Jump to content
RadBadTad

Getting great fine detail on X-T2 RAFs using X-Transformer and Lightroom

Recommended Posts

First, a comparison between X-Transformer's rendering, and straight Lightroom. Settings are exactly the same between the two images.

 

I've always struggled with the weird rendering of detail that I get with my RAF files in Lightroom. I've tried a few different processors to get my fine detail, but they either don't do much to solve the problem (Capture1) or are incredibly cumbersome to use (Photo Ninja) or are not available to me on Windows (Iridient)

 

I recently found X-Transformer (By Iridient) and found that it works more or less perfectly, and lets me keep my Lightroom workflow, so I thought I would share my process for anyone else interested or struggling with the same issues I was.

 

THE METHOD

 

I'm on Windows 10, using Lightroom CC

 


 


 

Then, in Lightroom, once you find the files you want to work with and get your detail out of, you just choose to edit them in X-Transformer

 

And then put in these settings which strip out the horrible noise reduction and sharpening, and demosaic the data much better than Lightroom.

 

Then, once it's done running through X-Transformer, your image is back in Lightroom as a TIFF that you can treat exactly like your RAF files, except it's got fine detail in it.

 

It's the least cumbersome method I've found so far that gets really really good detail out of your shots, without forcing you to learn a crazy new half-broken editing software. The other program I found that gets this level of detail is Photo Ninja, but it is really difficult to work with, and feels almost like an Alpha for the first version of Lightroom. I don't advise it. 

 

Many photographers won't care about the improvement, and that's fine. Fine detail doesn't make or break a photo if the rest of the content/light/processing is good. But for those that want their full 24 megapixels worth of data, this is a great solution without having to give up Lightroom. 

 

Disclaimer: I haven't used the brand new CaptureOne which supposedly does very well with RAF files.

 


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been using the sister product, Iridient Developer on my mac, since Brian sent me a demo copy.  That is one awesome piece of software.  I've been considering leaving LR CC and just using Camera Bridge, and Iridient.  LR has gotten really slow - even after I broke out  my catalog into two different ones and reduced the amount of images down to 50,000 or so each cat.  I'm getting sick and tired of this problem.  I do love the database aspect of LR, and seeing all my folders in one place, and Bridge does it to a certain extent as well, but LR is getting over-bloated I think. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand your method, BUT, when you work from Lightroom and edit in an external editor (X-Transformer) doesn't Lightroom only give you the option to edit with Lightroom adjustments? Even though you've made no adjustments in Lightroom, wouldn't Lightroom automatically apply the default 25% sharpening that it automatically gives to RAW (RAF) files before it's sent to X-Transformer?

I'm away from my computer and can't check right now.

I'll try your settings soon though!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been using the sister product, Iridient Developer on my mac, since Brian sent me a demo copy.  That is one awesome piece of software.  I've been considering leaving LR CC and just using Camera Bridge, and Iridient.  LR has gotten really slow - even after I broke out  my catalog into two different ones and reduced the amount of images down to 50,000 or so each cat.  I'm getting sick and tired of this problem.  I do love the database aspect of LR, and seeing all my folders in one place, and Bridge does it to a certain extent as well, but LR is getting over-bloated I think. 

 

I'm also unhappy with the overall performance of Lightroom, but that's a separate issue. 

 

I'm currently participating in a thread over on the Adobe support page trying to help devs nail something down in terms of processor usage and optimization - https://feedback.photoshop.com/photoshop_family/topics/lightroom-cc-2017-poor-performance?utm_source=notification&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=new_comment&utm_content=topic_link

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand your method, BUT, when you work from Lightroom and edit in an external editor (X-Transformer) doesn't Lightroom only give you the option to edit with Lightroom adjustments? Even though you've made no adjustments in Lightroom, wouldn't Lightroom automatically apply the default 25% sharpening that it automatically gives to RAW (RAF) files before it's sent to X-Transformer?

I'm away from my computer and can't check right now.

I'll try your settings soon though!

I don't understand exactly how the process works, but if you go into the link for setting up X-Transformer as a plugin, there are multiple spots where the author basically says "Don't worry about it!" I'm under the impression that while Lightroom spits out a file for X-Transformer to work with, it doesn't actually use that file, and it goes back to the original raw file and starts from there. Or possibly it knows what to look for in the file to strip out the adjustments Lightroom has made, I'm not quite sure. Either way, the end result is that you don't get Lightroom's junk, so whatever the method, the concern you're bringing up is addressed and isn't an issue in practice. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I converted using your settings, but with Xtrans Former as a stand alone application. The dng file increased to 125k from 50k. Is that what your getting approximately? I'm trying to save file size, so this method probably won't work for me. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I use Xtrans and convert my compressed XT2 raw files (average size 30meg) to DNG, the DNG seem to average around 70meg.  They are substantially larger!  I was quite surprised at first.

For me its a non-issue because when I finish my editing in LR and export final images as JPG, I don't go back to the raw files so I delete them, regardless of file type or size.  It's necessary for what I do.

But for those that are digital hoarders ... the amount of HD space needed with DNG files that contain Fuji raw details ... your HD will get used up much much quicker.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

25meg is the average size of a compressed raw from X-T2. I guess the output from the converter tool is not compressed. That would explain the difference.

 

With my x-t1, the DNG was also higher in size, but not that much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

THe RAF file is 50megs for me. When I use Xtrans Former and convert them to DNG file, the file becomes 125k megs. Am I doing something wrong? I think there's an option to select use lossless compression. 

How are you getting 30 meg RAF files to begin with? All my RAF files are about 50meg.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I use Xtrans and convert my compressed XT2 raw files (average size 30meg) to DNG, the DNG seem to average around 70meg.  They are substantially larger!  I was quite surprised at first.

For me its a non-issue because when I finish my editing in LR and export final images as JPG, I don't go back to the raw files so I delete them, regardless of file type or size.  It's necessary for what I do.

But for those that are digital hoarders ... the amount of HD space needed with DNG files that contain Fuji raw details ... your HD will get used up much much quicker.

I would guess that you're shooting compressed raw, so it makes sense that the decompressed file would be larger. 70mb seems high though. Mine are almost always 49mb and change. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't trust these new-fangled thingys called computers.  I think I'll just keep my 50mb uncompressed raw files.  Thank you!  Damn.... This 1200 baud modem is so damn slow.... Taken me two days to post this....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RadBadTad, on the second tab, are you selecting using lossless compression?

Yes I have it selected. I left all of that tab alone with the defaults actually, and lossless compression was checked automatically. I unchecked it, and ran a 2nd conversion.

Original File (Raw not compressed) - 48MB

Conversion 1 (Lossless compression) - 68.3MB

Conversion 2 (No compression) - 122MB (!!)

 

Wow. That's a big difference. I'm pushing and pulling the file, and adding and removing sharpening, trying to tell the difference between the compressed and uncompressed output from X-Transormer, and can't discover a difference in the two, so I'm going to keep compression turned on!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi I am also using Iridient X transformer with Lightroom cc. It has been doing a great job till today. I click in edit in ,

Iridient X

Then it says preparing to edit file

Then I get an error message saying unable to find associated RAF file for external edit tiff image.

I have tried very thing and cannot get back to the core st procedure.

I have Iridient set up as directed.

Have you ever come across this , please?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi I am also using Iridient X transformer with Lightroom cc. It has been doing a great job till today. I click in edit in ,

Iridient X

Then it says preparing to edit file

Then I get an error message saying unable to find associated RAF file for external edit tiff image.

I have tried very thing and cannot get back to the core st procedure.

I have Iridient set up as directed.

Have you ever come across this , please?

 

I'm sorry to say I haven't experienced this, so I'm not able to help, unfortunately. I would probably uninstall and re-install, and if that didn't work, I would reach out to Iridient to see if they would be able to help. I've heard that they are responsive to their users.

Share this post


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

×