Process Fujifilm Raw file in 2022 – How to squeeze the most out of x-trans sensor in post

Purpose:

-Review and discuss different RAW processing methods on more difficult scenes (e.g., foliage)

-Time for me to get “schooled”, I won't share my opinion but rather just share/show what I have done.

Inspired from the following threads:

-Discussion on tools and techniques - https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4630403

-Raw files will be provided, images were part of the “reject” pile from my lunchtime photo walk - https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/65894127

Yes - RAW Files + DxO DNG file link below -

Dropbox link

Scene #1 DSCF9092 (feathers) - Area of interest

Scene #2 DSCG9111 (Ship) - Area of interest

Scene #3 DSCF9155 (Foliage) - Area of interest

Constructive debates:

-Provide (your) processed examples along with the “settings/configurations” that were used.

-Colour and edit preferences is personal/subjective, that's why I defined an "area of interest" for each scene to make it more “objective”

My Personal Expectation:

-Yes, all this doesn’t matter in the real world (i.e., who zooms into their images at 200%??)- if you don’t care about this – please don’t comment

-There isn’t going to be “one” solution, but rather preferences and compromises, as everyone has different needs (e.g., multiple systems etc)

Tools used + Methodology:

I’ll be comparing the following processed files against the baseline LR (default)

-Adobe Lightroom CC 11.2 (LR)

Process 1 – Edits in LR (skip/withheld)

• Change the default sharpening (detail) slider that tend to cause unwanted artefacts on images
• Carefully apply sharpness and noise reduction

Process 2 – Edits in LR (enhance details)

• Turn off sharpening, and apply enhance details (unsure if that makes a difference, but if u can get better results, please share)
• I’ll run with the default LR sharpening on the enhance DNG to keep the comparison simple (40/1.0/25/0)

-DxO Photolabs version 5.1.2 (PL)

Process 3 – DxO DeepPRIME

• LR -> Transfer to DxO Photolabs

DxO will perform the following:

• Denoise DeepPRIME (Defaults)
• Lens Sharpness (Defaults)
• Chromatic Aberration (Defaults)
• Unsharp Mask (Defaults)
• Distortion (Set to 100)
• Export settings (Export as DNG all corrections applied)

-Iridient XTransformer 2.0.1 (IXT)

Process 4 – IXT

• LR -> Transfer Process selected images to DNG(s) via IXT

IXT has been configured as follows

(Unsure if there are more optimal settings, but if u can get better results, please share it applied to the sample raw files)

-Capture One 22 Express Fujifilm Build 15.1.2.1 (C1)

Process 5 – C1 Express (Defaults)

Caveats:

• I have the least amount of knowledge here, but I’ll use the default settings.
• I understand default settings are meant to be a “place-holder” and is never to be considered optimal
• Note upon importing into LR (all sliders will be set at zero)
• I tried exporting to DNG, however I wasn’t happy with the output

Process:

C1 -> Export to tiff 16bit (default settings, no output sharpening)

Comparisons:

Notes/caveats:

-Zoomed in @200% in area of interest

-Screenshots taken in LR – Note imported files (have all sliders set to 0 – including sharpening unless stated otherwise) DxO,C1,IxT

-Baseline image will be LR default settings (RHS) – I know it’s meant to be a starting point, and it’s far from “optimal”.

Scene #1

Process 2 – Edits in LR (enhance details) vs LR baseline

Process 3 – DxO DeepPRIME vs LR baseline

Process 4 – IXT vs LR baseline

Process 5 – C1 Express (Defaults) vs LR baseline

Scene #2

Process 2 – Edits in LR (enhance details) vs LR baseline

Process 3 – DxO DeepPRIME vs LR baseline

Process 4 – IXT vs LR baseline

Process 5 – C1 Express (Defaults) vs LR baseline

Scene #3

Process 2 – Edits in LR (enhance details) vs LR baseline

Process 3 – DxO DeepPRIME vs LR baseline

Process 4 – IXT vs LR baseline

Process 5 – C1 Express (Defaults) vs LR baseline

I use IXT with the same config than you then open in ACR/PS and refine settings : usually I have a look to sharpening, clarity, structure, setting at 100% magn, of course setting simulation, white balance.

I tried quite many alternatives.

At the ned of the day I found very little differences between these WF (Raw Therapee, Silkypix C1 express for Fuji, enhanced details in ACR)

I found IXT to be fast and easy with excellent results. I use it only fo "difficult subjects" like foliage.

Wow you must have spent quite a few hours to write that and seems all correct and good, but personally couldn't see much difference between LR and the rest on the feathers' image. On the ship image, I liked DXO the most.

RetiringGuy wrote:

Raymond,
I am not sure what you are trying to achieve but, here are a set of quick edits using Capture One and without using anything that is not available in the free version of C1.

All C1 settings that are not mentioned are whatever the Capture One defaults are.

Thank you for your response, it's exactly what I wanted to see and explore. Appreciate the time you have spent in preparing your post.

I spent a great deal on software (to me) during my journey with Fujifilm, So I thought why not go through the trouble of finding a few images and obtain feedback (validation or constructive) on the process from this community.

Additionally, there maybe "new" players in the game e.g. DxO PhotoLab 5 supporting Fujifilm (21 Oct 2021) that may change the playing field in this space.

I downloaded your DXO DNG and your RAF for DSCF9092.

I processed the raw in Iridient X-transformer 2.0.1 but had to set sharpening higher in ACR to get near to your DXO result.

Your ISO400 shot, even though noise is low, benefits from DXO Deep Prime noise reduction, I think.

In the Iridient sample you can see the noise pattern throughout.

So, DXO is better, but is it better enough to get me to spend $220 on DXO? Well, not for me. IXT is close enough and it only cost me $40.

Other than this, Iridient does not include lens corrections and DXO does include them. For me, I prefer images without corrections since I mostly shoot manual primes.

For most, DXO will be the hands-down winner here.

100% crops when viewing this image at full size.

Sharpening settings in ACR I used for the IXT vs DXO comparison.

Iridient X-transformer settings used for the raw.

By the way, a friend told me there is a new bird disease out there this spring: Chirpies, and it is not tweetable!

Tom Schum wrote:

I downloaded your DXO DNG and your RAF for DSCF9092.

I processed the raw in Iridient X-transformer 2.0.1 but had to set sharpening higher in ACR to get near to your DXO result.

Your ISO400 shot, even though noise is low, benefits from DXO Deep Prime noise reduction, I think.

In the Iridient sample you can see the noise pattern throughout.

So, DXO is better, but is it better enough to get me to spend $220 on DXO? Well, not for me. IXT is close enough and it only cost me $40.

I think IxT is really great value, I tend to agree with DxO it's fairly expensive piece of software. Especially if I am just using a few modules and not fully embracing the toolset.

PureRaw would be a better choice for my needs, however the current version (version 1) doesn't support Fujifilm Raw.

Other than this, Iridient does not include lens corrections and DXO does include them. For me, I prefer images without corrections since I mostly shoot manual primes.

For most, DXO will be the hands-down winner here.

By the way, a friend told me there is a new bird disease out there this spring: Chirpies, and it is not tweetable!

lol.

Raymond L wrote:

PureRaw would be a better choice for my needs, however the current version (version 1) doesn't support Fujifilm Raw.

I was astounded to learn this while reading a previous thread!  You buy the whole enchilada, and you get a beta raw developer.  Even so, it seems to work pretty well.

Raymond L wrote:

Tom Schum wrote:

I downloaded your DXO DNG and your RAF for DSCF9092.

I processed the raw in Iridient X-transformer 2.0.1 but had to set sharpening higher in ACR to get near to your DXO result.

Your ISO400 shot, even though noise is low, benefits from DXO Deep Prime noise reduction, I think.

In the Iridient sample you can see the noise pattern throughout.

So, DXO is better, but is it better enough to get me to spend $220 on DXO? Well, not for me. IXT is close enough and it only cost me $40.

I think IxT is really great value, I tend to agree with DxO it's fairly expensive piece of software. Especially if I am just using a few modules and not fully embracing the toolset.

PureRaw would be a better choice for my needs, however the current version (version 1) doesn't support Fujifilm Raw.

Other than this, Iridient does not include lens corrections and DXO does include them. For me, I prefer images without corrections since I mostly shoot manual primes.

For most, DXO will be the hands-down winner here.

By the way, a friend told me there is a new bird disease out there this spring: Chirpies, and it is not tweetable!

lol.

Wow, thanks for the write up.  I did similar testing a few months back (though didn't do a write up) and found DXO to be the cleanest, just beating a combination of IXT and Topaz DeNoise. I had the trial of Photolab 5 but own IXT and DeNoise so have kept that for now, until PureRaw becomes available, then I'll likely switch.

Tom Schum wrote:

Raymond L wrote:

PureRaw would be a better choice for my needs, however the current version (version 1) doesn't support Fujifilm Raw.

I was astounded to learn this while reading a previous thread! You buy the whole enchilada, and you get a beta raw developer. Even so, it seems to work pretty well.

It's only Beta for Fuji.  For Canon, Nikon, Sony, etc...it's very much a mature product.  It will only get better from this point forward in regards to Fuji Raw conversions.

Here are my Lightroom/IXT, all with my default color profile (custom), all with "as shot " WB, with only a few tweaks to get the tonality in the ballpark.

My IXT settings:

Lightroom Sharpening/NR settings for the ship shot (very similar for the others):

My opinion - There isn't a huge difference with these examples (You'll see more significant differences at base ISO with a sharper lens at sharper apertures), DxO looks promising, but with DeepPrime it removed a bit too much low level detail (hopefully DeepPrime is somewhat adjustable?). IXT looks comparatively a bit noisy at 200%, but not at a "normal" viewing magnification. There are more edge/aliasing artifacts in the DxO version in places with this example, but overall it does a good job and I'm very interested in trying out an X-Trans capable version of PureRaw. Hopefully it can replace both IXT and Topaz DeNoise.

Compare the yellow rails

Erik Baumgartner wrote:

Here are my Lightroom/IXT, all with my default color profile (custom), all with "as shot " WB, with only a few tweaks to get the tonality in the ballpark.

Thanks for sharing your settings / process.

My opinion - There isn't a huge difference with these examples (You'll see more significant differences at base ISO with a sharper lens at sharper apertures),

Depends on the overall response, might be something I do in the future.

DxO looks promising, but with DeepPrime it removed a bit too much low level detail (hopefully DeepPrime is somewhat adjustable?). IXT looks comparatively a bit noisy at 200%, but not at a "normal" viewing magnification. There are more edge/aliasing artifacts in the DxO version in places with this example, but overall it does a good job and I'm very interested in trying out an X-Trans capable version of PureRaw. Hopefully it can replace both IXT and Topaz DeNoise.

Compare the yellow rails

Great find.

I was thinking as I posted this thread that I should have included different variations to DxO processing for it to be a "better" comparison (i.e. provide a file "just" raw demosaicing without any of the NR/optics/sharpening etc)

I have created four different variations for DSCF9111 - here

File #1 (interesting) - DSCF9111_DxO_NoProcessing.dng

Description: I switched all of the settings below off

File #2 - DSCF9111_DxO_PRIME10_WithCorrections.dng

Description: Dialed DeepPrime to 10 (from 40) + Lens Sharpness (On) + CA (On) + Unsharp Mask (On)

File #3 - DSCF9111_DxO_PRIME40_NoCorrections.dng

Description: DeepPrime (40) + Lens Sharpness (Off) + CA (Off) + Unsharp Mask (Off)

File #4 (interesting) - DSCF9111_DxO_NoNR_WithCorrections.dng

Description: DeepPrime (Off) + Lens Sharpness (On) + CA (On) + Unsharp Mask (On)

My take:

-Artefacts appear to be caused by NR (DeepPrime), I tried turning down the NR to 10 (from 40) but the artefacts are still visible

-I found File #4 without NR the most interesting, as it looks great as a starting point for editing

-But yes, not much value if NR is going to be turned off, the other alternatives as shown in this thread does a pretty decent job as well.

DxO PL 5 settings:

Raymond L wrote:

Erik Baumgartner wrote:

Here are my Lightroom/IXT, all with my default color profile (custom), all with "as shot " WB, with only a few tweaks to get the tonality in the ballpark.

Thanks for sharing your settings / process.

My opinion - There isn't a huge difference with these examples (You'll see more significant differences at base ISO with a sharper lens at sharper apertures),

Depends on the overall response, might be something I do in the future.

DxO looks promising, but with DeepPrime it removed a bit too much low level detail (hopefully DeepPrime is somewhat adjustable?). IXT looks comparatively a bit noisy at 200%, but not at a "normal" viewing magnification. There are more edge/aliasing artifacts in the DxO version in places with this example, but overall it does a good job and I'm very interested in trying out an X-Trans capable version of PureRaw. Hopefully it can replace both IXT and Topaz DeNoise.

Compare the yellow rails

Great find.

I was thinking as I posted this thread that I should have included different variations to DxO processing for it to be a "better" comparison (i.e. provide a file "just" raw demosaicing without any of the NR/optics/sharpening etc)

I have created four different variations for DSCF9111 - here

File #1 (interesting) - DSCF9111_DxO_NoProcessing.dng

Description: I switched all of the settings below off

File #2 - DSCF9111_DxO_PRIME10_WithCorrections.dng

Description: Dialed DeepPrime to 10 (from 40) + Lens Sharpness (On) + CA (On) + Unsharp Mask (On)

File #3 - DSCF9111_DxO_PRIME40_NoCorrections.dng

Description: DeepPrime (40) + Lens Sharpness (Off) + CA (Off) + Unsharp Mask (Off)

File #4 (interesting) - DSCF9111_DxO_NoNR_WithCorrections.dng

Description: DeepPrime (Off) + Lens Sharpness (On) + CA (On) + Unsharp Mask (On)

My take:

-Artefacts appear to be caused by NR (DeepPrime), I tried turning down the NR to 10 (from 40) but the artefacts are still visible

-I found File #4 without NR the most interesting, as it looks great as a starting point for editing

-But yes, not much value if NR is going to be turned off, the other alternatives as shown in this thread does a pretty decent job as well.

DxO PL 5 settings:

The yellow rails on the other side have improved somewhat, but I'm still seeing a lot of artifacts in the DxO version that are largely avoided with IXT. Could you perhaps do a DNG with no sharpening at all and the lowest level of Deep Prime possible?

Erik Baumgartner wrote:

Raymond L wrote:

Erik Baumgartner wrote:

Here are my Lightroom/IXT, all with my default color profile (custom), all with "as shot " WB, with only a few tweaks to get the tonality in the ballpark.

Thanks for sharing your settings / process.

My opinion - There isn't a huge difference with these examples (You'll see more significant differences at base ISO with a sharper lens at sharper apertures),

Depends on the overall response, might be something I do in the future.

DxO looks promising, but with DeepPrime it removed a bit too much low level detail (hopefully DeepPrime is somewhat adjustable?). IXT looks comparatively a bit noisy at 200%, but not at a "normal" viewing magnification. There are more edge/aliasing artifacts in the DxO version in places with this example, but overall it does a good job and I'm very interested in trying out an X-Trans capable version of PureRaw. Hopefully it can replace both IXT and Topaz DeNoise.

Compare the yellow rails

Great find.

I was thinking as I posted this thread that I should have included different variations to DxO processing for it to be a "better" comparison (i.e. provide a file "just" raw demosaicing without any of the NR/optics/sharpening etc)

I have created four different variations for DSCF9111 - here

File #1 (interesting) - DSCF9111_DxO_NoProcessing.dng

Description: I switched all of the settings below off

File #2 - DSCF9111_DxO_PRIME10_WithCorrections.dng

Description: Dialed DeepPrime to 10 (from 40) + Lens Sharpness (On) + CA (On) + Unsharp Mask (On)

File #3 - DSCF9111_DxO_PRIME40_NoCorrections.dng

Description: DeepPrime (40) + Lens Sharpness (Off) + CA (Off) + Unsharp Mask (Off)

File #4 (interesting) - DSCF9111_DxO_NoNR_WithCorrections.dng

Description: DeepPrime (Off) + Lens Sharpness (On) + CA (On) + Unsharp Mask (On)

My take:

-Artefacts appear to be caused by NR (DeepPrime), I tried turning down the NR to 10 (from 40) but the artefacts are still visible

-I found File #4 without NR the most interesting, as it looks great as a starting point for editing

-But yes, not much value if NR is going to be turned off, the other alternatives as shown in this thread does a pretty decent job as well.

DxO PL 5 settings:

The yellow rails on the other side have improved somewhat, but I'm still seeing a lot of artifacts in the DxO version that are largely avoided with IXT. Could you perhaps do a DNG with no sharpening at all and the lowest level of Deep Prime possible?

Sure thing, I haven't viewed these files for myself, but I have exported an additional 4 files. It's possible to set Prime to 1 (that's the lowest), I also included a few other files in smaller increments.

Same link

Deep Prime (01, 05, 10, 20) + No Corrections

DSCF9111_DxO_PRIME01_NoCorrections.dng
DSCF9111_DxO_PRIME05_NoCorrections.dng
DSCF9111_DxO_PRIME10_NoCorrections.dng
DSCF9111_DxO_PRIME20_NoCorrections.dng

Let me know how you go.

I have used your IXT config on RAF files containing mainly foliage and I get excellent resuts better than with confifs proposed by others

I posted a comparison vs DXO and ACR with enhanced details and IXT +ACR in PS gives really better results

Thx for sharing

Bob

Raymond L wrote:

Erik Baumgartner wrote:

Raymond L wrote:

Erik Baumgartner wrote:

Here are my Lightroom/IXT, all with my default color profile (custom), all with "as shot " WB, with only a few tweaks to get the tonality in the ballpark.

Thanks for sharing your settings / process.

My opinion - There isn't a huge difference with these examples (You'll see more significant differences at base ISO with a sharper lens at sharper apertures),

Depends on the overall response, might be something I do in the future.

DxO looks promising, but with DeepPrime it removed a bit too much low level detail (hopefully DeepPrime is somewhat adjustable?). IXT looks comparatively a bit noisy at 200%, but not at a "normal" viewing magnification. There are more edge/aliasing artifacts in the DxO version in places with this example, but overall it does a good job and I'm very interested in trying out an X-Trans capable version of PureRaw. Hopefully it can replace both IXT and Topaz DeNoise.

Compare the yellow rails

Great find.

I was thinking as I posted this thread that I should have included different variations to DxO processing for it to be a "better" comparison (i.e. provide a file "just" raw demosaicing without any of the NR/optics/sharpening etc)

I have created four different variations for DSCF9111 - here

File #1 (interesting) - DSCF9111_DxO_NoProcessing.dng

Description: I switched all of the settings below off

File #2 - DSCF9111_DxO_PRIME10_WithCorrections.dng

Description: Dialed DeepPrime to 10 (from 40) + Lens Sharpness (On) + CA (On) + Unsharp Mask (On)

File #3 - DSCF9111_DxO_PRIME40_NoCorrections.dng

Description: DeepPrime (40) + Lens Sharpness (Off) + CA (Off) + Unsharp Mask (Off)

File #4 (interesting) - DSCF9111_DxO_NoNR_WithCorrections.dng

Description: DeepPrime (Off) + Lens Sharpness (On) + CA (On) + Unsharp Mask (On)

My take:

-Artefacts appear to be caused by NR (DeepPrime), I tried turning down the NR to 10 (from 40) but the artefacts are still visible

-I found File #4 without NR the most interesting, as it looks great as a starting point for editing

-But yes, not much value if NR is going to be turned off, the other alternatives as shown in this thread does a pretty decent job as well.

DxO PL 5 settings:

The yellow rails on the other side have improved somewhat, but I'm still seeing a lot of artifacts in the DxO version that are largely avoided with IXT. Could you perhaps do a DNG with no sharpening at all and the lowest level of Deep Prime possible?

Sure thing, I haven't viewed these files for myself, but I have exported an additional 4 files. It's possible to set Prime to 1 (that's the lowest), I also included a few other files in smaller increments.

Same link

Deep Prime (01, 05, 10, 20) + No Corrections

DSCF9111_DxO_PRIME01_NoCorrections.dng
DSCF9111_DxO_PRIME05_NoCorrections.dng
DSCF9111_DxO_PRIME10_NoCorrections.dng
DSCF9111_DxO_PRIME20_NoCorrections.dng

Let me know how you go.

Thanks. I’ll play around with these more when I have some time but, at least with this image, it looks like DxO still has some work to do with the X-Trans demosaicing - it does well with some images, but there are some undesirable artifacts cropping up in some places that don’t happen with other demosaicing options - IXT and C1, in particular.

Erik Baumgartner wrote:

it looks like DxO still has some work to do with the X-Trans demosaicing - it does well with some images, but there are some undesirable artifacts cropping up in some places that don’t happen with other demosaicing options - IXT and C1, in particular.

See my post comparing DXO /IXT+ACR/ ACR enhanced details with foliage...

1st IXT ....  3rd DXO

Erik Baumgartner wrote:

Raymond L wrote:

Erik Baumgartner wrote:

Raymond L wrote:

Erik Baumgartner wrote:

Here are my Lightroom/IXT, all with my default color profile (custom), all with "as shot " WB, with only a few tweaks to get the tonality in the ballpark.

Thanks for sharing your settings / process.

My opinion - There isn't a huge difference with these examples (You'll see more significant differences at base ISO with a sharper lens at sharper apertures),

Depends on the overall response, might be something I do in the future.

DxO looks promising, but with DeepPrime it removed a bit too much low level detail (hopefully DeepPrime is somewhat adjustable?). IXT looks comparatively a bit noisy at 200%, but not at a "normal" viewing magnification. There are more edge/aliasing artifacts in the DxO version in places with this example, but overall it does a good job and I'm very interested in trying out an X-Trans capable version of PureRaw. Hopefully it can replace both IXT and Topaz DeNoise.

Compare the yellow rails

Great find.

I was thinking as I posted this thread that I should have included different variations to DxO processing for it to be a "better" comparison (i.e. provide a file "just" raw demosaicing without any of the NR/optics/sharpening etc)

I have created four different variations for DSCF9111 - here

File #1 (interesting) - DSCF9111_DxO_NoProcessing.dng

Description: I switched all of the settings below off

File #2 - DSCF9111_DxO_PRIME10_WithCorrections.dng

Description: Dialed DeepPrime to 10 (from 40) + Lens Sharpness (On) + CA (On) + Unsharp Mask (On)

File #3 - DSCF9111_DxO_PRIME40_NoCorrections.dng

Description: DeepPrime (40) + Lens Sharpness (Off) + CA (Off) + Unsharp Mask (Off)

File #4 (interesting) - DSCF9111_DxO_NoNR_WithCorrections.dng

Description: DeepPrime (Off) + Lens Sharpness (On) + CA (On) + Unsharp Mask (On)

My take:

-Artefacts appear to be caused by NR (DeepPrime), I tried turning down the NR to 10 (from 40) but the artefacts are still visible

-I found File #4 without NR the most interesting, as it looks great as a starting point for editing

-But yes, not much value if NR is going to be turned off, the other alternatives as shown in this thread does a pretty decent job as well.

DxO PL 5 settings:

The yellow rails on the other side have improved somewhat, but I'm still seeing a lot of artifacts in the DxO version that are largely avoided with IXT. Could you perhaps do a DNG with no sharpening at all and the lowest level of Deep Prime possible?

Sure thing, I haven't viewed these files for myself, but I have exported an additional 4 files. It's possible to set Prime to 1 (that's the lowest), I also included a few other files in smaller increments.

Same link

Deep Prime (01, 05, 10, 20) + No Corrections

DSCF9111_DxO_PRIME01_NoCorrections.dng
DSCF9111_DxO_PRIME05_NoCorrections.dng
DSCF9111_DxO_PRIME10_NoCorrections.dng
DSCF9111_DxO_PRIME20_NoCorrections.dng

Let me know how you go.

Thanks. I’ll play around with these more when I have some time but, at least with this image, it looks like DxO still has some work to do with the X-Trans demosaicing - it does well with some images, but there are some undesirable artifacts cropping up in some places that don’t happen with other demosaicing options - IXT and C1, in particular.

Once DxO announced that fujifilm is no longer “beta”, it would be interesting to try this image again.

baobob wrote:

I have used your IXT config on RAF files containing mainly foliage and I get excellent resuts better than with confifs proposed by others

I posted a comparison vs DXO and ACR with enhanced details and IXT +ACR in PS gives really better results

Thx for sharing

Bob

That’s great to hear!