Oh no ! Not another Iridient Developper test !

Started Sep 2, 2013 | Discussions thread
Beat Traveller Contributing Member • Posts: 744
Re: Oh no ! Not another Iridient Developper test !
2

Kali108 wrote:

Beat Traveller wrote:

It's fairly trivial to achieve the same look in Lightroom by increasing clarity and sharpness ever so slightly.

It is however, not a simple matter to catalog and process a couple of hundred files after a day of shooting with Iridient, particularly given that on my machine it takes an average of 5-10 seconds to update file previews as you make changes (whereas Lightroom is near instantaneous), and that Iridient's tools for extending dynamic range and controlling moire are much more difficult to achieve pleasing results with than Lightroom's.

I have to ask...if it's so "trivial" then why is it that I and several online bloggers have failed to accomplish it after HOURS of trying? I've seen postings claiming this, yet the images shared prove the opposite with smearing, parquet effect and all kind of ACR "nastiness". LR sharpening is infamously horrible with X trans files. I would add the OP's shared images in the tradition of proving ID's clear superiority with X trans files.

I find nothing about LR5 "near instantaneous". I use the 15" rMBP with 16GB RAM, SSD and external thunderbolt drive. I've been a LR user since it's first beta. I'm generally a "fan", but less so in recent years as I feel it has fallen behind alternatives a bit. The X trans is truly a different beast, that Adobe has yet to tame imo.

Kind of blows my mind how radically different user experiences can be.

Your last statement is absolutely correct. Just because my experience is different doesn't mean yours is untrue, or vice versa. Photography is more subjective than a lot of people think.

I've probably read every blog you're talking about regarding comparisons, and just from the images they share it certainly looks like Iridient (or C1, for that matter) have the better output. But here's the thing: these are almost universally comparisons at default settings, and of generic landscape photos that were problematic for Adobe with its smearing issues.

Because the 'watercolour' issue was a high profile issue surrounding the cameras (similar to the 'white orbs' of the X10) and Adobe haven't completely eliminated all smearing, most of these comparisons are aimed at showing whether the other converters solve this problem, which most of them do. What they don't consider is that there are other problems with RAF files that Adobe doesn't exhibit. I've taken files that I converted without any issue in Adobe and run them through Aperture, C1 and Iridient (Silkypix too, leave no stone unturned!), and suddenly I found myself struggling to eliminate moire, hot pixels, colour noise and other artifacts that simply were not present in the Adobe files.

So to come back to my original point, photography is very subjective. What is a dealbreaker for you (smearing and sharpening artifacts) is acceptable for me, while for me colour artifacts are too ugly to put up with. That's why Lightroom is my preferred option.

 Beat Traveller's gear list:Beat Traveller's gear list
Nikon D60 Fujifilm X-E1 Fujifilm XF 18mm F2 R Fujifilm XF 60mm F2.4 R Macro Fujifilm XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow