ADOBE says: “We will improve X-TRANS support”

[Patrick FR]

“We have reduced “color blur” artifacts when processing Fujifilm X-Trans raw images. In collaboration with Fujifilm, we are still investigating methods to improve fine detail rendering and overall edge definition.”

 

More on FujiRumors here.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[MikeA]

In collaboration with Fujifilm, we are still investigating...

 

Fujifilm's willingness to listen to its customers and work with third parties like Adobe continues to amaze me. That’s after years of having used equipment made by camera companies that seem completely “opaque” to the outside world. Good on Adobe for keeping at it. Now, if only the people who make DxO Optics Pro would also get with the program...

 

[MikeJ]

Thank you FUJI and Adobe.

 

I am hoping in the near future you can achieve fine detail and edge sharpness results that are equal to Iridient. This is the one issue that has prevented me from buying into the Fuji system. If you are successful in this effort, I am all in for either a Fuji XPro2 or an XT-2 when they are announced.

 

Note to Fuji: PLEASE give us better exposure bracketing (3 to 5 shots at a minimum of 2 to 3 ev for each shot), an RBG Histogram, and an option to show the histogram and blinkies immediately after taking a picture.

[Phil]

I think I'm still going to hold off on upgrading to LR6 until this plays out a bit more. I'm seriously considering switching to C1, but it would be a pretty big stretch financially right now. 

 

I mostly shoot people, so I definitely don't have as much of an issue with how Adobe handles the Fuji files, but what scares me is the talk of LR6 customers losing out on updates that LRCC customers get. I'm not ready to switch to CC, and don't want to pay for an LR6 upgrade and potentially miss out on a valuable update down the road.

[MikeA]

I'm a bit perplexed by the less-than-sterling rendering of fine image detail — sometimes. I have definitely seen that problem. Yet the other day I took a head shot with the 23/1.4 so sharp and detailed that I had to use a negative structure setting in Capture One to back off the detail a bit. That result surprised me. It was every bit what I'd expect to get if I were shooting with the highest-quality lens I could use — with my other camera, which has a FF sensor. Then again there are times when I look at what I've shot and think: I'm doing something seriously wrong here; I could have done as well with my wife's iPhone (the SOOC jpegs always look a bit "smeared" to me and I don't use them).

 

C1 is definitely a stretch financially for me and rather than take the full plunge, I decided on a three-month subscription to see whether I would end up thinking it's worth buying the full package. The monthly bill is $25 for that kind of subscription (compare w/the special offer for Lightroom CC plus Photoshop CC: $10 — for now). C1 does have some advantages. My impression so far is that it is better at rendering X-trans shots' color than Lightroom and it seems to handle fine image detail a bit better. But oh, that user interface.

[bashbrook]

I am only paying $10 a month for C1 and the interface is pretty good.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[MikeA]

I am only paying $10 a month for C1 and the interface is pretty good.

 

You're paying $10 a month for a year's-worth of subscription. I'm paying $25 a month for a shorter time. With Lightroom having (so it's claimed) improved its X-Trans support, I'd rather evaluate C1 than buy it outright considering the cost. The company's present policy is not to apply even a portion of already-paid subscription money toward purchase price. I'd rather be in and out for $75 only if I decide not to continue. (Then again if they allow you to use the $10/month plan and bail out early, then the $10 option is clearly the better one.)

 

The interface's beauty (or lack of it) is strictly in the eye of the beholder. Just to pick one part of the UI: I think C1's output "recipe" arrangement is way over-designed -- unnecessarily complicated and cluttered. Despite the complexity, if you want to assign custom text to an output filename, that custom text is applied to every possible output filename, no matter which "recipe" you use. I wrote to Phase One about this and they said it isn't likely to change. I replied, asking the guy: why would it be a benefit to the user not to be able to alter the custom text on a recipe-by-recipe basis? He said he got the point -- but that it isn't likely to change. Lightroom's output-recipe interface is somewhat simpler and does allow custom text to change on a per-recipe basis.

 

Lightroom has that good "parametric" curve control; C1 is still using a 1990s-vintage curve control (although they at least have Levels). These two things and others are tilting me toward Lightroom but in the end, it's going to be the raw-conversion algorithms for the X-Trans files that will take precedence over the UI. That's still up in the air...