Post Processing with Adobe Lightroom

[oreos]

Would you recommend converting imported Fuji images in Lightroom to  .dng or just copy the .raf file?

 

Is there a better program for post processing of Fuji files?

 

The reason I ask is because LR lacks most Fuji camera and Lens profiles in the Develop module. Also, the new upgrade of LR which is really slow and buggy ! This has made me realize that perhaps I should start looking at other post processing software that offers better support for Fuji users.

 

Please share your thoughts and experiences.

 

 

[graflex]

Would you recommend converting imported Fuji images in Lightroom to  .dng or just copy the .raf file?

 

Keep the RAF files and avoid the DNG option. Over time and likely in the future you'll be better off keeping your originals.

 

Is there a better program for post processing of Fuji files?

 

That question opens up a can of worms. So the answer is resoundingly NO and absolutely YES. LR is the most popular application for post processing camera raw files. It has earned that position because of it's overall feature set which is an excellent balance of function and usability. It's the go to choice of most photographers. Fuji X cameras use Fuji's proprietary X-Trans CFA which is trickier to demosaic than conventional Bayer array CFAs. Adobe turns in a weak performance demosaicing X-Trans RAF files -- rendition of fine detail is frequently poor. This puts Fuji X camera users in a bit of a bind. Alternative raw converters for the most part do a better job than LR with the fundamental first task of demosaicing the CFA. Notably: Capture One, Iridient, SilkyPix, PhotoNinja, Raw Therapee and even ACDSee. A compromise choice made by many Fuji X camera users is to rely on an alternate like Iridient or PN to demosiac the RAF file and then continue processing in LR. Otherwise I recommend a clean break and adoption of Capture One as an LR replacement. LR's DAM features tend to rate higher than C1 but C1 will do a better job processing an RAF file.

 

 

The reason I ask is because LR lacks most Fuji camera and Lens profiles in the Develop module.

 

No it doesn't. Fuji stores lens profile data in the RAF file and LR reads and applies it. As such there's no need for Adobe to create separate lens profiles.

Edited October 24, 2017 by graflex

[BobJ]

What do you mean it lacks profiles? All the film simulation profiles are there and all the Fuji lens profiles are applied automatically. Please elucidate.

 

I maintain that adobe camera raw, as used in Lightroom, is perfectly capable now of good results on raf files. Also, on my machine at least, the new Classic version is definitely faster. I should add that I have no connection with Adobe. I just don't like keeping quiet when my experience differs.

 

DNG is a matter of opinion. The idea is that years in the future there may not be any software that can open camera specific raw files. However dng has not become the widely adopted standard that Adobe intended. If you have important images make sure that are saved as tiff or jpeg is my advice.

[graflex]

What do you mean it lacks profiles? All the film simulation profiles are there and all the Fuji lens profiles are applied automatically. Please elucidate.

 

I maintain that adobe camera raw, as used in Lightroom, is perfectly capable now of good results on raf files. Also, on my machine at least, the new Classic version is definitely faster. I should add that I have no connection with Adobe. I just don't like keeping quiet when my experience differs.

 

Adobe's (LR/ACR) rendition of fine detail when demosaicing RAF files has for years been perceived by many to be sub-par. Alternative raw converters do a better job demosaicing RAF files for fine detail rendition. This is longstanding and not recently changed to my knowledge.

 

If you'd like to demonstrate that I'm wrong here's an RAF file from an X-T2 that Adobe handles poorly compared with other raw converters: _DSF0648.RAF By all means post a full-res JPEG processed from this RAF file to prove your point. (NOTE: WB was set to unity when I took the photo. Don't let that throw you just WB off the barn).

[konzy]

Here is an exemple of a RAF file (X-T1) I took recently, and processed:

- As a RAF file in Lightroom + 30 sharpening (I just changed the amount), exported as full-size JPG: Lightroom.jpg

- As a DNG file in Iridient X-Transformer + Low sharpening (or Medium? I don't remember, but whatever), no additional change in Lightroom, exported as full-size JPG: Iridient.jpg

 

Can you see a difference at 1:1?

 

Here are a few differences I spotted while comparing both JPG:

 

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!

 

In the example above, Iridient seems to do a better job rendering the fence, which is more visible on the pillar. Lightroom's fence is a bit less visible.

 

 

Here, it looks like the chromatic aberration is slightly stronger on the Iridient version. It might be because the settings are different, I haven't checked. It's details anyway.

Also, the flag colors are different. Iridient seems to render colors in a better way: the yellow is less white, and the cyan/green band is also more saturated.

You can also check the various blue elements of the picture. They appear more saturated in the Iridient version.

 

Now, this can be fixed quite easily in Lightroom, by playing with the channel mixer. And perhaps it's the Iridient version that is slightly over saturated? Colors are very subjective, so there is no right and wrong here

 

 

In this area, you'll see that Iridient processes the greenish color of the fence differently. Lightroom's version is less saturated. I think this example shows the main reason why everyone says Lightroom is a bit sub-par when it comes to RAF processing, even though it's very subtle in this example.

 

Also, I just remembered that I applied a low noise reduction on the Iridient version, so it's a bit less grainy, but well, whatever!

 

 

Now, all of this is pixel peeping, and these effects might be more or less present depending the context. Now, is it worth it to invest $30 (and more time in post-processing, and more files on your drives) for a software like Iridient? That's up to you  But if you're not a pro printing your photographs on walls, I'm not sure it's really useful.

Edited November 6, 2017 by konzy