Known Participant

Question

P: support X-Trans properly

Forum|Forum|11 years ago
June 10, 2014
27 replies
115989 views

This is getting crazy now - Lightroom is the only RAW editor that still messes up Fuji X-Trans files. Why?

We have smaller, less finaced businesses and even individuals producing RAW convertors that can do this, why is Adobe struggling so badly?

Iridient Developer

Photo Ninja

LightZone

Capture One

SilkyPix

Raw Therapee

Aperture

All of these produce much better results and leave Lightroom looking very under par.

I can't see any reason for this. I have invested a lot of money in Lightroom (and the Creative Suite set of Adobe tools) over my entire professional life, and I did this becasue I came to expect Adobe to be at the forefront of developing up to date tools with innovative features and supporting the latest hardware. But sadly, this seems to no longer be the case and they are left looking third rate compare to far smaller developers.

This topic has been closed for replies.

Show previous replies

R

ransimnaspaul

New Participant

My thoughts are with you pinkypunk35. This whole thread reads like a surreal nightmare.

LR rending of x-trans is painterly and lackluster in detail. You can see it with the examples here. Else, you can download plenty of other raw files from photo review web sites (say dpreview.com) and observe the same.

As a Fujifilm mirrorless owner, I lament the suboptimal performance of LR. Please Adobe, please find a resolution to this long standing issue. I'm a big fan of LR, but as is, the x-trans conversions are unusable.

P

panta

New Participant

Adobe please resolve this issue

3

3dit0r1

Known Participant

‌I agree completely that there is a big problem with x-trans demosaicing in LR. I'm on the latest release and, frankly, see no difference in this aspect of rendering than when I bought my X-T1 last March and was appalled by how bad it was - so smudged and watercolour-like in areas of repeating fine detail and distant/fine foliage it looks like it was taken on a cheap P&S or iPhone. Drop the same files into Irident and it's a different story, so this is NOT inherent to the sensor itself. This issue is all over the web among Fuji users all the time, and frankly is an ebarrassment for Adobe. It needs sorting in LR 6. And no, I don't wish to change the Raw developer I know, own, and use for all my other cameras just because Adobe can't get their act together when a 'bedroom developer' can.

D

Darius_K_

Participating Frequently

I used LR for years with my Nikon D90. I like the Concept of LR and I'm experienced in using it. The only thing, that keep me from switching to an other converter is my workflow and my archive.

I don't have a Mac, but if I had one, I would switch already, because the results of ID are much much much better, then LR.

I think, Adobe is not interessted in us, because we ae not enough users to bother them.

But I think for me, if Adobe won't improve this, LR 5 will be my last LR version. I think, I won't buy the upgrade to LR 6. I will switch to an other converter. I already asked on FB and G+, but Adobe ignored me.

RonaldL

New Participant

I feel the JPGs coming out of my Fuji X-E2 are way better than the JPGs produced by Lightroom! Furthermore, I see a couple of things that are not handled very well:

film simulation is not recognized by Lightroom. I have to manually set the correct simulation (I use Velvia a lot)
image orientation is not always recognized when the image is taken in portrait mode

when all is set correctly, the JPGs are not as nice as coming out of the camera. I am disappointed in Lightroom when it comes to Fuji handling. When still shooting Nikon, I liked Lightroom a lot.

ssprengel

Inspiring

The Adobe raw conversion engine doesn’t convert things with as much detail as some other software or the camera, itself.

Even if it did, Adobe software is unlikely to recognize “film simulation” settings from the camera, just like it didn’t recognize camera settings from your Nikon, right?

Not sure about image orientation.

P

pumpernikiel

New Participant

Good thing people keep adding their examples. Lightroom sucks at X trans files and it's a fact. I wonder if Adobe employees ever contribute to these threads? I hope they at least read them and I hope they are working on the fix that will come soon. It is long overdue. PLEASE ADOBE!

B

BoomeArt

Inspiring

Well, I've been using LightRoom for more than 5 years and was satisfied until I changed my heavy DSLR stuff with small and good performing Fuji X-T1. Since I switched to X-Trans sensor I am disappointed with how LR shows details. It is awful and terrible.

And now I am using Iridient Developer which suits my needs, but I don't have such usability as I had in LR.

Here are the samples made with my Fuji X-T1, strobe lights and processed in ID and LR 5.6, the original RAW file can be found here http://www.mediafire.com/download/9z1x4b6hkaz2caw/ALEX6828.RAF

Full size jpegs can be found here

Iridient Developer http://www.mediafire.com/view/pk9c59pgzxuio9s/ALEX6828_ID.jpg

LightRoom 5.6 http://www.mediafire.com/view/gd7b3sd6s39d97x/ALEX6828_LR-5_6.jpg

D

diego_lythgoe

Participating Frequently

LR has a dial for Sharpness in the detail section. Moving it to the right helps bring sharpness to the picture... for example:

I find it works great.

P

pinoguin

Known Participant

^ 'Sharpen' - For portraits that'll only enhance the smearing of the details and will also sharpen the bokeh, enhance noise and introduce some more sharpening artifacts. We do sharpening last and let the raw processor do the initial detail rendering, one of many reasons why it's very important that the raw is rendered properly firsthand.

P

pinkypunk35Author

Known Participant

Here is an up-to-date example taken with the latest X-Trans firmware with the most recent Lightroom 5.5 and Iridient Developer.

It's still problematic and it's still smearing details. Take a look at the bottom lip for a classic example.

It's almost like it's adding bruish stroke lines where there are none, and this is giving the painterly effect.

*Note you have to click on the image to see the animation

M

Mike Katz

Participating Frequently

Hi Pinky

Which camera is this?

M

Mike Katz

Participating Frequently

Mike Katz wrote:

However, I doubt the difference is significant for me.

LR5.5's X-Trans image processing should be more than adequate for a number of applications, such as Web postings, small prints, and even larger prints viewed at "normal" viewing distance. It's just that the full-capability of the technology isn't coming across with LR's rendering. For applications beyond what I just mentioned and professional work this may be significant. Business clients can be amazingly picky and often reject work based on very trivial "details." I have no stats on LR's customer base using X-Trans equipment, but since other raw editors perform better it should be of concern to Adobe. If the base Adobe Camera Raw engine is not designed to work well with the X-Trans sensor design, then it may require costly and time-intensive redesign. Hopefully that is not the case.

There are many professionals, including fine art ones, creating amazing photos with Fuji X-Trans cameras and Lightroom. While the foliage issue, agreed, is an issue, it's the foliage, when very small, and that is all. If you look at the remainder of the sample photo, everything else is in great shape literally.

F

fleckintosh

Participating Frequently

Hi!

I can agree to the original Post, that Adobe Lightroom but also Adobe Camera Raw is handling the X-T1 RAW Files not very good. Every mentioned raw converter is doing better than Lightroom. I am disappointed by Adobe in that case. All RAW Files are very blurry, like painted in watercolors. There are no Details, even if I move the Details slider to the right.

I cannot use Lightroom so far. Pictures developed by Lightroom are crap and not useable. The Best and sharpest images i get from this RAW Converters (in Order from best to worse)

1. Iridient Developer

2. Aperture

3. Photoninja

4. AccuRAW

.

99. Lightroom

I hope that Adobe will work with Fujifilm and improve the RAW Development. as long as this not happens, Adobe Products will be deleted from my Mac. I am tired to spend money for Software that is crap!

Adobe: Please do something for your money and improve RAW File support for X-Trans Sensors. I have no reason to use Lightroom anymore.

Keith Reeder

Participating Frequently

pinkypunk35 wrote:

why is Adobe struggling so badly?

Is it?

I don't use a Fuji myself, but I've tried converting a few files in the latest Lr, and they looked great.

So any chance of some objectivity to go with the subjectivity?

P

pinkypunk35Author

Known Participant

Subjectivity doesn't factor in this at all. Lightroom's failings for Fuji professionals is very well known. There are about a gazillion examples online.

Here are 3 samples by 3 diferent photographers right off the bat.

On the left, Lightroom, by Adobe, 28 Billion dollar company with 11,000 employees.

On the right, Iridient Developer, made by one man.

M

Mike Katz

Participating Frequently

On the left, Lightroom, by Adobe, 28 Billion dollar company with 11,000 employees.

On the right, Iridient Developer, made by one man.

LOL!!

Seriously, though, there are many posts like this all over the show. To properly evaluate, you need the original RAW files, and you need people skilled at each package to process them.

I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm just saying the screen shots prove nothing.

Mike

Sign up

To post, reply, or follow discussions, please sign in with your Adobe ID.

Sign in to Adobe Community

To post, reply, or follow discussions, please sign in with your Adobe ID.

Scanning file for viruses.

This file cannot be downloaded