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?
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.
I believe the point of this thread is that the current LR is showing very sub-par rendering of our x-trans files, dozens of comparisons online and posts here already proved that. Adobe is already aware of it. It's a waste of time trying to argue with destructive 'workarounds' and workflows that are incompatible with others. We are talking gear and pixels here, we can discuss the artistic merits elsewhere.
I think most who have posted in this thread agree that Adobe's processing of the raw files from the Fujifilm X-Trans sensor is not up to scratch. I posted the following in post #63 in this thread.
"I guess we will not see a resolution for an improvement to the processing of X-trans files until a new "Process Version" is introduced. Hopefully LR 6 with Process Version 2015."
Just my opinion, we just have to wait and see.
Sure, but as long as the evidence provided is subjective and biased, it is just a fan boy feel-good chat. And maybe the X-T1 behaves differently from my X-E1, but in the latter case (X-E1) I see no solid argument for increasing the complexity of my workflow. I shared a couple X-E1 raw files to experiment (Dropbox - DSCF2425.RAF, Dropbox - DSCF2432.RAF). Could you guys share some X-T1 files?
C1 interface is still an alien world to me. I'm showing support to get LR fixed because I care for it's x-trans output for my work.
Note that the results you're seeing from Capture One compared to Lightroom aren't X-trans only results - Capture One typically renders more detail/sharpness than Lr regardless of the source and type of Raw file; I see the difference all the time with my (Bayer) Canon files.
I can equalise the difference easily enough in Lightroom, but it's there.
Not only the proper details but the better colors (in my opinion since I shoot lots of portraits, the skin color is amazing there plus it's skin-related tools). The color isn't something that I could replicate in LR. But I do miss LR's presets and profiles.
To see a difference in processing the underlying scene needs to have details that are finer than the resolution of the coarsest processing.
In the eye sequence, the eye appears to be somewhat out-of-focus so there are no fine details to show much of a difference in processing.
In the foliage sequence there do appear to be details finer than the LR processing is able to resolve.
In the beard-matrix sequence the width of the hairs is about all the same so it's not that easy to tell which can resolve details more, but obviously C1 and ID have sharper edges on the details they can bring out which is likely a result of both a finer texture to the demosaicking and a finer sharpening resolution.
The argument in the article is that ID has too much sharpness in the details. That would be a problem if you cannot dial it back. Since I only have a PC I cannot experiment for myself, and in general screenshots without showing settings used and links to the raw files, themselves, are less useful.
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:
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.
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.
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!
@pumpernikiel, I guess it is because the examples show that the current differences are not significant for a majority of users. The results show that the difference between OOC sharpening and LR sharpening are much less noticeable than changing the lens (e.g. zoom for prime) or dialing more aperture.
The problem is not really one of sharpening for me but a problem in areas of small, repetitive details and creation of false detail, coming I think from bad demoisaicing. Here are 2 crops where one can see the issues. The small detail, in this case detail in the dirt or on rock faces (this shows also on mountain sides, foliage) turns into strange shapes, more and more as you sharpen. Instead of nice, defined detail, you get squigglies and worm or bean like shapes. Those areas just become unnatural looking. I'm not entirely sure that photos pasted in here and resized will best show the problem, but let's say that in general, small fine details take the appearance of a multitude of small little twigs (in the dirt example) or worm like shapes. This may not be visible to everyone, depending on the type of photos and your care about fine detail. It is incredibly annoying to me on landscape photos, especially the ones that I process for virtual panoramas, which are often viewed full screen and need to be sharp. There is a math problem there in converting those arrays of pixels during raw development and this problem appeared for me as soon as I processed my first x-trans panorama. I was using a camera with a regular Bayer sensor before that and details were just fine and of regular shape.
It happens to me when I apply a lot of sharpening as well. However I find that values below 40 work great. It is important also to mask as much as possible and bring detail to 100. The results I get with LR are indistinguishable from jpegs at normal print/display sizes.
This is an interesting read:
It is not a sharpening issue. The false detail exists upon conversion in the first place. Extra sharpening only makes it more obvious, and sharpening is needed just as much as with the RAW files from my previous camera, a Pentax K5 IIs. The x trans array is problematic but it would be good to see a better demosaicing in Lightroom. That being said, it doesn't seem to me that others do that part any better per what I've read, but personally I am not looking to use anything else than LR.
bumping this post up as it still hasn't been resolved - anyone who cant see it or doesn't care kindly don't comment it unhelpful - i can see it and its a big problem for the sort of prints i wish to make - I have spoken to Adobe they are well aware of this issue and assure me they are working hard to resolve it asap - So you see people there is an issue after all! My post production is currently on hold for any exhibition prints, I continue to photograph and wait patiently for the Adobe elves to solve the issues - once resolved i can begin printing ----
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.
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.
Adobe please resolve this issue
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.
Drop the same files into Irident and it's a different story, so this is NOT inherent to the sensor itself.
Yes, it is "inherent to the sensor": it is abssolutely down to the sensor. Just because Iridient has found a way to work around the demosaicing problems the sensor causes, doesn't mean that the sensor isn't still the cause of the problems.
This issue is all over the web among Fuji users all the time, and frankly is an embarrassment for Adobe.
RIght there you might be hitting on the real issue - just maybe there aren't enough Fuji users out there for Adobe to feel it worth the resources it might take to address this supposed problem. Just maybe Adobe doesn't think this is as important as you do. Frankly, I doubt that Adobe feels very embarrassed at all about the quality of its Fuji support.
If that's the case, you're stuck: either with living with the problem (and here I'll point out that it's still not definitively a problem - all over the internet, and even on this thread, there are Fuji users who have worked out how to use Fuji files in Lr to their satisfaction, and Adobe will be well aware that the condemnation isn't universal); or with taking your money elsewhere.
Oh - or you could always move away from using a "niche" camera brand - nobody's forcing you to wear your Fuji hair shirt...
Why are you so annoyed by complaints from legitimate users over an ongoing problem they're facing? Do you work for Adobe? I'm assuming not, so I'm not sure what you feel gives you any claim to represent their views, or know anything about what they might consider important or not, or even have any access to figures for how much of an issue this is for their paying customers?
I don't understand your comment that the problem is inherent to the sensor (rather than the processing of the sensor output) when other Raw developers get it right, or at least considerably better than Adobe (notably Irident). It can't be inherent to the sensor if it's a problem which is specific to Adobe. That's like saying a BMW is an inherently bad car because one person drives it badly, or one mechanic can't perform a simple service on it.
I'm not sure where you're getting the information that this is a problem which has gone away? I keep up to date with any developments in this regard, for obvious reasons - I'm a Fuji user (are you?) and have been a member of one of the main Fuji forums for quite a while. I can assure you that this issue has far from 'gone away' for Fuji users.
I don't regard the X-T1 as a 'hair shirt', what an odd thing to say. It's a very capable camera (it won TIPA and EISA awards this year for best camera in it's category) and Adobe claim to fully support it. That being so, why shouldn't their users expect them to get the Raw conversion at least as good as other, lesser, converters on the market? They claim to be market leading and the premium price reflects that.
It is not just Fuji. I find fascinating what Lr does out of the box with Nikon cameras - out of box = using the Adobe Standard camera calibration profile.
For quite a long time I had big issues with my Nikons properly producing greens, as I wrote elsewhere in this forum I put that down to the ignorance of an amateur photographer who very often doesn't have much time to process shots. Those issues are similar to the some of the examples in this thread. After continuing having the same problems following a significant camera upgrade, I started to have my doubts about how Lr processes my RAW files out of the box.
Recently I started working with other profiles under Camera Calibration and trying to understand what they do; in a nutshell camera profiles are responsible for colour interpretation and tone mapping. I was both amazed and annoyed with the results and still recovering from them. I was amazed because just by changing camera profiles greens and other colour tones "magically appear", please note the quotes; photos I had taken years ago suddenly looked as I envisioned them and not as Adobe software interprets them. I was annoyed because of what I have christened as the "RAW file misnomer".
The "RAW file misnomer" goes along the lines that when Lightroom or ACR reads a RAW file it makes a "correct" interpretation of the data contained in the RAW file out of the box by applying the default camera calibration profile, "Adobe Standard", which is responsible for tone mapping and colour interpretation. In addition, there is a widespread view, that camera profiles are just a personal choice which, in my mind that places them at the end of the workflow. Furthermore, Lightroom and ACR discard certain information recorded by the camera which is not considered RAW data, for instance the various DR settings on certain Fuji cameras.
My advice would be to create custom camera profiles for Fuji cameras with some of different settings Lr has trouble with and apply then at the beginning of your workflow.
I am sure I would get into "some trouble" for writing some of the above.
By the way, now that I have become aware of the "RAW file misnomer" and know how to work with it. Lr is starting to give me some results I am very happy with.
The X-Trans sensor has a different color layout than most other sensors.
Adobe’s demosaicking of this different color layout doesn’t look all that good, nor as good as most other raw developers, some of them free.
Some users are satisfied, some are not.
Adobe has changed how the demosaick X-Trans once in the past few years, from something entirely unusably to something that a somewhat better, but not nearly as detailed of a demosaick as other raw converters.
The reason why Adobe’s hasn’t been improved to the level other raw converters do is not known by us outsiders.
It could be that Adobe doesn’t know there is a problem—the examples of output being different are numerous, but having original raw files to work with are scarce—I tried to send a few examples to a raw engineer a year or two ago and could only find a handful of original raws, which is what they need to improve things.
It could be that Adobe does understand their demosaicking is less than others’ but is not allowed to proceed because of prioritization of projects inside Adobe.
It could be that Adobe does understand their demosaicking is less than others’ but they cannot base their methods on others’ due to licensing agreements and have not discovered their own method in the amount of time the bureaucracy has allowed them to work on it so far.
And to reply to the post just above mine, it has nothing to do with camera profiles, we’re talking about the low-level pixel detail that is lacking in the Adobe conversion, not a mistreatment of colors.
According to my own eyes, after the improvements of Adobe’s second try that is documented in that article.