Which software works well with X-TRANS III sensors?

[Hermelin]

Adobe Lightroom has a bad rep for X-TRANS raws, or is it fine now with current version?
if not, what software do you recommend?

[Lumens]

That question opens up a lot of argument.  One person is happier with one and another person happier with another.  I know Lightroom and it works very well for me.  I am using the latest version CC and I have had no problems.  I don't see the issues others seem to see.

 

With that said maybe my eyes just aren't as good.  I read one article that compared three different software's to show how bad Lightroom was and provided pictures to prove it.  Personally I thought all three were very good and liked the Lightroom better.  There were differences, but nothing I would call bad in any of them, just different.

[Hermelin]

I've been using Lightroom for several years when I used Canon so I guess I can stick with that?

I just heard that Lightroom loses a lot of details on the fuji raw files. But maybe that's not true anymore with later versions of Lightroom?

[jfoxshoots]

From what I've read, recent versions of Lightroom work fine now. There will always be differences though. For example many people find the colours and initial sharpness to be better with Capture One no matter the camera brand.

[aceflibble]

Lightroom works fine. It's got the most accurate colour and contrast/tonal handling. Iridient is very vaguely better for high frequency detail; if you're doing something like macro shots of fabrics or fur, that's a better pick than Lightroom. With the increased detail and less aggressive baked-in 'optimisation' on the Pro2—and therefore the T2, too—Lightroom has closed the gap quite substantially.

Capture One is fantastic for every other brand, but with Fuji it's really no different from Iridient and it obviously lacks the organisation tools of Lightroom, so it's a bit pointless. Canon, Nikon, Sony, Leaf, and Phase One users should all at least try Capture One. Fuji users shouldn't bother.

So if you've already got Lightroom, or were planning on using Lightroom anyway for file organisation, just stick with that. There is no point opening up every file in a second piece of software. if you don't already have Lightroom and you weren't planning on using it anyway, then you might want to give Iridient a try, depending on your subject matter.

[Tom H.]

I've always used lightroom. Never stopped me.

[Hermelin]

Seems like it's still a problem with details as someone pointed out on RICO's review

 

"Did anyone else notice that objects in the distance look like a painting,"

 

Fullsize-> https://www.flickr.com/photos/ricopfirstinger/27506181383/sizes/o/

 

Is the problem still there if I would postprocess a JPEG instead of of a RAW file in LR?

[Vidalgo]

Looks like it was taken with 18-135 lens, which has great overall sharpness but lack of microcontrast, hence no fine details at far field.

[addicted2light]

Given that Irident is free to try, why don't you see for yourself?

 

The "painterly" effect comes up mostly with foliage and very fine detail. Personally I am reasonably happy with Lightroom most of the time for relatively small prints (at least up to A3+).

 

But for A1 and maybe even A2 Irident (especially disabling noise reduction and distortion correction) and the free/donation-ware RawTherapee* both extract IMHO a huge amount of fine detail more than Lightroom, even using in LR the Bridgwood sharpening method(s):

 

SHARPENING X-TRANS FILES IN ADOBE LIGHTROOM

 

*In RawTherapee for the best results you'll have to use "Deconvolution Sharpening" and "Microcontrast" sharpening at the same time

[douglasdrumond]

Capture One can't work with compressed RAW from X-Pro2, I'm not sure about Lightroom yet (I shoot uncompressed) and there are som selection tools that doesn't work either.