Search the Community

I am the happy owner of a X-E2s by accident. I wanted to buy a used demo E2 as companion for my E1 and T1 from a shop at Ebay. Before they shipped it they found it was broken and in the end I got a X-E2s. When I tried to open a RAW with the current version of Photo Ninja, version 1.3.1, the software crashed. The files can be opened and processed if the 's' of the second occurence of the string Fujifiilm X-E2s is replaced by the value zero (not the character '0'). You need a Hex Editor for this. I know fiddling around with a Hex Editor is not for everyone and doing this for hundreds of RAW files is only doable if your Hex Editor is supporting batch processing. Mine does not. But for a first test this may be helpful. Let's hope that PictureCode include support for the E2s soon. Edit: Disclaimer: I did not make extensive tests. So make a copy of your RAW files before you patch them on your own risk!

Here are two full sized JPEGs exported at 100% quality. One is Iridient X-Transformer for Windows The other is Photo Ninja https://www.dropbox.com/sh/gecl004c2g9eyp3/AADBmBqmADVW6xokIe-CV9eka?dl=0 ISO 800 on an XPro2 | 50-140mm at f/2.8 At 100% viewing, I prefer Photo Ninja. It looks smoother, while maintaining detail. The file from Iridient has lots of artifacting, I believe. I could be using Iridient wrong, as I've only had it for about half an hour, but nothing I do can match the detail and natural look of Photo Ninja.

Attached are two screen shots of the same X-T1 RAF file at 100% magnification. One is the file open in the most up-to-date version of the Fuji raw processor "Powered by SILKYPIX" (downloaded from the Fuji support site), the other is the file in Photo Ninja. With my RAF files, I have now tried Lightroom 5, Lightroom 6.1, Iridient, Capture One, Photo Ninja, and SilkyPix. Lightroom 5 is by far the worst, in terms of fine detail. Lightroom 6.1, Capture One, Iridient, and SilkyPix seem to be right on the same level to me, and the dramatic stand-out for me is Photo Ninja (in terms of fine detail, and film-like highlight recovery) With P.N. the colors are harder to work with, and don't look as pleasing as easily as they do with something more robust like Lightroom or Capture One. For colors and skin tones, I still find Lightroom and Capture One to be the best. This COULD be because I'm very used to using Lightroom, and have only used PN sporadically because I only use it when I really want super fine detail from my images.