Highlighted

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

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

90.6K

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

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

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

90.6K

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
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
Reply
Loading...
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
Reply
Loading...
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
Reply
Loading...
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
Reply
Loading...
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
Reply
Loading...
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
Reply
Loading...
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
Reply
Loading...
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
Reply
Loading...
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
Reply
Loading...
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
Reply
Loading...
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
Reply
Loading...
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
Reply
Loading...
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
Reply
Loading...
Adobe Community Professional ,
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
Reply
Loading...
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
Reply
Loading...
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
Reply
Loading...
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
Reply
Loading...
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
Reply
Loading...
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
Reply
Loading...
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
Reply
Loading...
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
Reply
Loading...
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
Reply
Loading...
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
Reply
Loading...
Jun 30, 2014

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Hi Pinky

Which camera is this?

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
Reply
Loading...
Jun 30, 2014

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Hi Mike

Sample is from a a Fuji X-E2 with the 56 f1.2 and processed in Lightroom 5.5 64 Bit on OSX.

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
Reply
Loading...
Jun 30, 2014

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Hi Pinky

As I and others have pointed out, the improvements in processing are with the X-T1 only, certainly as far as I can see.

I owned each camera in the range, and I only see improvement in the X-T1 processing, the camera that was released when they mentioned the improved quality.

It's a tough call, if you change the processing on an already existing camera, you change the image that has already been processed once it gets opened in the latest version.

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
Reply
Loading...
Jun 30, 2014

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Mike - the X-T1 has the same issues in Adobe Lightroom 5.5, I can assure you of that.

Also note that the X-T1 & the X-E2 share the EXACT same sensor, the Fuji X-Trans II sensor, it is illogical to thing there are different algorithms for both.

X-T1 - Lightroom on the left, ID on the right.

sXPGGQk.jpg?1

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
Reply
Loading...
Adobe Community Professional ,
Jun 30, 2014

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

The righthand ID image has lots of little bright green areas whereas Adobe’s does not.

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
Reply
Loading...
Jun 30, 2014

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

That's because Lightroom has obliterated every last speck of detail out of the file.

Try Photo Ninja or one of the other RAW developers listed if you are not happy with color of ID. But the topic of this forum is the loss of detail, not the way color is rendered. And it's clear to see that it is still a major issue for Adobe who are light years behind the competition in this regard.

But thanks for your input anyway.

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
Reply
Loading...
Jul 01, 2014

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Hi Again.

I like to provide 2 Screenshots directly out of Lightroom, comparing a JPG made with Aperture and a JPG made with Lightroom. Sadly named "Photoshop". Please check the Details and sharpness. It is exactly the Same RAW File from my X-T1. Aperture 3.5.1 and Lightroom 5.5, both the latest Versions.

Without Words...

Bildschirmfoto 2014-07-01 um 21.14.51 (2).png

Bildschirmfoto 2014-07-01 um 21.15.19 (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
Reply
Loading...
Jul 02, 2014

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

That's a great example - kind of makes those claiming there are no issues look rather silly.

Unfortunately Apple are discontinuing Aperture. Can you believe it? It's discontinued and still better than Lightroom, hoho.

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
Reply
Loading...
Adobe Community Professional ,
Jul 02, 2014

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Have you made a report on the Official Adobe Forum for requesting New features and bug fixes. That's where the Adobe engineering team will be monitoring for such requests.

Recently active topics in Photoshop Family about Photoshop Lightroom

Regards, Denis: System iMac mid-2015, 5K 27” monitor, macOS10.15.4: Lightroom Classic 9.2.1, Lightroom (cloud-based) 3.2.1, Photoshop, Camera OM-D E-M1.

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
Reply
Loading...
Jul 02, 2014

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

No, but that's a good idea.

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
Reply
Loading...
Jul 02, 2014

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

That's not great example. Unless you give us RAW image, then you develop it using your own software, and we use LR. Then compare the result. Otherwise, posting screenshot is pointless. I can just crank the sharpen in Aperture, exported JPG. And in LR, don't sharpen at all, and lower the clarity, then export in JPG. When comparing the two, of course, LR version JPG will be bad. I could do it the other way around and show how inferior Aperture is.

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
Reply
Loading...
Jul 02, 2014

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

hsbn,

it is not my intention to make lightroom look bad and glorify aperture. I was trying to make the best out of both. the results i was comparing to each other. Maybe your heard about the plans of apple, to discontinue Aperture. it is indeed a shame to quit such a good app. now i am looking for a successor for aperture and bought lightroom. the image quality is awkward. i can't get better results out of lightroom with my fuji raw files. Every other raw developer does, but not lightroom.

Strange, huh?

I am not the only one complaining. if you read the forums and photoblogs, everyone with a fuji x-trans sensor is unhappy with the results of lightroom or adobe raw converter.

Again, it is not my intention to make lightroom look bad. i like to work with it because i like the workflow and other things. but there is an issue i like to resolved by adobe.

if i take canon raw files (.cr2) the images are good. it is with fuji x-trans files (.raf) having this issue.

Every other raw file developer handles these raw files much better than the photo software developer no.1 - adobe.

it saddens me a lot...


so, here is the raw file: make the best out of it and lets compare - how you are asking for...


DSCF0296.RAF - Box

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
Reply
Loading...
Jul 02, 2014

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

hsbn and everyone else, here is my result with aperture.

Lets compare...

DSCF0296 Aperture 100% Detail.jpg - Box

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
Reply
Loading...
Jul 02, 2014

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Fuji Provia Profile

Amount 48

Radius 1.5

Detail 37

Masking 13

No other changes from default.

Identical result to the Aperture JPG.

Amount 70, far sharper.

This is a great tutorial example, BTW. By playing with the Lightroom sliders in the Detail tool, you can really see the effect of each slider when you look at the vegetation in the 100% area from the earlier posting.

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
Reply
Loading...
Jul 02, 2014

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Mike, just tried your settings.

I think we are talking of 2 different worlds... sorry. did not work. still looks like a painting, but not a photo. but nice to see that people try out some things.

I think i stick with Aperture as long as it is possible. Wasting Money on Lightroom...

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
Reply
Loading...
Adobe Community Professional ,
Jul 02, 2014

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Quote "I think i stick with Aperture as long as it is possible"

It is my understanding that while Apple has indicates that there will be no further development to Aperture, this will be introducing a new program.

Regards, Denis: System iMac mid-2015, 5K 27” monitor, macOS10.15.4: Lightroom Classic 9.2.1, Lightroom (cloud-based) 3.2.1, Photoshop, Camera OM-D E-M1.

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
Reply
Loading...
Jul 02, 2014

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Hi Fleckintosh

My settings on my dual monitors made both the JPG and the Lightroom image at 100% identical to my eyes.

The sample 100% screen shots you showed earlier had a much more blurred LR rendering. From this point of view, the side-by-side screenshot is just not a fair comparison. If you have better eyes than I have, then maybe you can notice a slight difference, but again, nothing near the differences in your original screenshot.

I agree that pushing the sharpening too much can create painterly effects. But you can do that with any camera's image in LR. By adjusting the LR sliders, particularly the Detail slider, you can control the effect as much as you like.

And, this is at 100%. At normal viewing ratios, with my settings, I don't see how you can notice a difference between the two renditions.

I own Capture One, and I was considering looking at it in some depth as opposed to LR because of these types of discussions. Right now, I'm inclined to leave it. If what you are showing here is indicative of the issue, I'm perfectly happy with LR.

I'm not always happy with Adobe, I had dual monitor refresh issues that 5.5 fixed, and slow importing that is not fixed, but on this issue, with the X-T1 at least, I think they are getting a bad deal.

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
Reply
Loading...
Jul 02, 2014

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Capture1.png

Capture2.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
Reply
Loading...
Adobe Community Professional ,
Jul 02, 2014

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

fleckintosh wrote:

Mike, just tried your settings.

I think we are talking of 2 different worlds... sorry. did not work. still looks like a painting, but not a photo. but nice to see that people try out some things.

As an experienced LR users I am always skeptical of claims that XYZ raw processor is better than LR. I down loaded the RAF raw file and adjusted it in LR using the default Tone settings and Adobe Standard profile, but with Vibrance at 30. Tone and color saturation are almost identical with these settings. I tried the other camera profiles, but Adobe Standard most closely matched the color and tonal rendering of the Aperture processed image. Next made my best efforts to "match" the sharpness observed in the Aperture processed JPEG posted and came up with these settings.

Amount 80

Radius .8

Detail 25

Masking 0

I wouldn't say the renderings are "2 different worlds" apart, but clearly the LR5.5 image is lacking in detail at 1:1 view. The softness is also visible at 1:2 view, which indicates it will probably be visible in large print and screen viewed images.

DSCF0296 Aperture vs LR5.5 Detail.jpg

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
Reply
Loading...
Jul 02, 2014

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Here's one pushed a bit:

Capture3.png

Painterly effect starting up, but other cameras do the same at these settings.

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
Reply
Loading...
Jul 02, 2014

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Hi Trshaner

You need to push the Radius and Detail sliders more to bring up the fine detail. The Amount slider amplifies the other slider settings, and those settings are not optimal for fine detail.

ADDITION: By pushing the Amount to 80, you have created the painterly effect.

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
Reply
Loading...
Adobe Community Professional ,
Jul 02, 2014

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Yes you can get a "sharper looking image by cranking up the Radius and Detail sliders. But then you said "Painterly effect starting up, but other cameras do the same at these settings." My  Canon DSLR CR2 raw files do not require high Sharpening settings and when I do use them there is no "painterly effect" visible. With higher Sharpening settings I see an increase in "grain like" noise and halos, not painterly blurring. The fact that higher than normal Sharpening control settings are required also indicates something is wrong with the X-Tran demosaicing and/or noise reduction process. Like I said, they aren't "2 worlds apart," but different enough that I would call it "unacceptable" for professional 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
Reply
Loading...
Jul 02, 2014

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

In my post, #32, above, is there any difference between the two images?

My settings are:

Fuji Provia Profile

Amount 48

Radius 1.5

Detail 37

Masking 13

Which is MUCH lower than your amount of 80.

It's accepted that the images coming from X-Trans files via Adobe are soft, so yes, they have to be pushed more. But that's not to say you can't get the sharpness right. That's what presets are all about.

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
Reply
Loading...
Jul 03, 2014

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Mike Katz wrote:

My settings on my dual monitors made both the JPG and the Lightroom image at 100% identical to my eyes.

With the upmost respect, I urge you to visit an optician if you are seeing these 2 photos as "100% identical".

Your settings in no way improve the rendering or the smearing or the painted effect Lightroom gives Fuji RAF files. I have downloaded the sample provided and processed it with your exact settings and it's still a mess.

See below

EXNmd8O.jpg

This is animated, click to see transition. It's very obvious.

ania716c.gif

And for good measure - Lightroom vs Iridient (or as I like to say, $8 billion dollar company vs 1 man)

9jvnoC3.jpg

And these are just 2 competing RAW processors and one example of foilage. The other examples above represent other issues with other subjects, all based around the smeering of detail by Adobe Lighroom.

Hell I don't even care that much about detail, I just want my photos to look like photos, not paintings.

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
Reply
Loading...
Adobe Community Professional ,
Jul 03, 2014

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Mike Katz wrote:

It's accepted that the images coming from X-Trans files via Adobe are soft, so yes, they have to be pushed more. But that's not to say you can't get the sharpness right. That's what presets are all about.

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?

Reference your post #32 screen shots, I do see a difference.

Make sure to click on the below posted image to open it and your browser is full-screen (not windowed):

DSCF0296 Aperture vs LR5.5 Detail_Mike_Katz.jpg

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
Reply
Loading...
Jul 03, 2014

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

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.

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
Reply
Loading...
Sep 24, 2014

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

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

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
Reply
Loading...
Jul 30, 2014

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

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

ALEX6828_ID_small.jpg

ALEX6828_LR-5_6_small.jpg

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

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
Reply
Loading...
Sep 24, 2014

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

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.

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
Reply
Loading...
Sep 26, 2014

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

^ '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.

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
Reply
Loading...
Sep 26, 2014

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

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

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
Reply
Loading...
Sep 26, 2014

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Sharpening noise and bokeh just to try and reach other raw processor output is actually the nonsense here, but hey whatever works for you. 

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
Reply
Loading...
Adobe Community Professional ,
Sep 26, 2014

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

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.

Regards, Denis: System iMac mid-2015, 5K 27” monitor, macOS10.15.4: Lightroom Classic 9.2.1, Lightroom (cloud-based) 3.2.1, Photoshop, Camera OM-D E-M1.

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
Reply
Loading...
Sep 26, 2014

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

@pinoguin...

If you take a look at the guy's lapel, you will see that ID is doing a great job precisely at that: sharpening noise!

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
Reply
Loading...
Sep 26, 2014

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

ID doesn't have a decent noise reduction yet (plus default sharpening is too much for portraits), that's why I chose C1 (I love it's color) plus a few external apps ... and I do not EVER sharpen that ridiculous amount to try and reach ID details. What works for you will not work for everyone here.

Try minimal sharpening with LR. I've even tried masking, slider detail above 50 and there's always this swirly false detail on the skin that keeps popping up as you go further. Oversharpened base is unacceptable for retouchers. Your end result even has that rough painterly feel.

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
Reply
Loading...
Sep 26, 2014

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

My 5dmkiii files do not even need that much sharpening to begin with, all we ask here is to make x-trans rendering the same quality as the rest. That's all. It's a waste of time trying to make it work by introducing more issues with that workflow.

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
Reply
Loading...
Adobe Community Professional ,
Sep 26, 2014

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Exactly.

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
Reply
Loading...
Sep 27, 2014

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

I totally agree with pinoguin. I do not over sharpen faces myself as well, but I was trying to reproduce the effect on the ID version.

I personally have an X-E1 and I have tried to reproduce all the effects stated above to no avail. The difference I observe between raw developer, capture one and LR are in my case minimal.

Example:

LR render 100% detail                              Capture render 100% detail                    Raw developer 100% detail

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
Reply
Loading...
Sep 27, 2014

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

More comparisons from my X-E1 - this time foliage

LR render 100% detail                                    Capture 1 100% detail                              Raw Developer 100% detail

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
Reply
Loading...
Sep 27, 2014

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

I made my own comparisons from trial versions of ID and others as well, both default and optimized but chose C1 in the end. (All in raw)

I pretty much came to the same conclusion as this reviewer from fujivsfuji (sept2014)

Best X-Trans RAW Converter — Fuji vs. Fuji

beard.png

We will just have to wait and see when adobe will come up with something for x-trans, I do not hate lightroom I actually find it the best in brushes and usability. 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.

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
Reply
Loading...
Adobe Community Professional ,
Sep 27, 2014

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Unable to make a comment simply because I do not know what I am looking at.

Regards, Denis: System iMac mid-2015, 5K 27” monitor, macOS10.15.4: Lightroom Classic 9.2.1, Lightroom (cloud-based) 3.2.1, Photoshop, Camera OM-D E-M1.

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
Reply
Loading...
Adobe Community Professional ,
Sep 27, 2014

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

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.

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
Reply
Loading...
Sep 28, 2014

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

pinoguin wrote:

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. 

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
Reply
Loading...
Sep 28, 2014

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

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.

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
Reply
Loading...
Sep 28, 2014

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

I think it can be summarized as follows:

1- This post is stating that LR is clearly inferior in rendering X-trans raw files compared to other software packages.

2- Apparently the key issue is the resolution of detail.

3- I own a Fuji X-E1 and LR 5.6. Concerned by what I read, I tried to reproduce the issues stated. This means, to me, that on a double-blind experiment a statistically significant amount of people would prefer an 18"x12" print of the same image with one app vs the other. I failed... normal people seeing prints produced (by myself) in Photo Ninja, Raw Developer, Capture One Pro and Out of Camera (OOC) jpegs have been unable to consistently identify LR as an inferior application to develop my Fuji X-E1 files.

4- Here goes an example:

Raw file: Dropbox - DSCF2487.RAF

Out of Camera JPEG: Dropbox - DSCF2487-OOC.JPG

LR 5.6 Render (Provia profile): Dropbox - DSCF2487 LR5.6.jpg

5- I am looking for anybody who can produce a file rendered by any software (maintaining to a reasonable level the tone, levels and colors of the original JPEG) that presented on an 18"x12" print (I can't print bigger...), or a 32" 3840x2160 monitor, can be consistently selected as a superior rendering in blind comparisons)

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
Reply
Loading...
Sep 28, 2014

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

You do not have to understand it if you are perfectly fine with whatever software you are working with. There are just some workflows that relies deeply in detail before any final sharpening is done. Pixel-level retouchers can achieve incredible work with the skin, to try and mess up it's detail and they will lose the look that they want.. you can't edit detail that's already gone or you can't even lift with the tool you have. These subtle improvements are much more incredible in print.

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
Reply
Loading...
Sep 28, 2014

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

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.

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
Reply
Loading...
Adobe Community Professional ,