Clicky

Jump to content


Photo

Iridient Developer is the best RAW processor for Fuji X sensor


  • Please log in to reply
63 replies to this topic

#1 xtrans

xtrans

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 34 posts

Posted 14 March 2016 - 09:21 AM

Advertisement (Gone after free registration)

I have just tested Iridient Developer vs Lightroom and Capture One Pro and I must say that the result from iridient is amazing. It is sharper, cleaner and overall better than both. I am declaring my opinion because before I have tried this I was really curious about the results. I hope they can stand against the giants like Adobe. Having said that I will go ahead and buy it to support them.


  • Mike K and sidelocke like this

#2 Max_Elmar

Max_Elmar

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 114 posts

Posted 14 March 2016 - 04:59 PM

I can't compare Capture One because I haven't used it, but Iridient has been a pleasure to use with my Fuji files. It's fantastic with my Nikon files as well. Although I work in an all-Adobe shop, at home I feel the subscription model doesn't work for me, so I have dropped most Adobe software. My workflow with Irridient is a little slower but the quality is better. Adobe has (perhaps) closed the gap in recent releases, but Iridient still has a slight edge. Most times I simply convert to JPEG. When I really need to work with an image to bring out the best I use IR to convert a Fuji RAF to a 16bit TIFF - and wow - what a pleasure it is to work with that file.

 

This is not to say the in-camera jpeg engine isn't great - but once you throw the extra data away you have limited your options... I often shoot RAW+JPG. 



#3 Warwick

Warwick

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 235 posts

Posted 14 March 2016 - 05:26 PM

I don't like the subscription model either, but I still use Lightroom as a standalone. I recently updated from LR5 to the latest version so I could open XP2 raw files but only after three webchats with Adobe. The £50 upgrade wasn't advertised anywhere on their site.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  • JBoris likes this

#4 Formbox

Formbox

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 23 posts
  • LocationHamburg

Posted 21 March 2016 - 11:22 AM

IMO Apple Aperture (discontinued) or RAW Therapee (free) deliver even better results and are visually better than LR and the Fuji jpg regarding fine detail.


Edited by Formbox, 21 March 2016 - 11:24 AM.


#5 milandro

milandro

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,077 posts

Posted 21 March 2016 - 11:55 AM

IMO Apple Aperture (discontinued) or RAW Therapee (free) deliver even better results and are visually better than LR and the Fuji jpg regarding fine detail.

 

 

Very interesting.

 

I was discussing this yesterday with a friend of mine.

 

I too like Aperture which is one of the main reasons for me not to upgrade to El Capitan which would erase Aperture ( and doesn’t even inform you of that before you do it as it previously happened with Yosemite which is incompatible with Acrobat and erased it)  but I have seen tests where there seems to be a definite advantage over even the latest version of LR.

 

However Iridient Developer and Capture one pro() seem to have an edge over Aperture.

 

Bu then again how far does one want to go?

 

Sometimes it seems to me that at some point the only macroscopic difference is the microscopig visibility of thin hairs being split in eight parts lengthwise by us debating things like this.

 

 I understand that these matters are, of course, of the outmost importance in the long and dark winter nights spent in front of the computer screen processing pictures.

 

I remember many years  ago when I lived in London I went to see a nice exhibition of original prints ( made by the great alchemist of the darkroom Pierre Gassman ) of the work of Henri Cartier Bresson.

 

The pictures were, as always, stunning as images but not at all all that sharp as one would have thought or supposed. I couldn’t help thinking to the multitudes who, at the times, debated the best camera, the best lens, the best developer and the best paper process ( which I am sure HCB and Gassman used) and secretly ( because if you said this openly they would flame you) chuckle.


Edited by milandro, 21 March 2016 - 11:56 AM.

  • sidelocke likes this

the popular expression wishful thinking is an oxymoron!


#6 Fredkelder

Fredkelder

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 66 posts

Posted 21 March 2016 - 04:49 PM

I use LR for 5 or 6 years now. The last version of LR has improved significantly the RAW conversion but there is still a lack of details in green foliages sometimes. From the examples I've seen on the web, Iridient seems the best for X-trans RAWs.

That said, Iridient is not available for Windows and as an amateur photographer not keen on hardware, LR looks more intuitive and user friendly.



#7 Mike K

Mike K

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 87 posts

Posted 22 March 2016 - 08:43 AM

I have just tested Iridient Developer vs Lightroom and Capture One Pro and I must say that the result from iridient is amazing. It is sharper, cleaner and overall better than both. I am declaring my opinion because before I have tried this I was really curious about the results. I hope they can stand against the giants like Adobe. Having said that I will go ahead and buy it to support them.

 

I'm with you on this. 

 

I've been using Lightroom for years with my Leica M8 & M9, I had also purchased Iridient some years ago, which I used only occasionally.

 

Since moving to Fuji last year I've been using Iridient almost exclusively, I can't even remember when I last used LR. As you've mentioned in your post, I've found Iridient overall better and less "cumbersome" to work with. They deserve to be supported.


Edited by Mike K, 22 March 2016 - 08:44 AM.

  • NochnKnipser likes this

#8 ubercurious

ubercurious

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 4 posts

Posted 22 March 2016 - 11:40 PM

Hi,

 

I've been using Capture One for the most part b/c it does such a good job of rendering skin tones and has some special tools in it for editing skin tones as well. I've looked briefly at Iridient, but haven't had time to really test it thoroughly. What's your typical workflow if you are using this? Do you make basic adjustments, then export to hi-res TIFF for further editing in LR or PS?

 

Thanks.



#9 RadBadTad

RadBadTad

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 83 posts
  • LocationColumbus, Ohio

Posted 24 March 2016 - 04:22 AM

When I was first looking for a processor that didn't handle RAF files as terribly as Lightroom, I compared Iridient against PhotoNinja and found that PN was better for fine detail and tones. I don't remember which was better for colors, but I do most of my work in Photoshop so I know that I stuck with PN.


  • ubercurious likes this

#10 Guest_thiswayup_*

Guest_thiswayup_*
  • Guests

Posted 25 March 2016 - 11:56 AM

I have just tested Iridient Developer vs Lightroom and Capture One Pro and I must say that the result from iridient is amazing. It is sharper, cleaner and overall better than both. I am declaring my opinion because before I have tried this I was really curious about the results. I hope they can stand against the giants like Adobe. Having said that I will go ahead and buy it to support them.

 

So you compared against exactly two other apps. One of which is notoriously not the best. And then you concluded that the app you preferred to Capture One is the best out all the apps available, most of which you didn't try? This isn't even a good reason for anyone to think that Irident is better even that Capture One. It just means that you  prefer it, given your tastes. And not only that - just for the subjects, shooting conditions and settings that you tried, which you haven't specified. (And posting comparison images would have been nice.)

 

For a more competent but still limited - no portrait or low light shots - comparison, see eg http://darrel.io/fuj...atercolor-2015/ (Iridient did well in this test, but no better than the free Rawtherapee and not as well as PhotoNinja - neither of which you tried.)

 

If you'd wanted to make a post saying. "I like Iridient" I would have been fine with that, but claiming it is the best is just silliness. 



#11 Guest_thiswayup_*

Guest_thiswayup_*
  • Guests

Posted 25 March 2016 - 12:10 PM

 

Sometimes it seems to me that at some point the only macroscopic difference is the microscopig visibility of thin hairs being split in eight parts lengthwise by us debating things like this.

 

 

If you're bothering to pay for and carry around an X camera rather than a $250 compact cigarette packet sized compact, then surely not optimizing the quality you get from software conversion is counter-productive? Software doesn't weigh anything, some of the best options are free, you can try all(?) the options before buying and they cost less than the cheapest Fuji lens, so why not make the minimal effort?

 

From the test I linked already, this is Lightroom

 

LR2015.1-DSCF3033.jpg

 

And this is Rawtherapee - not the winner of the test, but joint second and free

 

RawTherapee-DSCF3033.jpg

 

The difference in the renders of those rocks on the left does not look like hair splitting to me. If I thought the first was the best my XE2 could do, I'd sell it and buy a used RX100 Mark 1 on ebay. These smears aren't too great on rocks, but they'd ruin a portrait. And remember, unlike lens softness, software problems do not diminish as you approach the centre of the frame.

 

Or look at the huge rock to the right - based on the LR version I thought it was too far out of focus to be worth looking at, but what I thought was focus blur is just awful, awful processing!

 

As a third point of comparison, here's the in camera jpg:

 

DSCF3033.JPG

 

..Better than LR, but not in the same league as RT. 

 

Or to put it another way, the differences shown here are bigger than those you'd find between a Fuji 90mm and the Chinese 85mm lenses costing a third as much. *Much* bigger.


Edited by thiswayup, 25 March 2016 - 12:18 PM.


#12 adzman808

adzman808

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 280 posts

Posted 25 March 2016 - 12:16 PM

There's so much more to a raw software tool than sharpness..

PhotoNinja for example is good with detail, but (well the version I tried a couple of years back anyway) doesn't have clone tools or layers and isn't even capable of automatically applying lens corrections based which XF you used.

IMO this excellent detail recovery doesn't make up for a limited toolset. YMMV

LR I just don't like using, I know many love it, but I don't like the interface at all.

C1 gets my vote as the best combination of features and results.

I will give Iridient a go when there's a windows version as I've read many great things and want to see for myself.
  • 1stgc likes this

Cheers, Adam
My Website, home of the largest X-Pro series opinion piece on the 'net:
http://adambonn.com/


#13 milandro

milandro

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,077 posts

Posted 25 March 2016 - 12:16 PM

thank you for your tests I will certainly consider your advise.

 

I suppose we all have our way to do things and that’s why there is so much software out there. I don’t have any axe to grind and nothing to prove. I simply do what I think is the best for me and that might very well not be what’s the best for you.

 

I am happy, you are happy, life is good and too short to be hung up


  • Curiojo likes this

the popular expression wishful thinking is an oxymoron!


#14 johant

johant

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 566 posts

Posted 25 March 2016 - 12:33 PM

I always get a bit suspicious when someone claims that a product is "The Best!"

The best for whom? Compared to what? On which criteria? Why discount that there likely is no "Best for everyone" product? What's the agenda?

I believe that a product can be very good. I am struggling with believing that a product is "the best".

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

Edited by johant, 25 March 2016 - 12:34 PM.

  • Antonius likes this

#15 milandro

milandro

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,077 posts

Posted 25 March 2016 - 12:44 PM

 

I always get a bit suspicious when someone claims that a product is "The Best!"

 

 

 

That’s the BEST attitude that anyone could have about anything, or rather, one of the best!  :D


  • Antonius, adzman808, Curiojo and 1 other like this

the popular expression wishful thinking is an oxymoron!


#16 RadBadTad

RadBadTad

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 83 posts
  • LocationColumbus, Ohio

Posted 25 March 2016 - 03:08 PM

Here are a couple of comparisons I've posted before, but are relevant to this thread:

 

RAF from PhotoNinja, exported as a tiff, vs doing what I could to match it in Lightroom

 

 

Unfortunately, I don't have comparisons between PN and Iridient saved anymore.

Attached Files


  • alberto Ianiro likes this

#17 milandro

milandro

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,077 posts

Posted 25 March 2016 - 04:28 PM

impressive


the popular expression wishful thinking is an oxymoron!


#18 Curiojo

Curiojo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 24 posts
  • LocationCaracas

Posted 29 March 2016 - 05:48 PM

I'm a photo hobbyist, being my main photographic subjects family, travel and street.

 

Since I went to Fuji X-E2 I've found myself relying on most in the in-camera jpeg but I didn't abandoned my old habit of shooting raw+jpeg though.

 

LR has been my post processing tool since my Oly, Nikon -and briefly Canon- times. Versions 2; 3, and currently 5.

 

But, after reading a lot on the web about the better software to post process .RAF files I've tried C1 and Iridient -trial versions- and compared the same files developed between these two and LR and, definitively both has better rendering and output than LR.

 

Colours in C1 are its strength while fine detail is better rendered in Iridient. 

 

From my experience I can say that LR is not the 'best' post processing tool for .RAF files when it refers to [pixel pepping or large impressions] output rendering but the interface is more intuitive than C1 or Iridient -or at least I'm used to it- and as a photo organizing software it is way better.

 

In my case, LR is good enough to produce 4x6 or 8x10 prints. 



#19 dentharg

dentharg

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 2 posts

Posted 31 March 2016 - 07:47 AM

Hi guys!

First time here, so shouting "Hello" to everyone!

 

As I'm a fresh convert (from Canon 50D to X-T10), my only converter is Corel AfterShot Pro 2 (formerly Bibble Pro). The choice was dictated as I was mainly a Linux user and ASP is available for all three platforms.

 

To the point:

Could some of you, Lr and C1 owners, do the comparison of Lr/C1/ASP2? 

There's trial version freely available: http://www.aftershot.../aftershot-pro/

 

Thanks!



#20 JaapD

JaapD

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 50 posts

Posted 31 March 2016 - 10:24 AM

I am not impressed at all with this so called test. Iridient does not have automatic lens corrections, something Lightroom and CaptureOne both have.

 

With Iridient omitting the lens correction functionality you can in many cases never compete on image quality, leaving in all kinds of chromatic, geometric, and vignetting distortions. For instance the 16-55 f/2.8 is heavily relying on these lens corrections.

 

From looking at the so called test results I also get the idea that the tests have been carried out with the default sharpness settings, not optimized per app. These test results do not say anything about the final end result one could achieve with the individual app.

 

In the past I have evaluated many different RAW converters and with Fuji RAF’s I’ll get the best results with CaptureOne, SilkyPix in second place.




 
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