Fuji RAW files

[vmwelt]

Hi, I'm considering Fuji but want someone to clear this for me.

I've read online that if you’re shooting a Fuji camera with an X-Trans sensor a third-party program is all but necessary.

May I ask why? Is Lightroom not doing its job?

 

[Charles2]

Lightroom is the default, and other programs are third party? It is sad that the big gorilla company Adobe is so dominant.

I would think the first-party program is Fuji Raw File Converter. It's free, so try it and make up your own mind. Some people are happy with it, and you'll find many discussions on this forum about more than a half dozen alternatives. My own favorites are Raw Therapee and Picture Window Pro.

 

[billycox]

I'd encourage you to do a search of this topic in this forum. It gets questioned pretty regualrly and you'll find a lot of great info on it.

 

[bs1946]

Hi, I'm considering Fuji but want someone to clear this for me.

I've read online that if you’re shooting a Fuji camera with an X-Trans sensor a third-party program is all but necessary.

May I ask why? Is Lightroom not doing its job?

 

[Cliff Fujii]

Hi, I'm considering Fuji but want someone to clear this for me.

I've read online that if you’re shooting a Fuji camera with an X-Trans sensor a third-party program is all but necessary.

May I ask why? Is Lightroom not doing its job?

 

[crowley213]

Hi, I'm considering Fuji but want someone to clear this for me.

I've read online that if you’re shooting a Fuji camera with an X-Trans sensor a third-party program is all but necessary.

May I ask why? Is Lightroom not doing its job?

 

[Stflbn]

Lightroom 'can' struggle demosaic'ing Xtrans shots with foliage type detail. "Standard" sharpening for other cameras seems to enhance the wormy effect that can happen. You can reduce much, most or almost all of the effect by learning how Fuji Xtrans files sharpen best.

Much of the time, and for most people it is not a problem. It's something that Adobe should address as theres at least 4-5 other competing programs that demosaic Fuji files better than Adobe manages to do.

Personally I vastly prefer Capture One to Lightroom, but C1 also has some development issues in that it does not support Compressed Fuji files or OpenCL acceleration via fast video cards when editing Fuji files.

--
Fuji X-T2 | 56 1.2 | 16-55 2.8 | 50-140 2.8 | EF-X500 Flash
http://501concepts.com

 

[vlasoye]

I've been shooting professionally for 25 years and change, Lightroom is totally fine.

 

[Skipper494]

A third party program is necessary for post processing, but you should shoot RAW and use Fuji's recommended converter to go to 16-bit tiff, then process that. Fuji knows its own algorithm best. Why anyone thinks that a third party can come up with a better converter is beyond me.

 

[dwalme]

A third party program is necessary for post processing, but you should shoot RAW and use Fuji's recommended converter to go to 16-bit tiff, then process that. Fuji knows its own algorithm best. Why anyone thinks that a third party can come up with a better converter is beyond me.

Bold statement. Silkypix is far from a Fuji product. If you've used it much at all you'll see that there are quite a few differences between the silkypix output and the in camera (Fuji's raw processor) output.

I've used both versions of Silkypix (RFC and Pro 7). Neither produce consistency the best results compared to in camera and other raw processors. There are pros and cons of all of them. There is no best.

 

[dpr4bb]

A third party program is necessary for post processing, but you should shoot RAW and use Fuji's recommended converter to go to 16-bit tiff, then process that. Fuji knows its own algorithm best. Why anyone thinks that a third party can come up with a better converter is beyond me.

Bold statement. Silkypix is far from a Fuji product. If you've used it much at all you'll see that there are quite a few differences between the silkypix output and the in camera (Fuji's raw processor) output.

I've used both versions of Silkypix (RFC and Pro 7). Neither produce consistency the best results compared to in camera and other raw processors. There are pros and cons of all of them. There is no best.

Yep, Fuji's "own" converter doesn't produce Fuji colors. What's even more weird is that with X-A3 raw files, it produces a wider field of view than what you get with out-of-camera JPEGs.

Fuji needs to put their JPEG engine into a software app that people can use to process raw files outside the camera and get those much-praised Fuji colors.

 

[bs1946]

A third party program is necessary for post processing, but you should shoot RAW and use Fuji's recommended converter to go to 16-bit tiff, then process that. Fuji knows its own algorithm best. Why anyone thinks that a third party can come up with a better converter is beyond me.

Bold statement. Silkypix is far from a Fuji product. If you've used it much at all you'll see that there are quite a few differences between the silkypix output and the in camera (Fuji's raw processor) output.

Besides Fuji, Panasonic also selected SilkPix to bundle with their cameras. I'm guessing that Fuji's and Panasonic's designers did some pretty extensive testing with SilkyPix before they elected to provide it with their cameras.

I've used both versions of Silkypix (RFC and Pro 7). Neither produce consistency the best results compared to in camera and other raw processors. There are pros and cons of all of them. There is no best.

I do about 98% of my RAW processing in camera but, I also have SilkyPix DS Pro 7 and I've done enough RAW conversions with DS Pro 7 to say that the results I see are consistent and fairly closer to my ooc jpegs then I get from Photoshop Elements 14 or the new OnOne Photo RAW.

 

[John Motts]

I've been shooting professionally for 25 years and change, Lightroom is totally fine.

Likewise.

 

[John Motts]

A third party program is necessary for post processing, but you should shoot RAW and use Fuji's recommended converter to go to 16-bit tiff, then process that. Fuji knows its own algorithm best. Why anyone thinks that a third party can come up with a better converter is beyond me.

There are too many reasons to list why other convertors such as Lightroom and Capture One are more suitable for so many of us.

 

[biza43]

Hi, I'm considering Fuji but want someone to clear this for me.

I've read online that if you’re shooting a Fuji camera with an X-Trans sensor a third-party program is all but necessary.

May I ask why? Is Lightroom not doing its job?

LR works fine.

 

[Flash Photo]

I am always shooting raw and have handled X-Trans files since X-PRO1 was launched.

The raw-conversion has all the time been a bit of a problem. Especially clarity and sharpening in LR/PS causes artefacts that you don't find with Bayer array cameras.

LR/PS are now decent and the result normally acceptable. However with some motives the result is not great. I would get this a 2 out of five.

Capture One is better but the handling of X-Trans raw compressed takes to long. the handling of X-Trans has aslo not improved during the last year. I would give it 3 out of five.

Iridient has for a long time been my favourite. It constantly gets up dates and are still on of the best. I give it 4 out of 5.

The new contender is ON1 raw. It just got up dated and especially regarding Fuji X-trans handling. The demozaicing and rendering is much improved and the program also now handles compressed raw.

The few tests I have done seems to make it my new favourite. I would give a 4,5 out of 5.

Almost all of these softwares van be downloaded in a full functional trial version.

It is always a challenge to test a new software. You need time to get used to it and learn how it works.

I would start with the one with my highest score and see if you like it.

I have a 30" calibrated screen and print large. That makes me a bit picky. I know that many thinks that LR is good enough. I do not agree with that. I don't know it is because their screens has too low resolution or if they have to get new glasses.

To get the best IQ out of your Fuji camera you need the right software.

So start by testing ON1 raw. It is a software under development and still have a lot of bugs.

This is one picture that I just tried to improve.

 

[joebat]

what do you mean by "older DXO versions" ?

J.

 

[bs1946]

what do you mean by "older DXO versions" ?

J.

It is my understanding that DxO Optics Pro 11 now processes Fuji RAFs and JPEGs. However, because Optics Pro was built on the lens profiles they compiled during their lab testing and DxO did not have the necessary tools to lab test anything associated with the X-Trans sensor, DxO Optics Pro would not even load Fuji JPEGs or RAFs. The last version I had was 10.5, which is still sold by B&H Photo.

 

[madhav56]

Nice picture Flash.

Will try out ON1 as suggested by you. Although I find LR6 working fine. But unless I benchmark it against something, its difficult to compare. I have tried Iridient X Transformer but did not find it very differentiating. Maybe their Mac version is better.

 

[Flash Photo]

Thanks,

Remember that On1 is work in progress. I once took part in the same thing when LR was developed. It was also a bumpy way forward. It took to version 3 or 4 before it was really a stable and matured software.

ON1 have many aspects that speaks for it. Longterm I think it will be a great software. However it still have a number of bugs and issues.

Compairing different raw-converters is difficult. Different softwares can be good at different types of pictures.

Some might render the colours very well and others might be able to render the details.

I did a small test with Acros SOOC and some alternatives converting Acros from the raw-file. Not a great photo, but a good one for testing.




Acros SOOC X-PRO2

Many talk about how great Acros SOOC is. Well, I tried it for a couple of days. I am not so impressed. The SOOC has the worm artefacts if you zoom in a lot. They should not be there. Try to sharpen the image a bit more in post or add clarity and you start to see these artefacts quite clearly also in small images. It starts to look artificiell.




Raw-file converted in LR with Acros preset.

If you use the LR Acros preset you of course have more control. You can fine tune a bit more. However the LR also has the problem with worms if you zoom in enough. If you try to sharpen the image or use clarity these artefacts starts to show up.




Iridient Conversion

Iridient has been my tool for years when I was not satisfied with the LR result. It is still one of the best.





This is On1 from the latest version. I think it is one of the best.

It gives a very sharp and a high resolution both in the grass, the gravel and in the bushes.

Again I want to say that these tests are very subjective. You have to manipulate each software without being able to compare the result from another while you editing. It is easy to go overboard in one of them. So try it out yourself and see what you like.

For 80% of my raw-conversion I use LR and even if the result is not top notch I think it is good enough.