Just bought my first Fuji - is LR really that awful?

Started 2 months ago | Discussions thread
HatWearingFool
HatWearingFool Senior Member • Posts: 2,702
Re: Just bought my first Fuji - is LR really that awful?

Jerry-astro wrote:

Ysarex wrote:

Jerry-astro wrote:

Ysarex wrote:

SlothRock wrote:

I know this may bring up a lot of different opinions but I just bought my first Fuji camera (used xt4) that I am really excited to get! I've been seeing differing opinions on this forum around LR and how it's supposedly awful for Fuji cameras with the X Trans sensor. I have the paid $10/mo LR version and I love doing just quick edits on my phone, especially while traveling. I'm not really up for having to do that Iridient X Transformer method as I prefer just transferring photos directly to my phone, editing in LR and moving on.

If I have to, I will switch to another app and cancel LR to be able to keep this level of convenience up but I have learned a lot about LR from shooting with my 80D so I'm hopeful the paid subscription LR is good to go for this use case. Thoughts around the forum?

Yes it's that awful -- switch to Capture One.

Totally unnecessary, and as usual, overplayed. There is a simple, in-app solution that works well, as described in an earlier post. C1 is an excellent app, but suggesting that the only way to deal with this issue is to change apps is flat wrong and has been disproved in a ton of examples both here and elsewhere. It's also a significantly more expensive way of dealing with an issue that can be dealt with in a way that doesn't require moving to an entirely different processing solution.

If you disagree, please at least offer some examples or other data which shows LR/ED to be an unacceptable solution.

LR/ED is a kludge. The fact that it exists is hard proof that LR without it sucks -- there was no reason to create it if LR worked well in the first place -- it's admission of failure. LR/ED creates a linear DNG -- very slowly. That linear DNG is huge because it's basically a 16 bit TIFF in a DNG wrapper. Now you're stuck saving that along with the raw file -- "kludge" is kind. Yes it's that awful.

Well, I suppose those of us who insist on continuing to use such an "kludgy" tool will simply have to deal with its inadequacies and horrible images. Fortunately, you're here to shine the light and show us the error of our ways. I suppose that most of us here who share such low standards, will somehow find a way to live with the guilt. That said, near as I can tell, LR remains pretty popular with photographers both here and elsewhere. And, FWIW, the issues that might call for the use of that "kludge" occur pretty rarely in my own areas of interest, so it's really a non issue for me, anyway... maybe less so for others.

But you've railed against this on this forum for years now, yet it continues to be the RAW processor of choice for many here. I guess many of us simply have low standards.

I think a big part of this is that it matters to pixel peepers (or the odd person who prints very large) because they look for it. Which is fine if that's your thing. But most people only ever look at their photos at 8x10 on an iPad or large monitor and at that size it's almost impossible to see any difference.

On my 27" iMac screen portrait photos in LR are almost exactly 8x10 and a bit larger in landscape. I do print as 16x20 at times but the viewing distances are farther back so again in a practical sense no one notices any differences between C1 or LR demosaicing.

-- hide signature --
 HatWearingFool's gear list:HatWearingFool's gear list
Olympus PEN E-PM1 Fujifilm X-T20 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 17mm 1:2.8 Pancake Fujifilm XF 18mm F2 R Fujifilm XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS +3 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow