Processing X-Pro1 files

Richard Griffith

Richard Griffith

Established
Local time
10:54 AM
Joined
Dec 4, 2007
Messages
144
Sorry if this has been asked a hundred times before, but I wonder if anyone has some tips for processing X-Pro1 files.

I've had my X-Pro1 for about 6 months now and really enjoy the camera and love the lenses. However over the weekend I was looking back over my photos that I have taken over the last 3 years, and i far preferred the colour photos taken with my Olympus E1, that I had prior to the X-pro1, but sold due to the weight and bulk and lack of prime lenses. The Olympus photos just seemed so much more natural, whereas the Fuji are very smooth and 'digital'. All were processed through Aperture. I mainly use RAW but have tried the various Fuji JPEG options without much success.

At times I'm tempted to get another E1 and 14-54mm which can be had for only £200 these days but then I remember the weight. I would really like to stick with Fuji and probably just need to learn some different processing techniques. Maybe try Capture One Pro - can this be used as a Plug in with Aperture, similar to Silver Efex Pro that I use for my B+W? Or maybe i should just stick to my OM4Ti and Yashicamat!!

Thanks everyone
 
I think that xtrans sensor raw's are not processable with current generation of raw editors available on the market.
As I hard as try I was not able to process them to my satisfaction

Now lets wait for xtrans fan-boys to join the discussion :D
 
Would you be able to expand on what you mean by "smooth and digital."? I just finished processing some files from my X100T, and remarked at how satisfied I was with them. I usually tend to be rather unhappy with Digital Images, but feel the Fuji doesn't feel as "Digital" as other Digital Cameras, such as my Canon DSLR.

Of course, you could always just push the grain slider a little and apply some sharpening if you wish to emulate a more 'film-like' image ;)

-Z
 
I am not exactly clear on why you dislike your Xpro1 results, but . . .
You might take a look at a used X-A1, just to see if you like the Fuji Bayer array sensor better than the x-trans (I do).
The XA1 is certainly not the camera that the XPro is (in structure or design), but you'll be using the same lenses (to compare) and the XA1 sensor is really excellent.
I like my XA1 images better than my XE1 images (using the same lenses).

FWIW: I process RAF-jpg variations in the camera.
 
Here is one X-Pro1 photo. I know I should has used a slightly smaller aperture, and the highlights are blown a bit.

X-Pro1 by rmja.griff, on Flickr

This was a really fun event outside Buckingham Palace in December. Despite happy memories of the event, my photos from this day just leave me a bit cold. A reaction I never had to the E1 photos.

Richard
 
Richard, I process my x-trans files in LR5. If you like, upload the RAW file to dropbox with a link and I'll give it a whirl, relaying my result and flow to you.

Otherwise, in-camera, have you set noise reduction to a negative value (I use -2 and think even so there's too much)?
 
The most current version of Lightroom offers 10 Camera Profiles co-developed by Fujifilm and Adobe. These Profiles closely simulate the in-camera JPEG renderings available in XTrnas cameras.

I have processed X-Pro 1 raw since the camera was released in the US. The current Fujifilm Camera Profiles produce the optimal rendering for XTrans raw compared to the Adobe Standard Profile.

The point really isn't that one can conveniently use Fujifilm's Film Simulation renderings. Rather the point is the initial rendering from any of the Film Simulation Profiles produce overall superior results. I will risk speculating this is directly related to technical information provided by Fujifilm during the collaboration.

To be complete, optimal rendering XTrans raw with in LR requires a different approach compared to Bayer raw. There is a learning curve to overcome. Life became simpler once I accepted a different workflow was needed for XTrans post-production rendering. The biggest difference involves sharpening.

At this point my post-production efficiency with XTRans raw is similar or even a bit higher compared to NEF raw. For one thing, Fujifilm's the on-board lens correction parameters never require tweaking in LR. This was not the case for any of the Nikkor AFS and G lenses I use to own (as well as a Tokina) which relied on Adobe's in-house lens correction parameters. While the color temperature rendering parameters have a greater impact on XTrans IQ than they did for NEFs, optimization is actually simpler (once one adjusts to the differences).

Still, I don't think you should struggle with XTRans raw. Around 2010 I sold a m4/3 system after a year because i could not abide the raw rendering compared to the NEFs. No matter what I tried in LR, the m4/3 images never pleased me.

If XTrans raw just didn't work for me, I would sell that system as well.
 
I'd review the use of sharpening settings.
I'm not familiar with Aperture, but here's a link that explains it in regards to Lightroom: http://petebridgwood.com/wp/2014/10/x-trans-sharpening/

and here are some presets for LR:

http://blog.thomasfitzgeraldphotogr.../updated-x-trans-sharpening-presets-lightroom

Personally, I prefer the results from Capture One Pro, but Lightroom is perfectly fine, too. Just the X-trans sensor requires processing in a different way than Bayer CFA sensors.

Each of the various software developers is optimized to treat X-Trans files in slightly different ways.

Search around and you can find a LOT of tips on X-trans raw development.
 
You might like to try Iridient Developer http://www.iridientdigital.com
I generally use it first to edit my images after importing into Lightroom as it works best with RAF files. Then after that edit, I export to Silver Efex Pro 2 for conversion to B&W.

Flickr: thesrpspaintshop
 
Have u used the raw processing module under affects option in Aperture? Aperture does recognize that xtran has different requirements then Bayer. There are additional options versus the normal Bayer one.. U can even save it as a camera default profile (by model) once u decide u are happy w/ the changes.. The raw processing option is for fine tuning what has already done by aperture.

Aperture also allows u to save a set of affects (example would be contrast, saturation, curves, raw fine tuning settings) under a single affect name of your choice that can be used later for processing of individual files or a set of selected files.

Gary
 
GaryLH said:
Have u used the raw processing module under affects option in Aperture? ...
Gary
Click to expand...

Gary, by "raw processing module under affects option", do you mean the pull down menus under the "Effects" button: Quick Fixes, Color, White Balance, Black & White? And don't all the other Adjustment panes (eg.: Exposure, Enhance, etc.) recognize X-Trans files competently? They all seem to work well for me when processing the X-Pro1 RAW files.
_ Jamie
 
Lately I've been using Adobe Bridge w/ Adobe Camera Raw
You can even do batch editing this way. For large series I still use Lightroom 5 but I like the way Adobe Camera Raw renders it a bit more. (I don't know if it's just me, but I feel like they are different even though they are made by the same company)

Also, I should mention that when using Bridge my thumbnails load A LOT faster than in Lightroom after they cache'd

edit: I forgot to mention (as stated above) I also use the FujiFilm Camera Profiles that come embedded into the RAWs when using ACR as well as a couple VSCO profiles
 
It's probably just your personal tastes. Personally I prefer the x-trans files to both my old 4/3 and m4/3 gear AND my canon full frame stuff. Much more filmy to me - especially colors.
 
I use silkypix and photoshop. Honestly with a few exceptions it's not hard to make one digital camera have similar colour rendering to another. I'm sometimes not that pleased by the fuji RAW output, but it's not really relevant because I PP my colours in self made presets or using PS's "actions" function. If you're relying on the camera to produce the colours you want SOOC then you're not really making the the most of the medium.
 
Jamie Pillers said:
Gary, by "raw processing module under affects option", do you mean the pull down menus under the "Effects" button: Quick Fixes, Color, White Balance, Black & White? And don't all the other Adjustment panes (eg.: Exposure, Enhance, etc.) recognize X-Trans files competently? They all seem to work well for me when processing the X-Pro1 RAW files.
_ Jamie
Click to expand...
Jamie

Yes.. Aperture recognizes the raw files correctly and processing them accordingly (different then what they would I do w/ a Bayer sensor camera). It however is just a set of defaults that is applied by Aperture database. If u need to fine tune the default values or u want a slightly different look or more sharpness, then u need to use the "fine tuning raw processing" option.

If u are happy w/ the default values used, then no problem..

Hope that helps clarify things..
Gary
 
Thanks for everyones' suggestions and links. This has given me some new things to work on and try out. I'm sure I'll get there in the end!
 
willie_901 said:
The most current version of Lightroom offers 10 Camera Profiles co-developed by Fujifilm and Adobe. These Profiles closely simulate the in-camera JPEG renderings available in XTrnas cameras.

I have processed X-Pro 1 raw since the camera was released in the US. The current Fujifilm Camera Profiles produce the optimal rendering for XTrans raw compared to the Adobe Standard Profile.

The point really isn't that one can conveniently use Fujifilm's Film Simulation renderings. Rather the point is the initial rendering from any of the Film Simulation Profiles produce overall superior results. I will risk speculating this is directly related to technical information provided by Fujifilm during the collaboration.

To be complete, optimal rendering XTrans raw with in LR requires a different approach compared to Bayer raw. There is a learning curve to overcome. Life became simpler once I accepted a different workflow was needed for XTrans post-production rendering. The biggest difference involves sharpening.

At this point my post-production efficiency with XTRans raw is similar or even a bit higher compared to NEF raw. For one thing, Fujifilm's the on-board lens correction parameters never require tweaking in LR. This was not the case for any of the Nikkor AFS and G lenses I use to own (as well as a Tokina) which relied on Adobe's in-house lens correction parameters. While the color temperature rendering parameters have a greater impact on XTrans IQ than they did for NEFs, optimization is actually simpler (once one adjusts to the differences).

Still, I don't think you should struggle with XTRans raw. Around 2010 I sold a m4/3 system after a year because i could not abide the raw rendering compared to the NEFs. No matter what I tried in LR, the m4/3 images never pleased me.

If XTrans raw just didn't work for me, I would sell that system as well.
Click to expand...

Are you happy with LR Raw outputs? If so could you share your workflow steps for the RAW processing? I am new to the Fuji X-T1 and trying to figure out all the RAW processing.
 
macjim said:
You might like to try Iridient Developer http://www.iridientdigital.com
I generally use it first to edit my images after importing into Lightroom as it works best with RAF files. Then after that edit, I export to Silver Efex Pro 2 for conversion to B&W.

Flickr: thesrpspaintshop
Click to expand...

I heard Iridient is the best XTrans processor, but sadly it's Apple only.

I'm only on Lightroom 4 and I feel that the out of camera JPEGs can look superior to LR's results.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom