The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

What RAW processor are you using for X-E2 or X-T1 files?

harmsr

Workshop Member
What RAW processor are you using for X-E2 files or X-T1 files?

I been a dedicated LR guy for quite awhile, however I really don't use the DAM of it very much. Not much stays on my computer, it all goes to the RAID drives after the project is done. I file it myself by job, project, customer.

LR basically is my tool to select the files which get processed, then do the RAW processing, and addition of metadata.

I've been away from Capture One for a long time and wanted to know if it does a better job on the Fuji, Leica (M240), or Nikon D4/D4s files.
 

Paul2660

Well-known member
It depends on the file and what the subject was as I have not found any single processor that does a good job on the fuji x-trans raw and has a good tool set.

Iridient (MAC only) IMO has the best overall raw conversion for details, (except those in shadow) but it's tool set is limited at best.

LR/ACR (LR 5.3 for X-T1 rename the camera header in exiftools until LR support is added) does a good job, getting better on greens but still not where I would like it all the time. However LR has a strange issue with contrasting objects, like brown leaves against the blue sky and it seemingly creates a haloing issue. I have noticed this issue since day 1 and my XE-1 files. Excellent tool set of course.

Capture One, (also needs header file renamed for XT-1) does a good job, excellent tool set, but may have issues in the greens if you use too much sharpening during the raw conversion. I find that more sharpening later on with focus magic does a better job. C1 also doesn't have the issues with the contrasting halo issues that LR has.

PhotoNinja also works well on getting the details but again has a limited tool set. Many times I will start the conversion in this tool, then convert to dng and reopen in LR for the color work. Would also like to do this with C1, but is has no dng support.

Paul Caldwell
 
So far, I have not found a single converter that does it all for me.

Capture One does a good job, has a great tool set (like Paul said) and is generally the first converter I try. I am not a landscape shooter, so the green issue is generally not a big deal for me. In some cases fabric shows the Fuji artifacts, and small highlights sometimes look blown out and halo-ed. Details are okay in general.

The latest version of ACR is usable, but in general it doesn't seem to do a better job than Capture One. The exception is the occasional occurance of moire in C1 which ACR deals with better.

The dark horse, to me, is Silky Pix. I have used the Fuji-branded version included with the cameras (based on Silky Pix 3). People do not like it much, for some reason, and the tool set is minimal, but I really like the conversion. Detail seems better than with C1, and there are none of the halos and artifacts I sometimes get with C1. But the tools set is minimal. Colors tend to be more subdued than with C1, but there are several color "profiles" that you can chose, some of which mimic the overly bright and colorful C1 (standard) rendition.

I have also tested Silky Pix 6. It has a much broader tool set and some interesting adjustment possibilities. Like the Fuji Silky Pix 3, it has great detail and converts very nicely. But! And this is a but which makes SP6 unusable for me: the colors are generally unusable. There is a horrible yellow-cast in everything, especially skin tones. Yes, it can be corrected, but the extra effort (in my opinion) is not worth the gain. There are a few color "profiles" that are okay, but colors in Fuji Silky Pix 3 are much better and the additional features in SP6 are not worth the hassle, I think.

I have not tried Photo Ninja, but maybe I should. In general, though, I haven't had an image yet where C1 or the Fuji converter haven't been able to give me great results, but I mainly shoot people.

Martin
 

DavidL

New member
I started using Capture One Express 7, which I bought when it was on offer. However, I found the files came out far too soft for my liking and that the out of camera jpegs were much better and accepted by my stock agency. I tried Capture One's pre sharpening presets but they weren't enough. Could of course be my not knowing how to use the software, as others really like Capture One
I'm now usiing Adobe Camera Raw 8.4 release candidate which I'm happier with. This is on files from a X-E1
David
 

ptomsu

Workshop Member
I must say I am very satisfied with Aperture since it supports now finally XE2 and XT1. Like it more for XE2 than LR5 and C1P.
 

Dale Allyn

New member
I'm using C1 Pro for X-E2 files. I don't like the ACR conversion for most of what I shoot, so that would apply to LR as well. I'm not a LR user at all, so can't comment directly. I'm faster with ACR and PS, so if I don't really care much about a file (fun stuff to email to a friend or family, etc) I use ACR (Bridge) and PS for quick output.
 

Lloyd

Active member
Yes, they have. I downloaded it this am. Works well, but they didn't include the profile options available in Photoshop and ACR 8.4.
 

Puma Cat

Member
I've been using Capture One for my Fuji .RAF conversions since it first started supporting X-Trans files, and feel that it does the best job overall. You do, just like with Lightroom, have to spend some time really getting to know the app, and I've been working with Capture One 7.X.X for over a year now for my X-Pro1 conversions.

For my X-T1, I've been using Iridient Develpor and Aperture for my X-Trans files to convert them to TIFFs, whereupon I reimport them to LR for some minor post-conversion tweaks. On the whole, until today, that is, I found Iridient Developer to be the best, but I agree it's workflow could be improved upon; I really wish it supported a full-screen sized browser view like Photo Ninja or Lightroom, but Brian says he's focused on other priorities right now. I found Aperture to work pretty well, too, but I have observed artifacts with Aperture, also.

I just downloaded the latest rev of Capture One 7.2.1 tonight, though, and after using it on some landscape shots, still feel that Capture One still does the best job of RAW conversion I've used, on any camera for that, matter. I've found a good setting for sharpening for tree leaves, grass, foliage that I think looks very natural, and is, in my admittedly limited data set, better even than Iridient Developer (which I still think is quite good).

So, here's an interesting comparison (and please don't ask for 100% crops, guys, 'cause I'm not going to put them up! Life's too short, fellas! ;) I'd be happy to post my sharpening settings that I find work well in the majority of cases). It's the same file shot with an X-Pro1 (sorry, my X-T1 is on it's way back to Fuji for the flare effect fix) and the Fuji 14mm converted from Fuji RAW with Iridient Developer 2.3.4, and Capture One 7.2.1

1) converted with Iridient Developer 2.3.4 to a TIFF, then imported for some subtle tweaks in LR 5.3



2) conversion with Capture One 7.2.1. Imported into Lightroom only to downsample to the output JPEG file size.


(Note: I was able to correct the keystoning of the 14mm lens in C1, but not in LR in the first photo; this is why the crops are slightly different.

As good as Iridient Developer is, in my opinion, Capture One 7.2.1 still does the best job of RAW conversion. While I'm not a pixel peeper, I did look at the foliage and grass closely at 100%, and am of the opinion that Capture One is a bit better than Iridient Developer than rendering what I consider to be a level of detail that has the requisite acutance yet is still natural-looking. But what I also notice that that Capture One holds detail in the clouds and in the shadow areas of the trees on the hills in the background notably better. And, IMHO, the photo, on the whole, looks more accurate and natural to what I remember the scene looking actually looking like (I just took this shot yesterday afternoon).

So, YMMV, but I still find Capture One to be my de-facto standard for X-trans (or any camera for that matter) RAW conversion. My second favorite is Iridient Developer, which I think also does a very good job.
 
Last edited:

Paul2660

Well-known member
That's a nice shot. Love that. 14mm.

Your findings are similar to mine in that I feel Iridient doesn't pull as much life from foliage and has such a limited toolset you need to pull the image into LR to finish.

Paul
 

Puma Cat

Member
Capture 1 is out with the new version that does X-t1 files.
Yes, I mentioned that in my post above, though perhaps I didn't make it obvious enough. It was released as a "release candidate" on Monday. I did notice slightly different default sharpening settings (IIRC) for the X-T1 than the X-Pro1.
 

krist8

Member
A few days ago, RawTherapee has released their new version which includes x-trans. In the downloaded section, you will find Windows 32 bit version 4.1.39. Windows 64 bit and Mac versions will come later as users upload them. You can compile your own version if you know how. And if you use Linux, you can compile your own version using their easy to use automatic script (read RawPedia).

I have used RawTherapee for a long time (before x-trans). It has an excellent tool set such as highlight/shadow recovery, distortion and all kinds of other color tools which I personally do not use much. Give it a try, it is free.

I have also used LighZone which can do x-trans (their latest beta version 9). It is also free. I find RT easier to use, although LZ has an excellent Region tool which RT is lacking.
 

jsnack

New member
I use the latest update of Lightroom and I think it works fine. You can go back & forth trying to extract every detail out of a picture with various convertors, but different images look different on each convertor. You'll never be able to standardize by jumping around.

The Lightroom files convert nicely and sharpen up nicely. If I'm leaving a little something behind so be it.
 

GaryAyala

Member
I use Aperture for RAW conversion and global adjustments then CS6 for specific manipulations (dodging/burning) and cropping.

I would call myself a landscape or cityscape type of photographer where the technical aspects of photography weight-in equally to the image. (or nearly equal)

For what I shoot and how I shoot, the slight differences between the latest versions of photo processing programs isn't significant ... what photo processing program I use isn't nearly as significant as the impact of the subject.

Gary
 

Stan ROX

Member
I changed to work with RAW+Fine.

Most images are fine just straight out of the cam.

Those that need some treatment, are going into Capture One 8.
 
Top