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 · Feb 13, 2015

Yes, please improve detail rendering and sharpening for XTrans RAWs.

Report · Feb 07, 2015

Yes, the issue on this thread is quickly becoming the lack of any support from Adobe, any acknowledgement to it's long standing customers as to the issues and concerns they share.

It would be very helpful even if they just said they were not going to do anything, but the silence is deafening.

Report · Feb 07, 2015

Steve Sprengel are you an Adobe employee?
If not, we have nothing to discuss.

I already bought Iridient Developer and I am happy with it. Also I tried free software Dark Table and RawTherapee which works with x-trans files much better than Adobe Camera RAW or LightRoom.
5-7-9 years ago I could buy Photoshop as standalone program, now I have to subscribe to "photography plan" but I do not need such poor Lightroom. So, many Fuji users should pay for not working properly software. Why?

We were patient, and the only thing Adobe need to do is to say will this problem be fixed or not. Is it so difficult?

Report · Feb 07, 2015

Having Fuji's algorithms is probably what lead to the current situation, unless Fuji is licensing the algorithms rather than giving them away, and maybe Adobe didn't want to pay the licensing fee. I do know that Fuji failed to give Adobe any help or warning originally and that is why their first set of conversions was so terrible, and I agree that while the current conversions are better, they aren't nearly as detailed as others seem to be able to do, although if you look at the other conversions, sometimes there is a bit of artifacting, for example in fine green grass, so they are not perfect, either.

The current Adobe demosaicking process for traditional Bayer sensor layout has bits of the noise-reduction and sharpening built into it, so merely swapping out Adobe algorithms for Fuji isn't going to make things work entirely, either.

Report · Feb 07, 2015

Steve Sprengel, I clearly understood why it was deleted and agreed with it. But it is really funny that Adobe can not give any even brief answer about this problem, like: we are working on it... we will improve rendering x-trans files... or any other bla-bla. So Adobe's clients became angry.
I can see that Adobe do not care about its customers by keeping silence. So I am free to do anything until can see any improvements. I am free to purchase any other software or find another solution.

This post can also be deleted by moderator.

Report · Feb 07, 2015

My reply was removed by moderator, so I will tell my thoughts in another way:
I bought Iridient Developer and process my RAWs in it. If in LighRoom v.6 nothing is going to be changed I stop my subscription. If Adobe doesn't care of its users, so why shall we care about Adobe's profit?

Report · Feb 06, 2015

I bought Iridient Developer and process my RAWs in it. If in LighRoom v.6 nothing is going to be changed I stop my subscription and new version of photoshop will download from torrents. If Adobe doesn't care of its users, so why shall we care about Adobe's profit.

Report · Feb 06, 2015

@jimkit Adobe has replied elsewhere that they are very aware of this issue from many users. He did not commit to doing anything about it.

Report · Feb 06, 2015

Adobe, please fix this problem in LR6

Report · Feb 06, 2015

As of Feb 6th 2015

91 replies
4th most common problem on the photoshop feedback forum
76 stars
7 months of posts

still no feedback from Adobe. Good connection they have with their customers...

Report · Feb 05, 2015

Being a subscriber is a fool's game. You've granted Adobe a lifetime annuity for the privilege of using their products. Of course, you don't have to subscribe to get Lightroom but PS is another matter.

Report · Feb 05, 2015

I am disapointed in LR and Adobe as well.

I spent a great deal of money on Fuji products. I've tried different suggestions as to how to treat X-files in LR. They don't work all that great. But event if they did, I don't feel that I should have to go through all that to get results. It should not be any harder than it was with my Canon to get good results.

Being a subscriber may not be such a good thing after all. It seems Adobe is taking us for granted. We are stuck with our subscription.

Report · Feb 05, 2015

https://www.apple.com/osx/photos-prev...

Report · Jan 23, 2015

Fuji X-E2 23mm f/1.4 lens - Capture One on the left Lightroom on the right both at default settings - note the the pink bloom around the Lightroom branches. Click the image for 100% @Adobe if you have not seen this problem before.

Report · Dec 16, 2014

My opinion is:
- Adobe do not care about x-trans users.
- Adobe keep silence because they know that in version #6 there will be improvements.
In any case it is bad and wrong, because more and more professional photographers and enthusiasts switching from huge and heavy DSLR stuff to compact mirrorless Fuji system, which gives in most cases the same result.

Personally I bought a license for Iridient.

Report · Dec 16, 2014

I am testing the new release of Iridient Developer against Lightroom's latest release.

Here is a good example that shows how natural the Iridient version appears when compared to the Lighroom output. The same level of diference is present when comparing to Capture 1 etc.

In all fairness to Adobe, the RAW does match the Fuji JPEG quite well, but comparing the two it's easy to see why Lightroom is labeled as the worst software for Fuji X-Trans RAW files. Adobe customers are clearly losing details and getting an unnatural look.

Note these are default settings - with increased sharpening the difference is more pronounced, it simply exaggerates the issue.

Report · Dec 11, 2014

Guys, i totally fell in love with Capture One!

The X-Trans Sensor has beautiful colors, we all know that. As you know, i was testing a lot of raw converters last weekend (see my earlier post). i played a lot with all the capture one settings and observed that beautiful natural colors that no other raw converter can produce!

i am falling in love more and more...

beside this, i discovered another raw converter, worth taking a closer look at:

Cyberlink PhotoDirector.

Yeah, i know what you are about to say... but take a look at it. The Image Quality is very, VERY close to Aperture from Apple. I guess, Cyberlink uses the Apple RAW Converter. Images are much the same, just the handling with noise is better at PhotoDirector. That app is under developing, apple stopped developing Aperture a long time ago.

The Latest Version (6) you can buy both for Mac and PC.

Version (4) is even for free, fully working.

http://hukd.mydealz.de/freebies/cyber...

It works very Solid with X-Trans Sensors. The Image Quality is pretty good, eye in eye with Aperture.

I agree with mike-photos. A RAW Converter should do its job. Converting RAW as good as possible. Everything else, is a Bonus.

Report · Dec 11, 2014

+1. Of course Lightroom has great features, but it's a RAW processing product, and image quality is THE PRIME FEATURE. Make other features sub-par, but not this!

Report · Dec 08, 2014

Lightroom need to be improved, no question, but neither C1 nor Photo Ninja are all-that-and-a-bag-of-chips.

Anyone using a Wacom tablet with Photo Ninja already knows that the Wacom mouse won't work with this program. This is a deal killer for me. (It's a weakness of the software used to write the program.) Beyond that, PN has really inferior highlight recovery. My very first image test involved a backlit river. PN created all kinds of artifacts on the specular highlights across the surface of the water. LR handled the issue flawlessly. The developer acknowledged both of these as known issues.

Capture One is a nice bit of software and does many things very well but it isn't perfect either. It has the same (though less severe) issue with highlight recovery as Photo Ninja. And there are a number of features in the software that are not implemented for X-Trans sensors. Edge detection was one that they were still said to be working on when C1Pro 8 was first released. There are other omissions that the developer has said they do not plan to implement for X-Tran ever due to the amount of work it would take. That, to me, sounds like a less-than-complete commitment to Fuji users.

I have read nothing that suggests Adobe has committed to improving X-Trans conversions but I have read an Adobe employee confirm that this issue is at the very top of the list of requests they get for improvements. That leaves me at least somewhat hopeful that LR6 will improve the situation. That said, if it comes in the form of a new develop process, anyone who hasn't succumbed to Adobe's rental scheme and is still using PS CS6 will probably no longer realize any benefit from exporting out of LR6 as a smart object.

Report · Dec 07, 2014

My favourite converter concerning detail is also C1. But C1 has also some disadvantages: The highlight reconstruction is not as good as LR, Local corrections are very slow on my PC, and the catalogue becomes inconsistent from time to time.
When I compare the results of my Nikon D800 I am able to achieve identical results using C1 and LR. This should also be possible with Fuji cameras. Please, Adobe. Do something!

Report · Dec 07, 2014

Hey! I've done some work this Sunday with the usual suspects of RAW Converters.

Let the Pictures speak for itself...

Here are some comparisons with jpeg files of other RAW converters vs. the RAW File in LR 5.7 (best possible settings: Details 100, Amount 40, Radius 0.5)

EVERY Converter is sharper than LR. Everyone has its own character.

Photo Ninja has some creepy colors, Aperture some fragments.

My favorites are Raw Therapee (free of Charge!!!) and Capture One Pro 8.

See the Screenshots and tell me your thoughts 😉

Report · Dec 07, 2014

Report · Dec 07, 2014

Report · Dec 07, 2014

Let's send our XTrans improvement request to Adobe on their Google+ and Facebook pages. I've done so. Maybe we get heard if there are enough posters.

Report · Dec 07, 2014

Okay, then they could let the user choose if he wants the fast or the high quality algorithm. A single option field would solve that problem.