Best Raw processor for X-Trans in 2024?

[ZilverHaylide]

Might I ask what Raw processing software/workflow forum members are using to process output from your Fuji X-Trans cameras with 24-26 and 40MP sensors, to mitigate the common criticisms levied against X-Trans? Objectively, I think the criticisms are valid, because to my own eye many of the results I see from X-Trans, including the studio scene test shots here at DPR, under high enlargement look sort-of watercolor-style painterly-muddy to me, as though fine detail has been brushed away. Then there's also sometimes "the worms".

At low degrees of enlargement, they often look OK, and X-Trans can sometimes suppress moire better than Bayer, so I'm not just dumping on Fuji. And at the higher 40MP resolutions of some of their current cameras, maybe the issue is diminished.

But I do want the potential for best results in larger prints, towards the limits of APS-C potential. Concern that I won't be able to achieve that is one thing that has kept me from buying X-Trans cameras.

So, to maximize results from X-Trans, in 2024, what Raw processing software/workflow do you recommend? Would much prefer software that if not free, at least allows a one-time purchase, with a future purchase only necessary if I want updates after some set period, or compatibility with some future new camera -- not software that I must forever lease, like current Adobe products.

Thanks in advance.

 

[Truman Prevatt]

Today, most S/W does a good job with XTrans files. Adobe upped its game when they introduced Enhanced details in Lightroom. Capture One has always been a good choice that I haven used a long time on all my cameras.



If you are looking for a non subscription option, the DXO PhotoLab dose a really goog job on XTrans, particularly with PrimeRaw.



so for XTrans I would say it is Lightroom with the Enhanced Details, Capture One and PhotoLab are comparable.

Capture One and PhotoLab have free trials.

 

[BobsYourUncle]

Today, most S/W does a good job with XTrans files. Adobe upped its game when they introduced Enhanced details in Lightroom. Capture One has always been a good choice that I haven used a long time on all my cameras.

If you are looking for a non subscription option, the DXO PhotoLab dose a really goog job on XTrans, particularly with PrimeRaw.

so for XTrans I would say it is Lightroom with the Enhanced Details, Capture One and PhotoLab are comparable.

Capture One and PhotoLab have free trials.

Good explanation and suggestions. At 100% viewing of low ISO images and "cleaned-up" higher ISO images with today's AI Noise programs, the worms are generally an issue of the past.

Another add-on app worth considering is Iridient X-Transformer. It does an excellent job with initial deconvolution to a DNG file. It used to be my "intermediate" app of choice. However, as Truman has pointed out, current versions of Adobe and C1 are doing a very good job. I may add I use Topaz products for some noise reduction. Additionally i use it for sharpening on all my cams, not just Fuji.

 

[bastibe]

Any demosaicing artifact is smaller the smaller your pixels in the frame. It was perhaps an annoying issue for 16 MP sensors, but less so for 24/26 MP, and again less so with 40 MP.

Additionally, any kind of natural image blur, such as out-of-focus, motion blur, haze, lens softness is more visible to higher-resolution sensors, and will obscure demosaicing issues.

Which is all to say that raw developer precision is less of an issue now with 40 MP than it was with lower-resolution sensors.

 

[biza43]

My workflow:

1. Convert Raf to DNG with Iridient, because my copy of LR (6.14) is old and does not recognize the files from my XT5. In the process the name of the camera in the Exif is changed to "xpro2", which my LR understands.

2. Use LR for normal processing.

Not fancy, and sometimes slow in a 15-year-old Sony Vaio laptop but works and is familiar. In about 10 years of using Fuji X, never had an issue with the files.

 

[beneix]

ON1 Photo RAW does a great job with X-trans images, and also has a really good denoise algorithm. Just make sure your system meets the system requirements - a reasonably recent (less than 2-3 years) GPU with at least 8GB of VRAM is required for fast performance.

They have a special on at the moment for about $50 and that gives you the outright ownership of a perpetual licence.

 

[FujiJon]

Darktable. FOSS and very good, recently updated to version 4.8.

 

[DelnT]

I use DxO Pure RAW 4 which is also baked into DxO Photolab 7 if you want the whole package. Just the RAW processing software is cheaper. Its not subscription either and doesn't have Adobes T&Cs

 

[Truman Prevatt]

I use DxO Pure RAW 4 which is also baked into DxO Photolab 7 if you want the whole package. Just the RAW processing software is cheaper. Its not subscription either and doesn't have Adobes T&Cs

In a time long ago and land far away, I used DXO Pro Optics - forerunner of DXO PhotoLab. - on my Nikons. This was before I had a Fuji.

Then in 2016 when I got my XPro2, DXO refused to support Fuji - absolutely refused. At that point I transitioned to Capture One which I have used ever since. At some point about two years ago, DXO picked up support for Fujifilm X cameras. Then they came out with Pure Raw and it was quite impressive. It is pretty close to Topaz actually, however, DXO seems to have less buggy code.

So I tired PhotoLab again recently and I was quite pleased on how well it deals with XTrans. Pure Raw is baked into PhotoLab. I'm not ready to leave Capture One for a couple reasons.

First their masking and smart masking if ahead of PhotoLab. Their color grading is ahead of PL but not by much. PL's file management is a little fiddly - and not near as robust as C1. However, it is less expensive and is non-subscription if that matters. However, it is not inexpensive to get into for the first time. But from that time on you own it only upgrading when you need. I also don't like the way it pollutes the original file with sidecar files. I know you can hide them, but it's still a bit of a kludge.

However, now for those that don't want a subscription model, it is a good option. As Uncle Bob pointed out, Iridient Transformer as a front end to Lightroom works really well and eliminates the use of Enhanced Details. For a long time Iridient Developer was the number uno raw developer for XTrans. Its deconvolution sharpening is very good. However, Iridient Developer is only available on a Mac platform. Brian ported over the guts of the process to as a front end available for both windows and Apple in XTransformer which produces a DNG for Lightroom.

When I got my first Fuji in 2016, there were a lot of options. Lightroom seem to be somewhat temperamental with XTrans. Today that has pretty much a thing of the past.

 

[KariP]

Today, most S/W does a good job with XTrans files. Adobe upped its game when they introduced Enhanced details in Lightroom. Capture One has always been a good choice that I haven used a long time on all my cameras.

If you are looking for a non subscription option, the DXO PhotoLab dose a really goog job on XTrans, particularly with PrimeRaw.

so for XTrans I would say it is Lightroom with the Enhanced Details, Capture One and PhotoLab are comparable.

Capture One and PhotoLab have free trials.

Good explanation and suggestions. At 100% viewing of low ISO images and "cleaned-up" higher ISO images with today's AI Noise programs, the worms are generally an issue of the past.

Another add-on app worth considering is Iridient X-Transformer. It does an excellent job with initial deconvolution to a DNG file. It used to be my "intermediate" app of choice. However, as Truman has pointed out, current versions of Adobe and C1 are doing a very good job. I may add I use Topaz products for some noise reduction. Additionally i use it for sharpening on all my cams, not just Fuji.

I have not tried and tested so many S/W. I have used Aperture in the beginning , AccuRAW , RAWPower with ApplePhotos and today only Capture One pro if I want something better or printable .

I have never thought to compare seriously these all. The final results matter and at the moment I get the best results with CaptureOne - but it is because I think I can use it ! And there are still many fine and usable gadgets - if i someday really can master Capture One , the results will be technically really great. I mean that I should study more and practice the S/W I use - not just buy new and probably a bit better. Being a wannabe artist is a problem too. ;-) ;-)

Fujifilm and Canon images (RAW files) do not differ that much - I can not see any X-Trans specialities. Just great sensors/cameras and the problematic part is usually the user. Me!

 

[BeatX]

Any RAW processor will be fine, if You will demosaic .raf files either in Iridient X-Transformer or DXO PureRAW.

Personally I use C1, because is far superior than LR when it comes to color grading and managing highlights. And once You will work with layers and understand how these are powerful tools, there is no coming back

Capture One also handles .raf files excellent, if You don't want to invest in Iridient X-Transformer or DXO PureRAW. Plus on top of that, with C1 You have access to superb RNI Film Silumations, and camera profiles from cobalt-image.com (if You are advanced user and care for such stuff)

--
My gallery: https://www.flickr.com/photos/maciej_k/

 

[BobsYourUncle]

Today, most S/W does a good job with XTrans files. Adobe upped its game when they introduced Enhanced details in Lightroom. Capture One has always been a good choice that I haven used a long time on all my cameras.

If you are looking for a non subscription option, the DXO PhotoLab dose a really goog job on XTrans, particularly with PrimeRaw.

so for XTrans I would say it is Lightroom with the Enhanced Details, Capture One and PhotoLab are comparable.

Capture One and PhotoLab have free trials.

Good explanation and suggestions. At 100% viewing of low ISO images and "cleaned-up" higher ISO images with today's AI Noise programs, the worms are generally an issue of the past.

Another add-on app worth considering is Iridient X-Transformer. It does an excellent job with initial deconvolution to a DNG file. It used to be my "intermediate" app of choice. However, as Truman has pointed out, current versions of Adobe and C1 are doing a very good job. I may add I use Topaz products for some noise reduction. Additionally i use it for sharpening on all my cams, not just Fuji.

I have not tried and tested so many S/W. I have used Aperture in the beginning , AccuRAW , RAWPower with ApplePhotos and today only Capture One pro if I want something better or printable .

I have never thought to compare seriously these all. The final results matter and at the moment I get the best results with CaptureOne - but it is because I think I can use it ! And there are still many fine and usable gadgets - if i someday really can master Capture One , the results will be technically really great. I mean that I should study more and practice the S/W I use - not just buy new and probably a bit better. Being a wannabe artist is a problem too. ;-) ;-)

Fujifilm and Canon images (RAW files) do not differ that much - I can not see any X-Trans specialities. Just great sensors/cameras and the problematic part is usually the user. Me!

Capture One has been one of my goto programs since the S5Pro days..... one of the few imaging tools to get the best out of that "finicky" but fabulous sensor.

 

[g7_chord]

I understand that your question is about very fine pixel detail, which is a popular topic on this forum. And, you have lots of answers.

But, I think I ought to mention that this level of detail is very far from what it takes to make a successful photograph. Far more important is what control you have over the overall photo (exposure, color balance, contrast, clarity, etc.), how that suits your artistic needs, and how it fits into your overall workflow. I would choose my main post-processing application on that basis.

(I also prefer the always-up-to-date subscription model to occasional updates that have to be thought about, paid for, and installed. More time for photography.)

I participate in two serious photo clubs with monthly competitions and have sold prints at art shows and not once has low-level pixel detail played any role whatsoever in the success of the photos.

Sometimes I have an extreme crop and what's there just isn't enough to work with. This used to be a roadblock, but the advances in processing (I use Topaz PhotoAI) do an amazing job in bringing the image up to a reasonable level. This is an exception, however. For me, what Lightroom does (without the enhanced details) works very well.

Some of my best photos were taken with a 10MP sensor on a now very old camera. I'm not even thinking that my 26MP X-T4 needs to be upgraded. Bayer or X-Trans, it just doesn't matter to me.

 

[sir_c]

CaptureOne works nice and the tool gives me nice results quickly. I'm still on an older subscription model, which makes the price ok-ish for a hobbyist. Their current pricing is less attractive.

Darktable is very good too. It is open source and has a steep learning curve, but it is free and I like its output. There are LUTs available to mimic the film simulations. Works on many operating systems.

 

[Greg in Durham NC]

I started out with C1 and really liked it as a raw file editor. The menu is easy to use and I liked making adjustments in layers.

I switched to LR and Photoshop about 2 years ago and have come to appreciate the masking and noise reduction technology it provides. C1’s implementations are not equal.

Photoshop is an added bonus. It has a lot of functionality that I’ll probably never use, but it’s really good at removing distracting objects with generative fill, which is what I primarily use it for.

Greg

 

[dellaaa]

I was wondering the same thing not too long ago. I think most RAWS processors are pretty good these days with a couple of caveats.

I was sold on the free version of C! for a while, but in thinking of buying a T5 which isn't supported, I tried Irident Developer and Rawtherapee but I decided to buy ON1. I will say if you enable the AI Tack sharp, the results might be even better than C1. Without Tack Sharp, the results are pretty unimpressive, but with Tack Sharp enabled, the image really is tack sharp.

For less than 100 bucks I think ON1 is the best deal out there. I rarely if ever use PS, which after years of use, I believe is a user unfriendly, non photography oriented, convoluted, cryptic abortion to get anything done.

 

[Meeces]

For a lighter-weight option, I would recommend checking out Nitro Photos. It is the evolution/new version of what used to be RAW Power Photos. Designed by one of the engineers who used to work on the Apple Aperture program back in the day. One time or annual purchase, and can be used across Mac devices (not sure if you're on a Mac). I usually use it as a plug-in with Apple Phots, but it can be used as a stand alone as well. I've had luck also with Photomator/Pixelmator combo (also can be use as stand alone or plug in).

 

[ChrisGibbons001]

It's a tie between DxO (Deep Prime) and Lightroom (Enhanced).

As for workflow, as DxO doesn't create a separate DNG and the heavy processing can be done on export, I lean more toward DxO.

You cant go wrong with any of them.

 

[BeatX]

It's a tie between DxO (Deep Prime) and Lightroom (Enhanced).

As for workflow, as DxO doesn't create a separate DNG and the heavy processing can be done on export, I lean more toward DxO.

You cant go wrong with any of them.

I agree.
DXO Pure RAW is the software, which basically gives aps-c sensors new life when it comes to high ISO.
This software should be included in every aps-c camera as a kit

 

[a_c_skinner]

I've never been persuaded that nowadays there is that much difference between any of them at least as regards sharpness.

Sensor size isn't the limit print size, only (perhaps in this order) technique, lens and pixel count.

That X-trans has inherent defects I've never been sure of. I suspect the watercolour effect is over ambitious noise reduction and worms over sharpening. They do need handling differently to other raw files I believe.

I do use Topaz Photo on anything I propose to show to others, which does make a difference.

I do think Adobe has the edge for lighting adjustments, like lifting shadows or dropping highlights.