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

P

pinkypunk35Author

Known Participant

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.

D

diego_lythgoe

Participating Frequently

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

D

dougryan

Participating Frequently

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..

D

Darius_K_

Participating Frequently

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

k-green

New Participant

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.

P

pinoguin

Known Participant

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.

P

pinkypunk35Author

Known Participant

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.

P

pinkypunk35Author

Known Participant

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

K

kbkbn

New Participant

I've been using a Fujifilm X-Trans camera in addition to, but thank god not as a replacement for, my familiar Nikon cams for almost two years now.

I'm fully habituated to Lightroom, but for X-Trans, and then only certain X-Trans files, another, better raw converter is occasionally needed.

Curiously, whether or not the 'alternative raw converter' is needed depends entirely on the picture content of the files in question.

X-Trans scenes composed primarily of man-made environments, structures, and materials often look fine via the Adobe raw conversion.

But certain random, fractal-reminiscent objects typically encountered in a "natural" scene, such as the jagged surfaces of exposed rocks, or thousands or millions of curvy-shaped tree leaves cause the Adobe converter to generate, no, synthesize shapes in the rendering that did not exist in the scene.

To add complexity to the issue, sometimes, but not always, the problem files will show awful Adobe-flavored artifacting on the large calibrated monitor, but the difference in an actual print at 6x9" is not visible. Sometimes even a somewhat larger print will hide the fine detail artifacting.

But, it is there....I've seen it many times.

The most disappointing thing about playing around with Photo Ninja (the alternative converter I happened to select years ago) instead of Lightroom is that PN often creates very nice ---some might even say superior--- raw conversions from the Nikon files as well.

I know....shocking....simply shocking.

So, Adobe....how about a little more love for the lowly X-Trans?

Or, to put it another way:

If Photo Ninja added a "Print Module" functionality as good as Lightroom's (probably not going to happen, I know),

Lightroom would then become the "alternative raw converter".

ssprengel

Inspiring

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, but it is also very common for those who complain about it to only post conversions not the raw files for others to try, and without raw files there is always suspicion by those who don’t own an X-Trans camera that it is merely a conversion settings problem.

K

kbkbn

New Participant

I, personally, cannot face the several hours of field shooting/computer sit-down time that would be necessary for me to generate good quality comparison examples, and then write up coherent explanations to accompany them...all for the edification of disinterested non-X-Trans users.

Alan 7140, on the Fotozones.com forum made a "federal case" out of this when he got his Fujifilm X camera a few years ago. I've seen other clear and honest such illustrations available on the web from time to time.

P

pinkypunk35Author

Known Participant

Here's a great example showing CLEARLY the problem Adobe has with Fuji RAW files and the false details it puts in the photos and how it puts in a crazy leopard style worm pattern in ALL objects in every photo.

Yes, this effect is more or less obvious depending on the subject matter and how it's sharpened, but the general rule is that it's an underlying problem and the effect is always there - just in varying amounts.

No matter what your personal thoughts are, any software that changes your photos as much as this has a flaw, and as users who have purchased the software, we have a right to know if this is something that will be fixed or not. This is maybe not a big problem for casual shooters, but it's a real issue for those in the field especially shooting product an portraits and even casuals would be amazed at the potential defence all other RAW convertors offer.

On the left

Lightroom 5.7
Camera Raw 8.6

On the right
Iridient Developer 3.0.1

john beardsworth

Adobe Expert

Want to share the raw file? And what are your settings - sharpening, clarity, global + local .

Keith Reeder

Participating Frequently

Here you go:

SHARPENING X-TRANS FILES IN ADOBE LIGHTROOM

As I've said all along - it's not cut-and-dried that Lr is unable to process Fuji files "properly". This advice is from a successful fine-art pro, and the vast majority of follow-up comments on the blog are hugely positive.

So... Good enough for him, good enough for just about everyone who has commented. You lot have higher expecations, maybe?

And all it took was learning how to ue Lr properly on Fuji files...

This is precisely why the case isn't proven against Lr, and the tantrums on here don't change that one little bit.

P

pinkypunk35Author

Known Participant

Yet again you completely miss the point Keith.

The article you posted is about how to sharpen photos in Lightroom, nobody here has requested help on sharpening photos in lightroom and I don't believe anyone has complained about the sharpening module.

I use those settings myself, I have them all setup as presets, but if I run my photos through those settings in Lightroom, and then again in any other Raw developer, the difference is vast, and that, Keith, is what you don't seem able to grasp.

If you didn't ever compare you would be blissfully unaware of the detail the sensor is capturing but Lightroom is losing.

But facts are facts and everybody knows Lightroom is bottom in a long list if Raw developers for xtrans and several Bayer based cameras.

I see it, my clients see it, my fellow x shooters see it and so does the general community.

Cambora

New Participant

Same here, Adobe needs to fix this in LR6. I'm a paying CC customer but if this isn't resolved soon I'm leaving for Iridient or CaptureOne.

D

dougryan

Participating Frequently

I'm totally with you guys on the issue at hand. It's one thing to be an Adobe apologist, but it's something all together different to be a pompous ass about whether or not the issue is validated. I'm speaking about you, Keith.. obviously. You have zero interest in whether or not support improves for X-Trans sensors, so why not just take your nose out of the bowl? All you're doing is being combative in a place where it's not warranted or wanted. Yeah, it's the internet, you can say what you want... but you're really just being an ass, and if you didn't know it, I'm being honest and telling you so.

That said, many photographers *myself included* are ditching huge rigs for mirrorless, on photoshoots. The appeal for street shooting is obvious, and even in a controlled environment, such as a studio, it's also a benefit to use lighter/smaller gear. The results need not be inferior when comparing against DSLR gear, if the lighting is done well, and if the output processing is on point. To wit: LR is absolutely the cause of needing to switch workflows. The X T1 is one heck of a capable camera for portraits, amongst other things. The answer is not to switch back to a D800/600 and carry tons of heavy glass, but to spend far less, on other RAW processors until Adobe stops being Adobe about things, and gets their asses in gear. And since the SDK is now out, I'd expect that Adobe would want to at least quell the yammering on its forums from us folk. I'd be happy enough with them fixing it for that reason alone.

Doug

Keith Reeder

Participating Frequently

Even better would be if one of the Adobe apologists processes the Raw and provides the settings and a jpeg,because there is no shortage of people demonstrating multiple problems but not a single solution from the many apologists.

That's because nobody's "apologising" for Adobe - we're saying (and have been saying, very clearly, for ages) that you still haven't objectively defined or proved the "problem".

That's why John suggests that complaints about something being "mushy" aren't moving the discussion on - it's a subjective, immotive, meaningless term, which can be said about many of the contributions from "people demonstrating multiple problems".

And I'll say this again: Lr's lack of micro-detail isn't unique to Fuji files - I see it in my Canon conversions too, and it's a fundamental of Lr's demosaicing algorithm, not a Fuji-specific failing.

That's why some of us use several converters...

pinkypunk35 wrote:

but not a single solution from the many apologists.

Now that's not true, is it?

I've personally posted several links to to websites demonstrating (what I would call) "solutions" to (what you would call) "problems"...

T

tschroder1

New Participant

As a Lightroom lover and Fuji X-Trans fan, I am disappointed that this issue has yet to be resolved. I am not a fan of the painterly look that LR applies to my Fuji RAW files. I have no plans to switch to a CC subscription without satisfactory support for my beloved Fuji camera.