Raw Fujis

Bill Pierce

Bill Pierce

Well-known
Local time
11:31 AM
Joined
Sep 26, 2007
Messages
1,407
Recently I got an email asking what raw image processors I use for Fuji files. Actually, I was asked which I found to be the “sharpest.” That’s a discussion that isn’t going to be of much interest to the folks who don’t use Fuji cameras, and I’m not even sure that it is of interest to some Fuji users. But to those it does interest, here are the programs that I found gave me the best definition with fine detail.

I looked at Photoshop, Lightroom, Capture One, Iridient Developer, PhotoNinja, AccuRaw, AccuRaw Monochrome, SilkyPix, RPP and Affinity Photo. None of them were unacceptable, and, in many cases where lack of a tripod, not shooting at the optimum aperture and all those other things that make most of our pictures a little less than the sharpest possible, there really wasn’t a significant difference. Sharpness, after all, is defeated or contributed to by a huge range of factors in our equipment and the way we use it, not just the latest processing program or a surfeit of megapixels.

For those folks who shoot those tripod mounted landscapes and make big prints, the winners in the fine detail department were Accu Raw, Accu Raw Monochrome and Iridient Developer. The level of artifact or noise suppression along with the more conventional adjustments of sharpening radius and strength had a definite effect.

I’m not sure that all of this is important, especially if the “look” we get with another program appeals to us. I run a number of shots through PhotoNinja just because its initial conversions (and there are a number of presets) look like nothing I get out of other processing programs. And they are looks I like and which certainly don’t lack in sharpness.

Anybody else have experience with processing the Fuji files that they could pass on to our curious reader?
 
I can state that for shots with ultra small details, like landscapes with many leafless trees shot with the Fuji 14mm, Photo Ninja will show tiny details with clearly better definition than Adobe ACR/Lightroom. This is not news, however.
 
Perceived sharpness is a complicated subject.

Rendering XTrans raw with Adobe ACR is viable, so I use LR CC 6. I really didn't see much of a disadvantage for my work.

I considered two factors (besides those Bill mentioned).

1/ Adobe ACR'r rendering of Xtrans raw has improved over time.

2/ The rendering workflow required to get the most out of Xtrans raw in ACR is very different than the workflow I used for .NEF and Panasonic raw rendering. Many of the rendering parameters (besides sharpening) can have a profound effect on perceived sharpness.

Also, Xtrans rendering in LR 6 is different than previous versions of ACR. So my optimum workflow had to be slightly modified.
 
I've been very happy with the way Apple's Aperture processes the X-Trans files from the X-Pro1, X-E2, X-T1, and X100T. I occasionally use Nik software as well and it works well.

I'm not at all a pixel-peeper. I'm much more influenced by the color reproduction, and Aperture gives me what seems to my eye as very natural looking images.

As you know, Apple has declared that it has stopped further development of Aperture. So long as I have a camera currently supported by Aperture, I'll stay with it. After that... who knows.
 
I just import straight into Lightroom CC and export to JPG, TIFF, or DNG, depending on client needs. The latest version of Lightroom shows a lot less "watercolor" style artifacting, and the archiving/tagging functionality of LR is a big plus for us working stiffs with a camera.

I shoot for print/magazine use, and the "weird" looking Fuji artifacts have been more than acceptable when printed at standard magazine sizes, up to a two-page spread. Can't speak for those making huge enlargements with their Fujis, but for me LR has been just fine; even clients with so-called "Full Frame" requirements for their photographers have been more than happy with my results from the X-T1 and Lightroom.

I also use the Really Nice Images (RNI) film emulation presets. Their plugin set includes popular negative, slide, B&W, and instant film emulations, all for the cost of ONE VSCO set. I also prefer RNI because it doesn't crush the blacks as heavily as VSCO seems to, and their B&W conversions look great!
 
Jamie Pillers said:
I've been very happy with the way Apple's Aperture processes the X-Trans files from the X-Pro1, X-E2, X-T1, and X100T. I occasionally use Nik software as well and it works well.

I'm not at all a pixel-peeper. I'm much more influenced by the color reproduction, and Aperture gives me what seems to my eye as very natural looking images.

As you know, Apple has declared that it has stopped further development of Aperture. So long as I have a camera currently supported by Aperture, I'll stay with it. After that... who knows.
Click to expand...


I like aperture for most things color as well.
 
Jamie Pillers said:
... As you know, Apple has declared that it has stopped further development of Aperture. So long as I have a camera currently supported by Aperture, I'll stay with it. After that... who knows.
Click to expand...

The raw processing algorithms and camera specifiers used in Aperture are encapsulated in an OS X system supplied framework, I believe it's named something like "DigitalCameraRAW.framework" but can't swear to that. It's the same framework that Photos uses. So you should be able to get the same results from Photos as you did from Aperture, with any existing or future cameras.

G
 
Jamie Pillers said:
I've been very happy with the way Apple's Aperture processes the X-Trans files from the X-Pro1, X-E2, X-T1, and X100T. I occasionally use Nik software as well and it works well.

I'm not at all a pixel-peeper. I'm much more influenced by the color reproduction, and Aperture gives me what seems to my eye as very natural looking images.

As you know, Apple has declared that it has stopped further development of Aperture. So long as I have a camera currently supported by Aperture, I'll stay with it. After that... who knows.
Click to expand...

I am pretty much come to the same conclusion... But being the gear head that I am, I am trying to look into RAW converters that will output to tiff to import to Aperture, especially if they can do batch processing.

My General Foveon workflow is to do jpg+raw. Import the jpg into Aperture and Foveon RAW to a separate directory. Use Aperture to sort and rate. Have SPP convert the Foveon RAW into TIFF 16 using the batch processing method in most cases.

I would like use the same work flow w/ a pure RAW developer.

Gary
 
Godfrey said:
The raw processing algorithms and camera specifiers used in Aperture are encapsulated in an OS X system supplied framework. It's the same one that Photos uses. So you should be able to get the same results from Photos as you did from Aperture, with any existing or future cameras.

G
Click to expand...

True..so long as the framework does not change w/ the future OS X releases. Apple has only promised support up to the next OS X release.

But the other issue is new releases of OS X at times cause certain apps to become unsupported. If u need that app u will stay at current OS X. The camera raw support built into OS X is not always upgraded w/ older OS. For example, current OS X supports Panasonic lx100 raw, but not the prior OS X which I am locked into currently.

Gary
 
GaryLH said:
True..so long as the framework does not change w/ the future OS X releases. Apple has only promised support up to the next OS X release.

But the other issue is new releases of OS X at times cause certain apps to become unsupported. If u need that app u will stay at current OS X. The camera raw support built into OS X is not always upgraded w/ older OS. For example, current OS X supports Panasonic lx100 raw, but not the prior OS X which I am locked into currently.
Click to expand...

The framework is an essential part of more than just Aperture or Photos, so Apple will continue to develop it. As far as I'm aware, Apple has not deleted any camera support from a newer version of the framework, just like Adobe has not yet removed support for any older cameras from the Camera Raw plugin or Lightroom.

The other issue is the standard one in all software development: "How many operating system revisions forward (or back) does a particular app implementation stay compatible with?" That depends on many many factors, a broad topic of discussion which really has little place here.

You should always expect that new features, new camera support, is always going to be applied to the latest version of the OS and whatever apps are built for that, not the older ones. There's remarkably little ROI in developing for older versions of operating system and an awful lot of costs.

This is why I always update to the latest versions of OS and apps, usually after a couple month's grace period for testing, and keep all my apps and other tools current. When older apps stop working, I replace them. If an OS or app upgrade release requires a hardware change, I change the hardware. To me, they're like tools: when a wrench or hammer becomes worn out or no longer serviceable, it should just be replaced.

G
 
I use Lightroom CC, simply because I've been building my LR Library and workflow since way back in version 1 and I know how to get results I like with it- why fix what isn't broken? I do have to use sharpening differently with X-Trans files than other cameras; I tend to find X-Trans files in good light at low ISOs look good with +76 sharpening, maybe +24 at ISO 1600-3200 if well-exposed, and 0 sharpening at 3200-6400. Unlike most of my cameras, which look good at +48 sharpening in good light, the X-E1 files seem to look the best with either zero sharpening or loads of it.
 
honozooloo said:
...
I also use the Really Nice Images (RNI) film emulation presets. Their plugin set includes popular negative, slide, B&W, and instant film emulations, all for the cost of ONE VSCO set. I also prefer RNI because it doesn't crush the blacks as heavily as VSCO seems to, and their B&W conversions look great!
Click to expand...

This is a great point. I find the Fujifilm emulations in LR 6 to be very useful.
 
LR5 and now LR6 seem to handle the RAFs from my XA-1, XE-1 and XT-1 well enough that I'm not getting anything but compliments from clients. A steady paycheck is my threshold of quality. :)
 
Godfrey said:
The raw processing algorithms and camera specifiers used in Aperture are encapsulated in an OS X system supplied framework, I believe it's named something like "DigitalCameraRAW.framework" but can't swear to that. It's the same framework that Photos uses. So you should be able to get the same results from Photos as you did from Aperture, with any existing or future cameras.

G
Click to expand...

Good to know, Godfrey. Thanks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom