LR Alternatives for Fuji

Started 6 months ago | Discussions
Orsonneke
Orsonneke Senior Member • Posts: 1,433
Re: LR Alternatives for Fuji

I moved to ON1 raw 3 years ago and never looked back.

 Orsonneke's gear list:Orsonneke's gear list
Fujifilm XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS Fujifilm XF 55-200mm F3.5-4.8 R LM OIS Fujifilm XF 23mm F1.4 R Fujifilm 16-55mm F2.8R LM WR Fujifilm XF 16mm F1.4 R WR +8 more
OP 5teveO Forum Member • Posts: 95
Re: Another approach…

Jerry-astro wrote:

Before you decide to change your editing software, take a look at Iridient Transformer to preprocess your images before running them through whichever editor you wish to use.

https://www.iridient.com/

If you are otherwise happy with the editor(s) you’re using, then you might find that preprocessing your images (or at least the problematic ones) might be a better way to deal with the issue you’re running into rather than completely changing to a different editor. This is a superb utility that many DPR Forum members have used successfully to avoid the same sort of issues you’re running into. Consider giving it a try before giving up entirely on LR.

Hi Jerry - Thanks - i'm not planning on changing my editing software per say - just looking at alternatives - I use PS for various things so essentially get LR for free with it at a bargain price I also have all my K20 k3 and Olympus P&S used for UW shots in it..

I'm not so much complaining about LR more looking to see what could be better.. if you know what I mean. I just dont feel like i'm getting the best out of the raws on the XT4. Honestly if Adobe would just sort out the xtrans processing once and for all without bandaids. I would look nowhere else, as i'm sure a number of others wouldnt.

I did try iridient and honestly found the same issues, worming and artifacts. I'm fairly sure I set it up the same as the guides on the web.. but I found it was an extra step making no difference. Very probably user error.. I'm very very talented at user error I probably need to try it again

Steve

OP 5teveO Forum Member • Posts: 95
Re: LR Alternatives for Fuji

Pixel8888 wrote:

C1 and sometimes DXO PL5 (very good lens modules) and it works better with C1's DNGs from Panos. The lens module of the XC16-50 II is worlds better in PL5. The lens module for the XF 27/2.8 is better too. In C1 I have to go to unconstrained for every image because C1 cut's off the perfectly fine corners of my image. I do have a very good 27/2.8 sample with perfectly sharp corners, and it looks like the guy's at C1 had a bad sample with soft corners, when they developed the lens module.

Another vote for C1 - Yes its popular.

I agree about parts of DXO - they are impressive. Thanks for the heads up about C1 - could explain some sizing differences i notices when comparing images from each app. I will take another look at that side

Steve

OP 5teveO Forum Member • Posts: 95
Re: LR Alternatives for Fuji

JNR wrote:

As a fellow Pentax refugee who some time ago went from the K3 to Fuji, I'm mostly wanting to simply welcome you to the new community.

You have a pretty good handle on the situation regarding the major raw options. Although I've been in C1 fold for quite some time, you are in a time crunch and fully learning a new software - at least for now - probably isn't your best option.

I think following Jerry's advice to give Iridient Transformer a try is well worth it given how many folks here feel strongly about its quality and ease of use.

Thanks - I'm finding the fuji very different - very fast, accurate but feels so fragile in comparison to the K3!

I dont have much in the way of issues learning new software.. but yes its the time thats the problem. Like i mentioned i dont have major issues with LR - i just cannot push as hard as other apps without the artifacts.

Re my reply to Jerry - I didnt notice a difference with Iridient so I assume user error.. so will as suggested try it (again)

Steve

TonyGN10 Contributing Member • Posts: 638
Re: LR Alternatives for Fuji

5teveO wrote:

Yes I know this has been debated to death.. and I know there are varying opinions on LR's effect on Xtrans files - I'm not here to debate them (again ) My opinion is all that is here and is very subjective..

I'm a relatively new XT4 user coming from Pentax (K3 Mk1) and I love the camera - so fast (compared the the K3) and the lenses (18-135 and 70-300) and fantastic.

I'm a long time LR user (still have the LR5 disks) and am subscribed with the latest version. I have already come across the worms and wierd processing in a few images when pushing sharpness. Noise reduction is generally done for bad images in Topaz, but I shy away from it as I just cant stand workflows where I have to create new files to edit and have excess files. I am an engineer by trade - so inherently lazy, but like things tidily organised, plus have a 5 year old and a business to run and far too many hobbies so very very time poor. My workflow has to be fast and efficient. I'm not looking for stellar results as im a poor amateur at best. I dont want to convert and process etc..

We have just been on a big family holiday to Dubai and I took around 1000 images. So have given them the first pass in LR, Culled, categorised (eg noisey - needs work etc) and processed around 30% of them as keepers (family snapshots TBH) exported and generally happy with them as far as snapshots go. A few I want to work on.. but thought i'd look at other options to LR

As a test I decided to have a look at the options out there for alternatives. As time allows I'm learning Darktable but its immense and unfamiliar - so is a huge learning curve.

I have installed and trialling the following as a quick look see how the software renders a few specific images and deals with things like sharpness and NR (and some initial thoughts - bear in mind ive had an hour or so in each and am only familiar with LR basics):-

Capture 1 - Bloody expensive now and hard to justify - lovely rendering of the images though. Sharpening can be pushed hard, adjustments are pretty quick and colours match LR pretty well. Not keen on the interface - LR really is king here as is the speed of LR - I find myself waiting with C1 for images to load etc - Machine is old but well spec'd

On1 Raw - Well priced - Produces very nice images also albeit with a slightly yellow cast to them on skin tones - not sure if LR and C1 are just warmer though. Interface is slow in some areas and fast in others - buttons ect really dont confirm to any windows standard so are a bit confusing - Produces .on1 files instead of XMP - not sure if they can be used elsewhere or converted. Sharpness can be pushed hard and AI NR is pretty impressive for some shots although very very slow... and NR needs to be locked to stop it from reprocessing.. which is a bit wierd

Exposure X7 - Well priced - Speedy kinda LR speed - renders Xtrans nicely - but images just looked a bit rough for want of a better description. sharpness just isnt there jpg output looks a bit grainy

Lightroom - Honestly almost holds its own when looking at JPG exports - however unless I am willing to not pixel peep and accept there will be some rendering oddities C1 and On1 give better output - but it wont effect everything. One example was my 5 year olds eyes on a photo. at 100% with medium sharpening in LR worms were starting to appear at the interface of the iris and sclera (white) - again only noticeable at 100% - I do like the file management of LR too..

So here I am - more confused than ever

re quality C1 and On1 seem to be the clear quality winners to me. C1 with an edge to rendering and On1 for noise reduction on some images albeit very slow.. however LR still has the speed and useability for larger culling sessions. From what I have read here C1 seems to be closest in regard to performance and number of tools / options.

I know there are a lot that recommend C1 over LR so useability must be there - me being unfamiliar makes things harder. Price is hard to swallow in AUD though.

So without bashing any of the above softwares... what do you use and importantly WHY? I'm genuinuely interested in what drives you to use what software..

Steve

I’ve used both Capture 1 Pro and ON1 for the past 4 years. I used to have a Nikon dslr, sampled most of the raw processors at the time and eventually bought ON1 - I rejected LR because of its (then) relatively expensive subscription only price. I soon moved over to the Fuji X system and tried the (cheaper) C1 Fuji only edition and really liked it - moving to Fuji also confirmed my rejection of LR as it was, at that time, hopeless with x-trans files. But I kept up with ON1, so I could process non-Fuji files.

So I’m very familiar with both C1 and ON1 (not so much other apps). Between the two, on balance, I prefer C1 for its powerful colour editing and masking tools, its UI is very good and totally configurable, so once you get it to your liking, you can work very quickly and efficiently. I also occasionally shoot tethered, which is a very strong plus for C1. On the downside, importing files into C1 is slow and its catalogue functions are probably best described as merely adequate. The biggest downside is of course price - C1 is very expensive. I started out with C1 with the much cheaper Fuji only C1 edition. When C1 got rid of these, existing camera specific customers were able to continue, in perpetuity (!) with their existing price - so I only pay £9 per month for C1 - which is cheap (for C1).

However, ON1 has continued to improve substantially year by year and now has some very useful additional tools - it has a very handy and easy to use time lapse tool, a very effective image enlarger and its noise reduction tool is pretty good and very easy to work with your raw files (no need to generate proxy files). And if you like/need sky replacement, that too is now very good. Although its catalogue is similar to C1 (ie just adequate), with ON1 you do not need to import files - you just point it to the location of your files. And it’s much cheaper than C1.

So long story short, if I was now starting out new, between C1 and ON1, I would go with ON1 - IMO it’s a very good, well-priced,  all purpose raw processor (and you can also do some basic pixel editing with it as well) - it has some very useful tools which C1 does not have and is much cheaper than C1.

Obviously everybody has their own (often very strongly held) views on photo editing apps - these are just mine. Also in my view, life is just too short to get sufficiently familiar with all the different photo editing apps available to us to form a really informed opinion - they’re all pretty good! 
Good luck making your selection!

 TonyGN10's gear list:TonyGN10's gear list
Fujifilm X-T4 Fujifilm XF 55-200mm F3.5-4.8 R LM OIS Samyang 12mm F2.0 NCS CS XF 90mm Fujifilm XF 33mm F1.4 R LM WR +6 more
OP 5teveO Forum Member • Posts: 95
Re: darktable

Rightsaidfred wrote:

5teveO wrote:

As time allows I'm learning Darktable but its immense and unfamiliar - so is a huge learning curve.

Hi Steve

Welcome to Fujiland. I shared my standard workflow with darktable. Just to let you know. But yes, it takes some time to learn.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/66324702

Kind regards,

Martin

Thanks Martin

Yes I have looked at your workflow and intend to get round to it. I like the idea of DR but it really is daunting compared to LR plus I am heavily windows based and taught so linux style apps always cause me issues - my issue with DR was as a baseline trying to get the images to look like OOC.. as my starting point and it was that I was struggling with. I have been talking to Bastibe too regarding this as I know he is working on some styles and LUTS.

Steve

Kaoticphoto Regular Member • Posts: 332
Re: Another approach…

Don't hold your breath, about Adobe improving x-trans rendering, i am waiting since 10 years.

At the end i am keeping LR and preprocessing (it's a simple batch convert,) in x-transformer or Pure raw 2.

With a fast computer (i have a m1 pro macbook) iridient process more than 1000 pics in 1 hour

Latest version of LR, with AI mask, gpu support, preset amount slider, geometry corrections, etc i found its simply the best raw editor by far to switch

Rightsaidfred
Rightsaidfred Senior Member • Posts: 2,104
darktable, and LUTs that mimic Fujifilm film simulations

5teveO wrote:

Rightsaidfred wrote:

5teveO wrote:

As time allows I'm learning Darktable but its immense and unfamiliar - so is a huge learning curve.

Hi Steve

Welcome to Fujiland. I shared my standard workflow with darktable. Just to let you know. But yes, it takes some time to learn.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/66324702

Kind regards,

Martin

Thanks Martin

Yes I have looked at your workflow and intend to get round to it. I like the idea of DR but it really is daunting compared to LR plus I am heavily windows based and taught so linux style apps always cause me issues - my issue with DR was as a baseline trying to get the images to look like OOC.. as my starting point and it was that I was struggling with. I have been talking to Bastibe too regarding this as I know he is working on some styles and LUTS.

Steve

darktable runs perfectly fine on Windows. I did this for the first one or two years.

My workflow should provide you quite good OOC looking images.

The. OOC look is thanks to Stewart Sowerby's great LUTs. I have never encountered as good Fujifilm film simulations mimicking LUTs as those. But the newer film simulations are lacking. Also, they're actually made for X-Trans III. But the difference to the generation IV is not that big so they work also with the X-T4.

Please let me know should you have good LUTs.

Also thinking of making own LUTs but but similarly like you, I have too many interests and hobbies, too much work, family, and never find enough time

Regards,

Martin

 Rightsaidfred's gear list:Rightsaidfred's gear list
Fujifilm X-T20 Fujifilm X-T4 Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R Fujifilm XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS Fujifilm XF 55-200mm F3.5-4.8 R LM OIS +5 more
ms18
ms18 Veteran Member • Posts: 3,487
Iridient Transformer
1

I do not use Iridient Transformer but many have said it's a good option for those who multi process and sync using Adobe camera raw engine.

Personally x-trans doesn't affect me much as i do most of my sharpening in photoshop not in Adobe camera raw. (I use photoshop + Bridge)
But i do recognize this X-Trans issue with ACR. That is one reason i disklike fuji. But there are many other things which not letting me leaving Fuji eco system.

 ms18's gear list:ms18's gear list
Fujifilm X-T20 Fujifilm XF 14mm F2.8 R Fujifilm XF 23mm F1.4 R Fujifilm XF 56mm F1.2 R +1 more
Bob Janes
Bob Janes Veteran Member • Posts: 5,208
Re: LR Alternatives for Fuji

5teveO wrote:

Capture 1 - Bloody expensive now and hard to justify - lovely rendering of the images though. Sharpening can be pushed hard, adjustments are pretty quick and colours match LR pretty well.

Have you tried the free Fujifilm specific Capture 1 Express for Fujifilm?

Free makes it far more easy to justify and to adapt to the interface...

https://www.captureone.com/en/capture-one-express/fujifilm?gclid=EAIaIQobChMI6suHgMbS-QIVBe3tCh3qoAmxEAAYASAAEgIEjfD_BwE

-- hide signature --

Save a life, become a stem-cell donor.
Hello to Jason Isaacs!
https://bobjanes.smugmug.com/PoTB/
Please respect a BY-NC-ND cc licence on all my public internet images

FujiShooterCY Regular Member • Posts: 445
darktable isn't a rocket science either
1

You can start with some basic sample workflow, shared by knowledgeable person,  take it as a good example preset as a basic starting point , customize it to taste a bit with just one  of your images, and when done Ok, store your personal preset style, made as a full snapshot of your example image's history stack.

Then you may apply your style to all images selected earlier from a given set for further processing, apply your style to the selected group, and scan the group for cropping, correcting the horizon, retouching and further minor corrections.

Than export selected images and you are done. Pretty straightforward, actually.

-- hide signature --

All I post is my own, humble, personal, subjective and highly biased opinion. It may change in time upon new facts and convincing arguments arrival.

OP 5teveO Forum Member • Posts: 95
Re: LR Alternatives for Fuji

britcam wrote:

GreatOceanSoftware wrote:

I’m a 10-year veteran of ACDSee. Affordable and super easy. I use the Ultimate version.

Same with me - I've used ACDSee since the first release and love it for the ease of use, superb controls, great interface, and speed. I upgrade every other release generally and use Ultimate as well ...

Thank you - I will check it out.

Steve

OP 5teveO Forum Member • Posts: 95
Re: LR Alternatives for Fuji

biza43 wrote:

I have been using LR for ages, on version 6.14. Means I have to use an external RAF > DNG converter because the RAFs are not recognized. I use Iridient for the conversion, and then process in LR. LR still works fine for m, no need to learn another software.

Thanks - I really need to try iridient again.. It was clearly user error but I saw not difference in the ability to sharpen files without artifacts. As its so well liked I couldnt understand it at the time.. but will try the workflow again.

Steve

OP 5teveO Forum Member • Posts: 95
Re: LR Alternatives for Fuji

TrophyJem wrote:

I made the switch to ON1 a few years back and invested much time watching YouTube’s to grasp how to use it.

It does everything I need and more. You need a powerful PC though else it can be slow.

I particularly like the way edits are held in a sidecar file rather than a database, so if you’ve been editing on a laptop you can simply copy the raws and sidecar files to your PC or NAS and all your edits are there on whatever PC you open them on.

It also renders the Fuji raw files really well

Thanks for the on1 info. The PC is pretty powerful running Xeon CPU, 32gb ram 1gb/s main disk speed and 2gb/s storage array with an OK graphics card (looking for faster - but pricing is ludicrous)

Rendering is good, but as mentioned I notice a slight yellow cast compared to C1 and LR, or LR and C1 have a slightly red cast..

Apart from the speed of the NR which seems to be coupled with sharpening.. its was mostly useable, and the output sharp and comparable with LR minus a few artifacts (in LR that is) Pricing seems reasonably good too.

Steve

OP 5teveO Forum Member • Posts: 95
Re: Lightroom sucks

Batdude wrote:

Ysarex wrote:

Started teaching Adobe (PS) in 1992. Started teaching LR and using LR when it was released. Switched to C1 in 2012/13. PS/LR are free for me (paid for by employer). I pay for C1 and I'm not switching back. C1's image editing tools are better and the rendered image is better. A very high priority for me is a raw workflow that is 100% non-destructive and non-linearly re-editable. C1 does a better job meeting that priority for me than does LR/PS and that is what initially drove my switch and a reason I won't switch back.

I’ve been using LR for several years and I didn’t notice this before, but since I started shooting with the 26MP XT3 I expected much better images, but the problem is not the camera, is just that for some reason LR doesn’t like newer Fujifilm cameras?

No matter what I do with the RAW files from the XT3 the sharpness and detail are simply not there, and the color output is not all there. It has become a real pain on the butt to have to spend way too much time in PP. Light Room is okay, but after upgrading to the XT3 LR is definitely screwing up by the way it handles Fuji RAW files. I’m really disappointed so I completely agree and believe what you said.

The few wedding photos I got recently I gave the RAW files to two different experienced photographers and they did NOT bloody liked the Fuji files and they both told me the same thing, that the images are lacking sharpness and detail. Guess what they are using? Lightroom 😭

I wasnt wanting to bash the softwares.. but I also asked for opinions so thank you for yours in general I'm happy with LR but I think images can be better and hope Adobe address it soon purely for my convenience haha

I do want to explore this a bit more though. I CAN get sharp images in LR with good detail. I'm going to post 4 images later of the comparisons I did. Main focus is around the eyes (you will see what I mean) C1 and on1 i could push and get sharp. LR any sharpening past 70 or 80 and worms appear at the edge of the pupils (i'll post an example of this too)

If you really want to eliminate Fuji being the issue in LR - choose an image which is particularly bad for you, and do the enhance detail on it. This will create a large DNG file and any issues with the xtrans demosaic causing a perceived reduction in sharpness etc should go away. It should be detailed and sharp if indeed the image / lens was sharp. Alternatively just do a trial of one of the other softwares and try it (even the free C1 mentioned later)

Anyway look out for my sample images in a bit

Steve

OP 5teveO Forum Member • Posts: 95
Re: LR Alternatives for Fuji

JayPhizzt wrote:

5teveO wrote:

Yes I know this has been debated to death.. and I know there are varying opinions on LR's effect on Xtrans files - I'm not here to debate them (again ) My opinion is all that is here and is very subjective..

I'm a relatively new XT4 user coming from Pentax (K3 Mk1) and I love the camera - so fast (compared the the K3) and the lenses (18-135 and 70-300) and fantastic.

I'm a long time LR user (still have the LR5 disks) and am subscribed with the latest version. I have already come across the worms and wierd processing in a few images when pushing sharpness. Noise reduction is generally done for bad images in Topaz, but I shy away from it as I just cant stand workflows where I have to create new files to edit and have excess files. I am an engineer by trade - so inherently lazy, but like things tidily organised, plus have a 5 year old and a business to run and far too many hobbies so very very time poor. My workflow has to be fast and efficient. I'm not looking for stellar results as im a poor amateur at best. I dont want to convert and process etc..

We have just been on a big family holiday to Dubai and I took around 1000 images. So have given them the first pass in LR, Culled, categorised (eg noisey - needs work etc) and processed around 30% of them as keepers (family snapshots TBH) exported and generally happy with them as far as snapshots go. A few I want to work on.. but thought i'd look at other options to LR

As a test I decided to have a look at the options out there for alternatives. As time allows I'm learning Darktable but its immense and unfamiliar - so is a huge learning curve.

I have installed and trialling the following as a quick look see how the software renders a few specific images and deals with things like sharpness and NR (and some initial thoughts - bear in mind ive had an hour or so in each and am only familiar with LR basics):-

Capture 1 - Bloody expensive now and hard to justify - lovely rendering of the images though. Sharpening can be pushed hard, adjustments are pretty quick and colours match LR pretty well. Not keen on the interface - LR really is king here as is the speed of LR - I find myself waiting with C1 for images to load etc - Machine is old but well spec'd

On1 Raw - Well priced - Produces very nice images also albeit with a slightly yellow cast to them on skin tones - not sure if LR and C1 are just warmer though. Interface is slow in some areas and fast in others - buttons ect really dont confirm to any windows standard so are a bit confusing - Produces .on1 files instead of XMP - not sure if they can be used elsewhere or converted. Sharpness can be pushed hard and AI NR is pretty impressive for some shots although very very slow... and NR needs to be locked to stop it from reprocessing.. which is a bit wierd

Exposure X7 - Well priced - Speedy kinda LR speed - renders Xtrans nicely - but images just looked a bit rough for want of a better description. sharpness just isnt there jpg output looks a bit grainy

Lightroom - Honestly almost holds its own when looking at JPG exports - however unless I am willing to not pixel peep and accept there will be some rendering oddities C1 and On1 give better output - but it wont effect everything. One example was my 5 year olds eyes on a photo. at 100% with medium sharpening in LR worms were starting to appear at the interface of the iris and sclera (white) - again only noticeable at 100% - I do like the file management of LR too..

So here I am - more confused than ever

re quality C1 and On1 seem to be the clear quality winners to me. C1 with an edge to rendering and On1 for noise reduction on some images albeit very slow.. however LR still has the speed and useability for larger culling sessions. From what I have read here C1 seems to be closest in regard to performance and number of tools / options.

I know there are a lot that recommend C1 over LR so useability must be there - me being unfamiliar makes things harder. Price is hard to swallow in AUD though.

So without bashing any of the above softwares... what do you use and importantly WHY? I'm genuinuely interested in what drives you to use what software..

Steve

The thing is that it isn't worms that's the real problem. Worms can occur even with bayer files when applying too much sharpening, even if X-trans files do seem to be a bit more susceptible to it. But honestly, if you get worms you're oversharpening anyway.

The real problem is subpar demosaicing which yields less detailed images and causes foliage and several types of textures to look like a waterpainting. Sharpening has nothing to do with this. This is why LR is the worst software for X-trans. However, there are a couple of workarounds; you can use either the "enhance details" feature in LR or you can use Iridient X-transformer to convert the files.

Sadly people often tend to get these two separate issues mixed up.

Hi Jay - Yes i'm one of thise obviously getting things mixed up... but hey i'm new here .. does that count? Appreciate you pointing it out.

Yes I agree the suspect demosaicing is the issue.. but it seems that because of this worming is an issue specifically in LR at least for the images I have paid attention to. I would disagree that too much sharpening is causing the issue in the case of the files I have tried. On1 and C1 can push to the limit with no worms albeit a bit overprocessed, anything over 70 to 80 in LR is starting to show.

As noted I'm time poor (my own fault) so keeping my workflow lean and quick is where I am at (I should just shoot JPG eh?)  My opinion is that enhance detail is a bandaid.. its a bump in my workflow, i just dont need. I avoid Topaz becuase of this too unless i really really need it - my own choice but its what i prefer. I have mentioned in various replies about iridient not working for me - but likely my issue..

As mentioned in the previous post.. I'll be posting a couple of examples shortly just so the comparison can be seen.

Appreciate your input

Steve

OP 5teveO Forum Member • Posts: 95
Re: LR Alternatives for Fuji

Orsonneke wrote:

I moved to ON1 raw 3 years ago and never looked back.

Its definitly got its merits and holds its own.. thanks!

Steve

lewiedude2
lewiedude2 Senior Member • Posts: 2,622
Re: LR Alternatives for Fuji
1

5teveO wrote:

biza43 wrote:

I have been using LR for ages, on version 6.14. Means I have to use an external RAF > DNG converter because the RAFs are not recognized. I use Iridient for the conversion, and then process in LR. LR still works fine for m, no need to learn another software.

Thanks - I really need to try iridient again.. It was clearly user error but I saw not difference in the ability to sharpen files without artifacts. As its so well liked I couldnt understand it at the time.. but will try the workflow again.

Steve

Steve, I completely agree with Jerry and others promoting IxTransformer. Search out Erik Baumgartner’s setting for it as he has gotten to a definitive set of settings - removing any and all sharpening and noise reduction capability. I renders a DNG file that is really quite easy to work with. ED in LR is something you can also do to the DNG if you are looking for some mods that may take you to another level. Give it a search and your thread is a good addition to this never ending debate. Good luck and happy shooting.

 lewiedude2's gear list:lewiedude2's gear list
Fujifilm X-T2 Fujifilm 16-55mm F2.8R LM WR
OP 5teveO Forum Member • Posts: 95
Re: LR Alternatives for Fuji

TonyGN10 wrote:

I’ve used both Capture 1 Pro and ON1 for the past 4 years. I used to have a Nikon dslr, sampled most of the raw processors at the time and eventually bought ON1 - I rejected LR because of its (then) relatively expensive subscription only price. I soon moved over to the Fuji X system and tried the (cheaper) C1 Fuji only edition and really liked it - moving to Fuji also confirmed my rejection of LR as it was, at that time, hopeless with x-trans files. But I kept up with ON1, so I could process non-Fuji files.

So I’m very familiar with both C1 and ON1 (not so much other apps). Between the two, on balance, I prefer C1 for its powerful colour editing and masking tools, its UI is very good and totally configurable, so once you get it to your liking, you can work very quickly and efficiently. I also occasionally shoot tethered, which is a very strong plus for C1. On the downside, importing files into C1 is slow and its catalogue functions are probably best described as merely adequate. The biggest downside is of course price - C1 is very expensive. I started out with C1 with the much cheaper Fuji only C1 edition. When C1 got rid of these, existing camera specific customers were able to continue, in perpetuity (!) with their existing price - so I only pay £9 per month for C1 - which is cheap (for C1).

However, ON1 has continued to improve substantially year by year and now has some very useful additional tools - it has a very handy and easy to use time lapse tool, a very effective image enlarger and its noise reduction tool is pretty good and very easy to work with your raw files (no need to generate proxy files). And if you like/need sky replacement, that too is now very good. Although its catalogue is similar to C1 (ie just adequate), with ON1 you do not need to import files - you just point it to the location of your files. And it’s much cheaper than C1.

So long story short, if I was now starting out new, between C1 and ON1, I would go with ON1 - IMO it’s a very good, well-priced, all purpose raw processor (and you can also do some basic pixel editing with it as well) - it has some very useful tools which C1 does not have and is much cheaper than C1.

Obviously everybody has their own (often very strongly held) views on photo editing apps - these are just mine. Also in my view, life is just too short to get sufficiently familiar with all the different photo editing apps available to us to form a really informed opinion - they’re all pretty good!
Good luck making your selection!

Hi Tony

Thanks for that extensive opinion its appreciate and objective. It sounds like I missed out on the fuji version of C1 by mere months.. which is annoying. $9 or $15aud a month is not bad and where LR is really. (LR is very cheap when all things considered at $155aud per year inc PS) and I could stump for that easily. But as it stands the full version of C1 is $40US or $58aud per month or a bargain (sarcasm) at $428aud per year - im not sure what they were thinking but straight doesnt appear to be it. Either way its comes well recommended, its powerful and well featured and i'm assuming aimed squarely for pros.. I'm not averse to paying.. I just dont like wasting my money on something I wont use.

Interesting to note that you would now have gone on1.. I will have more of a use of it to see how familiar I can get in 14 days (well 12 now) I certainly dont mind it - I just need to work out if the yellow cast is on1 or C1 and LR have a red cast. Re on1 - the NR is slow but seems extreme and automatic as soon as you open the module. Is this defualt and normal behaviour?

I agree with you one life is too short. Thats why i'm looking for fast efficient workflow.. so I can waste more of my life on boats, 3d printers, etc etc etc..

Steve

OP 5teveO Forum Member • Posts: 95
Re: Another approach…

Kaoticphoto wrote:

Don't hold your breath, about Adobe improving x-trans rendering, i am waiting since 10 years.

At the end i am keeping LR and preprocessing (it's a simple batch convert,) in x-transformer or Pure raw 2.

With a fast computer (i have a m1 pro macbook) iridient process more than 1000 pics in 1 hour

Latest version of LR, with AI mask, gpu support, preset amount slider, geometry corrections, etc i found its simply the best raw editor by far to switch

I dont hold my breath for any software company I know the xtrans has improved.. but it could still be better. Familiarity goes a long way though.

I will give iridient another go, as I agree LR is fast to work with and i'm just noticing the newer tools. LR imports on my machine (windows machine Xeon and fast disks) fast - It will do around 1200 in about 45 mins including previews.. so not bad.. still feels slow though! Not sure what Iridient will go like on it..

Steve

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads