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!

Fun with the Fuji X ___!

Lloyd

Active member
As I was already using Capture One 7, I was anxious to see what it would do with the Fuji files. Below are three versions of the same image, process respectively in Lightroom 4, SilkyPix and Capture One. What was of most interest to me was the increase in detail in the leaves of the trees. With LR and SP I got somewhat muddy results, with a painterly effect. It's most absent in the C1 processing. I was also able to draw out more in terms of color, and, I believe DR. It's not perfect, but I believe it's much better with C1. (BTW, I use Lightroom, together with Photoshop, for most of my work, but prefer Capture One for landscapes, and for some subjects when processing Leica files.)

Lightroom 4:


SilkyPix:


Capture One 7:
 
Lloyd...

As I was already using Capture One 7, I was anxious to see what it would do with the Fuji files. Below are three versions of the same image, process respectively in Lightroom 4, SilkyPix and Capture One. What was of most interest to me was the increase in detail in the leaves of the trees. With LR and SP I got somewhat muddy results, with a painterly effect. It's most absent in the C1 processing. I was also able to draw out more in terms of color, and, I believe DR. It's not perfect, but I believe it's much better with C1. (BTW, I use Lightroom, together with Photoshop, for most of my work, but prefer Capture One for landscapes, and for some subjects when processing Leica files.)
Lloyd, any chance I can get that RAF file from you. I've been playing with Silkypix a lot more and I would like to see if I can duplicate your CO7 results using Silkypix.... if you don't mind, of course. If you have a link to the RAF file I can download it... if it's too much hassle, I understand.

I have (in my playing with SP) discovered some things I missed on my first several attempts with that software and I am about to revise my opinon of it based on my working with it for the last two days.

I have the latest version of Lightroom and I still remain unimpressed with it.. and frankly am more impressed today than I have ever been with Silkypix. Photoshop CS6 is my workhorse.
 

Brian Mosley

New member
So, if the in camera conversion is the best at this point, can the user shoot RAW, save them to their HD for cataloging and later use and then reload them to the camera as needed for alternate conversions?

Jim
Yes, but the result of the conversion will be a colour compressed jpeg. My question further up this thread was whether the RAW file could be converted to uncompressed tiff for post processing.

It looks like lots of people have the same interest. Hopefully Fuji are listening.

Cheers

Brian
 

Ron (Netherlands)

New member
Re: Fun with the Fuji X-E1

Can someone show some pictures of the camera itself with some leica lenses mounted, would love to see how it compares to the seize of a M9....
 

Braeside

New member
Anyone who thinks an 800E isn't much bigger isn't worth reading.

He's a blogger looking for page hits by being controversial on a hot product. Ignore.
 

docmoore

Subscriber and Workshop Member
As I was already using Capture One 7, I was anxious to see what it would do with the Fuji files. Below are three versions of the same image, process respectively in Lightroom 4, SilkyPix and Capture One. What was of most interest to me was the increase in detail in the leaves of the trees. With LR and SP I got somewhat muddy results, with a painterly effect. It's most absent in the C1 processing. I was also able to draw out more in terms of color, and, I believe DR. It's not perfect, but I believe it's much better with C1. (BTW, I use Lightroom, together with Photoshop, for most of my work, but prefer Capture One for landscapes, and for some subjects when processing Leica files.)

Capture One 7:
At first I thought so but the cabin and fence in the foreground seem to be overly contrasty/sharp...are these JPG artifacts that you are not seeing in the program and only visible here?

Somebody needs to get a decent RAW processor for these cameras...the lenses and the bodies are too nice to ignore...especially if the new 100s and potentially a new Pro with faster AF and MF.

Bob
 

Lloyd

Active member
Hard to tell, Bob. I'm not seeing them on my monitor here, or when looking them in Capture One. I did output them for the web (all three), and GetDPI adds some sharpening, so it may be a little overcooked in this smaller size.
 

docmoore

Subscriber and Workshop Member
That is good to know. I hope that in the long run this is a teething issue with the new sensor and that it will be a long-term success.

Love the design of the cameras and the outlook of the company...supporting M glass directly.

Bob
 

Lloyd

Active member
I hope so as well. Capture One stated that the processing algorithm for the Fuji sensor is only "preliminary". Hoping it gets even better. (And looking forward to the Zeiss lenses for the camera!)
 

scifitographer

New member
tbh, i'm not impressed with co7 so far. i've always used lightroom and know my way around there pretty well, with co7 i seem to get muddy colors and still have some smudging. could be my workflow with co7, but i've been working everything in both programs, lr first, then trying to match colors and tones in co7. it's not working well.
 

Lloyd

Active member
I agree with you on most points. I use Lightroom pretty much everyday, so I'm much more comfortable with that. I'm getting more comfortable with Capture One, and prefer it for some applications. I am glad that Fuji raw files were added to it's capacity, and I did feel that for the one file I posted I got superior results out of C1 than either Lightroom or Silky Pix.
 
CO7 vs the FREE RAW File Converter EX

Lloyd was kind enough to get his original RAF file to me so that I might try to duplicate his Capture One 7 work on this file. Let me point out that I have very little experience using the RAW File Converter (about 2 days now) and that I will probably become more proficient with its use.

I believe there is a difference in the monitor settings that Lloyd and I are using. My monitor and Adobe tell me it's calibrated properly but I see a difference between Lloyd's image and mine as far as brightness goes. I have not modified Lloyd s image in any way.

At any rate, here are the two images. Lloyd s version on top, mine on the bottom. If you wish to see a larger version of my try you can use this link for a file that is 50% in size of the original: http://www.boxedlight.com/xp1/images/RAF.jpg



Since the forum software seems to downsize the images embeded, here is a link to the photo above that should display without size reduction: http://www.boxedlight.com/xp1/images/co7-rfcex.jpg

My opinion is that once you become familiar with the FREE RAW File Developer you may be able to achieve the same results as using Capture One 7. This free program is certainly better than LightRoom and Photoshop RAW support. Does it equal Capture One Ver 7? I think it does or the difference, to my eye, is negligible.

Capture One 7 may offer other features that make it a better choice for others but for simple RAW conversion of my RAF files I'm going to save $300 and use the RAW File Converter EX.

My work flow for RAF files is to open the file in the RAW Converter, make adjustments (and you can make a lot of adjustments) then save the file as a TIF for any further work I might wish to do in Photoshop CS6. Mind you this is not something I do for every file, only those that I feel warrant special attention. Most of the time the JPGs are fine for my purposes.

For those who have not tried the Free RAW Converter, here is a link to the download page.
Download Drivers & Software | Fujifilm Global
 

raist3d

Well-known member
I realise this would be processor intensive - but as an option for later RAW development in camera and saving as tiff... I would have thought this wouldn't take much development effort.
Actually it should not be that processor intensive since they are already creating JPEGS (probably they create a nice image and compress to JPEG, so all they have to do is "save it as a TIFF"). Now, saving the 14-bit TIFF is intensive in the sense of memory card writing speed/bandwidth but I am sure that can be deal with (keep that blinking light blinking for longer).

Of course there's other testing/timing issues to consider, when the RAW buffer is full, etc. but yeah. I don't think it should be an unsurmountable task.

It would be something to mitigate the poor 3rd party raw converter support in the short term, and make the X100s much more attractive to early adopters.

Cheers

Brian
I agree.

- Ricardo
 
Top