lisa

"Prayers in red"
Amman, The Kingdom of Jordan 2018
 
Fuji X-T2 + XF16mm f1.4 R WR
 
Come check out my Instagram jose_carpin_photographer and my site too www.josecarpin.com
 

X-T2, 16mm f/1.4
 

Just entering one of the tunnels at Heathrow!
X-H1 + 18-55mm @ 1/13 f5.6 ISO3200

Don’t mention it, There is a really huge space loving your work.

It is just celebrate day. Beautiful.

Welcome to the Forum.

Beautiful and photogenic place you've. Glad to meet you and welcome to the Forum.

Welcome to the Fuji world. 

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.

A good manipulation work with great photos.  

NYC Grand Central Station under attack ：）
 
lens: XC16-50mm kit lens
 

I have tested the X-Transformer today and was really happy with the results because the image sharpness was much better compared to my usual standard LR conversion. After sharpening the standard LR converted file with my sharpening workflow in LR, though, both files nearly looked the same. 
I am using the newest version of LR CC. I sharpened the file with 30 (Amount) /1,1 (Radius) /86 (Details) in LR. The pictures were made with the X-T2 and the 100-400 with 1,4x teleconverter
 
I have attached three files. 1. The one with standard LR import and without sharpening; 2. The one with standard LR import and sharpening; 3. The X-Transformer file
 
Did you make similar experiences with sharpened LR files in comparison to X-Transformer files? I am asking myself which advantages I get from X-Transformer, if the sharpened files in LR look the same like the X-Transformer files. Or is my example just a coincidence or a bad example for the advantages of X-Transformer? And am I getting it right, that the X-Transformer files should not be sharpened in LR? I tried it, but the file looked over-sharpened nearly immediately after increasing the amount.
 

One kind of situation after Trump.  

.
 



 
I don't think I've ever seen a reporter holding a scrim on herself. 

From my last trip to Santo Domingo. Shadows of a man and an old tree.