P: support X-Trans properly

Report · Jun 10, 2014

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.

Report · Apr 13, 2015

Exactly.

Report · Apr 13, 2015

kbkbn wrote:

I've seen other clear and honest such illustrations available on the web from time to time.

With which we're right back to "your opinion that there's a problem doesn't mean there's a problem": I've posted pretty compelling evidence that Lightroom is eminently capable, in the view of individuals whose opinions are every bit as valid as yours or anyone else's, that Fuji files properly processed in Lr are excellent,

So - at best - there's contradictory evidence...

Which means the case isn't made.

Report · Apr 13, 2015

I haven't seen this evidence, please do link me to it. As you (and the other Adobe apologists) seemingly don't even own a Fuji X-Trans camera I don't see how you can post evidence, but I'm certainly willing to view it along with your suggested settings.

Report · Apr 14, 2015

I love the "logic" of this supposed counter argument, i.e. "your opinion

that there's a problem doesn't mean there's a problem." Were that valid

thinking then it holds that the following is also true: "your opinion

that there is NOT a problem, doesn't mean there is no problem." And

there is the matter of the self congratulatory statement (a.k.a. another

"opinion") that " I've posted pretty compelling evidence that Lightroom

is eminently capable..." No one is going to argue that LR is not a

capable product. The issue boils down to the way it struggles with RAF

files when compared to other software. If there were truly no problem

with LR, why would so many of us be decrying the results we get with

RAF files ?

A meaningful contribution to this debate would be for you or others to

post a side by side comparison of a LR conversion vs a Capture One Pro 8

conversion in which we can all clearly see that Lightroom does the

better job. Good luck with that !

Report · Apr 14, 2015

Well put. The disinterested non-X-Trans users appear to be doing

nothing more than voicing opinions here rather than facts which tends to

be a distraction from the basic issue. I use Fuji RAF files and when

processed in Capture One Pro 8 they are clearly superior to the results

I get with Lightroom 5.7. But since I'm still a LR fan I simply do the

initial conversion in Capture One, save and export the file, then open

that version in LR. Why stick with LR. Because I'm so used to their UI

that I could drive it in my sleep. Let's all hope LR 6 shows up soon

and fixes this issue. FWIW, LR's overall ease of use beats Capture One

hands down.

Report · Apr 14, 2015

The problem is Bruce that there are a few guys who are sponsored by Adobe for posting content on these very forums.

The user ssprengel who has joined the conversation above is open about his relationship with Adobe and has confirmed he gets "gifts" in return for "posts". So I wouldn't put too much stock into their replies, it seems to be about getting issues knocked off topic rather than photographers helping one another in the community. I would commend ssprengal for his transparency though, it's very refreshing - I am sure there are others who are not so upfront.

Plus most of these guys only own Lightroom, they don't own Fuji X-Trans cameras, so they are incapable of producing the issues often voiced on these forums. If you demonstrate it, they claim user error, if you give them a RAW file they will say it's fine, if you show them a comparison with Iridient they will tell you to go use that. It's a circle jerk.

Funnily enough the same users gave the same defence when X-Trans first came out, back when it was far more of an issue than it is now, they still blamed the users and denied any issue - but then Adobe admitted there were issues and went about fixing them (to a degree) which put egg on a few faces.

Report · Apr 14, 2015

What I have said this round is that there is an issue with Adobe X-Trans conversion as compared to other raw converters and that people should supply more raw files when they report problems such as this.

It would hope you're not rejecting either of these ideas by saying I receive gifts from Adobe. Those gifts are based on my relatively high level of participation, here on the forums, and before I accepted anything, I specifically told the Adobe rep I would not unless it was understood that they were not buying my acquiescence or silence when it came to problems with Adobe software that I wanted to discuss and try to find out more detail about and concur that there was a problem when I felt there was, and they agreed that was not was the "gifts" were about and I was free to do that. Adobe is mostly concerned about using the forums for self-promotion and marketing of other products. That doesn't mean that I don't post when I feel Capture One or Iridient do a better job with X-Trans when I have tested with or seen what I feel is conclusive evidence that they do. So I usually side with those reporting problems as long as they present enough detail and evidence that I can reproduce the issue myself, and if I can do that, I will report to Adobe, directly.

Report · Apr 14, 2015

pinkypunk35 wrote:

The problem is Bruce that there are a few guys who are sponsored by Adobe for posting content on these very forums.

From everything I've read so far in this post ssprengel agrees there is an issue! It also looks like he's trying to help find a solution by requesting users provide X-Tran raw image files for download.

I acknowledged there was a problem almost a year ago: Re: Will Adobe ever support X-Trans properly? Everyone else does...

Here's a statement I made concerning LR X-Trans conversion prior to becoming an Adobe MVP:

______________

Like I said the LR results are NOT worlds apart from Aperture's, but I would still call the LR results "unacceptable." Why is it unacceptable? The best analogy I use can use is camera lens performance.

EXAMPLE:

You purchase a new high-end lens known in the industry to be a "superb" performing lens. On examining the images shot with the lens at 1:1 view in LR you discover they are not quite as sharp as expected, AND in fact a much less expense lens you own is clearly sharper. You then fiddle with LR's sharpening controls and find that you can almost make the images look the same as your cheaper lens.....would you keep the lens or return it?

I stand by statements today and I am sure Adobe is working on a solution.

_____________

Speaking as an Adobe Forum MVP I stand behind this statement today. Does Adobe now have a fix and if so when will it be implemented? That's something only Adobe staff is privy to, but I'm sure they are well aware of the issue and working on a solution. This most likely will require a new Process Version to maintain backward compatibility. Adobe will not create a new Process Version simply to "improve" rendering of X-Trans raw images. They would only do so if rendering can be improved for all raw file formats! That's no small task!

Peace

Report · Apr 14, 2015

BTW, besides my participation on the forums, I am “sponsored by Adobe” because I DO REPORT PROBLEMS TO ADOBE. I just don’t have an X-Trans camera so have to rely on raw files from others, which are typically few and far between for this particular issue.

Report · Apr 14, 2015

WELL.....if there isn't any problem with Adobe + X-Trans sensors, why

don't you pick up a used X-E2 for a few bucks and you can come over to

the Dark SIde ? : ))

Report · Apr 13, 2015

ssprengel wrote:

It seems to be common knowledge of users who own an X-Trans camera that Adobe’s conversions are not as detailed as other raw converters

I've made the point before - on this very thread - that this is equally true of my Canon files: I get more detail out of Photo Ninja, Capture One and Optics Pro than I do out of Lr.

That's why I use more than one converter, rather than wishing my life away banging on about it on Lightroom forums...

It also means that it isn't a "Fuji" conversion issue.

Report · Apr 14, 2015

Looking at the sheer number of posts you make, it seems to be you whom is wasting their life

Report · Apr 14, 2015

This thread is not about Canon RAW file conversion, Keith. Why are you even commenting on this thread. You present yourself simply as a troll. If you have a horse in this race then feel free to contribute. If you are being compensated for your participation in Adobe discussions then say so. Otherwise, why are you being so obtuse? What do you get out of this?

This is not a debate. It is a plea for help with what appears to be a technical failing with Adobe's RAW converter and Fuji X-Trans sensor cameras. Stories about people who have developed special techniques and tutorials about sharpening are not a solution and these time-consuming steps are not necessary with files from other cameras. I am in no position to perform product testing or present a case. I will say that as a Fuji X-Trans and Adobe Lightroom user, I am disappointed with the details in my Lightroom converted RAW files. This may be my opinion but it is what it is. It is my hope that someone at Adobe is listening and will address the issue either by solving it technically or by telling X-Trans users to take it up with their camera manufacturer. I am not asking for nor do I appreciate your interference in this matter.

Report · Apr 14, 2015

tschroder1 wrote:

This thread is not about Canon RAW file conversion, Keith.

You seriously can't see the relevance of the point I'm making? Because it is very relevant.

tschroder1 wrote:

Why are you even commenting on this thread.

You don't get to decide who contributes to any thread on here, OK?

tschroder1 wrote:

If you are being compensated for your participation in Adobe discussions then say so. Otherwise, why are you being so obtuse? What do you get out of this?

I have no relationship whatsoever with Adobe except that I'm a (broadly) satisfied user of some of its software.

What I get out of it is this: I have a low tolerance for undemonstrated, unevidenced whining about failings in software (or cameras, or lenses) which can much more easily explained by user error, and choose to challenge it when I see it: I'm a member of this forum, and - unlike some - I consider it important that it serves as a valuable repository of accurate, useful information for any visitor that might happen by. So when I see essentially unproven complaints about some sort of fundamental flaw in Lr's conversions, I'm likely to push back.

And in doing so, I'm a damn' sight more objective than some of the "contributors" to this thread.

tschroder1 wrote:

This is not a debate.

No, you're quite wrong. That's exactly what it is.

Report · Apr 14, 2015

Debate it all you want, hot shot. That doesn't change the fact that your presence here is a waste of time. Your delusionary relevance is only outweighed by your pedantic trolling.

I don't need your blessing to raise something up the flag pole and hopefully have my imaginary problem addressed and ultimately resolved.

Have fun!

Report · Apr 14, 2015

The problem is, Keith, you keep saying "unproven" despite a wealth of evidence to the contrary from many contributors here, and even more in the general photographic community; so to everyone else that either makes you ignorant of the facts or just a classic forum troll.

Even if for some crazy reason you genuinely believe that every single Fuji X shooter is guilty of user error - including several acclaimed ex Canon and Nikon professionals I may add - this doesn't negate the fact that your posts are overly condescending and unnecessarily aggressive, and whether you intend to come across that way or not, it really doesn't help the find a solution to the problem regardless of the cause.

Report · Apr 14, 2015

As a gentle reminder to all of us who are /*not */enjoying having our

discussion of RAF file processing via Lightroom hijacked, remember your

Psych 201: the fastest way to extinguish behavior you do not want to

see repeated is to simply ignore it. FWIW we might try that in an

attempt to get back to the original issue.

Report · Apr 19, 2015

I am hopeful on Tuesday we will have some positive news on this, fingers crossed.

Report · Apr 22, 2015

It's too bad I've gone and made Photoshop so darn irreplaceable for some of my work. As long as I'm getting Lightroom with Photoshop, I'll have a hard time justifying the purchase of another basic raw editor. This is of course based on the assumption that Lightroom's X-trans issues will be fixed the second I jump ship. Adobe, you've sure got me by the gonads.

Like many of you, I've adapted to a more destructive workflow. I use Fuji's Silkypix based Raw Converter EX 2. The program was downright weird to use at first, but it's actually quite intuitive and powerful if you can get over the initial hurdles. If only it had Lightroom's adjustment brush, radial filters, and HSL controls. I would never look back.

Lightroom occupies that weird, awkward middle space in my workflow. I'm excited by some of the new features in Lightroom CC, but I still won't let it anywhere near an RAF file.

Report · Apr 27, 2015

The only alternative processors with brushes that I found were Aperture, Affinity Photo Beta and Capture one

I've pretty much fully switched to C1 for a long time now, I only use LR for importing and managing metadata. Then C1 session mode for editing. C1 can also use color profiles which enables Fuji Classic Chrome for my xe1 and xm1, pretty cool besides c1's terrific default colors.

Report · Apr 28, 2015

Guys - it's great to have so many Fuji users supporting this thread, but unfortunately this is just for user discussions - to get Adobe to take notice you need to be posting, and pressing the +1 button on the official Adobe Feedback forum here: http://feedback.photoshop.com/photoshop_family/topics/fuji_x_trans_support?

It's currently the 3rd most popular issue in Lightroom, and yet to get a response; please visit the link and press the +1 button in the first post so Adobe take notice.

Report · Apr 30, 2015

I waited for LR 6, because I hoped, that the fuji X support will imporve. I tried to communicate with Adobe, but they ignored me.

And LR6 isn't faster, it's even slower, then LR5.

So I'm not willing to spend money for LR6, I will use this money to switch to a raw converter, which works good with fujis raw files.

So long and thanks for all the fish

Report · Jun 16, 2015

Finally the hard work paid off, Adobe have today confirmed they are working on improving Fuji X Trans RAW files.

From the Lightroom June update release notes.

In collaboration with Fujifilm, we are still investigating methods to improve fine detail rendering and overall edge definition.

Report · Jun 16, 2015

I haven't seen a significant difference between LR5.7, LR6 and LR6.1.

In all cases, LR's rendering is quite close to the out-of-camera version with Sharp+2 settings, but not totally there yet... when looking at 100% magnification.

In my case, the difference is not significant for my use (screen viewing without peeping and 8x10" prints) so I don't bend backwards...

Here is an example with the following shot:

I used the following detail settings:

Having said that; in my opinion, the Ricoh GR delivers more detail than both OOC JPEG and LR6.1 raw and the rendering is more natural, particularly on foliage with lots of details and highlights.

I wonder if Iridient can make the XE1's output as good as the Ricoh's... I am on windows platform so I cannot tell.

Raw files and conversions can be found here: Dropbox - Fuji LR6.1 tests

Report · Jun 25, 2015

LOL.. Those "backyard Fuji" files, especially the RAW one, looks like Bob Ross took his paint brush to those bushes! One would have to be in serious denial or ass kissing mode to say that such foliage looks natural/good. That Ricoh is one fine camera btw.. I'd love to have one for a second camera at a shoot..