Lightroom 6 improvements?

[Trenton Talbot]

Did I understand right that Adobe will improve in the future, but it is not still improved in todays update ver. 6.1?

 

Yep. If you scroll changelog (sort of) down to "Reduced “color blur” artifacts when processing Fujifilm XTrans raw images" under "Bug fixes" and follow the link, you can see for yourself what exactly Adobe meant with this update for us Fuji users.

[Hans K Aspenberg]

To get back to the original posters issue: Is there an improvement. Yes, I will say so. ​Some of the halos you get (or got) on edges towards a blue sky, or any edge over to blue is definitively better. An fine details to some extent, subtle, but definitively better.

 

 

This pic is processed and rendered in LR CC 2015.1

[RadBadTad]

Actually, I really never could or will understand why anyone would want to bother with any software Fuji does not supply? After all they absolutely know their equipment better than ANY external ¨engineer¨ could. I was an E. E. E. for many years (after some years Aerial Mapping photog.) building and installing machine control imaging systems. We partnered with Fuji for those camera-lens systems...........believe me THEY KNOW!

 But then again I never had any use for adobe even in early UNIX days. ;-)

Because I ask a lot more from my programs than simple processing of Fuji files. I also have library management, export to multiple places, tagging, rating, and multiple other cameras from other brands. A slight boost in detail isn't enough to get me to give up all that and use the Fuji program. 

[Maurice]

Yep. If you scroll changelog (sort of) down to "Reduced “color blur” artifacts when processing Fujifilm XTrans raw images" under "Bug fixes" and follow the link, you can see for yourself what exactly Adobe meant with this update for us Fuji users.

 

Ah you're right. This one blue color channel bug was fixed in CC / 6.1 and ACR9.1, but they are "still investigating methods to improve fine detail rendering and overall edge definition" in general.

[RadBadTad]

Ah you're right. This one blue color channel bug was fixed in CC / 6.1 and ACR9.1, but they are "still investigating methods to improve fine detail rendering and overall edge definition" in general.

And the answer should just be to ask PhotoNinja nicely to explain how they did it. Haha

 

On the boards I usually hang on on, the poor handling of Fuji files is usually attributed to the baked-in noise reduction that the camera does, even on raw files, (that PhotoNinja is able to remove, where Lightroom isn't) and strange lens corrections that actually do more damage than good. I'm not actually sure how true that is, but I know that I get the best detail in PhotoNinja when I take the automatic noise reduction all the way down, and it makes the little swirls and smudges go away. I've also noticed that I get much worse "fuji detail issues" with my 23mm than I do with my 18-55, which would suggest a lens correction issue to me. I'm really curious as to how it has taken this long to try to correct though. It's been a fairly well publicized issue for quite a while now.

[davidheintz]

After working with PN, C1, and Iridient (all of which I own) I have returned to LR 6.1 for the following reasons:

 

1. still the best cataloger for the Mac

2. best gateway to Photoshop, where I do most of my editing, and from where each photo departs

3. I have developed user presets for my D800 and X100T

4. The Haze feature really works

5. best lens corrections built in (for the lenses I own, and the X100T. Don't know about the Fuji lens family.)

6. best straightening corrections 

7. Try Camera/Provia/Standard as your default

 

I had developed a liking for C1Pro, especially the way it handle color. But the LR 6 upgrade seems better to my eye...

[lichtundlaerm]

Aside from the fact that I never really understood all the fuzz about the very last bit of detail (*), I realized something while editing some of my old D7000 pictures: I have the impression that the LR/X-Trans combination is simply much more unforgiving when it comes to a little bit of misfocus, diffraction blur, lens "softness" or whatever. I felt like I could disguise this better with the Nikon images. The Fuji-"watercolor" effect only seemed to set in for pictures where something was a little bit "off". Could explain some of the ambiguous results of different users.

 

Nevertheless, I found settings that are probably less sharp and more noisy than what most other people are going for, but produce much more pleasing images (for me) than I ever could with the Nikon and that are (again: for me) far, FAR superior to what the In-Camera JPG engine does. So in the end, LR5 works fine for me.

 

 

(*) Side note: Seriously, whenever I start pixel-peeping I realize at some point it's just because my picture is actually crap. If the picture is good, it's still good even if the last teeny-weeny bit of sharpness lacks, especially since 99.9% of the pictures are presented online or in less-than-1:1-prints anyway... However, I don't do photography for a living (or customers), so I may have a different point of view and set of requirements here. I'm in the luxurious position that I am the only one who decides if it's good (enough).