Bill Pierce
Well-known
A lot of us elderly rangefinder photographers are interested in the X-Pro. We all got into photojournalism at a time when rangefinders dominated photojournalism and much of 35mm film photography. The X-Pro provides the bright-line finder, the smaller than a DSLR boy, mechanical controls and a few other features that we are used to. But Fuji has not been super cooperative with the folks that create the independent image processing programs that support a great variety of programs and are used by the majority of digital photographers. In a sense Fuji has kayoed their own camera. Web publication and conventional prints are fine. But in a day when exhibition prints can get pretty big, the available image processing software can and does have problems.
Check out
http://chromasoft.blogspot.com/2012/06/fuji-x-pro1-lightroom-and-silkypix.html
for some pretty intelligent thoughts on this. Note that the first line of the article has links to 4 previous articles on the same subject. These are the articles are the “required reading.”
At my end, in the great majority of cases I’ve been getting the best overall results with prints of pictures that benefited from being technically excellent with Raw Photo Processor 64 as have some other X-Pro users. I’m still learning the program. its interface is far different from most image processing programs, and there is a learning curve. Most often Adobe (in my case, Lightroom) comes in number 2 and the Adobe programs do a good job. Fuji furnished SilkyPix come in last, not awful, but last. In many cases, this is pointless hair splitting. But not for those beautiful exhibition prints. And not for a camera that has eliminated the anti-aliasing filter, come up with a unique sensor pattern and made claims that it’s APS-C sensor equals or exceeds the quality of some full frame sensors.
Maybe it’s time for us X-Pro’s (sounds like a retirement club) to pool our information. Any thoughts on image processing from other X-Pro users out there?
Check out
http://chromasoft.blogspot.com/2012/06/fuji-x-pro1-lightroom-and-silkypix.html
for some pretty intelligent thoughts on this. Note that the first line of the article has links to 4 previous articles on the same subject. These are the articles are the “required reading.”
At my end, in the great majority of cases I’ve been getting the best overall results with prints of pictures that benefited from being technically excellent with Raw Photo Processor 64 as have some other X-Pro users. I’m still learning the program. its interface is far different from most image processing programs, and there is a learning curve. Most often Adobe (in my case, Lightroom) comes in number 2 and the Adobe programs do a good job. Fuji furnished SilkyPix come in last, not awful, but last. In many cases, this is pointless hair splitting. But not for those beautiful exhibition prints. And not for a camera that has eliminated the anti-aliasing filter, come up with a unique sensor pattern and made claims that it’s APS-C sensor equals or exceeds the quality of some full frame sensors.
Maybe it’s time for us X-Pro’s (sounds like a retirement club) to pool our information. Any thoughts on image processing from other X-Pro users out there?
Eric T
Well-known
I just shoot jpg only with the XPro-1. The jpg converter in the XPro-1 is the best that I am aware of. I happily shoot jpg with this camera which is something I don't do with my Canon 5D Mark II or Leica M8 or Panasonic G3.
I hope that a RAW converter becomes available for Aperture but, in the meantime, jpg is fine.
I hope that a RAW converter becomes available for Aperture but, in the meantime, jpg is fine.
johannielscom
Snorting silver salts
Jamie Pillers
Skeptic
Is the JPEG file good enough to use in large-size exhibition prints too?
Johan, I've read somewhere on the web of happiness printing from xpro1 jpegs. Let's try it and see what we get!
Bill, I'm waiting for Apple to update Aperture as that's the software I'm happy with. Until then (and I realize I may have to wait forever), I'm happy with xpro1 jpegs.
Bill Pierce
Well-known
Is the JPEG file good enough to use in large-size exhibition prints too?
The jpeg is very good, but a properly processed raw file from X Pro can be better, not just in terms of the ability to alter the tonality and color of the image, but also in big print "sharpness." That said, sharpening the X Pro file, overall and locally, is one of the tricky areas. To me this is where RPP shines. I've also had good luck with Photokit Sharpener.
texchappy
Well-known
I've been contemplating going from Aperture to LR4 due to the RAW issue. Some folks are getting really good results from ACR and some are seeing issues. I'd like to see what the difference in workflow is between them.
willie_901
Veteran
I just use LR4. There is evidence that ACR is slightly inferior for some images. At the same time I really haven't noticed obvious problems. Eventually Adobe will improve their treatment of the XP1 raw data. Until then, If I notice a problem and need to make a large print, then there's always RPP 64.
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
I'm using RPP 64 for "real" work with X-Pro files, along with a custom ICC profile that was posted to the X-Forum. TIFF files generated in RPP 64 are then archived and edited in LR4. I shoot RAW+JPEG (Med size, highest quality) and use those images for review in LR, posting to the web, etc.
Bike Tourist
Well-known
jpg exclusively. Good enough for stock. And good enough for prints, by my own uncritical standards, of course.