Jump to content

Iridient Developer is the best RAW processor for Fuji X sensor


Recommended Posts

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

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
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest thiswayup

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/fuji-x-watercolor-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. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest thiswayup

 

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
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

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
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.aftershotpro.com/en/products/aftershot-pro/

 

Thanks!

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

the “ automatic lens correction” of LR is not a panacea either because it relies on what they have inserted in the particular version that you have.

 

... if you have an old one you may not have any of the Fuji lenses in there!

 

Again, there is not better way there are different ways to get to Rome.

Link to post
Share on other sites

“If you have an old one you may not have any of the Fuji lenses in there” is not correct. Reason for this is that the Fuji lens correction parameters are built in the EXIF data of the RAF files themselves. With this you always get lens corrections, whether or not it’s an old lens. So Adobe, CaptureOne (from v.8 onwards), Fuji RFC and Silky all recognize every Fuji lens and its required lens corrections.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not for Fuji. The lens correction parameters are really built in the EXIF data itself. With CaptureOne you can clearly see this when under lens correction "manufacturer Profile" is displayed. But with the other ones (LR...)  that I mentioned it is also obvious when looking at the results. I think this is the same as with all kinds of mirrorless cameras and lenses. You do NOT need to select from a list of supported lenses such as with Nikon.

Edited by JaapD
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...