graflex

What you're missing is better rendition of fine detail from your XT-2 raw files. A little Internet research with topics like X-Trans worms, watercolor effect, LR, and Adobe should bring up some tens of thousands of pages for you to examine (somewhat contentious and the amount of misinformation you will encounter is massive). Bottom line: Adobe's methodology demosaicing the X-Trans CFA does a weaker job with fine detail rendition than the alternative raw converters. There's various things that can be done to mitigate the result but ultimately if you have Adobe do the demosiacing of the X-Trans array the problem is uncorrectable. It's not a show stopper problem. A lot of folks are very happy with the results they get from Adobe/X-Trans and don't get worked up over this. If you want to see the difference then go to dpreview.com and download this sample file for the XT-2: https://www.dpreview.com/sample-galleries/3430551079/fujifilm-x-t2-samples-gallery/2929672995 Treat it as you would your own XT-2 raw files and process it in Photoshop. Then compare the central section of the image with the sample attached. Use Photoshop and try to produce equivalent detail as seen in the sample attached.

"FUJI X-T3 ‘WORMS’ I presume that if you are reading this article then you will be familiar with the Fuji ‘Worms’ effect." There is no Fuji Worms effect. There is an Adobe Worms effect. "Adobe Lightroom struggles to sharpen Fuji X Trans RAW files without introducing some wormy artefacts." No. Adobe's demosaicing of Fuji X-Trans raw files fails to appropriately render fine detail and that is the foundation of Adobe's Worms effect. "Adobe has not addressed this issue and it looks likely that they may never do so. Sadly the issue persists in the latest release (Version 😎 of the software" Indeed it does. "The simplest solution to avoid the worms is to disable sharpening completely in Lightroom and sharpen either when exporting the file e.g. sharpen for web sharing or sharpen in Adobe Photoshop using unsharp mask filter." No. The simplest solution to avoid the worms is to avoid Adobe software.

If you want to use the live histograms and blinkies as exposure aids then you need to leave the picture preview turned on. The histograms and blinkies are derived from the video feed to the EVF. The EVF attempts to simulate what the image processor will create in the final JPEG. You are not getting a raw preview and you can't. Using the EVF live before you take the photo you're not even getting a histogram of the JPEG. To get that you have to take the photo and then look at the histogram when you review the photo. Fuji, along with all the other manufacturers, tunes their meters and engineers their EXR image processor to render a "well-exposed" JPEG from a raw file that under-utilizes the sensor's recording capacity. If you really feel you need to see in the histogram and blinkies data that more closely reflects the raw file you'll look into setting the white balance to unity. Do you like green? With the WB set to unity your EVF will be green and your JEPGs will be green but the histogram and blinkies will be pretty close to indicating the actual status of the raw exposure -- picture effects stay on. Go here: https://www.rawdigger.com

Capture One is the best overall solution. Seems you're figuring that out. Dump Adobe.

The DNG that IR-X outputs is a linear DNG -- a demosaiced RGB file in a DNG wrapper. You're no longer working with your original data then. No raw converter is a "best solution" so we all have to make a compromise choice. One is better with "A" and weaker with "B" and vice versa. I think LR is a very good compromise choice and it works well for a lot of people. The issue with LR's RAF demosaicing/fine detail is pretty minor. It's certainly capable of rendering an excellent image. Just make sure you keep the original RAF file and if you find one that you're not happy with in LR then you always have to option to re-process it with different software.

Should look pretty good at a reduced size, but you're over-compensating for Adobe's poor detail rendering with increased contrast and sharpening. You've created a halo in the sky around the tree and some pretty noticeable sharpening artifacts. Back down from the halo and see how it looks. Your option is a viable one but you've been forced into a choice of creating harm to get results that look close to what more capable converters produce without doing as much damage.

Your camera has a "dynamic range expansion" function that you access with the DR mode setting. You have three states: DR100, DR200, and DR400. DR100 is the normal mode of operation for the camera. In other words there's no off setting or DR0 setting -- the camera has to be set to one of the three and/or there's an auto DR option where the camera will select for you. To use either the DR200 or DR400 settings you must increase the ISO value above base. DR200 requires that you set the ISO to at least 400 and DR400 requires that you set the ISO to at least 800. The point of the DR expansion modes is to generate a lower contrast JPEG in response to high contrast lighting conditions. Normally camera settings that focus on altering JPEG appearance do not effect the raw files from the camera; this function is an exception as it does have a substantive effect on the raw files. That is in fact how it works. By forcing you to raise the ISO the camera meter will calculate a reduced exposure. Normally the camera would then apply analog gain to the sensor signal to compensate but with DR200/400 engaged the analog gain is withheld. The thinking is that this is preventing highlight clipping. The JPEG is then processed with a special tone curve to better render the high contrast lighting. DR bracketing allows you to shoot a bracket set using all three settings in sequence for a single photo. NOTE: that the ISO will have to be set to at least 800 to make this possible as the DR400 option requires at least ISO 800. The goal would be to get the best of the three camera JPEGs. Caveat: If you save and work with raw files the effect of the DR modes on your raw files needs to be taken into consideration.

Depending on use I agree the difference can be minor. I used PhotoNinja in the above post but basically almost any alternative raw converter does a better job than LR rendering fine detail from RAF files. Iridient is a popular choice, but Capture One is also excellent -- SilkyPix is very good as are some of the free raw converters like Raw Therapee. I also make large prints and, you'll have to take my word for it, when I run a print with my Epson 9880 or Canon PF5100 I can see the fine detail weakness if the image is demosaiced in LR as opposed to one of the alternative converters.

BobJ sent me an LR processed version of the RAF file I posted. Here's the link he sent me: https://www.dropbox.com/s/o5juwj1mcbptuba/_DSF0648.tif?dl=0 I'm seeing the same old LR and the same old poor fine detail rendition with Fuji RAF files. This RAF file is from an X-T2. Below is a side by side of a section of the image at 100% -- the file BobJ did and a version run through PhotoNinja.

It's a Dropbox link -- working for me: https://www.dropbox.com/s/3beseqfwlz91gb2/_DSF0648.RAF?dl=0 Thanks.

Adobe's (LR/ACR) rendition of fine detail when demosaicing RAF files has for years been perceived by many to be sub-par. Alternative raw converters do a better job demosaicing RAF files for fine detail rendition. This is longstanding and not recently changed to my knowledge. If you'd like to demonstrate that I'm wrong here's an RAF file from an X-T2 that Adobe handles poorly compared with other raw converters: _DSF0648.RAF By all means post a full-res JPEG processed from this RAF file to prove your point. (NOTE: WB was set to unity when I took the photo. Don't let that throw you just WB off the barn).

I'd love to see how OK LR is with RAF files now. Below is an RAF file from an X-T2. Don't let the WB throw you -- it was set to unity when the photo was taken. Just WB of the side of the barn. You can post a link to a full-res JPEG result here. Thanks. X-T2 RAF file

Keep the RAF files and avoid the DNG option. Over time and likely in the future you'll be better off keeping your originals. That question opens up a can of worms. So the answer is resoundingly NO and absolutely YES. LR is the most popular application for post processing camera raw files. It has earned that position because of it's overall feature set which is an excellent balance of function and usability. It's the go to choice of most photographers. Fuji X cameras use Fuji's proprietary X-Trans CFA which is trickier to demosaic than conventional Bayer array CFAs. Adobe turns in a weak performance demosaicing X-Trans RAF files -- rendition of fine detail is frequently poor. This puts Fuji X camera users in a bit of a bind. Alternative raw converters for the most part do a better job than LR with the fundamental first task of demosaicing the CFA. Notably: Capture One, Iridient, SilkyPix, PhotoNinja, Raw Therapee and even ACDSee. A compromise choice made by many Fuji X camera users is to rely on an alternate like Iridient or PN to demosiac the RAF file and then continue processing in LR. Otherwise I recommend a clean break and adoption of Capture One as an LR replacement. LR's DAM features tend to rate higher than C1 but C1 will do a better job processing an RAF file. No it doesn't. Fuji stores lens profile data in the RAF file and LR reads and applies it. As such there's no need for Adobe to create separate lens profiles.

Very close. DR chart An issue to consider with the X-T2 is Fuji's decision to set the camera's base ISO at 200. Notice in the linked chart that Bill Claff measures the X-T2 DR at 10 stops/ISO 200 and the 810 at 10.28 stops/ISO 200 -- .28 isn't a big deal. Fuji, for whatever reasons, has set the camera base ISO high relative to the sensor's real limits and capability. Leaving the X-T2 at ISO 200 there's considerably more there if you increase exposure. I've gotten into the habit with my X-T2 of leaving the EC set to +1 and will frequently take the photo at +1.3 to +1.7. Consider this comparison between the X-T2 and Sony 6300 which are both using the same Sony sensor. Sony selects base ISO as 100 and Bill Claff measures nearly 1 stop more DR for the Sony camera: DR chart Well it's the same sensor and it doesn't really lose a stop of DR because it's in a Fuji camera instead of a Sony or Nikon camera. Same sensor is also in a Nikon D500 and its base ISO is 100 and sure enough its DR performance matches the Sony 6300. The ISO ratings that camera manufacturers assign are not ISO ratings for the sensor they're for the JPEG output of the camera's image processor. Still the 810 and now 850 are better, but if you expose for the sensor in the X-T2 it's close.

I'm not even mildly interested. I'm going to get a better photo exposing for the sensor and processing the raw file myself.