Studio Shot Comparison Tool Fujifilm X-H2S

it's not just you, but it's adobe (for the raw part at least)

The only solution is to process X-trans in C1 or DXO, or preprocess (as i do) RAF in Iridient transformer or even better in Dxo PureRaw2 to have a good DNG to import in ACR or LR

give a look at a correctly processed file

https://www.kaotic.it/FILES_CLIENTS/DSCF0173-RAF_DxO_DeepPRIME-2.jpg

Kaoticphoto wrote:

it's not just you, but it's adobe (for the raw part at least)

The only solution is to process X-trans in C1 or DXO, or preprocess (as i do) RAF in Iridient transformer or even better in Dxo PureRaw2 to have a good DNG to import in ACR or LR

If a photographer was to use this same process with a raw file from a Bayer sensor, would they see an improvement beyond what they'd get from an X-Trans raw file? Or do they both arrive at the same place? Open question.

Dragonmatrix88 wrote:

Kaoticphoto wrote:

give a look at a correctly processed file

https://www.kaotic.it/FILES_CLIENTS/DSCF0173-RAF_DxO_DeepPRIME-2.jpg

That is so much better! Helps with making the decision for sure, thanks!

"Base" Lr raw conversion can be very soft with X-Trans, as you've noticed. A middle ground for DPR would be to use Capture One for their Fuji results, they are very quick with their updates now for new cameras, built-in lens profiles are applied as well and it will remove 99%+ of the softness many people complain about and notice! It's slightly unfair to keep portraying Fuji in this way imo.

The dxo conversion is a new option and high iso conversions are very "clean" but even if used as plug-in, eg the deep prime or the PL5/6 full suite it takes longer for Dxo to introduce new camera-lens support. Also, it might be a pain for DPR to use and manage and high-light shadow recovery is not as flexible as Lr or C1, so C1 would be a great compromise for DPR to standardise on.

The C1 X-H2/H2S conversions are very very good, only the very high iso images require some level of additional nr.

LR is not too bad for Bayer sensor, so personally i won't preprocess raw with low iso.

While dxo pureraw offer great noise reduction and demosaicing for any sensor at medium and hi-iso, probably at low iso LR is already good enough.

With x-trans LR and ACR are so bad that for my clients i always preprocess the raw.

Comparing a well processed X-trans raw, give a similar sharpness to bayer raw, with a little better noise performance, but mainly it's quite hard to find traces of moiré.

in a recent  post I compared a X-transformer file from Fujifilm X-H2 to a pureraw2 from canon R5, downloading raw from Imaging resource, and in Canon files heavy moiré is observed in bottles labels.

So globally i find x-trans a little better, but preprocess it's a lain and take a lot of disk space

Subject is quite large in this shot, but even like that fine details are missing, but maybe you just don't  need or care about better details.

They could be much improved

Send me the raw i will process it.

Otherwise i am sorry but i don't shoot birds.

You can see something from me here www.kaotic.it

Erik Baumgartner wrote:

Kaoticphoto wrote:

LR is not too bad for Bayer sensor, so personally i won't preprocess raw with low iso.

While dxo pureraw offer great noise reduction and demosaicing for any sensor at medium and hi-iso, probably at low iso LR is already good enough.

With x-trans LR and ACR are so bad that for my clients i always preprocess the raw.

Comparing a well processed X-trans raw, give a similar sharpness to bayer raw, with a little better noise performance, but mainly it's quite hard to find traces of moiré.

in a recent post I compared a X-transformer file from Fujifilm X-H2 to a pureraw2 from canon R5, downloading raw from Imaging resource, and in Canon files heavy moiré is observed in bottles labels.

So globally i find x-trans a little better, but preprocess it's a lain and take a lot of disk space

You can east process selected files (just the keepers) with X-Transformer from within LR - literally 2 mouse clicks, not a pain.

It adds a lot of "bloat" though!

Yes. But i usually shot thetered with clients.

I. First i have to explain that final pics wil looks sharper second when i will convert selected files i have to copy the settings in resulting dng. In third you loose time and disk space .

So for me it's a pain, how much pain depends from the project

Yes. Because i work with fuji since xpro1, i use LR since 1.0 (yes 1.0)  and i tried all possible sw to improve fujifilm rendering. And i know exactly what you can expect from a better raw processor/preprocessor.

It's not a question of subject but of detail frequency. You can easily see it from the processed file i posted in this thread comparing it with the Original jpeg or raw processed on DPR. And i would be happy to process the Morris 's photo to show the difference.