreme zooming and are otherwise irrelevant.
At this point my opinion is most of the remaining issues and comparisons between different raw options for XTrans cameras have more to do with differences on rendering parameters than important differences in intrinsic rendering quality.
I also find that image optimization for XTrans raw requires a slightly different approach than I used for Bayer raw. This is important because if you use presets for Bayer images you may see problems. In particular I approach the sharpening, clarity and defringing processes differently. The differences depend greatly image content so I don't think any general advice is useful. I believe some of the differences have are related to the absence of an AA filter.
I take the same care with my personal images that I do with client images. So adjusting to the XTrans rendering parameter differences doesn't bother me. I can see where adjusting to the XTrans demosaicing differences and could annoy others.
I will say just about everything you may have read about Adobe and XTrans before the 4.4 RC is irrelevant.
sepiareverb
genius and moron
If you have PS why not just use that? If it is the organization you need and you have Bridge (not sure if this comes with PS?) it & PS will do everything LR will and they talk very well. The Camera Raw plug-in for PS is easily the equal of LR, and for me anyhow PS is WAY more intuitive than LR or Aperture ever could be.
But, as Godfrey illustrates we each find the software that fits our ways. I'm one of those who couldn't get my head around Aperture OR Lightroom...
But, as Godfrey illustrates we each find the software that fits our ways. I'm one of those who couldn't get my head around Aperture OR Lightroom...
David_Manning
Well-known
I rarely do any "heavy lifting" PS-wise. I use Aperture mostly to organize and adjust curves/levels. PS5.1, for me, is just a large program that I don't routinely use.
As I understand Bridge, it's just an organizational tool that plays well in the Adobe ecosystem. I was really hoping that Aperture would allow me to ingest .dng files from the new Adobe Camera Raw. But alas (sound like an old fart there) Aperture won't even read the newest .dng files.
So, for now, it's either SilkyPix (which is nothing like any software I've really used before) or ACR/PS5.1/Aperture. That's certainly doable, just ungainly...three different software packages to get to a usable file.
As I understand Bridge, it's just an organizational tool that plays well in the Adobe ecosystem. I was really hoping that Aperture would allow me to ingest .dng files from the new Adobe Camera Raw. But alas (sound like an old fart there) Aperture won't even read the newest .dng files.
So, for now, it's either SilkyPix (which is nothing like any software I've really used before) or ACR/PS5.1/Aperture. That's certainly doable, just ungainly...three different software packages to get to a usable file.
sepiareverb
genius and moron
I still say PS5.1 will get you everything Aperture or LR would. And do it in what I find a much more user-friendly fashion.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Yes, but one thing ...
This isn't correct. Bridge is more a file browser and workflow coordinator for the Creative Suite. It has no memory, it can only look at and display information currently in the file system.
Lightroom is a database that can reference and display images even on off-line volumes. You can annotate metadata, do searches, organize work into groups (collections) and all that kind of stuff without access to the original files. You can even render previews for a slide show, disconnect from the original file storage, and display slide shows with just the catalog and its preview files. It's only when you want to adjust and render for export that you have to have the original files on line.
There are many other differences as well. But ... whatever works to get the job done for you is all that's important.
G
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Actually, it won't. The minimum version of the Camera Raw plugin that will process Fuji X-Pro1 or X-E1 raw files are v7.1 and v7.2 respectively. Photoshop CS5.1 only works with Camera Raw v6.x; you need Photoshop CS6 to run Camera Raw v7.
The only way to use Fuji Xp1 and Xe1 files in PS CS5.1 is to convert them to a compatible DNG form with DNG Converter first.
(Lightroom 4.3's raw conversion engine is the same as the one incorporated into Camera Raw v7.3. LR 4.4RC has the same raw conversion engine that Camera Raw v7.4 will.)
G
GaryLH
Veteran
If I remember correctly Steve Job setup Apple in such a way that there is no dedicated sw team full time for any of their sw products. They look for sw developers that can do a bunch of different types of sw. Smothered may be a bunch of guys that maybe experts on Aperture, but they are not working on Aperture full time. They could be hijacked to a different more high priority project.. I cannot remember right now where I read about this... But unlike Adobe which has dedicated sw resources, Apple is running leaner.
I am an Aperture user even though I have LR 4.4 rc on my computer.. For whatever reason I never really got into it. I have tried since the initial reason of LR. It really is pretty frustration...
Gary
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
David, which OS version do you have on your MAC? I have version 10.6.8, and LR4.4 gives me an error message when I try to load the upgrade.
gavinlg
Veteran
Aperture is now the only major raw converter that doesn't support it. This argument is pretty much invalid now.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
I disagree that the statement is invalid until I see whether ther is any advantage to the sensor design that allows it to produce better images than a standard Bayer mosaic does, now that the raw conversion tools to process the raw data have advanced to the point where they are capable of doing the demosaic properly.
Otherwise, what is the point of using a sensor design which is so much fussier to process?
G
gavinlg
Veteran
It's not necessarily more difficult to process, it's more likely just different. Considering the bayer mosaic is the only other type of algorithm used with digital camera raw files, of course it took a bit of time to get all the different brand converters up and running. Either way, it's now at the point where it's not an inconvenience to use an x-trans camera (apart from users of aperture - which is probably dead in the water anyway).
I use a 5d mkIII now, and I still kind of wish I bought an x-pro1. The files can just be so nice, and I'm not even talking about resolution or noise performance. Just colors and tones in general from that sensor. The overall 'harmonic' IQ of the system, if you will.