tsims10s

Taking this right back to the beginning perhaps explains the problem best.
 
I got my X-Pro1 in late June 2012, probably from the second or third batch into Australia. Adobe came out with their ACR support for RAF soon afterwards, but my first few weeks were spent shooting OOC jpeg while familiarising myself with the camera. Once I started to process raw files with ACR I noticed that things weren't the best, but compared to SilkyPix (I use Windows, they were the only two RAF processors available at the time) there was not much difference, although SP seemed a bit softer and ACR more contrasty.
 
Then Corel got on the RAF train (September 2012) with their process in PaintShop Pro X5, and while worse overall, it probably best reveals why both early SilkyPix and ACR acted like they did. Below are two 100% sections  of a photo I took at the time deliberately to highlight with vegetation and high contrast edge rendition I'd been noticing with ACR (and to a lesser degree with SilkyPix), and which many later called the "zipper effect".
 
The first is ACR, the second is Corel PSP X5. (Again, these are the first 2012 versions of RAF processing, not the current versions):
 

 

 
The Corel version perhaps shows the problem that Adobe etc with Fuji files, and the original dcraw showed a similar result to the PSP X5 version - spurious coloured pixels appearing along high contrast edges (note the lines between grille and white paint on the car and around the number plate, and the choppy edges of the geometric grille pattern against white plain detail; in fact anywhere there is a high contrast edge. If you compare the top edge of the door mirror you can just see the slight waviness in the edge of the Adobe version corresponding to where the rows of spurious pixels occur in the X5 version, again probably confirming default filter application designed to smooth edges.
 
My guess was (and still is) that both SilkyPix and Adobe tackled this with a default addition of noise reduction (more heavily so in Adobe's case), and compensated for the NR's softening of detail and loss of colour by adding a hefty dose of saturation and sharpening. The spreading of colour in the two sticks embedded in the ground further attests to the likelihood of NR having been applied - the green/yellow colour of the grass spreading has nearly killed the brown in the highlights.
 
As mentioned, I tried dcraw in command line form when Mac forums started mentioning it as being the basis for RPP & Iridient, and it gave a similar result to Corel's demosaic, but Dave Coffin then responded quickly to criticism and changed his demosaic algorithm to give the clean, sharp rendition that is with us today as the basis of programs such as Photo Ninja, Iridient, RPP, LightZone, Photivo, Helicon Filter, etc etc. Corel took a lot longer to respond, and still hasn't quite got there with Aftershot Pro.
 
Adobe (and probably SilkyPix) on the other hand, seem to have stuck with their original algorithm and simply refined the degree of default NR, saturation and sharpening applied to reduce the outline and spreading effect of the original. This would probably also explain why Adobe ACR/LR/DNG files in particular can react so nervously to post sharpening, sharpening apparently already having been applied by default during the demosaic.
 
Until someone from any of the companies mentioned actually comes out and publicly states that this is not the case (and they haven't in five years), then I'm inclined to stick with the above explanation.
 
As such ACR/LR/DNG is basically flawed in my book, and while many might think their results are good enough, my personal quality standards (and those of many others) won't permit me to use ACR for any commercial job. One never knows how the final image may be used, at what size and with what enhancements, and as such it is the professional's duty to provide the best possible image to the client, not one that may - or may not - be "good enough". Iridient's X-Transformer is definitely a viable demosaic alternative to those who feel welded to Adobe and the ease of ACR/LR, just be sure to properly tune the base settings (to their credit Iridient do listen and have already changed the defaults at least once).

There are many threads for this. I will resume the easiest solution (I personally use it). Buy X-Transformer for Windows from Iridient, it's really cheap and it doesn't change the workflow that much.
 
1) convert your RAF with this tool
2) import the DNG results into Lightroom
3) work with Lightroom as usual (apply film simulation if you want)
 
Some subject/pattern are less affected by this pattern so I don't use the tool for all images.
 
The tool can be also used as a Lightroom external editor. In that case, you import your RAF, and you convert from Lightroom, it's even easier but requires minor configuration.

I don't consider myself a pixel peeper at all... I am a professional photographer, working with Canon 5D camera's, and also using a Fuji X-T2 recently.
 
I have used Fuji camera's before, but only for my vacations and free work projects. For that purpose I was happy with the results I get out of LR. But now I want to use Fuji also for some professional work, and then I am going to look more critical at the raw processing and the results.
 
Now last week I have sent some images to a client of mine, taken with the T2 and edited in LR. Pictures from a building in a green park (so with a lot of foliage surrounding the building). And then my client complained about the strange way the foliage looked to him... And I can only say that his complaint was right!
 
The way LR renders the RAF files is just not good enough for professional use.
 
So this is not about pixel peeping but about making money with photography and keeping clients happy, take them seriously by providing them with pictures with the highest possible IQ!

I was a Lightroom user until year 2015, switched to Capture One. I am very happy with its color reproduction, editing style.
 
Recently, I tried the RAW FILE CONVERTER EX 2.0 powered by SILKYPIX provided by FujiFilm on its web.
 
I did not complete a formal and thorough comparison, I just load a RAW file into both Capture One and Silkypix, set them both at default settings and certain profile which I think look the best, without touching anything else, eg exposure, details.
 
I am totally surprised by the image quality produced by Silkypix, a lot of micro-contrast and very punchy 3D look.
 
Though the interface is not quite intuitive as Capture One. Also it is simplified version, some important features are missing. I am going to stay on Capture One.
 
I suggest anyone to try it for once! It is free.

The petebridgwood articles on sharpening are out of date at this point. I'm convinced that updates to LR have rendered the recommendations to crank the detail slider to be poor advice. It might have been relevant and helpful a year or two ago, but it doesn't work that way now. I wasted two months following those guidelines after I bought my X-T2 because that was all that I could find as far as recommendations on sharpening in LR, his page shows up in many threads. Like I said, it might have been a great solution before, but LR updates have changed that.
 
I'm favoring the Iridient X-Transformer solution using recommendations found here http://www.lightofisaac.com/Lifeofisaac/2017/January/January-31-2017. I actually have adjusted those recommendations where I use "smoother" instead of "more detailed" in Iridient X-Transformer, and I use a lower amount of sharpening and detail once I'm in Lightroom.

The sharpening algorithm in LR is not fixed, it's based on the camera, so (for example) adding an amount of '25' will yield different results on different files from different cameras

The petebridgwood articles on sharpening are out of date at this point. I'm convinced that updates to LR have rendered the recommendations to crank the detail slider to be poor advice. It might have been relevant and helpful a year or two ago, but it doesn't work that way now. I wasted two months following those guidelines after I bought my X-T2 because that was all that I could find as far as recommendations on sharpening in LR, his page shows up in many threads. Like I said, it might have been a great solution before, but LR updates have changed that.
 
I'm favoring the Iridient X-Transformer solution using recommendations found here http://www.lightofisaac.com/Lifeofisaac/2017/January/January-31-2017. I actually have adjusted those recommendations where I use "smoother" instead of "more detailed" in Iridient X-Transformer, and I use a lower amount of sharpening and detail once I'm in Lightroom.

Have you tried Iridient X-Transformer for Windows? It's like night and day. You really don't need to do anymore sharpening and you can use LR for everything else.

This was an excellent help for me. Thank you so much for suggesting turning off the Iridient sharpening and noise reduction. I am getting consistently better processing using your method thus far.

I've just written up a new blog post here, outlining the settings I've worked out to get the most out of Iridient Digital's new X-Transformer conversion software. I did some rather rigorous testing over the past couple of days, to see if I can find an optimal starting point when working with Iridient + Lightroom.

I was searching everywhere for suggested settings, but it being such a new product I was unable to find any real direction. 

Please have a read, and let me know what you think! I think the results are wonderful, but would love to hear others opinions. This is just a base starting point, prior to any further processing, but it makes a freshly converted X file look perfect.

Cheers;

Isaac

After using Lightroom and Capture One for several years, I have just purchased Silkypix 7 Pro and I'm having a wonderful time with it. Each day I learn something new about it that helps me understand it a little better. For my Fuji XT2 files it is very refreshing.

Don't laugh....
 
But I've really got into SilkyPix lately, (the paid one) ok it's a bit quirky (a bit like Fuji X cameras ) but the results work well for me and what I like to shoot.