Welcome Dialog

Welcome to the Community!

We have a brand new look! Take a tour with us and explore the latest updates on Adobe Support Community.


Will Adobe ever support X-Trans properly? Everyone else does...

Contributor ,
Jun 10, 2014 Jun 10, 2014

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

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.

Views

92.8K

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
replies 223 Replies 223
LEGEND ,
Jun 10, 2014 Jun 10, 2014

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

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?

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Contributor ,
Jun 10, 2014 Jun 10, 2014

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

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.

right-crop.jpgxtrans-1A.jpgscreen-shot-2014-01-11-at-19-15-05-2.png

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Community Beginner ,
Jun 10, 2014 Jun 10, 2014

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

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

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Contributor ,
Jun 10, 2014 Jun 10, 2014

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

All 3 examples have been developed by experienced photographers and represent the best they could get out of Lightroom vs the best they could get out of Iridient. The results speak for themselves.

As you say, posts like these are unfortunately very common now, but in nearly all cases it's experienced Lightroom users having a play with new RAW developers because of the issues with X-Trans Adobe has - so if anything they are far more knowledgeable in Lightroom than the other apps yet still struggle to match the results from the other tools.

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Engaged ,
Jun 10, 2014 Jun 10, 2014

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Why use other people example, can you share us some of your RAW photo that you have problem? I bet there are people in here that use other software that can do comparison.

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
LEGEND ,
Jun 10, 2014 Jun 10, 2014

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

These examples are with the latest Lightroom?

I ask because I've seen many (dunno if it's gazillions - don't think I can count that high) comments to the effect that Lightroom now is in another league to Lightroom "then" as far as X-Trans support is concerned.

For example: Fujifilm X camera users rejoice: Adobe and Apple improve Raw support

Additionally, I see exactly the same kind of difference between Lr conversions of my Canon files and conversions from (say) Capture One 7 Pro, DxO Optics Pro 9 and Photo Ninja.

Lr is pretty well known across the board for producing relatively soft (in fine detail terms) conversions out of the box (read the Noise reduction and Sharpness section of this article for a fairly typical opinion): but it also provides the tools to address those differences.

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...

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Contributor ,
Jun 10, 2014 Jun 10, 2014

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Lightroom is most certainly better now than it was; I don't think anyone is denying there here. But the fact remains it's still very poor compared to other RAW developers such as those listed in the original post.

The article you posted has no bearing on this post - it's simply saying Adobe improved RAW support, which they did. Their original support was frankly terrible. The author is not comparing the quality of the output against any other developer, which is the point of this thread.

Has Adobe improved RAW support for X-Trans? Yes.

Is it as good as the competition? No.

Is this satisfactory? No.

You mentioned you do not have a Fuji camera, so don't really understand why you are posting rebuttals of the facts presented to you by someone who does, day in, day out.

All of my colleagues and peers have left Adobe for one of the other developers above; I can assure you they do not do this without considerable reason.

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Community Beginner ,
Jun 10, 2014 Jun 10, 2014

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

I have purchased Capture One and Photo Ninja. I owned and used Capture One exclusively for quite a while.

Perhaps I'm not as professional as you are, but I haven't found much difference between the CO image quality and LR, once you process in both - i.e. do not look at the default renditions.

I also find, since I owned XPro-1, X-E1, and X-E2 before my current X-T1, that the improvements Adobe has made are in the X-T1 processing. The older cameras have not benefited much, if at all, from the improved methodology.

Mike

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
LEGEND ,
Jun 10, 2014 Jun 10, 2014

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

pinkypunk35 wrote:

You mentioned you do not have a Fuji camera, so don't really understand why you are posting rebuttals of the facts presented to you by someone who does, day in, day out.

Just for the avoidance of doubt, you don't get to choose who contributes to any given thread on this user to user forum; and unsupported hyperbole (certainly not "facts") pretty much guarantees a reaction.

Of course the article I link to above has bearing - if only to emphasise that your opinion isn't the only one out there where X-Trans support is concerned: said article (as you'd have seen if you'd read it properly) states not that Lr's support is simply better than it was, but that:

small detail is now processed correctly, and not transformed into a mush

which - let's be honest about all of this - is The Issue, is it not?

So someone clearly doesn't agree with your opinion - which means that your opinion isn't the definitive word on the subject...

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Contributor ,
Jun 10, 2014 Jun 10, 2014

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

For the avoidance of doubt my comments are based on daily usage of Lightroom 5 with several Fuji x-trans cameras. You are most welcome to post whatever you so wish, but as someone who does not use Fuji cameras your posts have no credibility.

As for the old blog post you linked to, I've already stated I agree with the post. Adobe did improve their demosaicing algorithms,  but as demonstrated in the examples posted this is still unsatisfactory.

And that is THE issue.

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Engaged ,
Jun 10, 2014 Jun 10, 2014

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Lightroom only has Adobe Standard for the camera profile used to convert the RAW file.   What profile was used to convert with the other software?  I suspect this is a major contributor to the difference between the two conversions. 

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Community Beginner ,
Jun 10, 2014 Jun 10, 2014

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Not true, the latest version has profiles for the X-T1 for all the built-in camera modes, and they are indeed better than the standard profile.

Mike

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Community Beginner ,
Dec 10, 2014 Dec 10, 2014

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

"I don't use a Fuji myself" - enough said , Do share you knowledge oh wise one !!  

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
LEGEND ,
Dec 10, 2014 Dec 10, 2014

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

The "wisdom" would be not to use Fuji as your camera platform if you intend to use Adobe for raw processing.  Adobe has been struggling for several years to get something reasonable for X-Trans.  Good luck in them finally delivering it sooner rather than later.

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
LEGEND ,
Jan 01, 2015 Jan 01, 2015

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Imageknow wrote:

"I don't use a Fuji myself" - enough said , Do share you knowledge oh wise one !!  

All you need to do is read the whole thread - the "issue" isn't an issue, according to everybody, which at a stroke invalidates the basic premise of the entire thread.

Wise enough?

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Contributor ,
Jan 01, 2015 Jan 01, 2015

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Actually it's a big issue to those who actually use the tools that are being discussed.

As someone who clearly has no insight or exepeince in the matter, your opinion is completely meaningless and you are simply another troll.

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Contributor ,
Jun 16, 2015 Jun 16, 2015

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Keith_Reeder wrote:

Imageknow wrote:

"I don't use a Fuji myself" - enough said , Do share you knowledge oh wise one !!  

All you need to do is read the whole thread - the "issue" isn't an issue, according to everybody, which at a stroke invalidates the basic premise of the entire thread.

Wise enough?

Well it's now an official issue as far as Adobe are concerned, I guess that proves you wrong all along.

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Community Beginner ,
Apr 12, 2015 Apr 12, 2015

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Keith,

Please note the problem many of us encounter is how Lightroom manages Fuji X Trans sensor files.  If you are using another file type then you are not likely to encounter this problem.  I have run repeated objective tests comparing RAF files processed in Capture One 8 vs Lightroom 5.7.  The difference in sharpness produced by Capture One is very obvious to anyone who has seen my tests.  There is nothing subjective about these results.  That said, I'm a true fan of Lightroom (except for this problem) and I'm hoping LR 6 will come to the rescue...soon.  Slainte !

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Enthusiast ,
Oct 07, 2015 Oct 07, 2015

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Keith_Reeder schrieb:

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?

the problems are well know and there are plenty of examples on the net and in this thread..... yet you (as usual) think it´s fine and blame it on the users.... what a suprise.

you are sure you are not a sockpuppet for adobe?

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
New Here ,
Oct 26, 2015 Oct 26, 2015

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

With X-Trans files there is a number of cases when raw conversion quality is horrid (foliage, etc), it has been like that for years, and we haven't seen any major improvements in the latest software updates.

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Community Beginner ,
Oct 30, 2015 Oct 30, 2015

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Adobe last june said the following about X-Trans:
"In collaboration with Fujifilm, we are still investigating methods to improve fine detail rendering and overall edge definition."

Adobe still has to keep word. As it looks like they haven't done anything in between June and late October to improve details for x-trans files. This problem is still there and needs to be solved.

The results you get with lightroom are unacceptable compared to the results of Adobe's competitors.

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Explorer ,
Feb 21, 2021 Feb 21, 2021

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Do you have a link to where they said that? I genuinly want to read that. 🙂

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Community Beginner ,
Jun 28, 2014 Jun 28, 2014

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

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.

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Contributor ,
Jun 30, 2014 Jun 30, 2014

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

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

DSCF3015x.gif

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines