P: Improved Fuji X-Trans Support?

[pinkypunk35]

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.

[iohfroiherwoihewroi]

I don't see how this is helpful. I am sure Adobe is interested in knowing that their products don't work well for certain cameras.

[DdeGannes]

I understand the concern as I have been shooting raw since 2004.

Adobe is a third party supplier of software for rendering raw files from digital cameras, Lightroom and Adobe Camera Raw. If Adobe's rendition of the file data from your particular camera model does not satisfy your taste, why is this a critical problem? There are at least a dozen other providers of software that can match or improve on their rendition, including the software provided by the camera manufacturer.

Choose the one that satisfies your needs, convert your raw files to tiff files and do further work on them with Adobe Products.

[BoomeArt]

I hope a little less, may be 2 years and a half 😉

[FeedbackCommunityMember]

That sounds very encouraging! I dicscovered, that sticking to other RAW-development SW by means of exporting to TIFF and opening the file in PS chews up my time. My workflow is completely broken.

[pinkypunk35]

Thanks for the input James, please do post some photos, JPEGS & RAWS preferably.

Are you using LR 6? For me that's even worse, opening files and basic editing takes forever.

Adobe really have lost touch with it's customers, still not even commenting despite this being the third most popular problem in the entire feedback forum.

Makes one wonder what the point of the forum is to be honest.

[pinkypunk35]

There is no legal reason why they can't comment on their own software. They have the option of simply acknowledging the many users complaining about the issue and have a choice whether they see this as something that needs improving, or whether they see it as something which they are unable or unwilling to focus on.

There is no reason or them not to communicate with their users.

[ssprengel]

For the reasons, above, you're unlikely to get #2 until if and when #1 has occurred.

[ssprengel]

It is very unlikely Adobe would make negative comments about Fuji or toward Fuji-camera-owners or give hints about their attitude toward revamping Fuji processing--such things could get them into legal trouble as well as affect their stock price.

Adobe is still getting 100,000+ new CC subscribers each month. When improving Fuji support has higher marketing potential for increasing LR's contribution to those CC subscribers than adding new features like facial recognition or a touch-friendly interface maybe it'll be done, right?

I think Adobe has to be careful about using a third-party demosaicking solution like Darktable or dcraw, even if it's free, because at some point it might not be free and then Adobe would owe someone lots of money for using it and if it's open then Adobe would be expected to contribute their improvements which they may not want to do. It's far safer to buy someone else's intellectual property or develop in house, and so far neither of those options have provided superior quality.

[pinkypunk35]

Sorry James, but Adobe not working with Fuji is more of an Issue for Fuji than it is for Adobe - they stand to lose far more.

I have heard from many sources that Fuji have given Adobe all the algorythms and data needed, but Adobe don't feel there is benefit in pooling resources into this for Fuji users (instead they make new features like iPhoto 1990 face detection).

And even if that was the case it wouldn't explain why all the other RAW developers are producing better results than Adobe, which really is the issue here.

Adobe does and OK job in the main, but it's obviously not up to the standard of some far smaller softwares written by lone people in bedrooms; and that really is the crux of the problem - Fuji Lightroom users simply want an explanation why this is, or even some comment saying they don't care for Fuji users.

But Adobe just continually fail to respond to this which just exaggerates the issue for consumers, for Fuji and for Adobe.

[BoomeArt]

I bought and use right now Iridient Developer (you may scroll up and see my comparison with LR 5 and 6). Capture One I tried couple of times, but this software demands to deep study and I don't have free time to learn one mor RAW-processing software (because I shoot 25-30 hours a week and need to give the decent result to my clients).
Darktable is free and open-source software. It works great, especially if you chose 5-step demosaic. But it is also demands some time to study it. I know that in net there are blogs where it is explained, how to work with Darktable. I can't give you the link because I speak Russian and I know about one blog which is written in Russian. But I am sure you manage to find. Moreover, Darktable is for Win, Mac and Linux. A friend of mine who is very successful stocker works in Darktable and he says that demosaic is perfect for stock demands.

So, Adobe can't - other manufacturers can. What does it mean? In my opinion, Adobe has got a "star-in-the-forehead" disease and don't give a damn on its clients.

[3dit0r1]

Aleksei, you may well be right, I can't vouch for the veracity of any of it, just passing on what I heard.

Are you getting a perfect demoniac in C1? I tried it a while back and found it much better in terms of colour profiling and other areas, but only mildly better at demosaicing. It's not as strong as LR in other areas, although the new colour correction workflow does look very nice!

Never heard of Darktable, might look it up, although LR handles my current E-M1 files just fine so I have little incentive to move developers right now.

[BoomeArt]

James, all you said sounds strange at least. If I process x-trans RAW in Iridient Developer or Capture One, or in Darktable I will get perfect demosaic. So why they can but Adobe can't?
Moreover I know from a guy from Fujifilm-Russia, that Fuji gave to Adobe all necessary data, but the only thing Adobe did is included film profiles to LR and ACR.

[FeedbackCommunityMember]

Thank you guys for sharing your thoughts!

I've decided to buy a Fuji body in spite of known LR's deficiency and I'm going to buy the Iridient Developer for it. I'm quite happy with PS as an edit/retouche software but if I would know a comparable software to PS, I could also say bye-bye to Adobe...

[t.linn]

Why would Adobe lift a fat finger to do anything when people are willing to sell their camera bodies to accommodate Adobe's laziness? I'm not criticizing your decision, James, but your post doesn't do much to further the cause. Then again, there isn't much to suggest Adobe cares about any of its users. Their rental scheme seems to have worked so what motivation do they have to fix anything.

[3dit0r1]

I sold my X-T1 because of this, such a shame as it was a lovely camera, but I bought it primarily for landscape use and the awful 'plasticky' demosaicing in LR killed it for that. I tried other developers on trial, some were nice, but ultimately my whole workflow and catalog is based around Lightroom, and I'm used to it, and I already own it.

So, I'm NOT going to say I'll move to another raw converter, when the one I already own should do this fundamental task perfectly well. I'm going to add another request Adobe  actually do something about it. I'd love to move back to a Fuji body and glass. If others, including solo bedroom developers can do it perfectly well, there is clearly no excuse.

Come on Adobe, you have the resources, what's the sense in making a lot of people very unhappy, and very vocal, when you could make them very contented by simply fixing this? At least make an official announcement of progress, especially now that LR6 has shown no improvement in this area, as many had hoped.

[Lodimup]

I used to do that. With addition of converting to lossy dng.

My latest workaround before selling my XT1 was using Proneg low with low hilight and shadow jpg. It is enough for most wedding cases. Only small hilight is lost. Saved me a lot of time.

[BoomeArt]

With hundreds of wedding photos, for example, I open RAFs in Iridient, do sharpening and export as 16 bit tifs. Than these tifs send to LR and work there.

[Lodimup]

I bet when Iridient 4 is out Adobe will lose a lot of customers. Iridient only needs faster process time and catalog capability.

[Lodimup]

It's not 10 months. It's been 3 years! I wish Adobe would just hire that guy. Iridient worked great indeed. Too bad I have to process hundreds of images per job.

[BoomeArt]

You are right I'm not shooting landscapes. But I'm shooting fashion defile and also I'm shooting reportage. And jpegs were accepted by chief editors. And I want to say, that Iridient works great, and it was created by ONE person! Adobe has a lot of employees and for more than 10 month did nothing.

[Lodimup]

@Jimkit Well, I invested heavily in glass when Canon was still better than Nikon. In controlled lighting, any camera's fine.

@Aleksei Isachenko Good for you but not everybody shoots 'legs' in controlled lighting. Try landscape with jpg.

[BoomeArt]

I can recover Highlights in Iridient better than in Lightroom. But I'm sure it depends on way/style of shooting. Moreover Iridient has 2 tools: Extreme highlight recovery, which has 7 sub-menus and Highlights (neighbourhood adaptive).

[pinkypunk35]

A Canon? They are the worst at recycling sensors.

Got to use what works for you ultimately

[Lodimup]

I had 5d3, x100 and xt1. xt1 was bought to replace x100. Now, I use x100 when 5d3 is inappropriate. X100 has bayer sensor.

I wish fuji would just make xt1 with bayer sensor. That'll be fantastic.

Xtrans are good but they are not worth the trouble especially when I shoot a lot. Also, Iridient isn't as good as lightroom when it comes to hilight recovery.

[BoomeArt]

a-ha-ha 🙂 sensor is not so important, hands and head are much more important. And I am working for 14 month with Fuji X-T1 and magazines, catalogue clients and advertizing agencies still pay me, not looking that I come to shot with small camera, not big full frame.
Moreover, I have very good jpegs strait out of camera and very often my clients ask and take jpegs. So I am not waisting too much time with postproduction.