Clicky

Jump to content


Photo

Lightroom CC 2015 1.1 is still horrible bad with Xtrans files...

lightroom xtrans bad

  • Please log in to reply
36 replies to this topic

#21 CHAPS

CHAPS

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 3 posts
  • LocationTorreón México

Posted 23 November 2015 - 04:35 AM

Advertisement (Gone after free registration)

Is just me, or Lightroom 6.3 is better now rendering details on X-Trans files?

I make a 1:1 comparison between LR 6.3 and C1 pro 8 and I find the better Lr files!

Anyone else find this results? 

FujiFilm X-E1 here.


  • Mike G likes this

#22 Bud

Bud

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 8 posts
  • LocationDoylestown, PA, USA

Posted 07 December 2015 - 12:19 AM

I've been a LR user since the initial pre-public beta. Since switching from Canon DSLRs two years ago to Fuji-X cameras, I have been frustrated by the issues with LR RAW conversions. I got tired of waiting for Adobe so 2 months ago I tried and then purchased Capture One Pro 8. I just upgraded to v9 last week.

The image quality and color is so much better and with less fuss too. I'm still adjusting to the C1P workflow and the learning curve, but it's worth it for the results I'm now getting.

Cheers.
Bud

#23 tarikolmez

tarikolmez

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 25 posts
  • LocationAnkara | Turkey

Posted 15 December 2015 - 08:56 AM

I have updated Lightroom CC to 6.3 and LR suddenly got very slow with Xtrans files. Even slower than before.

Is anyone else suffering from same?


Fujifilm X-T1 | 23mm | 56mm | 10-24mm |YN560mk2

www.benimlemisiniskocyali.com

instagram


#24 Martin G

Martin G

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 17 posts
  • LocationNorfolk

Posted 15 December 2015 - 12:55 PM

Having tested ACR, I am very happy with the files coming out of it. Looking at an image at 100% on screen and scrutinising slight difference are not going to make a difference to an actual print. Last week I choose a jpeg (that looked a little soft to me) straight from the camera at 6400 ISO and enlarged it to 18 x 12. I then copied it and ran Nik Sharpener over one. Both came back, the Nik sharpened imaged looked a bit sharper in some parts when I looked very close up to the print.

 

From 30cm away (not the best distance to see an 18 x 12 print they are identical and you cannot see any difference.

 

I bet if you lined up an image from each converter side by side any difference you might see, will be so slight, that having a preference for one or the other is just subjective.

 

In reflection there isn't "the best raw converter" just the one you like and know best.

 

SilkyPix v Adobe ACR


  • Adam Woodhouse and brusco like this

#25 gdugic

gdugic

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 45 posts
  • LocationRepublic of Srpska

Posted 17 December 2015 - 08:06 AM

Since I'm a linux user for the past 7-8 years, I use RawTherapee for raw developing and I am completely satisfied with it. I used Corel AfterShot Pro 2 for a while, but RT is a bit better for me, although AS sometimes gives a bit cleaner output, in the terms of noise.

 

I used Photivo, Darktable, Ufraw, and the two mentioned above and, as I said, I settled on RawTherapee. Later I use Gimp for resizing and that's it.

 

RT is also free... ;)


*****************

Fuji X-E1

18-55 f2.8-4

Nikkor 50mm f1.8D

Helios 44-2 58/2

*****************


#26 ReneBee

ReneBee

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 3 posts

Posted 17 December 2015 - 06:38 PM

@gdugic:

Thanks for pointing out RAW Therapee.

Since my C1 Express 7. something keeps on craching under W10, I was looking at other RAW converters. Played around with Darktable under Ubuntu, but I couldn't find my way so easily.

I now had a first try with RAW Therapee and at first impression I like it.

René.



#27 gdugic

gdugic

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 45 posts
  • LocationRepublic of Srpska

Posted 18 December 2015 - 09:38 AM

Downlod haldclut tables and import it in RT and you have a large base of different profiles. Fuji, Kodak, Agfa... B&W and color profiles. All kinds of film simulations.

 

RT also has its own automatic lens correction algorithm that works pretty well.


*****************

Fuji X-E1

18-55 f2.8-4

Nikkor 50mm f1.8D

Helios 44-2 58/2

*****************


#28 calinandra69

calinandra69

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10 posts

Posted 20 December 2015 - 12:01 PM

I find a good solution for sharpening image. Nik Collection Raw Presharper. Watch this tutorial:



#29 benjaminthomson

benjaminthomson

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 78 posts
  • LocationMelbourne, Australia

Posted 17 January 2016 - 03:08 AM

Did a quick few tests today and the fine detail is still just not there in Lightroom, I'm probably going to transition to Sony for professional work as I love the workflow of LR and using thing like VSCO.

 

Damn shame that Adobe just can't figure it out.

 

Lightroom on the left, Iridient on the right.

 

GqyJUDP.jpg



#30 benjaminthomson

benjaminthomson

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 78 posts
  • LocationMelbourne, Australia

Posted 17 January 2016 - 03:20 AM

Here's another...

 

6LYWgTv.jpg



#31 sandroamt

sandroamt

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10 posts

Posted 09 June 2016 - 12:19 PM

I found Raw Therapee + HALD CLUT profiles + right camera ICC profiles the best combination so far, and is free software! Suits my taste and with a bit of practice it produces results almost identical with OOC JPGS in terms of color rendering with the advantage of Raw editing. The only downside is that above 2500 ISO the other coverters do a better job but I rarely go so high.

Inviato dal mio Nexus 5 utilizzando Tapatalk

 

old thread... I know, but hope you are still following:
where did you find the "right camera ICC" you mentioned?
I searched for a while but don't seems fujifilm provide it, it does? (I'm looking for x-t10 and x-t1 ICC)
regards
Sandro


#32 Snsokstan

Snsokstan

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10 posts

Posted 15 October 2016 - 07:08 PM

Just came back from shooting foliage in Western Massachusetts. Here is a snippet of one image processed with LR and one processed with Iridient and imported into LR as a TIFF.  The image was made during zero wind--just absolutely still. The screenshot is from the LR Compare window. Both were sharpened with Bridgwood's  35-1-100-10 setting. The magnification is 2:1. The screenshot is from a 4K iMac.

 

I can just start seeing a difference at 2:1 and a little more at 3:1. I can't see a difference at 1:1.  I wouldn't say the LR version has "watercolor" degradation but the Iridient is a little sharper. 

 

Iridient is painfully slow on my iMac to first render and to show slider changes.

 

https://dl.dropboxus...12.53.37 PM.jpg



#33 Snsokstan

Snsokstan

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10 posts

Posted 16 October 2016 - 06:04 PM

Another experiment, which comes from https://thelightweig...-iii-raw-files/

 

I used his settings ( 36-0.6-57-10) and then used Nik Sharpener RAW at its default settings.  

 

Here is the comparison to Iridient. Pretty close at 2:1 magnification. My screen is a 5K, not 4K as mentioned above. Iridient still has a slight edge but I don't know if it's actually meaningful. In any event, this is a long way from "watercolor" effect.

 

Stan

 

https://dl.dropboxus...12.00.56 PM.jpg



#34 Hans K Aspenberg

Hans K Aspenberg

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 33 posts
  • LocationOslo, Norway

Posted 13 November 2016 - 04:39 PM

What in hell happened with LR CC? Updated to the 2015.7 version and suddenly importing pictures goes at least 4 times faster! Rendering goes much faster too. And, as bonus, the accuracy in fine detail is improved. Anyone with the same findings?

;-D Hans


Edited by Hans K Aspenberg, 13 November 2016 - 04:42 PM.


#35 Tom H.

Tom H.

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 651 posts
  • LocationBelgium

Posted 19 November 2016 - 01:23 AM

What in hell happened with LR CC? Updated to the 2015.7 version and suddenly importing pictures goes at least 4 times faster! Rendering goes much faster too. And, as bonus, the accuracy in fine detail is improved. Anyone with the same findings?

;-D Hans


Much faster, yes.

Fine detail was already fine enough for my non-pixelpeeping needs.
  • PoulWerner likes this

#36 Clictophe

Clictophe

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 4 posts

Posted 30 November 2016 - 10:10 AM

Hi all just one question .. what do you think about this article that show lightroom can do the same thing that c1.

http://lightroomkill...apture-one-pro/


Envoyé de mon iPhone en utilisant Tapatalk

#37 Tom H.

Tom H.

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 651 posts
  • LocationBelgium

Posted 01 December 2016 - 08:37 AM

Hi all just one question .. what do you think about this article that show lightroom can do the same thing that c1.

http://lightroomkill...apture-one-pro/


Envoyé de mon iPhone en utilisant Tapatalk

 

Well, the author has worked for Adobe, so I'd already start out by saying 'take it with a grain of salt'.

 

That said, I use Lightroom all the time, unless you are uber picky about pixel level detail on big screens you'll be fine. My reference is still the print, and I've not seen any difference in print quality whatsoever between the C1 and Lightroom in anything I've printed lately, up to 1,5m x 1m. And my web images get reduced anyway, so you can't even see the detail in those.


Edited by Tom H., 01 December 2016 - 08:37 AM.

  • rwforster01 and Mike G like this



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: lightroom, xtrans, bad

 
x

Registration is free

Not registered? Really?

Discover the full potential of the Fuji X Forum... register now!
Registration is free and done in a few minutes!

As registered member you can discuss, post your questions and present your images.
And get in contact with Fuji X photographers worldwide!

We are looking forward to you!

The Fuji X Forum Team

Register Close