RAF files and Lightroom

Hi,

I have read in Internet that the problem with the Fuji raw files is that Lightroom is not capable of process them.

I have downloaded some X-T10 raf files and I see no problems, colours look fine (I have the last version of LR).

Is this still actual? If anyway LR does the job but is not the best RAW processor for RAF file, then which one would you recommend?

Thanks.

as1mov said:

Hi,

I have read in Internet that the problem with the Fuji raw files is that Lightroom is not capable of process them.

I have downloaded some X-T10 raf files and I see no problems, colours look fine (I have the last version of LR).

Is this still actual? If anyway LR does the job but is not the best RAW processor for RAF file, then which one would you recommend?

Thanks.

Click to expand...

Lightroom works just fine with RAF files. All the controversy here (and the subject of thousands of posts here over the last couple of years) has to do with how good a job LR does with processing RAF files vs. other applications, such as Iridient or Capture One. There are tons of opinions on this and rehashing this topic in detail yet again is really pointless. You can search this forum for any number of threads that have lots of examples and a wide range of opinions on this subject. There really is no definitive answer here, since the issues are subtle and not everyone perceives them in the same way. Some (like myself) are quite happy with LR and have no desire to change... others find the issue to be a huge problem and prefer doing their post processing with other applications.

Hi, the only problem Lightroom (Adobe Camera Raw) has with Fuji X-Trans files is with sharpening them - basically it's crap at it. You can get ok results with certain types of images, but it really struggles with sharpening foliage.

I would say the best raw converter for Fuji raw files is Iridient Developer which I use - but this is Mac-only software and it's not free either. For Windows, Raw Therapee is another great raw converter which gets the sharpening right and is free too.

I use all three - IR and RT are the best converters, but Lightroom by far has the best interface and other tools. It's a shame Adobe still can't get it right.

Hi, thank you for the quick answer. I'll check the on-going threads.

Just one quick question: what would look like the workflow with Irident? You tune color and sharpness with Irident, then save in TIFF and continue with LR? I mean I undestand Irident developer is just a RAW converter, all the rest of the work (tagging, organizing etc.) must be done in a tool like LR, right?

Thanks again.

Ok would answer you but don't want to get banned. You need to search this topic. There has been 1000 threads on it.....

as1mov said:

Hi,

I have read in Internet that the problem with the Fuji raw files is that Lightroom is not capable of process them.

Thanks.

Click to expand...

Which is bunk. Some pixel-peepers started bleeding on the 'Net a few years ago when Lightroom wasn't the best choice, but it's fine, and it has been fine for a long time.

It is not bunk. If you think there is no paintbrush foliage LR RAF problem, then you are delusional or have an agenda. But I don't want to get banned and I love Fuji. I will continue to buy all of their lenses and the XT-2 the moment it is available. And I will continue to use LR, which is the best software period for us RAW shooters. But yes, there is a foliage paintbrush problem with RAF files in LR, as everyone with any experience or half a brain knows, as I have observed in over 3000 of my landscape RAF files shot with the XT-1 in the past 198 months in every possible condition using every trick in the book, and no matter how the files are sharpened the result is noticeable. And I am very good at LR. So please no sharpening advice. It has absolutely nothing to do with sharpening. And please don't ban me. But feel free to delete this thread because I gave up on this weird topic a long time ago and no longer care. Thank you, kind moderators.

Greg J

Greg7579 said:

It is not bunk. If you think there is no paintbrush foliage LR RAF problem, then you are delusional or have an agenda. But I don't want to get banned and I love Fuji. I will continue to buy all of their lenses and the XT-2 the moment it is available. And I will continue to use LR, which is the best software period for us RAW shooters. But yes, there is a foliage paintbrush problem with RAF files in LR, as everyone with any experience or half a brain knows, as I have observed in over 3000 of my landscape RAF files shot with the XT-1 in the past 198 months in every possible condition using every trick in the book, and no matter how the files are sharpened the result is noticeable. And I am very good at LR. So please no sharpening advice. It has absolutely nothing to do with sharpening. And please don't ban me. But feel free to delete this thread because I gave up on this weird topic a long time ago and no longer care. Thank you, kind moderators.

Greg J

Click to expand...

Greg, let it go. You can rail all you want about seeing it, but there are many people who simply don't perceive the issue. This is why convoluted thread after convoluted thread has come out hashing over the same tired arguments again and again. Right, wrong, or indifferent, there are armed camps on both sides of the question, but inflammatory comments like "anyone with half a brain..." serves no purpose and invites yet another one of these useless threads (and puts you at risk of getting banned, in spite of your stated efforts to avoid this). Please accept that it's a fairly subtle issue that not everyone accepts or sees. For those that do, there are alternatives that appear to help and enough information in previous threads to guide users towards other RAW processing tools that can avoid or mitigate the issue.

Finally, asking that you not be banned, but then sharing your view and saying "feel free to delete this thread" seems awfully self serving, to be blunt. C'mon, can we just move on. Kumbaya...

I apologize. I never start these discussions, or not anymore anyway. But every week some new Fuji shooter sees it or hears about it and starts a thread and I take the bait. I promise I won't respond next time. Besides, I don't really care any more about that issue. It's not a big deal to me.... it is over-blown and exaggerated anyway and my comment was not helpful to any solution.

as1mov said:

"I have read in Internet..."

Click to expand...

Mistake. Big mistake.

"Big mistake"

Dear me! Always use the manufacturer's converter to go to tif (preferably 16-bit), then process that in whatever suits you. The manufacturer always knows his algorithms best.

...delusional

...half a brain

Phew, thanks Greg...I thought there might have been something seriously wrong with me! Anyway, can't chat...off to paint some foliage...beats using a brush

No you are good ... it was me with half a brain when I said that .....

But no need to grab a paintbrush and paint foliage -- just shoot an image with the XT-1 and view it in LR..... Sorry. I'm just kidding!!!

Have a nice weekend.

This is the reason why there are misconceptions about XTrans photos.

With the current XTrans 1 and 2 cameras LR is not the best and small repeating fine details as you would see in green foliage for example. I use LR for almost all of my photos, but the ones that LR has problems with or keepers I will run through Iridient Dev.

You can also use alternate converters to create a TIF which you then use in LR.

LR is fine for most things.

Capture One is the king, but expensive. Honestly, I started with Fuji's free converter and then downloaded a couple of demos which I played with until I decided on Iridient.

certainly not true that Lightroom can't process them. However, it is still true that certain types of detail are not rendered in a vary natural way (which many call artifacts) compared to much of the competition. Whether you notice a problem depends both on the nature of the image and how closely you look. If you don't see a problem then there probably isn't one. If you do, then try one of the many alternatives. My top pick has recently become Silkypix 7 which is unsurpassed (I would say unrivalled) in terms of the detail/noise equation but you might want to wait for it to be released in English first!

Another Mac only solution is RPP64. It has an odd interface but beautiful colors and a couple of gorgeous film modes.

Shawn

Greg7579 said:

It is not bunk. If you think there is no paintbrush foliage LR RAF problem, then you are delusional or have an agenda. But I don't want to get banned and I love Fuji. I will continue to buy all of their lenses and the XT-2 the moment it is available. And I will continue to use LR, which is the best software period for us RAW shooters. But yes, there is a foliage paintbrush problem with RAF files in LR, as everyone with any experience or half a brain knows, as I have observed in over 3000 of my landscape RAF files shot with the XT-1 in the past 198 months

Click to expand...

That's like, . . . . 16.5 years! :-D

Greg7579 said:

in every possible condition using every trick in the book, and no matter how the files are sharpened the result is noticeable. And I am very good at LR. So please no sharpening advice. It has absolutely nothing to do with sharpening. And please don't ban me. But feel free to delete this thread because I gave up on this weird topic a long time ago and no longer care. Thank you, kind moderators.

Greg J

Click to expand...

as1mov said:

Hi,

I have read in Internet that the problem with the Fuji raw files is that Lightroom is not capable of process them.

I have downloaded some X-T10 raf files and I see no problems, colours look fine (I have the last version of LR).

Is this still actual? If anyway LR does the job but is not the best RAW processor for RAF file, then which one would you recommend?

Thanks.

Click to expand...

But opinions seldom do.

The early LR/ACR converter was pretty bad in LR4. LR5 was a little better, LR6 improved a bit, but the latest update to LR6 is better still. Less need for aggressive use of the detail slider, and fewer artefacts when using the amount slider.

There are pros and cons to all the converters, but it is now pretty much possible to use LR without resorting to post sharpening or other workarounds. You may get a tad more fine detail with some of the others, but it's now right down at the pixel-peeping level and not a big deal. On the other hand, LR has good highlight recovery, decent colour, good auto-correction and all the film simulations.

In this case, it is about the same as it was for Nikon files. You could get more ultra-fine detail from NX2, but LR was close enough so that it didn't matter too much in prints.

Having said that, the free converter that comes with the camera is very good for anything that needs fine detail sharpening, Iridient is good if you have a Mac, C1 is quite popular too, as is PhotoNinja, and there are various free options such as RawTherapee which take a bit of mastering but work well too.

All of them are now good enough to make extremely good large prints (24X16 and bigger).

as1mov said:

Hi, thank you for the quick answer. I'll check the on-going threads.

Just one quick question: what would look like the workflow with Irident? You tune color and sharpness with Irident, then save in TIFF and continue with LR? I mean I undestand Irident developer is just a RAW converter, all the rest of the work (tagging, organizing etc.) must be done in a tool like LR, right?

Thanks again.

Click to expand...

You can set Iridient up to work inside of LR.