Jump to content

RAW converters comparison

jakku

By jakku
in RAW Conversion Fuji X Photos

 Share

Recommended Posts

RadBadTad Collaborator

RadBadTad

Posted
Posted

Thanks for doing the comparison. They all look pretty good really. Did you do much processing on them, or is it a straight out of camera output? The contrast is different on the different versions. What camera are these from?

 

Also, could you compare the working speed of Capture One against Lightroom? I'm dealing with trying to correct the sluggishness that I get though Lightroom right now. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
jakku Apprentice

jakku

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)

No, it's out of the camera uncompressed raw, sharpness and noise reduction 0. It's X-T2. I didin't notice capture one any slower than lightroom.. You can see capture one has better color reproduction by default. Best combo for professional work has iridient + capture one. Overall best quality has ON1, but it works pretty slow and confusing interface.. One big problem with capture one, it doesn't support lossless raw...

Edited by jakku
Link to post
Share on other sites
jlmphotos Experienced

jlmphotos

Posted
Posted

I think I'll continue to use LR for 99% of my raw work.  I've used others, but always come back to LR.  It does everything I need it to.  Every now and then when I want to "play" I'll switch over to Iridient Developer which is truly amazing as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites
jakku Apprentice

jakku

Posted
  • Author
Posted

>"I didin't notice capture one any slower than lightroom.. "

 

I was hoping it would be noticeably faster. Lightroom is a dog with RAF files.

Yes It's noticeably faster, much faster when I'm working with many RAF files.. You can try to yourself. ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 months later...
graflex Contributor

graflex

Posted
Posted

Hello !

Has anyone compared .RAF (24.3 Mpx) treatment by Affinity Photo (develop persona) with other derawtizers ? Regards, gpzt.

 

Yes. I consider Affinity unusable for raw processing and particularly so for Fuji RAF files. Affinity has an X-Trans problem with color artifacting. More importantly it has a very odd design quirk that I consider fatal. Affinity's raw processing is destructive; it forces you to "develop" the raw file to an RGB image (TIFF) and in the process it trashes all the work you did with the raw processing tools. You're left with the TIFF (afphoto) file but should you decide to return to the raw processing tools and the work you did with the raw file you're forced to start from scratch. Unacceptable.

Link to post
Share on other sites
BobJ Community Regular

BobJ

Posted
Posted

It's pointless to compare converters using their default settings. Lightroom has its defaults set to give a flat and lightly sharpened look. You have to use those sliders and then save the result as a preset. Capture 1 is made to give a more finished look by default. You can make the lightroom result look almost identical to the Capture 1 if you want. Lightroom can be slow though. Adobe have admitted that it is a problem and say they are going to make it a priority in future update.

Link to post
Share on other sites
RadBadTad Collaborator

RadBadTad

Posted
Posted

It's pointless to compare converters using their default settings. Lightroom has its defaults set to give a flat and lightly sharpened look. You have to use those sliders and then save the result as a preset. Capture 1 is made to give a more finished look by default. You can make the lightroom result look almost identical to the Capture 1 if you want. Lightroom can be slow though. Adobe have admitted that it is a problem and say they are going to make it a priority in future update.

 

There are certain things that simply can't be achieved in Lightroom, no matter how you use your sliders and settings. The level of fine detail you can get is one of them.

 

Also, I'm pretty sure Adobe said they were going to fix that problem around 2014, and it's only gotten worse. I've been participating in a couple of threads over with Adobe and some engineers for a couple of months now, where tons of people are talking about the poor performance they get with Lightroom, and Adobe reps are still trying to figure out if there's a problem at all, and are nowhere near to solving it. Lightroom performance has become infuriating over the past couple of years for ALL file types, and triply so for RAF files, which take an estimated 4-5 times as long to process as my similarly sized Canon files. 

 

Camera profiles, VSCO presets, and library management are about the only things that Lightroom has over Capture One at this point. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Similar Content

  • Posts

    • Neil Rosenberg
      Infrared Photography on X-E2 665nm

      By Neil Rosenberg · Posted

      I'm not exaggerating when I say that I have searched with great vigor (and at great expense) for a way to capture IR images with a Fujifilm camera for which I didn't have to use major amounts of sharpening to bring out the best. Zooms, primes, Fuji, Tamron, Viltrox, Sigma, Zeiss ... probably 20 lenses all told. Plus multiple IR converted Fuji cameras, X-T1, X-T3, X-T5. I even tried different ways of filtering IR, such as using the Kolari clip-ins and lens-mounted front filters. I was ready to give up until I almost accidentally tried one of the cheapest lenses out there -- the little TTArtisan 27mm F2.8. No hotspots that I could see, and best of all ABSOLUTELY SUPERB SHARPNESS across the entire frame. It's this attribute that I search for, and until now, never achieved. In my prior attempts, I listened to the advice from the "pundits", picking up a copy of the venerable Fuji 14mm F2.8, the Zeiss Touitt 12mm F2.8, Fuji 23 and 35mm F2.0, even the very similar 7Artisans 27mm F2.8, and none of them come even close to the TTArtisan for edge sharpness in infrared. Incidentally, I'm using a Kolari 720nm clip-in filter. Sure the TT has its issues -- vignetting at 2.8, tendency to flare with sunlight nearby, but all in all, this lens is glued to my X-T5 for now. This image was taken hand-held with this lens -- completely unedited!
    • Tschortschli
      Screen is flipped with fan001

      By Tschortschli · Posted

      Hy there When Im using the fan001 on the XH2s and I flip the LCD Screen vertically by 180 degrees then the image flips vertically, what is good but it also flips horizontally. The clean feed on HDMI is not flipping horizontally but its also flipping if the HDMI output info display is on. When I unmount the fan then the image flips only vertically. My firmware is updated to the latest version. Any ideas if there is a fix for that?
    • Neil Rosenberg
      Infrared

      By Neil Rosenberg · Posted

      In reply to the original question, it all depends on what you mean by infrared.  If you mean "see thermal information", then I agree with the comments here.  However, if you mean near-infrared, the X-T4, or basically any digital camera can be modified to "see" it.  Check out Lifepixel.com and Kolarivision.com for more info. As regards lenses, I'm not exaggerating when I say that I have searched with great vigor (and at great expense) for a way to capture IR images with a Fujifilm camera for which I didn't have to use major amounts of sharpening to bring out the best. Zooms, primes, Fuji, Tamron, Viltrox, Sigma, Zeiss ... probably 20 lenses all told. Plus multiple IR converted Fuji cameras, X-T1, X-T3, X-T5. I even tried different ways of filtering IR, such as using the Kolari clip-ins and lens-mounted front filters. I was ready to give up until I almost accidentally tried one of the cheapest lenses out there -- the little TTArtisan 27mm F2.8. No hotspots that I could see, and best of all ABSOLUTELY SUPERB SHARPNESS across the entire frame. It's this attribute that I search for, and until now, never achieved. In my prior attempts, I listened to the advice from the "pundits", picking up a copy of the venerable Fuji 14mm F2.8, the Zeiss Touitt 12mm F2.8, Fuji 23 and 35mm F2.0, even the very similar 7Artisans 27mm F2.8, and none of them come even close to the TTArtisan for edge sharpness in infrared. Incidentally, I'm using a Kolari 720nm clip-in filter. Sure the TT has its issues -- vignetting at 2.8, tendency to flare with sunlight nearby, but all in all, this lens is glued to my X-T5 for now. This image was taken hand-held with this lens -- completely unedited!
    • Greybeard
      XS10 and manual lenses

      By Greybeard · Posted

      No - I don’t think so - it means you can take pictures if you remove the lens completely - but I’m not sure that is a problem
    • mcewena
      XS10 and manual lenses

      By mcewena · Posted

      I bought a manual lens over xmas and it took me a while to find the "shutter w/o lens" function in the menu settings.  So far I haven't found a way to either put that on the Q menu or marry that setting to one of the 4 custom modes.   Am I missing something? Is there a problem if I just leave that setting enabled even when the OEM auto lens is in place? tia
×
×
  • Create New...