Bernie

Please explain to me the personal or business connections I have with any piece of software. I'd love to know how you know more about my career than I do. You've already stated you know and did some form of work with the development of the Iridient processing, and you've a book to flog, so we know the bias you have. My connections in the photography world are strictly in hardware and marketing, so I'd love to know why and where you think I have connections and reason to push any software agenda.
 
That's the result, but not how it works as far as the actual process is concerned, though. DR underexposes the image using Fuji's misstated ISO numbers and then pushes the shadows up to match what the ISO should be. I.e., DR at 400% gives you the highlights of ISO 200 with the shadow exposure of ISO 800. In many cameras this would be somewhat hard to duplicate with software, but with Fuji it is easy since Fuji's sensor is essentially an ISO-less sensor and all exposures are pushed to simulate the ISO even in-camera, let alone in software; ISO 200 is being pushed up from the actual ISO of 140, ISO 400 is simply doubling that push again, etc. It's why the noise holds so consistently across ISO values.
What this means is that when it comes to replicating the dynamic range function, you just repeat the steps the Fuji system sets up: underexpose by 1-2 stops and push the shadows accordingly, bearing in mind that even at ISO 200, Fuji is pushing the shadows a little to fake a wider natural dynamic range.
 
 
For topic relevancy, I was walking past this old boat being used as a planter and took a quick picture with RAW+L. Classic Chrome, NR -2, sharpness -1, DR at 200% and colour, highlight and shadow all at 0. White balance set to 5600K with no tint bias. Lens is the 35mm f/1.4 at f/2.8 and I use a Tiffen Black Mist 1/4 filter always, so that's on there adding a little diffusion to the look.
Processing the raw image just now in Lightroom, all I did was simply switch the film simulation from Pro Neg. S (my LR default) to Classic Chrome. NR is at 0, sharpening at 15/0.7/25/20. WB, exposure, contrast, saturation, etc, all left at defaults/0. Highlight, white and black all left at 0, shadows at +25 to match the DR setting of the camera's file.
 
If you can tell a difference between the camera file and the raw file, your must have Superman's x-ray vision.
Dead centre

 
Corner, which vaguely shows a very, very slight difference in the shadow contrast if you really squint at it hard

 
And here is the full image, ONE and TWO. You can try and work out which is the raw and which is the in-camera .jpg yourself.
 
 
Point is, you're not going to get a better match any quicker with any other software. If you want to spend more time on it then you could match the top corner shadow exposure slightly better (though I won't say in which direction; that woudl give away which file is which) but that's a fringe case and in 99% of situations, hey look, all I had to do is select the matching film simulation and my LR defaults had everything else matched already. Import, one click, export, job done. You can't match the in-camera look any faster or easier than that, which is the point of this thread.

I typically test my new cameras and lenses with a simple product set-up and a ColorChecker Passport just to make sure everything is working properly, but this time around with the X-T10 I decided to also directly test the Fuji in-camera film simulations against Lightroom's rendering.

First, some notes on equipment and settings:
Lights used were two InterFit daylight balanced continuous lights, which I frequently use for product photography. They're nearly perfectly balanced. (Tested with several shades of grey card, they consistently give a white balance of 5,540k needing a tint of just +2 towards magenta.) I tested the X-T10 with the 14mm, 35mm, 56mm and 60mm lenses, however I am only posting the results from the 56mm as I found this to be the most neutral. The JPG files of the 14mm and 35mm are given a lot more 'optimisation' by the camera and the 60mm has a slightly warm colour cast to it. The 56mm lens does still have some optimisation applied to it, though. Camera settings for all shots were ISO 200, 1/400th and f/4. Other settings were RAW+F, white balance set to Daylight, sharpness -1, noise reduction -2. Everything else left at default/0. Lightroom left everything at default/as shot/0, only reducing the default sharpening of 25 down to 15 and changing the colour profile to the appropriate film simulation. Before you look at the images and try to guess which is which, I want to mention Fuji's white balance. Their 'daylight' white balance is, in fact, not a daylight white balance. A true daylight white balance should be 5,500k with no tint. (Some people argue daylight should be 5,600k.) Fuji's daylight balance, however, reads at 5,200k with a +7 tint towards magenta. This is clearly a cooler balance than the industry standard used by everybody else. I double-checked with my X100S and that gave the same 5,200k +7 result.
Not only that, but an actual perfect white balance of these Fuji  files comes out as 5,350k +28 (Lightroom auto) to 5,150k +35 (manually selecting a perfect balance). I double-checked this in SilkyPix and got the exact same results. I then tested again with a Canon camera and that read 5,570k and +5 in-file and 5,620k +6 corrected, which is much closer to what any daylight balance should be reading as.
This suggests that Fuji are running their colour much greener than it should be, either by having green read too strongly or magenta too weakly.
I will note that when I first bought a Fuji camera, the X100S, right away I felt the colour balances were all running a bit cool and I tweaked them all to run +1 towards yellow and red/magenta. Testing the X-T10 now, it seems I have been right to do this.
Of course, some people like Fuji film specifically because it has a cooler tone to it than the neutral-warm colours of Kodak, so this white balance bias may have been completely intentional by Fuji in order to replicate the cooler bias of their film stock. Even so, I think they've gone maybe a little too far with the green tint.


So, on to the actual images.

In order, we have Provia/Standard, Velvia/Vivid, Astia/Soft, Classic Chrome, Pro Negative High and Pro Negative Standard. I will not yet tell you whether the in-camera rendering or the Lightroom rendering is first or second in each pairing. That's our test, let's see if people can actually pick out which renderings they think are Fuij's or Adobe's. All I will say is that there are no 'trick' pairings, i.e. I didn't change the colour in any way, there are no mismatched pairs, etc. Each pair does contain one Fuji rendering and one Adobe rendering of the same film simulation.


 

And now the Monochromes. In order we have Monochrome, Monochrome + Yellow filter, Monochrome + Red filter and Monochrome + Green filter. No, I did not test the Sepia tone, because you have to be out of your mind to use Sepia.



 

My own observation is that the aqua, blue, purple and magenta colours barely change at all between Lightroom and in-camera, red only changes a noticable amount in one film simulation and yellow changes noticeably in two. The biggest offender is green, which is never matched well other than in Classic Chrome. The Classic Chrome simulation definitely is the one that Adobe and Fuji are the most closely-matched.
I also think it's interesting that mono and mono+Y are hardly different at all, with just a slight darkening of blue in one of the renderings of mono+Y, and that the green patch, which is the biggest problem for the colour renderings, is almost perfectly equal in all the monochrome renderings.
 
So, guess away. In each pairing, which do you think is Fuji and which do you think is Adobe? Make sure your monitor is calibrated properly! I'll give the answers in a few days.

Okay, 1) you don't need to quote a whole massive post, photos included, to write a reply that short, and 2) nothing you have said offers any explanation as to why my examples are wrong.

I'm not going to explain it again because I've already repeated myself. I gave examples and explained what was going on with the files. You said I was wrong without explanation as to how. I gave more examples, fully explaining the process behind taking the pictures, where the changes occur and why and how what you are claiming is not physically possible other than via the one differing factor, namely the lens optimisation feature. I have explained why the little you have put forward so far can not be factually accurate in any dimension known to the human race. You have, again, not actually explained why you think differently. You can't just say "you are wrong because you are wrong (by the way please buy my book)." You have to actually explain why you think you're right. I've explained why you're wrong. I've explained the science and I've explained the simple reality. I've provided multiple examples which explicitly show you are wrong.
Now, you can learn from this and correct your own information for the future or you can remain wilfully ignorant or you can prove me wrong, I don't mind which, but you need to do one of the three. You're not right just because you say you are right. You're right when you prove you are right, which I have done. If I am wrong, please show why and I will gladly amend my methods to reflect my mistakes.

This i s deeply offensive.... Ace has gone to great lengths to not only perform an objective test but, in true scientific form, has shared his results, methodologies and rationale as well. You (Surfer) however have countered with nothing short of curt posts with nothing to back your claims other than "You Should Read My Book" which is not even available yet! One does not require an entire book to counter Ace's data!
 
Opinions can either become fact, through scientific challenge, or be disproven by the same process. You points so far are nothing more than a marketing ploy and have no place in scientific discourse regardless of the subject matter. It's too bad really, as it may very well be that your book will be a worthy purchase, but I for one will not be buying it.
 
It is not constructive to be rude, condescending, or dismissive in order to illustrate a counter point or logical argument.... just be fair and back your claims in the same manner as your colleague. I possess a degree in sensitometry, and so far I aggree with Ace. This is not to say he is correct, just that he is the only one that has produced quantifiable data.