Reading mode: Light Dark

X-trans RAW conversion blog post

Go to last post
D

David McGaughey

Senior Member
Messages
2,246
Solutions
3
Reaction score
273
Location
AK, US

Loading…

www.dmcgaughey.com

Yes, I wrote this.




I discuss and compare Fuji's JPEG versus Adobe Camera Raw, Silkypix, and Raw Photo Processor converted RAW files in dealing with the "watercolor" effect.

I also have a comparison where you can see how the Fuji Provia JPEG compares to the three RAW converters.




I thought it'd be useful to have a comparison where all of the settings are explicitly described. If anyone's confused about what I did, let me know and I'll make it more clear.
 
Seems a good write up. Should note that DxO also doesn't support the X-Trans and supposedly, though I haven't tried it, Helicon Filter 5 does.
 
Great post and very helpful. Have you tried converting in SilkyPix and importing the TIFF into LR for additional processing? Several people have suggested this as the current "best practice" for dealing with problematic images.
 
Thx David for this contribution

I have excatly the same result I don't use RPP but Helicon with rather similar results

As you stated, it makes the WF not so simple

Your shots cleraly demonstrate the weaknessse of the Adibe products (LR, ACR, PS)
 
boinkphoto said:
boinkphoto wrote:

Seems a good write up. Should note that DxO also doesn't support the X-Trans and supposedly, though I haven't tried it, Helicon Filter 5 does.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
MrFresno said:
To be clear....

Helicon Filter 5 does not natively support X-Trans raw files.

Helicon Filter 5 uses Adobe DNG converter to convert X-Trans raw files, then processes the DNG.

You could convert your X-Trans file to DNG using Adobe's converter, then open that DNG in any software for the same level of support offered by Helicon Filter 5.
Click to expand...
Not excatly: you get the choice between DNG and DCRAW

Using DCRAW gives much better results than DNG
 
baobob wrote:

To be clear....
Helicon Filter 5 does not natively support X-Trans raw files.
Helicon Filter 5 uses Adobe DNG converter to convert X-Trans raw files, then processes the DNG.
You could convert your X-Trans file to DNG using Adobe's converter, then open that DNG in any software for the same level of support offered by Helicon Filter 5.
Not excatly: you get the choice between DNG and DCRAW
Using DCRAW gives much better results than DNG
But what is the point of that? If you have to use two pieces of software, why not just use Silkypix with "proper" conversion algorithm instead of DCRaw with its "zipper" artifact that then the rest of software is trying to filter out?

I understand that for some images DCRaw produces better results (very sharp image), and I guess, some may like to combine DCRaw-converted imaged with OOC or Silkypix JPEGs, but those have to be exceptional situations, not the rule.


Maybe it's all specific to the images that are scaled down to 1/3 or lower resolution?
 
Thanks this is very good. :-)

For myself I'm praying that Adobe improves their RAW converter.

I'm encountering the WC effect only rarely and don't want to complicate my workflow.

I'm shooting RAW & jpeg and having a fine old time.

-Framus
 
Adamant said:
Adamant wrote:

Great post and very helpful. Have you tried converting in SilkyPix and importing the TIFF into LR for additional processing? Several people have suggested this as the current "best practice" for dealing with problematic images.
Click to expand...
I wrote (nearly) exactly that in the blog post. Just substitute "Photoshop" for "LR"
 
That's a start, but you also need to adjust other components such as black levels and especially clarity in order to get the most from the X-Pro1 raw files.

It's a complex subject, and there's no preset at this time, other than in-camera

The lack of a preset workflow for X-Pro1 raw files is a major component of peoples 'issues' with the file post processing
 
Member said:
Chris Dodkin wrote:

That's a start, but you also need to adjust other components such as black levels and especially clarity in order to get the most from the X-Pro1 raw files.

It's a complex subject, and there's no preset at this time, other than in-camera

The lack of a preset workflow for X-Pro1 raw files is a major component of peoples 'issues' with the file post processing
Click to expand...
 
David, you illustrated my point perfectly in your blog - you posted a blurred image from ACR, and led people to believe that the issue was purely to do with X-Trans conversion. Even though you'd only done the conversion using the generic ACR settings...




I have never said that the issue doesn't exist - again, you're over simplifying the situation in order to try and make a point.




I have clearly said that this has been a non issue for me, and that I believe that many people have not learned to get the most out of the myriad PP options in ACR.




Your jibe about down sized images is rather lame - but I understand that it's more of an emotional response, based on your posts here.
 
Chris Dodkin wrote:
Your jibe about down sized images is rather lame - but I understand that it's more of an emotional response, based on your posts here.
Actually it's very much valid, because if you scale X-Trans sensor to 1/3 of its size, it becomes an equivalent of Bayer with extra subpixels.

 
I've posted the two RAF files on the blog. If you think you can do better (Mr. Dodkin?) take a crack and send me the full-sized JPEG. I'll do a follow-up blog post if there's any interest.
 
Member said:
Chris Dodkin wrote:

David, you illustrated my point perfectly in your blog - you posted a blurred image from ACR, and led people to believe that the issue was purely to do with X-Trans conversion. Even though you'd only done the conversion using the generic ACR settings...
Click to expand...
I said over and over that ACR blows and that the Fuji in-camera conversion as well as two different RAW converters did a fine job. How could you construe that as blaming X-Trans for being "blurry?"




Anyways, since you are implying I can't use ACR (which may be true), check out my "RAF Processing Challenge" in the post. It's your chance to show everyone what a chump I am.
 
David McGaughey said:
David McGaughey wrote:
David McGaughey said:
Chris Dodkin wrote:

David, you illustrated my point perfectly in your blog - you posted a blurred image from ACR, and led people to believe that the issue was purely to do with X-Trans conversion. Even though you'd only done the conversion using the generic ACR settings...
Click to expand...
I said over and over that ACR blows and that the Fuji in-camera conversion as well as two different RAW converters did a fine job. How could you construe that as blaming X-Trans for being "blurry?"

Anyways, since you are implying I can't use ACR (which may be true), check out my "RAF Processing Challenge" in the post. It's your chance to show everyone what a chump I am.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top