P: Improved Fuji X-Trans Support?

Report · Jul 02, 2014

Is Fuji X-Trans support being worked on?I appreciate that the support is better now than it was, but the reality is that Lightroom is still a long way behind other RAW developers, all of which are less well funded and with smaller teams working on the software.Lightroom has been the leader in RAW processing an image cataloging as far back as I can recall; but with the Fuji X-Trans files many people I know are leaving Adobe Lightroom for one of the many other developers, all of which are producing far better results than Adobe Lightroom.Ones I have personally tested are as follows: Iridient DeveloperPhoto NinjaLightZoneCapture OneApertureSilkyPixRaw TherapeeIridient is very good, and this is a piece of software made by a single man.My question is, if he can get it right, why can't Adobe? They have been leaders in innovation for many years but it seems in some areas now they are falling behind - I have never seen so many people leave a major developer for smaller independent ones, but to Fuji users (both enthusiasts and professionals) it's a pretty simple decision when you compare results.So all I'd like to know is if my patience sticking with Lightroom is justified, and whether a solution is being worked on - or will always be worked on. Or is it a case that the users wanting such a change are not enough to support such work.

Report · Jun 25, 2017

That's true, but reading compressed RAWs isn't a priority for me personally anyway.

Don't misunderstand me, I'm a Lightroom user since Version 2 and I'm very happy with the overall product. But when testing C1 10.1 I discovered that I can get much better image quality (esp. fine green details) out of it compared to Lightroom.
If I use Iridient Transformer and import the resulting DNG into Lightroom it seems I get better detail then using the RAF file directly.
And in my opinion Adobe is a little bit slow in improving their X-Trans demosaicing to a level that C1 or Iridient is delivering.

Or maybe I'm doing something completely wrong:

LR Version (Sharpening Amount 30, Radius 0,8):
https://www.dropbox.com/s/yia3zqkcdju28f9/lr.jpg?dl=0

C1 Version:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/voe5f53xpadqtvm/c1.jpg?dl=0

RAF File:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/7yd6ud67zocwuro/20170420_London_XT2_0010.RAF?dl=0

Maybe you can check yourself with my RAF file if you've some time, because I would be more then happy to continue using LR/PS as my main image management and editing solution.

/Mark.

Report · Jun 25, 2017

Yes, which is why I said "until recently", Mark. Was that a month ago, or two? 6-8 months behind LR for the XT2 compressed files, and almost a year behind LR for the XPro2's.

Report · Jun 25, 2017

John: Capture One reads Fuji compressed RAWs since 10.1

Report · Jun 25, 2017

You should withdraw your "dishonest" statement, not least because it undermines whatever credibility the rest of your post may have.

After cancelling a subscription, your catalogue does continue to work but you can't go into Develop or Map or use Mobile. The 7 day limit (IIRC I can't be bothered checking for you) applies to getting access to anything you have on Mobile that hasn't yet synced down into your catalogue.

These things go in turns, and C1 itself stood still for over a year. Did you ever try importing compressed XPro2 or XT2 raw files into C1 until recently?

Report · Dec 12, 2016

They confirmed in some update notes some months & years back that it was aknowledged to be an issue and they were working on it. That gave Fuji suers hope but I think it's long enough that we can deduce this is BS.

Iridient and Capture 1 work just fine and they are run by far smaller teams, it's basically not something Adobe want to do for Fuji users.

Probably too busy working out how to avoid paying fair taxes

Report · Dec 10, 2016

I had an online chat yesterday with an Adobe Technical Support person that relates to this forum topic (in fact he even directed me to it!). I thought I'd add a couple of screenshots incase it is of interest to anyone. I trialled LR for a month and love the ease of use and workflow...but feel frustrated with the RAW image quality. I contacted Adobe to ask 1. if they acknowledged the issue, and 2. if they were working on a solution. It appears they do - but only have a non-disclosed timeline. Fingers crossed the timeline is soon - because then I will happily buy into the product.

Report · Aug 17, 2016

No problem, moving to Capture 1 is like a free bump up to another 8 megapixels! Really enjoy processing my old Fuji X Trans images and seeing the new detail.

Report · Aug 17, 2016

Thanks, really appreciate your advice!

Report · Aug 17, 2016

As Steven has said - this is a 2 year old thread with NO REPLY from Adobe. They don't care, Fuji users have all jumped to better alternatives like Capture 1 and Iridient.

Adobe support sucks.

Report · May 22, 2016

Have you guys tried using Affinity Photo? For as much as I use PS *cloning/clone stamp/repair etc.. * Affinity Photo does an equally good job. If only Adobe would sub LR for $4.00 a month without PS, that would be a great combo.

Report · May 20, 2016

Agreed! It's well past time.

Report · May 20, 2016

It's time for process version 2016 . Hopefully there will be an improvement - as Adobe promised.

Report · May 22, 2016

In what respect do you think that Affinity is not up to par with PS?

Report · Mar 16, 2016

Personally I think LR is better C1 in all aspects but one. The only aspect it's behind is image quality for Fuji files. This is quite a major problem for an image processing software :-).

Report · Mar 16, 2016

Capture One Pro 9 is definitely superior to LR6 in terms of both X-Trans rendering and color rendering. It also has some very powerful features that LR lacks. That said, it is also missing some functionality that seems so obvious it is maddening. No history panel, for example. What the heck, Phase One? No plug-in architecture either.

To be fair, LR is far more full featured as an asset manager. It will allow you to view more file types, has very good geotagging functionality, and has an awesome print engine. So even though I use C1 for RAW processing, I use LR for asset management and printing. It is unfortunate that I can no longer just rely on an LR-PS combination for my editing needs but now that I'm used to C1's IQ, Adobe would really have to raise the bar to get me to abandon C1.

Report · May 22, 2016

I'd also like to note that the compared jpgs look wholly similar. It's the DNG vs RAF that stands out. That RAF displays the "oil painting" look we are all so familiar with. It's awful.

Report · Oct 23, 2015

It's totally irrelevant how good or bad Fuji Jpegs are when what's being discussed (and complained about) is the comparison of Adobe RAW to Iridient, Aperture, Capture One, Photo Ninja etc etc and how Adobe are producing the worst results of the lot.

Report · Aug 26, 2015

I didn't know that about auto-masking an X-trans, thanks for clarifying. Maybe there are additional overheads involved, x-trans does seem to be a little harder to demosaic, etc. In any case, I still prefer the overall look of my files when I process Fuji through C1.

Report · Aug 26, 2015

Here's another one, C1 does not support graphics processing with X-trans files, so processing is much slower than with other formats.
Also, does not support lens correction tool with X-trans files, so if you use non-Fuji lenses you can't make adjustments.

Report · Aug 26, 2015

C1 does not support auto masking on X-trans files, and they have no plans to do so. Auto masking is available for most, if not all, other cameras.
So, no, they do NOT fully support X-trans files.
I think there are more limitations as well, I can't remember what they are.

Report · Aug 26, 2015

Sorry, you confused me now. Do you mean LR or C1 won't add full support? C1 supports X-Trans as fully as any other camera.

Report · Aug 26, 2015

The problem is that C1 is not as powerful as C1 as regards auto masking, and I use it a lot in LR. It doesn't look like C1 are ever going to add full support for the X-Trans files.

Report · Aug 26, 2015

Yes, it's true C1 is not quite as powerful in that regard as LR. However, I now do 99% of processing in C1 and use PS to do more advanced masking, etc., which I honestly use for only 1% of shots.

Of course, PS is designed for this, so tends to be a better tool than either LR or PS for this kind of work. Depending on need/style YMMV, but I'm surprised how much I like C1 after a little adaptation.

Report · Aug 26, 2015

I eventually decided to try the switch to C1.

First thing I tried to do was to create a selection around an irregular item, and C1 does not support auto masking on X-Trans files! A deal-breaker for me as I process only in Lightroom and would want to do the same in C1.

Report · Jun 17, 2015

Denis - are you joking?

"If Adobe's rendition of the file data from your particular camera model does not satisfy your taste, why is this a critical problem?"

Let's imagine you drive a Toyota. Let's also imagine where you live there is just one petrol station, it's the only petrol station in a 50 mile radius. Naturally you and many of the folk in your town have been using this station every day for several years, until one day the station decides to stop providing premium petrol like everyone else and instead they start selling petrol of less quality than other suppliers.

What's worse is that this petrol really doesn't work nicely with Toyota's - it causes them to splutter, loses acceleration, and create a lot of smelly fumes.

What would you do?

The participants of this forum would request that the petrol station rectify this and improve the quality of petrol. You are the only one who would change their car.