P: support X-Trans properly

[pinkypunk35]

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.

[pinkypunk35]

trshaner wrote:

My aging eyes (I'm 68) and 1920x1080 25" monitor reveal a difference, which is best described as a smearing (painterly effect) of fine detail in the LR processed raw file. 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?

Acceptable or unacceptable is going to be subjective to your expectations and personal nature.

My perspective is that if someone invests $1300 on a camera, and another $1000 on a lens, they have done so because they have an appreciation or need for the quality of both items in resolving fine detail, sharp photos, dynamic range etc etc etc - and so if there is something along the line that is negating these benefits, the user is going to be left very frustrated with whatever it is holding him back from extracting the true results from his or her camera.

At first all RAW processors struggled with Fuji X-Trans files, that was acceptable because it was a new way of doing things and to expect software to catch up in that time was unreasonable.

However fast forward several years and every single RAW developer out there, including very minor small outfits, have managed to extract these details and results from X-Trans RAW files EXCEPT for Adobe; and as a lifetime user of Adobe products who has invested many thousands of dollars into Adobe software because they have previously been innovators and leaders of providing good software solutions for creative professionals, I find the fact they are lacking behind such minor competition simply unacceptable.

In all honesty I'd expect Lightroom to be providing the best results; to be the market leader, but right now I'd take them just matching Iridient.

[Keith Reeder]

pinkypunk35 wrote:

Acceptable or unacceptable is going to be subjective to your expectations and personal nature.

Well, there you go - the point some of us have been making all along. Took a while to sink in, didn't it?

(And ironic, given the comment you made up-thread that: "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").

Just because something's unacceptable to you, that doesn't mean in any way, shape or form that it is therefore inherently, intrinsically flawed beyond any reasonable usefulness. It just means that you're not happy with it.

The exact point I made at the top of this: you don't get to decide where the acceptability line is drawn for anybody but you, and clearly others find Lr's rendering to be satisfactory, whether or not it's class-leading.

It's pretty tiresome when someone mistakes their own personal opinion for incontrovertible fact. Lightroom could be better, no doubt - but used well, it self-evidently does well enough. The whole premise of this thread is based on a false assumption presented as a truth.

[pinkypunk35]

Keith_Reeder wrote:

pinkypunk35 wrote:

Acceptable or unacceptable is going to be subjective to your expectations and personal nature.

Well, there you go - the point some of us have been making all along. Took a while to sink in, didn't it?

(And ironic, given the comment you made up-thread that: "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").

Just because something's unacceptable to you, that doesn't mean in any way, shape or form that it is therefore inherently, intrinsically flawed beyond any reasonable usefulness. It just means that you're not happy with it.

The exact point I made at the top of this: you don't get to decide where the acceptability line is drawn for anybody but you, and clearly others find Lr's rendering to be satisfactory, whether or not it's class-leading.

It's pretty tiresome when someone mistakes their own personal opinion for incontrovertible fact. Lightroom could be better, no doubt - but used well, it self-evidently does well enough. The whole premise of this thread is based on a false assumption presented as a truth.

Keith you completely miss everyones point time and time again.

The terms acceptable or unacceptable are subjective - however we are discussing the results of Lightroom versus the results of competing software, (check the title) and that I am afraid is OBJECTIVE. The sub par performance of Lightroom compared to nearly every other RAW developer is clear to see - this is undeniable fact.

So therefore it's flawed compared to it's competitors, it is turning photos into paintings and for every professional working photographer I know this is always going to be unacceptable.

I suggest you take more time to digest the real topic of this thread rather than find angles or semantics just so you can vent on a thread that doesn't mean anything to you for no logical reason - if you are happy with Lightroom, great. Though as you have already stated, you don't even own a Fuji X-Trans camera and you do not deal with this day in day out, so I really struggle to see why you are defending a problem that does not apply to you or your working life. But that's your prerogative I guess...

Why isn't there an ignore button?

[Todd Shaner]

Keith, I don't own any Fuji X-Trans cameras and have no axe to grind concerning Adobe versus Apple, et al. We've seen similar issues in the past with certain Nikon camera models and Adobe has corrected them with new camera profile versions (v2, V4, etc.).

In your post #5 you said, "Bottom line - I doubt that these examples demonstrate a Lightroom failing with X-Tran files, but are a demonstation  of the typical Lr "out of the box" look, regardless of the camera in use..."

Did you download the OP's DSCF0296.RAF - Box raw file in post #26 and compare your LR processing results to the Aperture processed image DSCF0296 Aperture 100% Detail.jpg - Box in post #27?

Adobe may have improved the image quality from the original X-Trans camera profiles and no one will argue that point. However, when I compare the OP's posted RAF raw file to any of my Canon CR2 raw files inside LR5.5 it's clear something is wrong. There's no need to look at Aperture's processing to see the difference.

I have no axe to grind here, but I see what I see. My guess is that Adobe is missing some piece of the demosaicing process that causes the smearing in fine detail.

[pinkypunk35]

To answer your other question - any sane person would return the lens for it is clearly defective.

[DdeGannes]

@trshaner, I agree, (I also checked the file posted by the OP) the Adobe rendering of the file is not optimum, but I am sure that Adobe is attempting to provide the best rendition they can within the constraints of their existing process engine. Who knows maybe there is need to re-engineer their processing engine to handle these new hybrid sensors.

The OP has created a thread on the Adobe Family Forum where I have added my support. 

[Todd Shaner]

I've added my vote as well:

http://feedback.photoshop.com/photoshop_family/topics/fuji_x_trans_support

Fuji's X-Trans uses a more random sensor and filter array that doesn't require a low-pass filter. The raw images should be sharper than conventional camera sensors with a low-pass filter. Since LR's raw converter produces less sharp images (i.e. higher Sharpening setting required) it indicates a demosaicing issue. As DdeGannes mentions it may require "re-engineering" of the Camera Raw demosaicing engine, which is optimized for Bayer filter sensors with a "less-random" pattern.

[pinkypunk35]

trshaner wrote:

I've added my vote as well:

http://feedback.photoshop.com/photoshop_family/topics/fuji_x_trans_support

Fuji's X-Trans uses a more random sensor and filter array that doesn't require a low-pass filter. The raw images should be sharper than conventional camera sensors with a low-pass filter. Since LR's raw converter produces less sharp images (i.e. higher Sharpening setting required) it indicates a demosaicing issue. As DdeGannes mentions it may require "re-engineering" of the Camera Raw demosaicing engine, which is optimized for Bayer filter sensors with a "less-random" pattern.

Thanks guys!

I think it's worth stressing that nobody has an axe to grind here, it's very frustrating for enthusiasts and professionals who happen to use X-Trans cameras that other less well funded RAW converters are producing superior results and have been for some time.

We all have a shared interest in improving further iterations of Lightroom, and this is just one of many.

I suggest anyone who shares this frustration vote on the below link and hopefully adobe will care to comment one way or the other. Because then we can make an informed choice whether to invest in an alternative RAW developer or be more patient for an improvement.

http://feedback.photoshop.com/photoshop_family/topics/fuji_x_trans_support

[fleckintosh]

Hey to all.

Cursing and Complaining is a pretty useless thing. To push this issue to a new level and bring things forward, Today i called the german support hotline. The employee was very serious and was listening to me. He looked at the forum and the sample pictures we provided. He called the rendered file terrible.

I also uploaded my sample pictures, the screenshots and the original raw file to a ftp server of adobe. there is an official ticket open right now. Lets see, where the journey goes right now.

Sorry for my bad english, i am german ...

[Mike Katz]

Hello

Apologies, been unavailable.

Side by side, as opposed to the horizontal view, I can see a slight difference.

It's not ideal, so I'll investigate Capture One. However, I doubt the difference is significant for me.

[Todd Shaner]

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.

[Mike Katz]

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.

[pinkypunk35]

Mike Katz wrote:

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.

No.

This is more than foliage, as has been demonstrated elsewhere in this thread.

No doubt some Fuji professionals are using Lightroom, for I am one myself, albeit an unhappy user.

In a recent survey on a Fuji specific photography forum 90% were not using Lightroom for the above reasons. Read into that what you will, but that's a significant number of migrations away no matter how you chose to view the issue.

[ssprengel]

This is the message from a few days ago where the user, on Windows, described what they did to fix the issue with the same symptoms:

https://forums.adobe.com/message/6507788#6507788

Actually, it looks like they deleted the entire Camera Raw folder, not just the Cache folder. There are defaults and other things in the Camera Raw folder so I’d suggest you rename it instead of deleting it, and see if things work better, and if so, then move things back from the renamed folder to the new one and see which one seems to cause the problem.

Here is a page that shows the correspondence of Windows and Mac folder paths in case I’m misreading something about what they deleted:

http://members.lightroomqueen.com/Knowledgebase/Article/View/1373/205/lightroom-5-default-locations#6

[pinkypunk35]

I am currently away from the office until Monday July 14th

Sorry for any inconvenience.

[ssprengel]

Sorry, I this reply was meant for another message, and an out-of-office message auto-replied to I cannot delete it.  My e-mail delivered a new message at the moment I hit reply so it choose the new one.

[pinkypunk35]

I am currently away from the office until Monday July 14th

Sorry for any inconvenience.

[dzabba]

Adobe definitely is not on par with other RAW processors. If they don't fix the issue in Lightroom 6, I'm movin to another RAW developer for good.

[carylee2002]

This whole situation is out of Fuji's hands…Big Fruitcake Apple, Adobe, and Nvidia is now a Cartel to make the most money out of everyones pockets by not giving everything to work right and for you to buy new products .  Look at their track record and all the complaints on line. Cmon man. Its all scripted out. The best OSX now is Mtn Lion since it is stable. and not looking to be your iPad/Iphone, Nvidia and their Cuda is not working all of a sudden. and now Adobe done their newest upgrades without the other two on board. The only computers work great is at NAB and IBC for their demonstration…all these beta testers should be fired because they are just getting the money. #firesalecomingsoon. I'm staying with 10.8.5…after seeing the dumpster fire for 2015 release with Mavericks and Yosemite…no thanks…show me the money…because I'm making it without you Adobe.

[Keith Reeder]

Hooray - more loony conspiracy theories. Just what we need.

Creases me up how many Americans so happily whine about The American Way as soon as it does something that doesn't suit them. Companies doing what they can to get ahead is what it's all about, isn't it?

[diego_lythgoe]

I am sure grandma was complaining about her pores not being clear enough... lol....

[BoomeArt]

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

[diego_lythgoe]

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.

[pinoguin]

^ '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.

[diego_lythgoe]

^ so what do you think the software does when it renders? Just look at the end results and stop spreading nonsense.