Fuji RAWs are rubbing me raw

[IronMaskDuval]

Is it just me, or are Fuji Raws just not as well handled in Lightroom as other brands likes Sony and Nikon? I'll take the same exact pictures with my XT1 and compare it with the A7, and the files will turn out quite differently with the same post. Just curious. I know people use to complain about how Adobe didn't support Fuji RAWs very well. Is that still the case?

 

[Ysarex]

Is it just me, or are Fuji Raws just not as well handled in Lightroom as other brands likes Sony and Nikon? I'll take the same exact pictures with my XT1 and compare it with the A7, and the files will turn out quite differently with the same post. Just curious. I know people use to complain about how Adobe didn't support Fuji RAWs very well. Is that still the case?

It's not you, it's Adobe. The X-Trans CFA is very different than the common Bayer CFA and it requires special demosaicing algorithms to interpolate. As a result the output you get from different raw converters is quite variable one to the next for X-Trans as compared with a Bayer array camera.

Adobe (ACR/LR) has a problem rendering fine detail from the Fuji X-Trans cameras. The problem was severe with LR version 4 and has been improved going forward but it has not been solved. Depending on what you shoot and what you do with the images it can be a pretty minor issue to rather troubling. The solution is to use different raw conversion software. Iridient, PhotoNinja, and Capture One are favored by the Fuji X-Trans camp. One alternative is to get the demosaicing done using a different converter and then continue on using LR.

If you post one of your raws that concern you I can show you some comparisons.

Joe

 

[IronMaskDuval]

Is it just me, or are Fuji Raws just not as well handled in Lightroom as other brands likes Sony and Nikon? I'll take the same exact pictures with my XT1 and compare it with the A7, and the files will turn out quite differently with the same post. Just curious. I know people use to complain about how Adobe didn't support Fuji RAWs very well. Is that still the case?

It's not you, it's Adobe. The X-Trans CFA is very different than the common Bayer CFA and it requires special demosaicing algorithms to interpolate. As a result the output you get from different raw converters is quite variable one to the next for X-Trans as compared with a Bayer array camera.

Adobe (ACR/LR) has a problem rendering fine detail from the Fuji X-Trans cameras. The problem was severe with LR version 4 and has been improved going forward but it has not been solved. Depending on what you shoot and what you do with the images it can be a pretty minor issue to rather troubling. The solution is to use different raw conversion software. Iridient, PhotoNinja, and Capture One are favored by the Fuji X-Trans camp. One alternative is to get the demosaicing done using a different converter and then continue on using LR.

If you post one of your raws that concern you I can show you some comparisons.

Joe

I use Lightroom CC. The photos are unusually soft... not out of focus, but just not anything that I would ever consider sharp. I understand that the Sony sensor gives me more room for correction, but applying the same thing or straight out of camera, the XT1 is really soft relative to the a7.

 

[Ysarex]

Is it just me, or are Fuji Raws just not as well handled in Lightroom as other brands likes Sony and Nikon? I'll take the same exact pictures with my XT1 and compare it with the A7, and the files will turn out quite differently with the same post. Just curious. I know people use to complain about how Adobe didn't support Fuji RAWs very well. Is that still the case?

It's not you, it's Adobe. The X-Trans CFA is very different than the common Bayer CFA and it requires special demosaicing algorithms to interpolate. As a result the output you get from different raw converters is quite variable one to the next for X-Trans as compared with a Bayer array camera.

Adobe (ACR/LR) has a problem rendering fine detail from the Fuji X-Trans cameras. The problem was severe with LR version 4 and has been improved going forward but it has not been solved. Depending on what you shoot and what you do with the images it can be a pretty minor issue to rather troubling. The solution is to use different raw conversion software. Iridient, PhotoNinja, and Capture One are favored by the Fuji X-Trans camp. One alternative is to get the demosaicing done using a different converter and then continue on using LR.

If you post one of your raws that concern you I can show you some comparisons.

Joe

I use Lightroom CC. The photos are unusually soft... not out of focus, but just not anything that I would ever consider sharp. I understand that the Sony sensor gives me more room for correction, but applying the same thing or straight out of camera, the XT1 is really soft relative to the a7.

It's Adobe and not your XT-1.

Joe

 

[IronMaskDuval]

Thanks, Joe. I was about to throw the XT1 in the bucket for an A7r, but after looking at Iridient, I think I'll be happy with the XT1. XT1 has the form factor that I really love but hasn't given me what my A7 has.

Is it just me, or are Fuji Raws just not as well handled in Lightroom as other brands likes Sony and Nikon? I'll take the same exact pictures with my XT1 and compare it with the A7, and the files will turn out quite differently with the same post. Just curious. I know people use to complain about how Adobe didn't support Fuji RAWs very well. Is that still the case?

It's not you, it's Adobe. The X-Trans CFA is very different than the common Bayer CFA and it requires special demosaicing algorithms to interpolate. As a result the output you get from different raw converters is quite variable one to the next for X-Trans as compared with a Bayer array camera.

Adobe (ACR/LR) has a problem rendering fine detail from the Fuji X-Trans cameras. The problem was severe with LR version 4 and has been improved going forward but it has not been solved. Depending on what you shoot and what you do with the images it can be a pretty minor issue to rather troubling. The solution is to use different raw conversion software. Iridient, PhotoNinja, and Capture One are favored by the Fuji X-Trans camp. One alternative is to get the demosaicing done using a different converter and then continue on using LR.

If you post one of your raws that concern you I can show you some comparisons.

Joe

I use Lightroom CC. The photos are unusually soft... not out of focus, but just not anything that I would ever consider sharp. I understand that the Sony sensor gives me more room for correction, but applying the same thing or straight out of camera, the XT1 is really soft relative to the a7.

It's Adobe and not your XT-1.

Joe

 

[pixmedic]

since im in the same fuji boat....might as well ask.
do the other raw converters do what LR does?
since im already using adobe CC, would I need one of those separate raw converters AND LR?
or am I stuck purchasing an expensive raw converter in addition to needing my adobe CC subscription?

 

[IronMaskDuval]

since im in the same fuji boat....might as well ask.
do the other raw converters do what LR does?
since im already using adobe CC, would I need one of those separate raw converters AND LR?
or am I stuck purchasing an expensive raw converter in addition to needing my adobe CC subscription?

Take a look

Best X-Trans RAW Converter

 

[Ysarex]

Thanks, Joe. I was about to throw the XT1 in the bucket for an A7r, but after looking at Iridient, I think I'll be happy with the XT1. XT1 has the form factor that I really love but hasn't given me what my A7 has.

Is it just me, or are Fuji Raws just not as well handled in Lightroom as other brands likes Sony and Nikon? I'll take the same exact pictures with my XT1 and compare it with the A7, and the files will turn out quite differently with the same post. Just curious. I know people use to complain about how Adobe didn't support Fuji RAWs very well. Is that still the case?

It's not you, it's Adobe. The X-Trans CFA is very different than the common Bayer CFA and it requires special demosaicing algorithms to interpolate. As a result the output you get from different raw converters is quite variable one to the next for X-Trans as compared with a Bayer array camera.

Adobe (ACR/LR) has a problem rendering fine detail from the Fuji X-Trans cameras. The problem was severe with LR version 4 and has been improved going forward but it has not been solved. Depending on what you shoot and what you do with the images it can be a pretty minor issue to rather troubling. The solution is to use different raw conversion software. Iridient, PhotoNinja, and Capture One are favored by the Fuji X-Trans camp. One alternative is to get the demosaicing done using a different converter and then continue on using LR.

If you post one of your raws that concern you I can show you some comparisons.

Joe

I use Lightroom CC. The photos are unusually soft... not out of focus, but just not anything that I would ever consider sharp. I understand that the Sony sensor gives me more room for correction, but applying the same thing or straight out of camera, the XT1 is really soft relative to the a7.

It's Adobe and not your XT-1.

Joe

I shoot an XE-2 and I'm very happy with the camera. I noticed the "Adobe problem" when I first bought the camera, frame #17 on my first day using it. It took me a long time to dig through it all and find answers. Fortunately I've been a long-time Capture One user and as soon as I switched the file to C1; problem gone, so I knew where to look. It's Adobe's demosaicing of the X-Trans CFA.

If you don't want to spend the money for Iridient you have two free options that also work well: DarkTable and Raw Therapee.

Joe

 

[pixmedic]

man...i really like LR. been using it for years.
i really hope adobe puts together a good x-trans raf fix soon.

 

[Ysarex]

since im in the same fuji boat....might as well ask.
do the other raw converters do what LR does?
since im already using adobe CC, would I need one of those separate raw converters AND LR?
or am I stuck purchasing an expensive raw converter in addition to needing my adobe CC subscription?

A lot of Fuji users who are also committed to LR find a compromise solution where they get the raw demosaiced externally and then continue all other processing in LR. This works just fine and LR can be set up to call the external converter and then return the RGB output. If you're willing to spend additional then Iridient and PhotoNinja both have instructions on how to set this up and they both do a good job with the X-Trans CFA. If you're using a MAC (required for Iridient) then you also have the DarkTable option which is free. And then there's the Raw Therapee option for both Mac and Windows which is free.

Joe

 

[pixmedic]

Thanks, Joe. I was about to throw the XT1 in the bucket for an A7r, but after looking at Iridient, I think I'll be happy with the XT1. XT1 has the form factor that I really love but hasn't given me what my A7 has.

Is it just me, or are Fuji Raws just not as well handled in Lightroom as other brands likes Sony and Nikon? I'll take the same exact pictures with my XT1 and compare it with the A7, and the files will turn out quite differently with the same post. Just curious. I know people use to complain about how Adobe didn't support Fuji RAWs very well. Is that still the case?

It's not you, it's Adobe. The X-Trans CFA is very different than the common Bayer CFA and it requires special demosaicing algorithms to interpolate. As a result the output you get from different raw converters is quite variable one to the next for X-Trans as compared with a Bayer array camera.

Adobe (ACR/LR) has a problem rendering fine detail from the Fuji X-Trans cameras. The problem was severe with LR version 4 and has been improved going forward but it has not been solved. Depending on what you shoot and what you do with the images it can be a pretty minor issue to rather troubling. The solution is to use different raw conversion software. Iridient, PhotoNinja, and Capture One are favored by the Fuji X-Trans camp. One alternative is to get the demosaicing done using a different converter and then continue on using LR.

If you post one of your raws that concern you I can show you some comparisons.

Joe

I use Lightroom CC. The photos are unusually soft... not out of focus, but just not anything that I would ever consider sharp. I understand that the Sony sensor gives me more room for correction, but applying the same thing or straight out of camera, the XT1 is really soft relative to the a7.

It's Adobe and not your XT-1.

Joe

I shoot an XE-2 and I'm very happy with the camera. I noticed the "Adobe problem" when I first bought the camera, frame #17 on my first day using it. It took me a long time to dig through it all and find answers. Fortunately I've been a long-time Capture One user and as soon as I switched the file to C1; problem gone, so I knew where to look. It's Adobe's demosaicing of the X-Trans CFA.

If you don't want to spend the money for Iridient you have two free options that also work well: DarkTable and Raw Therapee.

Joe

I guess i need to try darktable and RT and see if theres a difference...
i havent checked the pricing on all the other options yet. i know capture one is $300.

im on a PC

 

[Ysarex]

Thanks, Joe. I was about to throw the XT1 in the bucket for an A7r, but after looking at Iridient, I think I'll be happy with the XT1. XT1 has the form factor that I really love but hasn't given me what my A7 has.

Is it just me, or are Fuji Raws just not as well handled in Lightroom as other brands likes Sony and Nikon? I'll take the same exact pictures with my XT1 and compare it with the A7, and the files will turn out quite differently with the same post. Just curious. I know people use to complain about how Adobe didn't support Fuji RAWs very well. Is that still the case?

It's not you, it's Adobe. The X-Trans CFA is very different than the common Bayer CFA and it requires special demosaicing algorithms to interpolate. As a result the output you get from different raw converters is quite variable one to the next for X-Trans as compared with a Bayer array camera.

Adobe (ACR/LR) has a problem rendering fine detail from the Fuji X-Trans cameras. The problem was severe with LR version 4 and has been improved going forward but it has not been solved. Depending on what you shoot and what you do with the images it can be a pretty minor issue to rather troubling. The solution is to use different raw conversion software. Iridient, PhotoNinja, and Capture One are favored by the Fuji X-Trans camp. One alternative is to get the demosaicing done using a different converter and then continue on using LR.

If you post one of your raws that concern you I can show you some comparisons.

Joe

I use Lightroom CC. The photos are unusually soft... not out of focus, but just not anything that I would ever consider sharp. I understand that the Sony sensor gives me more room for correction, but applying the same thing or straight out of camera, the XT1 is really soft relative to the a7.

It's Adobe and not your XT-1.

Joe

I shoot an XE-2 and I'm very happy with the camera. I noticed the "Adobe problem" when I first bought the camera, frame #17 on my first day using it. It took me a long time to dig through it all and find answers. Fortunately I've been a long-time Capture One user and as soon as I switched the file to C1; problem gone, so I knew where to look. It's Adobe's demosaicing of the X-Trans CFA.

If you don't want to spend the money for Iridient you have two free options that also work well: DarkTable and Raw Therapee.

Joe

I guess i need to try darktable and RT and see if theres a difference...
i havent checked the pricing on all the other options yet. i know capture one is $300.

im on a PC

If you're on a Windows system then start by downloading a free copy of Raw Therapee. It does a much better job rendering fine detail from X-Trans than does Adobe.

Another option: Just stick with LR and ignore the issue. The difference in this isn't really that big a deal. It was back in LR versions prior to 6, but Adobe has made adjustments. Also look at this: SHARPENING X-TRANS FILES IN ADOBE LIGHTROOM

Joe

 

[Gary A.]

Unless you've dropped your camera and lens one too many times, the Fuji is extremely sharp. I have found the FX lenses to be at least equal to my Canon L lenses.

Joe is on the money with Adobe and Xtrans. I use Aperture for RAW conversions and global manipulations then a run through Photoshop for polishing and cropping. Aperture is no longer supported by Apple so I have been looking at different RAW processors for my XP2 files. I like what PhotoNinja produces, but PN doesn't handle a large number of files well, it really slows down. C1 is nearly PhotoNinja's equal but I've also been looking at Affinity (Mac only) and Iridient. Iridient gets a big thumbs up from the pixel peeping crowd and I will probably move in that direction ... probably today. But if you're not handling hundreds to thousands of files at a time (not opened but in the queue), then you should be fine. (I am fed up with all my processing time and I have recently changed my shooting from multiple FPS to single frame for most of my events. It has made a significant difference if file count, but not in keepers.)

 

[pixmedic]

so, one more question, if you will indulge....
since i saw darktable was for linux, i went with RT.
just got it installed and opened...so...new program to learn.
I see it does a lot of what LR does, but am I supposed to do all the editing in RT and export from there a finished product? or just do the raw conversion in RT and import the jpeg into LR to do my editing?
if the latter, how do I do just the raw conversion in RT to where i would do my actual editing in LR but still get the advantage of the better conversion from RT?
#@*&^!* adobe...messing up my whole workflow 'cause they cant adapt to fujis file system well...

 

[Gary A.]

Additionally, as I become more familiar with Fuji, I have found that my manipulations for a typical, basic image becoming less and less ... I really don't touch sharpening at all.