Jump to content

Lightroom for x-trans... seriously?

akphoto
 Share

Recommended Posts

gdanmitchell Contributor

gdanmitchell

Posted
Posted

Having shot x-trans camera for something like five years now, photographing a wide range of subjects and often printing large, I'm perplexed by the various sports of some supposedly-significant "watercolor" problem. There were some issues in the early day of x-trans when non-Fujifilm vendors were trying to figure out how to process Fujifilm files, but I haven't seen a significant issue with this in several years. I certainly don't see it with the 24MP files from my XPro2.

One wonders if some of the third-party companies that are desperately trying to break into the rather small market for alternative conversion apps for Fujifilm may be feeding this myth. For me, I'll continue to use by Adobe products. They work really well with my Fujifilm files.

 

dan

Link to post
Share on other sites
Adam Woodhouse Proficient

Adam Woodhouse

Posted
Posted (edited)

X-Transformer isn't much $ so I purchased it to give it a try.  Having used Lightroom since Version 1.0, I'm quite comfortable with it.  But the speed at which LR works with RAF files is painful, so I thought I'd try X-Transformer to see if I notice any difference in LR speed and a difference in the RAF details.  To date, I haven't been unhappy with the LR RAF processing, just curious if better detail can come out of RAF files and if LR can perform better.

 

On a recent wedding I shot (that is my primary photography) I had close to 2000 files.  Half from XT1, half from XT2.  I did the X-Transformer batch conversion of RAF files into compressed DNG.  The settings I set in X-Transformer were those of the advice of a couple of photographers on this forum that use X-Transformer and speak highly of it. 

 

Once the X-Transformer batch conversion was done, I fired up LR and imported the DNG folder and then applied my usual colour profile of Astia to all of the images (since by default, just like the RAF files, no colour profile is applied ... so it is necessary to apply one of the Fuji colour profiles to get what I consider to be the correct look).  I have no sharpening done in X-Transformer, so I needed to apply a little bit of sharpening in LR (approx value of 25 on the slider).  End result looked pretty much the same as LR + RAF that I'm use to (with higher, more aggressive LR sharpening against RAF files).

I found that LR's editing performance (Library and Develop modules) against DNG files was better.  It wasn't drastically better (which I had hoped) ... but it was better.  I noticed the improvement.

 

In regards to sharpness or 'worm' effect of foliage, I wasn't pixel peeping too much but didn't notice any difference between my previous customized LR sharpening settings and the X-Transformer results.  But my photo subject matter varies quite a bit when shooting a wedding (indoors, then outdoors, bright scene, dark scene, trees and no trees, etc).  For those that do a lot of landscapes, they may notice it more than me.

 

I gave X-Transformer a try because 1) I wanted quicker performance when using LR and 2) if my raw files had more to give me ... I wanted those results.  Since many give a convincing argument that X-Transformer appears to resolve potential LR rendering problems (with certain RAF files) and yields quicker DNG file processing (Adobes own design) ... I figured I give it a shot and make it the first step in my workflow.

 

I'm not a convert yet ... but am fine drinking the Kool-aid.   :)

Edited by Adam Woodhouse
Link to post
Share on other sites
Mike-Photos Explorer

Mike-Photos

Posted
Posted

1) This is for Mike Photo's - note you can import your old LR catelogue into C1 and it will do its best to recreate and translate the settings and processing you had performed in LR, its not 100% and its can't do all settings but it gets damn close and is a great place to start from if you are revisiting an old shoot.

 

 

Thanks Gordon, I never used catalogues, and now I only use sessions. I'll miss the ability to revise, but I think that I could probably do better starting from scratch.

 

I do use workspaces, they are wonderful. I lay out all the tools I use on one screen, with a smaller viewer, and use the second screen for the preview. No more clicking tools open or closed, or scrolling through to find the tool.

 

I do have a lot to learn still, but I'm really enjoying the extra capabilities.

 

And I'm sorry to leave Lightroom, maybe I'll come back if and when a significant upgrade arrives. Right now, as I said, and even with little experience, I can develop photos better and quicker than in Lightroom.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Ed Vatza Newbie

Ed Vatza

Posted
Posted

Having shot x-trans camera for something like five years now, photographing a wide range of subjects and often printing large, I'm perplexed by the various sports of some supposedly-significant "watercolor" problem. There were some issues in the early day of x-trans when non-Fujifilm vendors were trying to figure out how to process Fujifilm files, but I haven't seen a significant issue with this in several years. I certainly don't see it with the 24MP files from my XPro2.

 

One wonders if some of the third-party companies that are desperately trying to break into the rather small market for alternative conversion apps for Fujifilm may be feeding this myth. For me, I'll continue to use by Adobe products. They work really well with my Fujifilm files.

 

dan

 

Good to hear, Dan. I was looking for a familiar name in this "argument" and found yours. I am brand new to Fuji. So new that my X-PRO 2 doesn't arrive until tomorrow. I am trying to get at least slightly ahead of the curve if I can. Up to now I have shot primarily with Canon (with a 4 year period in there with Leica) and I will continue to do so. But I look forward to X-PRO 2 as a lighter weight/more compact alternative to the 5D3 and L glass. I have never had any issue with my RAW files in Lightroom be they CR2 from Canon; DNG from Leica or even whatever they were from my little Ricoh. I don't want to start having issues now with the Fuji RAW files.

 

I confess I don't understand what goes on inside LR or PS or any other software but I do know my work flow. I process RAW files in LR and only convert to JPEG in order to post on FB or IG. Otherwise the files remain processed RAW files and I print from them. I can go up to 24" wide paper and I have had even bigger prints made for exhibits. They are almost always B&W and I have never had any issues whatsoever. I am not expecting any issues with the Fuji files and am glad to see you are not having any with the latest versions of Lightroom.

 

Ed

Link to post
Share on other sites
Mike-Photos Explorer

Mike-Photos

Posted
Posted

Good to hear, Dan. I was looking for a familiar name in this "argument" and found yours. I am brand new to Fuji. So new that my X-PRO 2 doesn't arrive until tomorrow. I am trying to get at least slightly ahead of the curve if I can. Up to now I have shot primarily with Canon (with a 4 year period in there with Leica) and I will continue to do so. But I look forward to X-PRO 2 as a lighter weight/more compact alternative to the 5D3 and L glass. I have never had any issue with my RAW files in Lightroom be they CR2 from Canon; DNG from Leica or even whatever they were from my little Ricoh. I don't want to start having issues now with the Fuji RAW files.

 

I confess I don't understand what goes on inside LR or PS or any other software but I do know my work flow. I process RAW files in LR and only convert to JPEG in order to post on FB or IG. Otherwise the files remain processed RAW files and I print from them. I can go up to 24" wide paper and I have had even bigger prints made for exhibits. They are almost always B&W and I have never had any issues whatsoever. I am not expecting any issues with the Fuji files and am glad to see you are not having any with the latest versions of Lightroom.

 

Ed

 

Hi Ed

 

Not sure if you know this, but you can set all the B&W emulations on the camera, including the fantastic Acros ones, in the Profile section of the Camera Calibration panel. Great starting point for your B&W processing. It was one of the issues holding me back from switching out of Lightroom.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Ed Vatza Newbie

Ed Vatza

Posted
Posted

Hi Ed

 

Not sure if you know this, but you can set all the B&W emulations on the camera, including the fantastic Acros ones, in the Profile section of the Camera Calibration panel. Great starting point for your B&W processing. It was one of the issues holding me back from switching out of Lightroom.

 

I will definitely check it out. I know with the CR2 (Canon) files I use one of the profiles as a starting point. 

 

Ed

Link to post
Share on other sites
Kentman Contributor

Kentman

Posted
Posted

I have an XE-2. I started off using SilkyPix but found the waxy faces and poor colour rendition of midtones in poor light a problem. I had latest version SP, too. Jumped to LR on W10 machine late last year, latest version LR and CR as I am a cloud subscriber. I do not see problems with foliage. I have not seen it mentioned here, but are LR users employing the 'mask' function in the sharpening control? Hold down 'alt' and the move the masking control to the right. This will mean that only those features highlighted in white will be sharpened. Solid blocks of colour will then be left alone by the sharpening settings.

 

Sent from my SM-A310F using Tapatalk

Link to post
Share on other sites
AdamJOrange Newbie

AdamJOrange

Posted
Posted

The single best piece of advise I read when dealing X-Trans RAFs in Lightroom/Photoshop is to forget all the sharpening settings and presets you used with previous cameras, experiment and come up with settings that minimize the artifact-effect.

 

As has been linked and mentioned elsewhere in this thread, I can either use strong sharpening with low detail, or vice-versa - but not both - when sharpening my RAFs.   If I'm unhappy with how sharpening treats the image, I seek out an alternative processor (X-Transformer, etc.)

 

All of that said, I'm on the verge of moving to Capture One, and I'll be happy to not look back  

Link to post
Share on other sites
Kentman Contributor

Kentman

Posted
Posted

The single best piece of advise I read when dealing X-Trans RAFs in Lightroom/Photoshop is to forget all the sharpening settings and presets you used with previous cameras, experiment and come up with settings that minimize the artifact-effect.

 

As has been linked and mentioned elsewhere in this thread, I can either use strong sharpening with low detail, or vice-versa - but not both - when sharpening my RAFs. If I'm unhappy with how sharpening treats the image, I seek out an alternative processor (X-Transformer, etc.)

 

All of that said, I'm on the verge of moving to Capture One, and I'll be happy to not look back

I tried capture one with my XE-2. Results were very good but the price put me off. Staying with LR for now.

 

Sent from my SM-A310F using Tapatalk

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

    • thelostkiwi
      Looking for Full Frame lenses to adapt to GFX

      By thelostkiwi · Posted

      I also use a Nikon to GFX Fringer and it works very well.  24mm f/1.8 vignettes so best used on 35mm mode.  50mm f/1.8 covers the entire frame very well with no issues and is a superb little lens. 105mm Sigma vignettes slightly but is perfectly usable. 300 f/4 likewise the 105.  I have a 70-200 f/20+.8 incoming to test so will report back but I'm expecting a little vignetting.  Even in 35mm mode the image is still 60MP and if you're prepared to manually crop and correct you can get 80-90 MP images.  I also have a C/Y to GFX adapter.  The 24mm Sigma Superwide vignettes strongly. Ditto 28-80 Zeiss Sonnar. 80-200 f/4 Sonnar is perfectly usable. All work fine as 35mm mode lenses.  I also have an M42 adapter which I tried with the Carl Zeiss Jena 135mm f/3.5 with good results. 
    • Trevor R
      Image correction with GF20-35

      By Trevor R · Posted

      Thank you. I will research it.
    • jerryy
      Image correction with GF20-35

      By jerryy · Posted

      Ahh, the infamous brick wall photos… 😀 According to internet lore, if the dng converter does not properly apply the corrections, you can have it apply custom profiles that should work for you. How to do that is waaaaaay outside of this comment’s scope, but there are plenty of sites listed in the search engines that step you through the processes. Best wishes.
    • Trevor R
      Image correction with GF20-35

      By Trevor R · Posted

      Jerry Thank you very much. That is extremely helpful. It seems that the camera and the lens have the latest firmware update, so it appears that the corrections should be applied automatically. The lens arrived this afternoon and I took some quick test shots, in which the correct lens information appeared in the EXIF files, so that sounds good. I used Adobe DNG converter to convert the Raw (RAF) files, and then opened the DNG files and saved them in PSD format. However, with a beautiful, clear, cloudless blue sky, there were no lines near the edges to check if distortion had been corrected. Another day I plan to photograph a brick wall. Thank you for your help.
    • jerryy
      Image correction with GF20-35

      By jerryy · Posted

      Typically you need to make sure the lens is compatible with the camera, i.e. check the lens compatibility charts for your camera, then make sure the respective firmwares are updated so older issues are resolved. After that, each lens has a manufacturer’s profile which will be embedded into the raw file meta data for the images captured using that lens. From there, it is up to the raw conversion software to apply the lens correction to the image. Different converters do that differently, some automatically, some only if a setting is turned on. For in-camera jpegs, the on-board converter does the corrections automatically, assuming the camera recognizes the lens, it applies a generic profile otherwise. I do not know if that can be turned off or not.
×
×
  • Create New...