RickUrb

If you explicitly set DR100 then RAW and JPG will match.
 
If you explicitly set DR200 or DR400 then the RAWs will be -1 or -2 underexposed, that's the way the Fuji DR expansion works, BUT Lightroom will auto compensate and match the exposure to the JPG.
 
If you set DR to AUTO then the camera can use DR100 or DR200. If it decides to use DR200 then the RAW will be underexposed by -1 BUT this time LR can't read this and the RAW will remain -1 underexposed.
 
Explicitly set DR200 or use Auto and manually adjust.

I have an XE-2. I started off using SilkyPix but found the waxy faces and poor colour rendition of midtones in poor light a problem. I had latest version SP, too. Jumped to LR on W10 machine late last year, latest version LR and CR as I am a cloud subscriber. I do not see problems with foliage. I have not seen it mentioned here, but are LR users employing the 'mask' function in the sharpening control? Hold down 'alt' and the move the masking control to the right. This will mean that only those features highlighted in white will be sharpened. Solid blocks of colour will then be left alone by the sharpening settings.
 
Sent from my SM-A310F using Tapatalk

Having shot x-trans camera for something like five years now, photographing a wide range of subjects and often printing large, I'm perplexed by the various sports of some supposedly-significant "watercolor" problem. There were some issues in the early day of x-trans when non-Fujifilm vendors were trying to figure out how to process Fujifilm files, but I haven't seen a significant issue with this in several years. I certainly don't see it with the 24MP files from my XPro2.

One wonders if some of the third-party companies that are desperately trying to break into the rather small market for alternative conversion apps for Fujifilm may be feeding this myth. For me, I'll continue to use by Adobe products. They work really well with my Fujifilm files.
 
dan

This old chesnut AGAIN.
 
Just get Capture one and be done with it Works for me, few hints for people worried about tranisitioning to C1
 
1) This is for Mike Photo's - note you can import your old LR catelogue into C1 and it will do its best to recreate and translate the settings and processing you had performed in LR, its not 100% and its can't do all settings but it gets damn close and is a great place to start from if you are revisiting an old shoot.
 
2) Use Workspaces, you can customize your workspace to be as you want it, I use this a lot and have a workspace with all my most used tools in one place, hugely powerful.
 
3) If you are unsure where to start with workspaces, look in the menu and you will find that there are some legacy workspaces, including a Lightroom one, load this and it configures Capture One to be as much like LR as possible to help you transition your workflow.
 
4) Use the excellent series of C1 videos on their website, I watched them all and was up and running with about 90% of what I wanted to do in a couple of days.
 
G

I have an LR CC+PS CC workflow, and I have never been satisfied with RAF sharpening with LR or ACR. With both my X-E2 (v.4.0) and X-T2 (v2.01)  the "wormy" artifacts are ever present. I have tried many of the suggested/recommended options, but I find that my LR+PS habit is hard to break. However, I have found a solution which works quite well for me. 
 
I use Alienskin ExposureX2 and On1 Photo RAW 2017 as LR/PS plugins and external editors. On importing RAF files to LR I have LR Sharpening set to 0 rather than the LR default.
I make all other LR adjustments including crop/straightening, excluding any sharpening.
Then depending on what I plan to do with the image I will edit in either Exposure X2, or On1 Photo RAW 2017, either of which I use to apply sharpening if needed. The finalized rendition of those edited files are saved back to Lightroom, and there is no evidence of the "LR RAF worms" or foliage waxiness.
 
Occasionally I will bypass LR and use either Exposure X2, or On1 Photo RAW as a standalone with results I am happy with. My big hope for this year is that Adobe will get their act together and fix this RAF rendering issue especially with regard to sharpening.

Hi all, the post from Alan1740 above echoes the problem I have with the Fuji compressed RAF files.
 
Call it waxy detail/worms or whatever, its a definite problem.
 
I am getting to the point where I am about to turn in my Fuji gear.
 
I have had work kicked back because of the waxy look from my XT1 and X100F when shooting against grass/foliage, and had to go re-shoot on Nikon (which was accepted).
 
I have tried Lightroom and On1, but neither seems to be able to cope well with compressed RAF files. Next step is to try uncompressed RAF files, and see where that takes me. 

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.

Sigh...
 
The ever recurring thread. It will go on endlessly between those who view images on a pixel level vs those who view images normally. The pixel peepers will become personal and abusive and the photographers will respond in kind. Pixel peepers will fight among themselves over alternate software, each promoting their favourite, with contempt for the others who don't see the difference.
 
As the thread finally winds down, someone else will blame Lightwave for waxy skin and it will begin all over again.
 
<sigh>"Sigh"</sigh>

If you set the focus mode switch to Manual, the AF-L button will do back button focus.  If you leave it in S or C, BBF will not work.

I wouldn't say that there is a back button in the right position for back button focus on the X Pro 2 other than the joystick.
Philip

You can't customize a specific button to perform back button focus, however the AF-L is already programmed to perform the action.

I don't have an X-Pro2 but even with the latest firmware I don't think it can be done yet the same way as the XT2 does.
 
On the XT2 you can decouple the AF from the shutter button and assign one of the Fn buttons as 'AF-ON'.

I prefer the godox system. For Fuji, it's all manual flash like the yongnuo, but they have a much more comprehensive flash system that all works together. Godox also recently announced they will be supporting Fuji TTL in the very near future. My favorite part about the Godox system are the Li-Ion batteries!