Lightroom alternatives

[SquarePeg]

Can Affinity read/convert RAW files from Fuji?

 

[fmw]

Yes indeed, Peg. As you know, I'm a Fuji shooter too. RAF files are supported.

 

[SquarePeg]

Affinity will have a catalogue management system in the near future according to the makers. I think I'll ditch my subscription to Adobe when this happens, affinity looks pretty specced

Affinity is a terrific replacement for Photoshop -- great price and feature packed -- but a catalog will not be enough to make it a replacement for LR IF (VERY BIG IF): you use LR to process raw files and would expect Affinity to step into that role. Affinity has a major raw file processing issue. It's raw workflow is forced destructive. In this day that's nuts. Affinity comes with a respectable set of raw processing tools which makes you wonder what Serif is thinking because the second you generate an RGB output file (16 bit TIFF) any work you did on the raw file prior to RGB conversion is discarded. That forces you to either make any additional edits and/or changes using the RGB output file and/or start from scratch with the raw file.

Joe

Here we go again. It is not destructive, it just doesn't store the edits in the same kind of file as Lightroom does. It saves them in an RGB file. Destructive means that when you save an edit it changes the original file permanently. The original raw file is never changed in Affinity. Saying it is "forced destructive" is your definition that is not shared by most photographers. Affinity blows Lightroom out of the water.

I'm not 100% sure what all this means in practice, but I can download a trial version of affinity and see exactly how it does its thing

Yes indeed, Peg. As you know, I'm a Fuji shooter too. RAF files are supported.

I've seen your posts on the Fuji-x forums (I'm assuming that is the same fmw). I'm just lurking over there soaking in the info - haven't created a sign-on to post yet.

I'm debating between upgrading from PSE11 to PSE15 (which supports ACR 9.7 and Fuji XT2 RAF files) for $50 vs going full Adobe for $10/month and having to learn LR and PS vs Some Other Software... I'm leaning toward the PSE15 upgrade since it's the cheapest and there shouldn't be much of a learning curve as I've been using PSE for 7+ years...

Sorry for the hijack OP - seems like this info could be relevant for you too so I didn't start a new thread.

 

[Braineack]

You should look into Capture One Pro, I hear more and more good things about it.

 

[Ysarex]

Affinity will have a catalogue management system in the near future according to the makers. I think I'll ditch my subscription to Adobe when this happens, affinity looks pretty specced

Affinity is a terrific replacement for Photoshop -- great price and feature packed -- but a catalog will not be enough to make it a replacement for LR IF (VERY BIG IF): you use LR to process raw files and would expect Affinity to step into that role. Affinity has a major raw file processing issue. It's raw workflow is forced destructive. In this day that's nuts. Affinity comes with a respectable set of raw processing tools which makes you wonder what Serif is thinking because the second you generate an RGB output file (16 bit TIFF) any work you did on the raw file prior to RGB conversion is discarded. That forces you to either make any additional edits and/or changes using the RGB output file and/or start from scratch with the raw file.

Joe

Here we go again. It is not destructive, it just doesn't store the edits in the same kind of file as Lightroom does. It saves them in an RGB file. Destructive means that when you save an edit it changes the original file permanently. The original raw file is never changed in Affinity. Saying it is "forced destructive" is your definition that is not shared by most photographers. Affinity blows Lightroom out of the water.

I'm not 100% sure what all this means in practice, but I can download a trial version of affinity and see exactly how it does its thing

Yes indeed, Peg. As you know, I'm a Fuji shooter too. RAF files are supported.

I've seen your posts on the Fuji-x forums (I'm assuming that is the same fmw). I'm just lurking over there soaking in the info - haven't created a sign-on to post yet.

I'm debating between upgrading from PSE11 to PSE15 (which supports ACR 9.7 and Fuji XT2 RAF files) for $50 vs going full Adobe for $10/month and having to learn LR and PS vs Some Other Software... I'm leaning toward the PSE15 upgrade since it's the cheapest and there shouldn't be much of a learning curve as I've been using PSE for 7+ years...

Sorry for the hijack OP - seems like this info could be relevant for you too so I didn't start a new thread.

The OP no longer seems to be around.

You may have a knotty problem with your choice. Depends on how sensitive you are to the raw conversion output of the various software programs. Most digital cameras have Bayer CFAs and processing those is pretty straightforward so most software raw converters produce pretty similar results. Fuji however uses an odd-out CFA -- X-Trans and the task of demosaicing the X-Trans CFA is orders of magnitude more difficult. As a result the output results from the different software applications can vary substantially. Basically the issue revolves around the rendition of fine detail.

The topic needs to be researched when making a raw converter selection for use with Fuji cameras. I'll come back here in a few minutes and show you an example.

Joe

 

[fmw]

That is true. The Fuji community doesn't seem to care for the way the Adobe products handle X-trans sensor raw files. They seem to prefer Capture One and Silkypix. Personally, I have no issue with the way either Adobe or Affinity handle them. The purpose of the X-trans technology is to eliminate the anti aliasing filter you find on the mayer sensors. It makes for an improved image but it does challenge the raw converters.

Fuji recommends their Silkypix based converter. It is free. You can use it to convert the raw file into another format and then take that format to the editing software. It works well but, in my view, it is a hassle and Adobe and Affinity do just fine. If the end result is to be a jpeg and heavy editing is not required, the camera does a good job of doing the conversion.

Peg, I wouldn't update PSE unless you need the cataloging. I'd pick up a copy of Affinity. It is a pro level editor with a lot more functionality than PSE. It is also possible that you can update your existing PSE and get RAF support for free. I have PSE14 and I managed to do that.

 

[fmw]

Yes indeed, Peg. As you know, I'm a Fuji shooter too. RAF files are supported.

I've seen your posts on the Fuji-x forums (I'm assuming that is the same fmw). I'm just lurking over there soaking in the info - haven't created a sign-on to post yet.

I'm debating between upgrading from PSE11 to PSE15 (which supports ACR 9.7 and Fuji XT2 RAF files) for $50 vs going full Adobe for $10/month and having to learn LR and PS vs Some Other Software... I'm leaning toward the PSE15 upgrade since it's the cheapest and there shouldn't be much of a learning curve as I've been using PSE for 7+ years...

Sorry for the hijack OP - seems like this info could be relevant for you too so I didn't start a new thread.

I've grown bored with the Fuji-X forum. It reminds of the hard core audiophiles. The members are mostly in the UK and they have a high and mighty approach to internet posting.

I updated my PSE14 for free to get the current ACR version that supports the RAF files. Just click on the appropriate option on the top menu. Look seriously at Affinity. For $40 there is nothing even close to it.

Photoshop is the industry standard and a great choice if you can live with renting your software by the month.

 

[SquarePeg]

That is true. The Fuji community doesn't seem to care for the way the Adobe products handle X-trans sensor raw files. They seem to prefer Capture One and Silkypix. Personally, I have no issue with the way either Adobe or Affinity handle them. The purpose of the X-trans technology is to eliminate the anti aliasing filter you find on the mayer sensors. It makes for an improved image but it does challenge the raw converters.

Fuji recommends their Silkypix based converter. It is free. You can use it to convert the raw file into another format and then take that format to the editing software. It works well but, in my view, it is a hassle and Adobe and Affinity do just fine. If the end result is to be a jpeg and heavy editing is not required, the camera does a good job of doing the conversion.

Peg, I wouldn't update PSE unless you need the cataloging. I'd pick up a copy of Affinity. It is a pro level editor with a lot more functionality than PSE. It is also possible that you can update your existing PSE and get RAF support for free. I have PSE14 and I managed to do that.

PSE 11 can't get the ACR version that supports the XT2 without upgrading my PSE. I think I'm going to do the free trial of Affinity and see how it compares to PSE and what the learning curve is and then make a decision. I trialed LR many years ago before buying PSE and didn't really care for it - I know everyone loves it for it's cataloging and batch processing but I'm not a pro and don't really need those features. Maybe I'm just too ignorant to know what I'm missing. Another wrinkle - maybe - is that I have the Topaz labs plug ins and they work great with PSE but not sure how they will work with Affinity??? I'm not a techie so not sure if that is a dumb question or not! Still have to try the software recommended by Gary A. Silkypix was not for me.

@Ysarex - Thanks for your insight! All great info I'm sure but way way way waaaaaaaay over my head technically . I'm really hoping I can exist with Fuji without having to learn all of the techy stuff. I use ACR to adjust exposure and play with shadows and white balance - that's pretty much all I need it for. As for the discussion you and fmw had regarding "destructive" vs non - that I did understand to an extent. I do sometimes go back and re-edit from the RAW file but I don't think losing my initial RAW edits would be a big issue for me since they are basic and pretty easily repeatable.

 

[Ysarex]

You may have a knotty problem with your choice. Depends on how sensitive you are to the raw conversion output of the various software programs. Most digital cameras have Bayer CFAs and processing those is pretty straightforward so most software raw converters produce pretty similar results. Fuji however uses an odd-out CFA -- X-Trans and the task of demosaicing the X-Trans CFA is orders of magnitude more difficult. As a result the output results from the different software applications can vary substantially. Basically the issue revolves around the rendition of fine detail.

View attachment 143072

The topic needs to be researched when making a raw converter selection for use with Fuji cameras. I'll come back here in a few minutes and show you an example.

Joe

Here's that example for the record. Fuji X-T2 RAF file.

I used LR for the Adobe version and made a best effort without applying any other software. This is a 100% view. I chose C1 on the right because it has a reputation of doing well with X-Trans but also because I had it laying around already processed. Suffice it to say you're seeing more variation in demosaicing output above than you'll encounter with Bayer array cameras. Look at the patch of grass in the bottom of the Adobe version and again in the tree leaves in the middle left of the photo. There's a squirmy (folks call in worms) smearing going on in the Adobe version. It can drive landscape photographers nuts and in fact they do see it in large prints. To some degree you're going to get that from any Adobe product with Fuji RAF files. Some folks committed to using LR get into all kinds of hoop jumping and denial over this. Right now the popular LR option is to use Iridient for demosaicing the RAF files and then continue on in LR. For many it really is a non-issue because you're not going to see it unless you're into making large prints.

For this thread and given that you brought up Fuji the point I want to stress is that you'll get considerably more variation in results one program to the next working with Fuji X-Trans -- software choice matters more. So make your choice carefully.

Joe

 

[fmw]

You may have a knotty problem with your choice. Depends on how sensitive you are to the raw conversion output of the various software programs. Most digital cameras have Bayer CFAs and processing those is pretty straightforward so most software raw converters produce pretty similar results. Fuji however uses an odd-out CFA -- X-Trans and the task of demosaicing the X-Trans CFA is orders of magnitude more difficult. As a result the output results from the different software applications can vary substantially. Basically the issue revolves around the rendition of fine detail.

View attachment 143072

The topic needs to be researched when making a raw converter selection for use with Fuji cameras. I'll come back here in a few minutes and show you an example.

Joe

Here's that example for the record. Fuji X-T2 RAF file.

View attachment 143080

I used LR for the Adobe version and made a best effort without applying any other software. This is a 100% view. I chose C1 on the right because it has a reputation of doing well with X-Trans but also because I had it laying around already processed. Suffice it to say you're seeing more variation in demosaicing output above than you'll encounter with Bayer array cameras. Look at the patch of grass in the bottom of the Adobe version and again in the tree leaves in the middle left of the photo. There's a squirmy (folks call in worms) smearing going on in the Adobe version. It can drive landscape photographers nuts and in fact they do see it in large prints. To some degree you're going to get that from any Adobe product with Fuji RAF files. Some folks committed to using LR get into all kinds of hoop jumping and denial over this. Right now the popular LR option is to use Iridient for demosaicing the RAF files and then continue on in LR. For many it really is a non-issue because you're not going to see it unless you're into making large prints.

For this thread and given that you brought up Fuji the point I want to stress is that you'll get considerably more variation in results one program to the next working with Fuji X-Trans -- software choice matters more. So make your choice carefully.

Joe

Thanks for the interesting comparison. I had never seen one before and had never seen the worms before either in my own work. I have seen distant greenery display a smudgy texture. Have you done a similar comparison with Adobe against Affinity? That would be more important personally since I have left Adobe for Affinity for the most part. I can do it for myself if I can borrow your raw file for the comparison.

 

[Ysarex]

You may have a knotty problem with your choice. Depends on how sensitive you are to the raw conversion output of the various software programs. Most digital cameras have Bayer CFAs and processing those is pretty straightforward so most software raw converters produce pretty similar results. Fuji however uses an odd-out CFA -- X-Trans and the task of demosaicing the X-Trans CFA is orders of magnitude more difficult. As a result the output results from the different software applications can vary substantially. Basically the issue revolves around the rendition of fine detail.

View attachment 143072

The topic needs to be researched when making a raw converter selection for use with Fuji cameras. I'll come back here in a few minutes and show you an example.

Joe

Here's that example for the record. Fuji X-T2 RAF file.

View attachment 143080

I used LR for the Adobe version and made a best effort without applying any other software. This is a 100% view. I chose C1 on the right because it has a reputation of doing well with X-Trans but also because I had it laying around already processed. Suffice it to say you're seeing more variation in demosaicing output above than you'll encounter with Bayer array cameras. Look at the patch of grass in the bottom of the Adobe version and again in the tree leaves in the middle left of the photo. There's a squirmy (folks call in worms) smearing going on in the Adobe version. It can drive landscape photographers nuts and in fact they do see it in large prints. To some degree you're going to get that from any Adobe product with Fuji RAF files. Some folks committed to using LR get into all kinds of hoop jumping and denial over this. Right now the popular LR option is to use Iridient for demosaicing the RAF files and then continue on in LR. For many it really is a non-issue because you're not going to see it unless you're into making large prints.

For this thread and given that you brought up Fuji the point I want to stress is that you'll get considerably more variation in results one program to the next working with Fuji X-Trans -- software choice matters more. So make your choice carefully.

Joe

Thanks for the interesting comparison. I had never seen one before and had never seen the worms before either in my own work. I have seen distant greenery display a smudgy texture. Have you done a similar comparison with Adobe against Affinity? That would be more important personally since I have left Adobe for Affinity for the most part. I can do it for myself if I can borrow your raw file for the comparison.

Affinity has color artifacting problems with X-Trans. It can be worked with I think more successfully than the Adobe problem with fine detail. I have LR/ACR, Capture One, SilkyPix, PhotoNinja, DarkTable, Iridient, Lightzone, RawTherapee, Oloneo, UFraw, Affinity, ACDSee, and Helicon installed on this system and I've tested them all with X-Trans. Affinity is a lot like Adobe doing an overall decent job until it gets an X-Trans torture RAF. Then you encounter its artifacting problems. It's important to note that although the variations one to the next are more noticeable than with Bayer sensor raw files, they all still do a basically acceptable job until you start getting nit-picky. Nit-picky matters for people who want to make large prints, for other uses it's not normally a big issue.

You're welcome to that raw file from above: Dropbox - _DSF0551.RAF It qualifies as an X-Trans torture file.

Note that you'll find the embedded JPEG looking pretty green. I had the white balance on the camera set to unity when I took the photo. I did shoot a WB target at the time so when you open it in Affinity you'll want to set these WB values: temp = 5950, tint = 2 and you can proceed from there.

Joe

 

[fmw]

Thanks.

 

[fmw]

It is certainly an extreme crop. My 100% crop made to echo yours was visibly pixelated. I wasn't able to reproduce the worms in Affinity but I wasn't able to reproduce them in lightroom either because of the visible pixels. I'll mess around with some of my own RAF files. I'm coming to the conclusion that this is a minor issue. Thanks again.