Is Iridient that good or Capture One that bad?

Started 10 months ago | Discussions
nixda
Senior MemberPosts: 1,906Gear list
Like?
Re: Is Iridient that good or Capture One that bad?
In reply to masterofdeception, 10 months ago

masterofdeception wrote:

masterofdeception wrote:

nixda wrote:

masterofdeception wrote:

nixda wrote:

masterofdeception wrote:

nixda wrote:

masterofdeception wrote:

Most of us won't care about the difference. In fact, most of us don't care that LR isn't "perfect". Heads up for you here, nothing on these forums will ever be "perfect" for the tech guys here. They don't do photography. they do science and they always need the next best thing. Iridient or LR or all the others (I use JPEGs) are as good as most of us need. Leave the perfect to those here who don't do photography.

One of the biggest loads of BLEEP I've come across here in a while.

Apart from your post, I guess, which adds more BLEEP than I could even come up with...

So, you think you and your Iridient or Photo Ninja or whatever adherents are all the go to photographers? Pull the other one!

"Leave the perfect to those here who don't do photography" ?!?!?!?

You must not be familiar with many "photographers" and understand what they are striving for.

An early mentor of mine instilled in me that "good enough" is the mantra of the lazy and, possibly, incompetent. I have not seen much evidence that he was wrong.

There is nothing wrong with trying to get the 'best' from ones images, and - no - that desire does not define who is "doing photography" and who is not.

Well your mentor was mistaken if he was talking about IQ, which I assume is the point of the OP's post. There are loads of great photographers, and photographs, that didn't strive for perfection in IQ. So you think Henri Cartier-Bresson was lazy? You think William Klein was lazy? You think Daido Moriyama was lazy? You think they, and any other photographer who doesn't strive for the "perfect" print, were all incompetent? That we should all aim instead for the perfection of Stieglitz, Weston, and Adams? I'm sorry, but photography is wider than that, and your mind needs to be opened. I'm talking here about people who don't take great photographs, so Weston, Adams and Stieglitz are excused. What have you and your pixel peeping friends using Capture One or Iridient or Photo Ninja got to show that's so amazing?

Thank you for trying to open my mind. Always welcome.

I checked out your gallery. Wonderful pictures. Looking forward to more.

I don't post photographs here. Even if I did it makes no difference to my case, which isn't about me. It's about the fact that LR = Aperture = Iridient = Photo Ninja = Capture One = X if the photographer isn't good enough. So, I checked out your gallery and what are you telling me?

I mean "if the image isn't good enough".

Since you think you are 'doing photography' (I assume so anyway), I wanted to get an idea what that photography is like. Ok, you don't show any of your photographs, so I can't tell. I personally  have no higher ambitions; I am only taking pictures for my own pleasure and mostly for documentary purposes of places I have been to. I am interested in high IQ, like the OP, and there is nothing wrong with that; that's what I am trying to tell you.

 nixda's gear list:nixda's gear list
Fujifilm X-E1 Fujifilm XF 14mm F2.8 R Fujifilm XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS Fujifilm XF 55-200mm F3.5-4.8 R LM OIS Fujifilm XF 27mm F2.8
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
masterofdeception
Regular MemberPosts: 264Gear list
Like?
Re: Is Iridient that good or Capture One that bad?
In reply to nixda, 10 months ago

nixda wrote:

masterofdeception wrote:

masterofdeception wrote:

nixda wrote:

masterofdeception wrote:

nixda wrote:

masterofdeception wrote:

nixda wrote:

masterofdeception wrote:

Most of us won't care about the difference. In fact, most of us don't care that LR isn't "perfect". Heads up for you here, nothing on these forums will ever be "perfect" for the tech guys here. They don't do photography. they do science and they always need the next best thing. Iridient or LR or all the others (I use JPEGs) are as good as most of us need. Leave the perfect to those here who don't do photography.

One of the biggest loads of BLEEP I've come across here in a while.

Apart from your post, I guess, which adds more BLEEP than I could even come up with...

So, you think you and your Iridient or Photo Ninja or whatever adherents are all the go to photographers? Pull the other one!

"Leave the perfect to those here who don't do photography" ?!?!?!?

You must not be familiar with many "photographers" and understand what they are striving for.

An early mentor of mine instilled in me that "good enough" is the mantra of the lazy and, possibly, incompetent. I have not seen much evidence that he was wrong.

There is nothing wrong with trying to get the 'best' from ones images, and - no - that desire does not define who is "doing photography" and who is not.

Well your mentor was mistaken if he was talking about IQ, which I assume is the point of the OP's post. There are loads of great photographers, and photographs, that didn't strive for perfection in IQ. So you think Henri Cartier-Bresson was lazy? You think William Klein was lazy? You think Daido Moriyama was lazy? You think they, and any other photographer who doesn't strive for the "perfect" print, were all incompetent? That we should all aim instead for the perfection of Stieglitz, Weston, and Adams? I'm sorry, but photography is wider than that, and your mind needs to be opened. I'm talking here about people who don't take great photographs, so Weston, Adams and Stieglitz are excused. What have you and your pixel peeping friends using Capture One or Iridient or Photo Ninja got to show that's so amazing?

Thank you for trying to open my mind. Always welcome.

I checked out your gallery. Wonderful pictures. Looking forward to more.

I don't post photographs here. Even if I did it makes no difference to my case, which isn't about me. It's about the fact that LR = Aperture = Iridient = Photo Ninja = Capture One = X if the photographer isn't good enough. So, I checked out your gallery and what are you telling me?

I mean "if the image isn't good enough".

Since you think you are 'doing photography' (I assume so anyway), I wanted to get an idea what that photography is like. Ok, you don't show any of your photographs, so I can't tell. I personally have no higher ambitions; I am only taking pictures for my own pleasure and mostly for documentary purposes of places I have been to. I am interested in high IQ, like the OP, and there is nothing wrong with that; that's what I am trying to tell you.

Fine with me. There's nothing wrong with high IQ.  All I'm saying then is that people here will never agree on what that is, so you and the OP are wasting your time.  You will obviously disagree, as for you it's the Holy Grail, and good luck to you in your quest.  I don't see why I'm somehow barred from saying, in my own opening post, that I don't personally think anyone (apart from a few science geeks) really cares.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
unknown member
(unknown member)
Like?
Re: Is Iridient that good or Capture One that bad?
In reply to Majkes, 10 months ago
Opinions?

The same Problem i have seen in the S-Series Digital Cameras long Time ago with the Hyper Utility RAW Converter before the first S-Series Cameras Exists.
So i have test some other RAW Converter like Raw Photo Processor or DCRAW.

For me is DCRAW "my" best RAW Converter for Fujifilm Digital Cameras.

If You want best Details without "Zipper" Effects like the RPP Converter, You should use DCRAW in a Future Version when there support the Fujifilm X-T1.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
nixda
Senior MemberPosts: 1,906Gear list
Like?
Re: Is Iridient that good or Capture One that bad?
In reply to masterofdeception, 10 months ago

masterofdeception wrote:

nixda wrote:

masterofdeception wrote:

masterofdeception wrote:

nixda wrote:

masterofdeception wrote:

nixda wrote:

masterofdeception wrote:

nixda wrote:

masterofdeception wrote:

Most of us won't care about the difference. In fact, most of us don't care that LR isn't "perfect". Heads up for you here, nothing on these forums will ever be "perfect" for the tech guys here. They don't do photography. they do science and they always need the next best thing. Iridient or LR or all the others (I use JPEGs) are as good as most of us need. Leave the perfect to those here who don't do photography.

One of the biggest loads of BLEEP I've come across here in a while.

Apart from your post, I guess, which adds more BLEEP than I could even come up with...

So, you think you and your Iridient or Photo Ninja or whatever adherents are all the go to photographers? Pull the other one!

"Leave the perfect to those here who don't do photography" ?!?!?!?

You must not be familiar with many "photographers" and understand what they are striving for.

An early mentor of mine instilled in me that "good enough" is the mantra of the lazy and, possibly, incompetent. I have not seen much evidence that he was wrong.

There is nothing wrong with trying to get the 'best' from ones images, and - no - that desire does not define who is "doing photography" and who is not.

Well your mentor was mistaken if he was talking about IQ, which I assume is the point of the OP's post. There are loads of great photographers, and photographs, that didn't strive for perfection in IQ. So you think Henri Cartier-Bresson was lazy? You think William Klein was lazy? You think Daido Moriyama was lazy? You think they, and any other photographer who doesn't strive for the "perfect" print, were all incompetent? That we should all aim instead for the perfection of Stieglitz, Weston, and Adams? I'm sorry, but photography is wider than that, and your mind needs to be opened. I'm talking here about people who don't take great photographs, so Weston, Adams and Stieglitz are excused. What have you and your pixel peeping friends using Capture One or Iridient or Photo Ninja got to show that's so amazing?

Thank you for trying to open my mind. Always welcome.

I checked out your gallery. Wonderful pictures. Looking forward to more.

I don't post photographs here. Even if I did it makes no difference to my case, which isn't about me. It's about the fact that LR = Aperture = Iridient = Photo Ninja = Capture One = X if the photographer isn't good enough. So, I checked out your gallery and what are you telling me?

I mean "if the image isn't good enough".

Since you think you are 'doing photography' (I assume so anyway), I wanted to get an idea what that photography is like. Ok, you don't show any of your photographs, so I can't tell. I personally have no higher ambitions; I am only taking pictures for my own pleasure and mostly for documentary purposes of places I have been to. I am interested in high IQ, like the OP, and there is nothing wrong with that; that's what I am trying to tell you.

Fine with me. There's nothing wrong with high IQ. All I'm saying then is that people here will never agree on what that is, so you and the OP are wasting your time. You will obviously disagree, as for you it's the Holy Grail, and good luck to you in your quest. I don't see why I'm somehow barred from saying, in my own opening post, that I don't personally think anyone (apart from a few science geeks) really cares.

Here is what is wrong:

I and the OP are wasting our time: how do you know? It's an aspect that is important to us, so we are not wasting our time.

It's the Holy Grail for me: you don't know what my Holy Grail is, so please don't make any assumptions about it and then argue against your assumptions.

No one really cares: again, you are making assumptions. The OP does care; I do care; others here clearly care; but according to you we apparently don't 'do photography', so I guess we don't count.

It's the absolutist attitude in your posts that I think is wrong and your desire to tell the OP (and me, and a bunch of others) that we should not care about what the OP in fact does care about.

Cheers!

 nixda's gear list:nixda's gear list
Fujifilm X-E1 Fujifilm XF 14mm F2.8 R Fujifilm XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS Fujifilm XF 55-200mm F3.5-4.8 R LM OIS Fujifilm XF 27mm F2.8
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
masterofdeception
Regular MemberPosts: 264Gear list
Like?
Re: Is Iridient that good or Capture One that bad?
In reply to nixda, 10 months ago

nixda wrote:

masterofdeception wrote:

nixda wrote:

masterofdeception wrote:

masterofdeception wrote:

nixda wrote:

masterofdeception wrote:

nixda wrote:

masterofdeception wrote:

nixda wrote:

masterofdeception wrote:

Most of us won't care about the difference. In fact, most of us don't care that LR isn't "perfect". Heads up for you here, nothing on these forums will ever be "perfect" for the tech guys here. They don't do photography. they do science and they always need the next best thing. Iridient or LR or all the others (I use JPEGs) are as good as most of us need. Leave the perfect to those here who don't do photography.

One of the biggest loads of BLEEP I've come across here in a while.

Apart from your post, I guess, which adds more BLEEP than I could even come up with...

So, you think you and your Iridient or Photo Ninja or whatever adherents are all the go to photographers? Pull the other one!

"Leave the perfect to those here who don't do photography" ?!?!?!?

You must not be familiar with many "photographers" and understand what they are striving for.

An early mentor of mine instilled in me that "good enough" is the mantra of the lazy and, possibly, incompetent. I have not seen much evidence that he was wrong.

There is nothing wrong with trying to get the 'best' from ones images, and - no - that desire does not define who is "doing photography" and who is not.

Well your mentor was mistaken if he was talking about IQ, which I assume is the point of the OP's post. There are loads of great photographers, and photographs, that didn't strive for perfection in IQ. So you think Henri Cartier-Bresson was lazy? You think William Klein was lazy? You think Daido Moriyama was lazy? You think they, and any other photographer who doesn't strive for the "perfect" print, were all incompetent? That we should all aim instead for the perfection of Stieglitz, Weston, and Adams? I'm sorry, but photography is wider than that, and your mind needs to be opened. I'm talking here about people who don't take great photographs, so Weston, Adams and Stieglitz are excused. What have you and your pixel peeping friends using Capture One or Iridient or Photo Ninja got to show that's so amazing?

Thank you for trying to open my mind. Always welcome.

I checked out your gallery. Wonderful pictures. Looking forward to more.

I don't post photographs here. Even if I did it makes no difference to my case, which isn't about me. It's about the fact that LR = Aperture = Iridient = Photo Ninja = Capture One = X if the photographer isn't good enough. So, I checked out your gallery and what are you telling me?

I mean "if the image isn't good enough".

Since you think you are 'doing photography' (I assume so anyway), I wanted to get an idea what that photography is like. Ok, you don't show any of your photographs, so I can't tell. I personally have no higher ambitions; I am only taking pictures for my own pleasure and mostly for documentary purposes of places I have been to. I am interested in high IQ, like the OP, and there is nothing wrong with that; that's what I am trying to tell you.

Fine with me. There's nothing wrong with high IQ. All I'm saying then is that people here will never agree on what that is, so you and the OP are wasting your time. You will obviously disagree, as for you it's the Holy Grail, and good luck to you in your quest. I don't see why I'm somehow barred from saying, in my own opening post, that I don't personally think anyone (apart from a few science geeks) really cares.

Here is what is wrong:

I and the OP are wasting our time: how do you know? It's an aspect that is important to us, so we are not wasting our time.

It's the Holy Grail for me: you don't know what my Holy Grail is, so please don't make any assumptions about it and then argue against your assumptions.

No one really cares: again, you are making assumptions. The OP does care; I do care; others here clearly care; but according to you we apparently don't 'do photography', so I guess we don't count.

It's the absolutist attitude in your posts that I think is wrong and your desire to tell the OP (and me, and a bunch of others) that we should not care about what the OP in fact does care about.

Cheers!

Look I don't really want to antagonise you or fall out with you, but my opening post stands.  The OP asks is Iridient that good or Capture One that good.  I've used both and I've answered this, both in my opening post and further down this thread. Your initlal response, which you haven't really developed, is to tell me I'm talking a load of "Bleep".  Thanks.  We obviously disagree with each other, but please try to be more constructive.  I don't like being told by someone I don't know that I know nothing about photography, because I do.  Likewise, you don't like being told that you're wasting your time seeking the "perfect" IQ.  Well, if you're going to spout it out, be prepared to suck it up.  You're obviously an angry person.  I don't have an "absolutist" attitude. It's called "an opinion", Mr Policeman.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
vkphoto
Senior MemberPosts: 1,626
Like?
Re: Is Iridient that good or Capture One that bad?
In reply to Carsten Pauer 2, 10 months ago

Carsten Pauer 2 wrote:

You should use DCRAW in a Future Version when there support the Fujifilm X-T1.

dcraw 920 supports xt1

-- hide signature --
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
kewlguy
Senior MemberPosts: 1,570Gear list
Like?
Actually, both are about equal
In reply to Majkes, 10 months ago

C1 Pro has better interface, and at low ISOs, Iridient can be sharper at times - BUT - with C1 Pro, you need to tweak its default sharpening parameters. Try to slide down the Threshold to 0 and your image will be sharper instantly.

At higher ISOs, I still prefer C1 Pro NR over Iridient. I use them both depending on which images I'm processing.

Looking at your sample, the right one shows too much sharpening and noise is also sharpened at the same time.

Both can do better jobs than what you're showing

 kewlguy's gear list:kewlguy's gear list
Canon EOS 600D Nikon 1 J1 Canon EOS 6D Fujifilm X-E2 Fujifilm X-T1 +15 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
nixda
Senior MemberPosts: 1,906Gear list
Like?
Re: Is Iridient that good or Capture One that bad?
In reply to masterofdeception, 10 months ago

masterofdeception wrote:

nixda wrote:

masterofdeception wrote:

nixda wrote:

masterofdeception wrote:

masterofdeception wrote:

nixda wrote:

masterofdeception wrote:

nixda wrote:

masterofdeception wrote:

nixda wrote:

masterofdeception wrote:

Most of us won't care about the difference. In fact, most of us don't care that LR isn't "perfect". Heads up for you here, nothing on these forums will ever be "perfect" for the tech guys here. They don't do photography. they do science and they always need the next best thing. Iridient or LR or all the others (I use JPEGs) are as good as most of us need. Leave the perfect to those here who don't do photography.

One of the biggest loads of BLEEP I've come across here in a while.

Apart from your post, I guess, which adds more BLEEP than I could even come up with...

So, you think you and your Iridient or Photo Ninja or whatever adherents are all the go to photographers? Pull the other one!

"Leave the perfect to those here who don't do photography" ?!?!?!?

You must not be familiar with many "photographers" and understand what they are striving for.

An early mentor of mine instilled in me that "good enough" is the mantra of the lazy and, possibly, incompetent. I have not seen much evidence that he was wrong.

There is nothing wrong with trying to get the 'best' from ones images, and - no - that desire does not define who is "doing photography" and who is not.

Well your mentor was mistaken if he was talking about IQ, which I assume is the point of the OP's post. There are loads of great photographers, and photographs, that didn't strive for perfection in IQ. So you think Henri Cartier-Bresson was lazy? You think William Klein was lazy? You think Daido Moriyama was lazy? You think they, and any other photographer who doesn't strive for the "perfect" print, were all incompetent? That we should all aim instead for the perfection of Stieglitz, Weston, and Adams? I'm sorry, but photography is wider than that, and your mind needs to be opened. I'm talking here about people who don't take great photographs, so Weston, Adams and Stieglitz are excused. What have you and your pixel peeping friends using Capture One or Iridient or Photo Ninja got to show that's so amazing?

Thank you for trying to open my mind. Always welcome.

I checked out your gallery. Wonderful pictures. Looking forward to more.

I don't post photographs here. Even if I did it makes no difference to my case, which isn't about me. It's about the fact that LR = Aperture = Iridient = Photo Ninja = Capture One = X if the photographer isn't good enough. So, I checked out your gallery and what are you telling me?

I mean "if the image isn't good enough".

Since you think you are 'doing photography' (I assume so anyway), I wanted to get an idea what that photography is like. Ok, you don't show any of your photographs, so I can't tell. I personally have no higher ambitions; I am only taking pictures for my own pleasure and mostly for documentary purposes of places I have been to. I am interested in high IQ, like the OP, and there is nothing wrong with that; that's what I am trying to tell you.

Fine with me. There's nothing wrong with high IQ. All I'm saying then is that people here will never agree on what that is, so you and the OP are wasting your time. You will obviously disagree, as for you it's the Holy Grail, and good luck to you in your quest. I don't see why I'm somehow barred from saying, in my own opening post, that I don't personally think anyone (apart from a few science geeks) really cares.

Here is what is wrong:

I and the OP are wasting our time: how do you know? It's an aspect that is important to us, so we are not wasting our time.

It's the Holy Grail for me: you don't know what my Holy Grail is, so please don't make any assumptions about it and then argue against your assumptions.

No one really cares: again, you are making assumptions. The OP does care; I do care; others here clearly care; but according to you we apparently don't 'do photography', so I guess we don't count.

It's the absolutist attitude in your posts that I think is wrong and your desire to tell the OP (and me, and a bunch of others) that we should not care about what the OP in fact does care about.

Cheers!

Look I don't really want to antagonise you or fall out with you, but my opening post stands. The OP asks is Iridient that good or Capture One that good. I've used both and I've answered this, both in my opening post and further down this thread. Your initlal response, which you haven't really developed, is to tell me I'm talking a load of "Bleep". Thanks. We obviously disagree with each other, but please try to be more constructive. I don't like being told by someone I don't know that I know nothing about photography, because I do. Likewise, you don't like being told that you're wasting your time seeking the "perfect" IQ. Well, if you're going to spout it out, be prepared to suck it up. You're obviously an angry person. I don't have an "absolutist" attitude. It's called "an opinion", Mr Policeman.

I think I have developed my initial response throughout the follow-up responses. But the notion you presented comes up quite often here, so it is probably worth elaborating a bit.

What I objected to is the notion that you labeled those who try to get the perfect rendering and worry about the details of a particular piece of software as "tech guys", and that these "tech guys" don't "do photography". Those are two blanket statements and are thus what I called absolutist. And I find the latter one a very snobbish attitude. And a wrong one on top of it. As if musicians never think about the technical aspects of the instruments they are playing, or how to get that phrasing absolutely right. That also applies to any other form of art, including photography. And it even applies to when people are not interested in creating art, but are just trying to snap nice pictures or play a nice song.

Your "opinion" is duly noted, but since it's out here in the open, it's fair game.

 nixda's gear list:nixda's gear list
Fujifilm X-E1 Fujifilm XF 14mm F2.8 R Fujifilm XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS Fujifilm XF 55-200mm F3.5-4.8 R LM OIS Fujifilm XF 27mm F2.8
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
BRPWS
Regular MemberPosts: 399Gear list
Like?
Re: Is Iridient that good or Capture One that bad?
In reply to Majkes, 10 months ago

Majkes wrote:

I;ve been reasearching the raw post processing of fuji x files for a long time now, I want to be 100% sure I will get the best files possible when I will finally buy my XT1.

Of all the examples I;ve seen on the internet this one struck me the most

Is Iridient really that good iin comparision to others? C1 are supposed to be much better than LR and frankly, this image looks terrible.

Opinions?

I use Irident as my first step and then export the processed file to LR for final processing.  Irident does a nice job of rendering but of course that is very subjective.  Everyone has their own favorite methods.

I also like the fact that Brian, the developer of Irident answers email questions very quickly.

I also have capture one which is very good and aperture.  It seems they all render a little bit differently and it comes down to personal likes.  The only one I have had some difficulty with is Photoninja with highlights but otherwise it did a good job as well.

-- hide signature --

Elliot

 BRPWS's gear list:BRPWS's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix X100 Fujifilm X-E2 Fujifilm X-T1 Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R Fujifilm XF 14mm F2.8 R +3 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
kewlguy
Senior MemberPosts: 1,570Gear list
Like?
Re: Is Iridient that good or Capture One that bad?
In reply to BRPWS, 10 months ago

With Photoninja, I found it difficult to adjust the curve and the highlight recovery turns the affected area weird. I've also asked the developer to add curve adjustment sliders (similar to LR) but they insisted that the 'smart lighting' is the best. So Iridient and C1 Pro for now...

 kewlguy's gear list:kewlguy's gear list
Canon EOS 600D Nikon 1 J1 Canon EOS 6D Fujifilm X-E2 Fujifilm X-T1 +15 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
georgehudetz
Contributing MemberPosts: 815Gear list
Like?
Re: Is Iridient that good or Capture One that bad?
In reply to Majkes, 10 months ago

Majkes wrote:

Is Iridient really that good iin comparision to others? C1 are supposed to be much better than LR and frankly, this image looks terrible.

Opinions?

That comparison does not look good for C1, but in my experience (which is only about 30 days worth on C1 & Fuji) C1 can generate much better images.  I do wonder if that comparison was done on an earlier version of C1 before they had their X-TRANS algorithms fully developed.

Here is an image captured using an X-Pro1 and the Fuji 35mm prime.  Processed in the latest version of C1, using a linear curve and the Provia ICC profile.  I have done some sharpening & clarity adjustment, but even without that sharpening, the image is never as bad as the example you show above.

The image is uploaded in full detail, so you can zoom in and examine to your heart's content.

If you have any images you'd like processed in C1 I'm happy to give it a shot, but I'm by no means an expert.

 georgehudetz's gear list:georgehudetz's gear list
Fujifilm X-Pro1 Fujifilm XF 18mm F2 R Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R Fujifilm XF 14mm F2.8 R Fujifilm XF 55-200mm F3.5-4.8 R LM OIS +1 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
unknown member
(unknown member)
Like?
Re: Is Iridient that good or Capture One that bad?
In reply to vkphoto, 10 months ago
dcraw 920 supports xt1

Thank You for this Information.
I should Compile a new Version of DCRAW on my Mac.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keit ll
Senior MemberPosts: 2,876Gear list
Like?
Re: Is Iridient that good or Capture One that bad?
In reply to Carsten Pauer 2, 10 months ago

Too my eye there is some difference between the two posted versions but the difference is not so great. Either could be tweaked to look like the other.....

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Allan
Senior MemberPosts: 1,027Gear list
Like?
Re: Is Iridient that good or Capture One that bad?
In reply to stimpy, 10 months ago

stimpy wrote:

Majkes wrote:

I;ve been reasearching the raw post processing of fuji x files for a long time now, I want to be 100% sure I will get the best files possible when I will finally buy my XT1.

Of all the examples I;ve seen on the internet this one struck me the most

Is Iridient really that good iin comparision to others? C1 are supposed to be much better than LR and frankly, this image looks terrible.

Opinions?

That's certainly a big difference. Do you have the source of the image?

It's from here:

Don’t Sweat the Details but… – a non-scientific review of Iridient Developer

 Allan's gear list:Allan's gear list
Sony RX100 Fujifilm XF1 Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1 Olympus PEN E-PL1 Fujifilm X-A1 +4 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
ChicagoRob
Regular MemberPosts: 142
Like?
Re: Is Iridient that good or Capture One that bad?
In reply to georgehudetz, 10 months ago

Here is an image captured using an X-Pro1 and the Fuji 35mm prime.  Processed in the latest version of C1, using a linear curve and the Provia ICC profile.  I have done some sharpening & clarity adjustment, but even without that sharpening, the image is never as bad as the example you show above.

A stellar conversion and typical of what I get with C1.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Brian_Downunda
Regular MemberPosts: 428Gear list
Like?
Re: Is Iridient that good or Capture One that bad?
In reply to nixda, 10 months ago

nixda wrote:

masterofdeception wrote:

Look I don't really want to antagonise you or fall out with you, but my opening post stands. The OP asks is Iridient that good or Capture One that good. I've used both and I've answered this, both in my opening post and further down this thread. Your initlal response, which you haven't really developed, is to tell me I'm talking a load of "Bleep". Thanks. We obviously disagree with each other, but please try to be more constructive. I don't like being told by someone I don't know that I know nothing about photography, because I do. Likewise, you don't like being told that you're wasting your time seeking the "perfect" IQ. Well, if you're going to spout it out, be prepared to suck it up. You're obviously an angry person. I don't have an "absolutist" attitude. It's called "an opinion", Mr Policeman.

I think I have developed my initial response throughout the follow-up responses. But the notion you presented comes up quite often here, so it is probably worth elaborating a bit.

What I objected to is the notion that you labeled those who try to get the perfect rendering and worry about the details of a particular piece of software as "tech guys", and that these "tech guys" don't "do photography". Those are two blanket statements and are thus what I called absolutist. And I find the latter one a very snobbish attitude. And a wrong one on top of it. As if musicians never think about the technical aspects of the instruments they are playing, or how to get that phrasing absolutely right. That also applies to any other form of art, including photography. And it even applies to when people are not interested in creating art, but are just trying to snap nice pictures or play a nice song.

I hesitate to interfere in what is an entertaining duel between these two forum members, but it touches on something which crops up often on this forum and which troubles me.  I often get the impression that some people here think that if there isn't maximum detail then it isn't a good photo.  Whether that's what they really mean I don't know, but it's the impression I get.  Now I'd rather have more detail than less on most occasions, but it isn't usually what makes a photo good or bad, even from a technical level.  I place greater weight on colour rendition and local contrast.  Yet the strong language you see used about one converter or another (rubbish, blown away by xxx, etc) simply isn't justified.  I do wish that discussions of detail were more balanced and reflected its relative importance.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Cogset
Senior MemberPosts: 1,245Gear list
Like?
The C1 image was over sharpened
In reply to Majkes, 10 months ago

To me at least, it appears that the C1 image is over sharpened ... or at least the radius is set too high.

I've been messing with some RAW converter comparisons on my x100s files and will share when I get a chance, I have LR, Aperture and C1 and Silkypix (which came with the camera).

The in camera JPGs are great with the Fujis, so good in fact that I may shoot JPG and RAW and only convert the RAWs when I need to fix WB or fix blown highlights or some such.

My only issue with the RAFs out of the x-series is the size, some kind of lossless compression would be nice (like Nikon, probably Canon) to keep the RAF file size down.

-- hide signature --
 Cogset's gear list:Cogset's gear list
Fujifilm X100S Nikon D4s Nikon D810 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED +17 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Brian_Downunda
Regular MemberPosts: 428Gear list
Like?
Re: The C1 image was over sharpened
In reply to Cogset, 10 months ago

Cogset wrote:

My only issue with the RAFs out of the x-series is the size, some kind of lossless compression would be nice (like Nikon, probably Canon) to keep the RAF file size down.

+1

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
unknown member
(unknown member)
Like?
Re: Is Iridient that good or Capture One that bad?
In reply to Allan, 10 months ago

Allan wrote:

stimpy wrote:

Majkes wrote:

I;ve been reasearching the raw post processing of fuji x files for a long time now, I want to be 100% sure I will get the best files possible when I will finally buy my XT1.

Of all the examples I;ve seen on the internet this one struck me the most

Is Iridient really that good iin comparision to others? C1 are supposed to be much better than LR and frankly, this image looks terrible.

Opinions?

That's certainly a big difference. Do you have the source of the image?

It's from here:

Don’t Sweat the Details but… – a non-scientific review of Iridient Developer

Thanks for that; there are a few other good examples but I agree this is the biggest difference I have seen yet between C1 and ID.

I think it's fair to want to see the best out of your camera and sometimes with these Fuji RAW files the difference between RAW processor output can be like a generation in sensor tech.

The good thing is that it shows what is possible.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Dorkington
Regular MemberPosts: 355Gear list
Like?
Re: Is Iridient that good or Capture One that bad?
In reply to Majkes, 10 months ago

Iridient is fantastic, and it's my favorite converter for high detail scenes...

But that C1 image isn't right. I've used C1, and you can get plenty of detail from it. Something tells me the sharpening settings on the C1 image are turned off, while they are turned on for Iridient.

 Dorkington's gear list:Dorkington's gear list
Fujifilm X-E2 Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R Fujifilm XF 14mm F2.8 R Fujifilm XF 23mm F1.4 R Fujifilm XF 56mm F1.2 R +2 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads