XT-1 RAW and Lightroom...

Started 9 months ago | Questions
Wolfgang
Regular MemberPosts: 130Gear list
Like?
XT-1 RAW and Lightroom...
9 months ago

I am considering to add an XT-1 as a  light "always with me" camera. Is the RAW from the XT-1 already supported by Lightroom (5.3)?

thanks

Wolfgang

-- hide signature --

Wenn die Sonne lacht, nimm Blende 8!

ANSWER:
This question has not been answered yet.
Henry McA
New MemberPosts: 17
Like?
Re: XT-1 RAW and Lightroom...
In reply to Wolfgang, 9 months ago

Short answer: No.

Try Photo Ninja, it´s much better with Fuji Raw files than Lightroom. For comparison download Raw Files of the X-E2 from dpreview and use Lightroom 5.3. The Fuji X-T1 files work with Photo Ninja - I call it a night and day difference.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
SaltLakeGuy
Forum ProPosts: 10,666Gear list
Like?
Another vote for PhotoNinja
In reply to Henry McA, 9 months ago

FAR superior demosaicing and highlight restoration and more. Sharpening is worlds better as well, and the noise removal is darned magical. Removes noise without removing detail. How the heck they do that I have NO idea. In Lightroom the detail goes bye bye as you remove noise.

 SaltLakeGuy's gear list:SaltLakeGuy's gear list
Epson Stylus Pro 3880
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Christof21
Senior MemberPosts: 1,213
Like?
Re: Another vote for PhotoNinja
In reply to SaltLakeGuy, 9 months ago

SaltLakeGuy wrote:

FAR superior demosaicing and highlight restoration and more. Sharpening is worlds better as well, and the noise removal is darned magical. Removes noise without removing detail. How the heck they do that I have NO idea. In Lightroom the detail goes bye bye as you remove noise.

I don't think Photo Ninja is far superior and I don't think that lightroom has a big problem dealing with the x-trans file.

It was very interesting to note that a review claimed that Adobe had solved the problems with the new ACR:

"It's taken close to 2 years for Adobe and Fuji between them to get this ACR processing right and while it is very welcome, it does beg the question - WHY ON EARTH DID IT TAKE THIS LONG ?!?!?!?".

Except that the algorithm did not change !!!!!

More generally, I don't think that there are big differences between raw converters. I think that they are now close to their limits.

If you think that the raw converters will improve a lot in the future, then keep your raw files and work on them again in 10 years. My guess: it won't make a big difference.

I'm satisfied with LR.

I had a try with Photo Ninja and did not notice a big difference.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Wolfgang
Regular MemberPosts: 130Gear list
Like?
Re: XT-1 RAW and Lightroom...
In reply to Henry McA, 9 months ago

Henry McA wrote:

Short answer: No.

Try Photo Ninja, it´s much better with Fuji Raw files than Lightroom. For comparison download Raw Files of the X-E2 from dpreview and use Lightroom 5.3. The Fuji X-T1 files work with Photo Ninja - I call it a night and day difference.

Thanks, Henry!

In the meantime I looked around a little on the web and found that a.) the XT-1 is currently NOT supported in LR5.3 and b.) that Fuji is working with Adobe to carry over the film-type settings to LR and c.) that the Adobe Camera RAW in version 8.4 RC was just released with improved support for X-Trans. It should be only a matter of weeks until there is a LR5.4...

And since I have 200.000+ photos in LR and I am generally happy with the quality of the conversion, I would like to stay with LR.

Besides that: I own NoiseNinja/PhotoNinja, I like the results and I hate the interface. Sometimes, with special shots, I step out of LR and work on them with PhotoNinja, but only when preparing FineArt Prints, etc.

Thanks again

Wolfgang

-- hide signature --

Wenn die Sonne lacht, nimm Blende 8!

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Henry McA
New MemberPosts: 17
Like?
Re: XT-1 RAW and Lightroom...
In reply to Wolfgang, 9 months ago

Wolfgang wrote:


Besides that: I own NoiseNinja/PhotoNinja, I like the results and I hate the interface.

Me too, the interface is horrible. But the Fuji files really look more detailed and the colors are less muted. It´s no magic though - you gain detail but noise as well. The low noise Adobe output is due to softening.

Anyway, happy shooting and enjoy the X-T1 if you buy one.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Wolfgang
Regular MemberPosts: 130Gear list
Like?
Re: XT-1 RAW and Lightroom...
In reply to Henry McA, 9 months ago

Thanks!

After reading this on Luminous Landscape I decided to go for it. And with LR5.4 I should also be satisfied with development of the RAW files.

Wolfgang

-- hide signature --

Wenn die Sonne lacht, nimm Blende 8!

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Sal Baker
Veteran MemberPosts: 7,889Gear list
Like?
Re: XT-1 RAW and Lightroom...
In reply to Wolfgang, 9 months ago

Wolfgang wrote:

Henry McA wrote:

Short answer: No.

Try Photo Ninja, it´s much better with Fuji Raw files than Lightroom. For comparison download Raw Files of the X-E2 from dpreview and use Lightroom 5.3. The Fuji X-T1 files work with Photo Ninja - I call it a night and day difference.

Thanks, Henry!

In the meantime I looked around a little on the web and found that a.) the XT-1 is currently NOT supported in LR5.3 and b.) that Fuji is working with Adobe to carry over the film-type settings to LR and c.) that the Adobe Camera RAW in version 8.4 RC was just released with improved support for X-Trans. It should be only a matter of weeks until there is a LR5.4...

And since I have 200.000+ photos in LR and I am generally happy with the quality of the conversion, I would like to stay with LR.

Besides that: I own NoiseNinja/PhotoNinja, I like the results and I hate the interface. Sometimes, with special shots, I step out of LR and work on them with PhotoNinja, but only when preparing FineArt Prints, etc.

Thanks again

Wolfgang

-- hide signature --

Wenn die Sonne lacht, nimm Blende 8!

I tried the new ACR RC in CS6 and it does look like an improvement over the previous version.  Until it's released for LR Iridient will continue to be my choice.  It has the detail of PN, but I'm really hooked on the R-L deconvolution sharpening and the many scaling methods available in the program for interpolating to large print sizes.

Sal

 Sal Baker's gear list:Sal Baker's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark II Canon EOS 350D Fujifilm X-E2 Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM +5 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Brian_Downunda
Regular MemberPosts: 430Gear list
Like?
Re: Another vote for PhotoNinja
In reply to Christof21, 9 months ago

Christof21 wrote:

I don't think Photo Ninja is far superior and I don't think that lightroom has a big problem dealing with the x-trans file.

My views exactly.  There are so many sweeping statements about how poor LR is and how superior PN & ID are that it's become received wisdom in this forum.  But I can't support these views in my own testing.  Yes, there is sometimes more detail, but I'm yet to find an image of mine where it makes a practical difference, and contrary to some, I prefer LR noise reduction and colour rendering at high ISO.  I also agree with other posts that the PN interface and workflow leaves a lot to be desired.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Ysarex
Contributing MemberPosts: 665
Like?
Re: XT-1 RAW and Lightroom...
In reply to Wolfgang, 9 months ago

Wolfgang wrote:

Thanks!

After reading this on Luminous Landscape I decided to go for it. And with LR5.4 I should also be satisfied with development of the RAW files.

Wolfgang

-- hide signature --

Wenn die Sonne lacht, nimm Blende 8!

I don't have an X-T1, but I've had an X-E2 since November. If you bought the X-T1 congrats I expect it's a great camera. I'm very pleased with my X-E2.

However my experience tells me you will have trouble with LR. I've been trying to get good results from ACR/LR since November and I do have generally good success until I don't. Periodically I run across an RAF file from my X-E2 that ACR/LR stumbles and falls over and nothing I can do can coax it up from it's face-down prone position.

When that happens I know I can count of either Photoninja or Capture One to do the job that Adobe can't. As a result I have now built up a collection of RAF files that embarrass ACR/LR and that collection is growing. I have no such collection for Photoninja or Capture One.

Is ACR/LR's problem so severe it's untenable? No. Until of course it's that file that you want right and ACR/LR is face down on the floor. Then you start cussing.

I downloaded the 8.4 release candidate for ACR and so far there seems to be no change over the 8.3 stable version. The 8.4 release has the Fuji film simulations but otherwise it's standard X-Trans profile seems to screw up just as badly as the 8.3 version.

Don't believe anybody here; see for yourself. You need to look at this thread from last week: ACR/LR halos In that thread you'll find samples to look at, but more importantly you'll find one of my RAF files from my "Adobe screws up" collection. Download the file and try it yourself. And if you can find a way to coax ACR/LR to process that file without botching it I'd love to know how.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Brad Evans
Contributing MemberPosts: 577Gear list
Like?
Re: Lightroom is the gold standard
In reply to Brian_Downunda, 9 months ago

Yep...

For me, Lightroom is the gold standard for processing, managing my photos, and preparing files for output/printing.  It's robust and has never let me down over more than six years and many tens of thousands of photos.

It's more than just about RAW conversion. It's also about having a lot of useful editing features and an intuitive user interface that makes working with the program a delight for photographers. And it's well supported with frequent updates that add very useful features.

I'll wait a couple weeks for the RAW conversion.

............
Brad
Urban photoblog: http://www.citysnaps.net
.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Brian_Downunda
Regular MemberPosts: 430Gear list
Like?
Re: Lightroom is the gold standard
In reply to Brad Evans, 9 months ago

Brad Evans wrote:

Yep...

For me, Lightroom is the gold standard for processing, managing my photos, and preparing files for output/printing.

I don't regard it as the gold standard for managing photos - there are much better DAMs out there.  If you're on Windows, look at IMatch.  And for critical pre-print soft-proofing, it's still hard to beat Photoshop, unfortunately.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Ysarex
Contributing MemberPosts: 665
Like?
Re: Lightroom is the gold standard
In reply to Brad Evans, 9 months ago

Brad Evans wrote:

Yep...

For me, Lightroom is the gold standard for processing, managing my photos, and preparing files for output/printing. It's robust and has never let me down over more than six years and many tens of thousands of photos.

It's more than just about RAW conversion. It's also about having a lot of useful editing features and an intuitive user interface that makes working with the program a delight for photographers. And it's well supported with frequent updates that add very useful features.

I'll wait a couple weeks for the RAW conversion.

............
Brad
Urban photoblog: http://www.citysnaps.net
.

Only problem is it does a pretty cr*ppy job with certain Fuji X-Trans sensor raw files. Here's a sample RAF from an X-E2 that ACR/LR can't handle but the other converters can. ACR/LR's processing of this file is an embarrassment.

DSCF3390.RAF

It's a secure FTP site so:

username: Fuji

password: XF-14mm

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Brad Evans
Contributing MemberPosts: 577Gear list
Like?
Re: Lightroom is the gold standard
In reply to Brian_Downunda, 9 months ago

There may be better DAMs for your needs. For mine, and along with the integration of its editing and other tools, it's Lightroom for me (and many, many others as well).

............
Brad
Urban photoblog: http://www.citysnaps.net
.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Brad Evans
Contributing MemberPosts: 577Gear list
Like?
Re: Lightroom is the gold standard
In reply to Ysarex, 9 months ago

Ysarex wrote:

Brad Evans wrote:

Yep...

For me, Lightroom is the gold standard for processing, managing my photos, and preparing files for output/printing. It's robust and has never let me down over more than six years and many tens of thousands of photos.

It's more than just about RAW conversion. It's also about having a lot of useful editing features and an intuitive user interface that makes working with the program a delight for photographers. And it's well supported with frequent updates that add very useful features.

I'll wait a couple weeks for the RAW conversion.

............
Brad
Urban photoblog: http://www.citysnaps.net
.

Only problem is it does a pretty cr*ppy job with certain Fuji X-Trans sensor raw files. Here's a sample RAF from an X-E2 that ACR/LR can't handle but the other converters can. ACR/LR's processing of this file is an embarrassment.

DSCF3390.RAF

It's a secure FTP site so:

username: Fuji

password: XF-14mm

Odd, or maybe not so odd, I've had zero problems whatsoever processing my X-E2 files with LR 5.3.

............
Brad
Urban photoblog: http://www.citysnaps.net
.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Wolfgang
Regular MemberPosts: 130Gear list
Like?
Re: Lightroom is the gold standard
In reply to Brad Evans, 9 months ago

Exactly that is my problem. I have set up Lightroom to manage 200.000+ photos, all with a MacBook Pro with 512 GB of SSD, and I have every good photo at my fingertips for editing, exporting and printing. This is only possible with the clever use of Lightrooms SmartPreviews and two NAS-Systems with fixed IPs.

I would hate to leave that alone, so I will have a look at how LR does the conversion, and if there is something to make better I will use PhotoNinja...

Thanks for answers, tips and suggestions...

Wolfgang

-- hide signature --

Wenn die Sonne lacht, nimm Blende 8!

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
John Motts
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,020
Like?
Re: Another vote for PhotoNinja
In reply to Brian_Downunda, 9 months ago

Brian_Downunda wrote:

Christof21 wrote:

I don't think Photo Ninja is far superior and I don't think that lightroom has a big problem dealing with the x-trans file.

My views exactly. There are so many sweeping statements about how poor LR is and how superior PN & ID are that it's become received wisdom in this forum. But I can't support these views in my own testing. Yes, there is sometimes more detail, but I'm yet to find an image of mine where it makes a practical difference, and contrary to some, I prefer LR noise reduction and colour rendering at high ISO. I also agree with other posts that the PN interface and workflow leaves a lot to be desired.

I've found very significant differences between the two, particularly in terms of detail, absolutely no question. Photoninja is usually a clear winner, but occasionally there will be issues that are dealt with better by LR / ACR.

But the original question was whether Lightroom supports RAW files from the XT-1. The answer is it doesn't, but I'm sure it's only a matter of weeks, given that the new version of ACR is imminent with its proper dedicated X processing.

Meanwhile you can use DNG format.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Ysarex
Contributing MemberPosts: 665
Like?
Re: Lightroom is the gold standard
In reply to Brad Evans, 9 months ago

Brad Evans wrote:

Ysarex wrote:

Brad Evans wrote:

Yep...

For me, Lightroom is the gold standard for processing, managing my photos, and preparing files for output/printing. It's robust and has never let me down over more than six years and many tens of thousands of photos.

It's more than just about RAW conversion. It's also about having a lot of useful editing features and an intuitive user interface that makes working with the program a delight for photographers. And it's well supported with frequent updates that add very useful features.

I'll wait a couple weeks for the RAW conversion.

............
Brad
Urban photoblog: http://www.citysnaps.net
.

Only problem is it does a pretty cr*ppy job with certain Fuji X-Trans sensor raw files. Here's a sample RAF from an X-E2 that ACR/LR can't handle but the other converters can. ACR/LR's processing of this file is an embarrassment.

DSCF3390.RAF

It's a secure FTP site so:

username: Fuji

password: XF-14mm

Odd, or maybe not so odd, I've had zero problems whatsoever processing my X-E2 files with LR 5.3.

............
Brad
Urban photoblog: http://www.citysnaps.net
.

Here's 100% of a section of that file.

If you can't see the halo that Adobe is placing around the utility wire and along the roof top, or if it simply meets your standards, then it's not at all odd that you have zero problems with LR.

The file is there for you to download. Please show us how to process it in ACR/LR without that halo since the fault must be due to mine and others' lack of skill (I'm not the only one to have noticed this problem). We'd really appreciate a solution if you can help.

If you can't help then as far as Fuji X-Trans raw files are concerned your gold standard is fools gold.

P.S. In C1 and PN that file processes without a trace of that halo.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Brad Evans
Contributing MemberPosts: 577Gear list
Like?
Re: Lightroom is the gold standard
In reply to Ysarex, 9 months ago

I'm sorry you are not able to process your X-E2 photos to your satisfaction.  Plenty of people, including myself have with no problems at all. I have absolutely no interest in playing with your file.

Best advice I can offer is keep working at it like the rest of have. You'll get there...

............
Brad
Urban photoblog: http://www.citysnaps.net
.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Ysarex
Contributing MemberPosts: 665
Like?
Re: Lightroom is the gold standard
In reply to Brad Evans, 9 months ago

Brad Evans wrote:

I'm sorry you are not able to process your X-E2 photos to your satisfaction. Plenty of people, including myself have with no problems at all. I have absolutely no interest in playing with your file.

Best advice I can offer is keep working at it like the rest of have. You'll get there...

............
Brad
Urban photoblog: http://www.citysnaps.net
.

I have no problems at all processing my X-E2 RAF files to my satisfaction -- I got there a long time ago.

I and others have offered visual proof of LR's poor performance with X-Trans raw files. You can blow all the smoke you want: this is one of those put up or..... situations. Until you provide visual documentation, I've proven you wrong and have to assume that poor IQ performance is good enough for you, or you just can't tell.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads