Tips for Raw Processing with the Fuji X-T1

[Paul2660]

I would NOT suggest renaming files as some do to fool any RAW converter it into processing your X-T1 files and then comparing them with anything expecting the results to look the same as they will once the technical boys in the various back rooms get their thing done. There is an old saying in the software business that applies to exactly this type of Tom Foolery. Garbage in - garbage out.

.

Actually I can see no problems in renaming a header file from X-T1 to XE2 so that C1 can work on the files. It's very simple to make sure you keep the original raw file and copy it to another folder and open the images in a C1 session. The sensor between the two cameras is the same, there are no physical changes, the readout the same. For now if you want either LR or C1 support that is the only option. Actually since LR will open a DNG, you can open the files and convert to a dng then open in LR.

There is no timeline as to when C1 will support the X-T1 and C1 has their hands full right now with other issues besides Fuji Support. As far as I know there is no RC for 7.3 out right now, and the next full release may be 8, a pay upgrade, it's about time for it.

I believe ACR RC 8.4 has the X-T1 included, but this has not been translated over to LR yet, and again more than likely won't be instead LR 6 will happen. Another pay upgrade, for those not on CC.

As for the other raw support, not sure what Uwe is using. It can't be C1 on a X-T1 unless he is editing the file.

Iridient raw developer has the support, however IMO the current tool set included with the software is very lacking. I am also finding that their conversions don't work as well on a image with mixed light, i.e. inability to pull up shadows and maintain good details. IF the image was exposed in even light Iridient does an excellent job and can do a very good job on the demosaic process.

PhotoNinja, also has the native X-T1 support, a bit better toolset, and still seem able to get a good bit of normal looking details out of the Fuji files. However things as simple as a uniform saturation slider don't appear to be in the software, instead it forces you to work the 6 various colors individually. It's also easy to take the Photoninja conversion too far, and get a effect I used to see with Bibble software conversions from my S2 fuji. Can't really put it into words, but look takes on a very over structured image.

LR still leaves a plastic look at times around rocks and has an even greater issue with contrasting halo's where objects are against a blue sky, like bare tree limbs. This I noticed back on the X-E1 files with LR and I notice it more now in the winter.

C1 seems to do the best job, abet weak in the greens, however to me the best solution overall and a great image tool set. I am finding I prefer to back off the sharpening levels in C1, then sharpen in Focus Magic later on, with the deconvolution sharpening. This really helps to make the Fuji images pop. I also may add a bit of creative sharpening from one of the photokit sharpening tools.

LR sharpening, seems by far to be the most destructive on Fuji files and I try to sharpen as little as possible if I am using LR, just enough to get by. Sharpening later on with Focus Magic or the Topaz deconvolution tools.

Back to my original point, if you were being forced to edit more than a header file, I would tend to agree, but since it's only the header it also points out that just a simple name recognition bit of coding needs to be done to the various raw converters.

Paul Caldwell

 

[douglasf13]

I forgot to mention above that I think Accuraw is still probably the best option for the X-T1, since I know Jono is a Mac user. Accuraw allows you to adjust the demoisacing routine to fit the situation, which is a great option for X-trans files.

 

[raist3d]

The comments from Joakim are not outdated, because they are primarily in regards to the inherent trade offs of the cfa scheme, rather than simply due to raw converter issues. He said that, even with perfect raw conversion, X-Trans can't reach more than 50% of Bayer's chroma resolution.

That is assuming that he (i) got that got (not saying he didn't, but I see a lot of faith put on the comment), (ii) that in the files that are being converted this issue matters as much as it suggests in theory (human eyes/brain are far more sensitive to detail - luminance vs chroma, something I am sure Fuji took into account putting more green in), (iii) in the links you gave me you were pointing to comparisons where some of them are now outdated and a few others downright invalid (by not comparing side to side what a Bayer would do).

Note that he himself said that more computing intensive algorithms can yield better results- and better results are indeed happening with some of the current raw converters.

The problem with X-Trans comparisons is that you can't simply show a file that doesn't have an issue and say everything is fine. Some files don't have issues, others do, so it is highly dependent on the scene. Either way, if you can look at the recent thread I linked above and actually prefer the X-Trans output to the Bayer output, than there isn't much more for me to say. Our eyes and preferences are simply different. Nothing wrong with that.

That's just like AA less Bayer or Bayer itself. I want to make clear that yes, Xtrans will have its quirks- just like Bayer also has its quirks. I gave a complete valid example of what happens in some situations with AA less Bayer- I can tell you that Ricoh GR example is not a trivial edit.

And honestly, we don't need "other threads" to show this or that- what I mean is it's not like we are not posting pictures taken with our own cameras in this one. I posted two full size shots that have a lot of green in it- perfect to show that "green mush" and they don't have it.

I agree there is no wrong in someone preferring this or another output, but why only count the examples in that other thread and not this one? Are the photos and output Jim RadCliff getting invalid somehow? (though he is getting them?) Lawrence? The scene examples I am giving are completely valid candidates to show the green mush that was being talked about.

And in all this nobody has mentioned or seems concerned with how Xtrans does better B&W.

- Ricardo

 

[Chuck Jones]

Actually I can see no problems in renaming a header file from X-T1 to XE2 so that C1 can work on the files. It's very simple to make sure you keep the original raw file and copy it to another folder and open the images in a C1 session. The sensor between the two cameras is the same, there are no physical changes, the readout the same. For now if you want either LR or C1 support that is the only option. Actually since LR will open a DNG, you can open the files and convert to a dng then open in LR.

There is no timeline as to when C1 will support the X-T1 and C1 has their hands full right now with other issues besides Fuji Support. As far as I know there is no RC for 7.3 out right now, and the next full release may be 8, a pay upgrade, it's about time for it.

I believe ACR RC 8.4 has the X-T1 included, but this has not been translated over to LR yet, and again more than likely won't be instead LR 6 will happen. Another pay upgrade, for those not on CC.

As for the other raw support, not sure what Uwe is using. It can't be C1 on a X-T1 unless he is editing the file.

Iridient raw developer has the support, however IMO the current tool set included with the software is very lacking. I am also finding that their conversions don't work as well on a image with mixed light, i.e. inability to pull up shadows and maintain good details. IF the image was exposed in even light Iridient does an excellent job and can do a very good job on the demosaic process.

PhotoNinja, also has the native X-T1 support, a bit better toolset, and still seem able to get a good bit of normal looking details out of the Fuji files. However things as simple as a uniform saturation slider don't appear to be in the software, instead it forces you to work the 6 various colors individually. It's also easy to take the Photoninja conversion too far, and get a effect I used to see with Bibble software conversions from my S2 fuji. Can't really put it into words, but look takes on a very over structured image.

LR still leaves a plastic look at times around rocks and has an even greater issue with contrasting halo's where objects are against a blue sky, like bare tree limbs. This I noticed back on the X-E1 files with LR and I notice it more now in the winter.

C1 seems to do the best job, abet weak in the greens, however to me the best solution overall and a great image tool set. I am finding I prefer to back off the sharpening levels in C1, then sharpen in Focus Magic later on, with the deconvolution sharpening. This really helps to make the Fuji images pop. I also may add a bit of creative sharpening from one of the photokit sharpening tools.

LR sharpening, seems by far to be the most destructive on Fuji files and I try to sharpen as little as possible if I am using LR, just enough to get by. Sharpening later on with Focus Magic or the Topaz deconvolution tools.

Back to my original point, if you were being forced to edit more than a header file, I would tend to agree, but since it's only the header it also points out that just a simple name recognition bit of coding needs to be done to the various raw converters.

Paul Caldwell

Paul, it is quite possible you are correct, and simply renaming the header is all that needs to be done to fully support the X-T1 in all of the RAW Converters. But somehow I have to wonder, if that is the case, and it is in reality that simple, why hasn't everybody just done that already in their code? Why did Adobe bother with a beta release candidate? And why no support yet from Lightroom or C1? Those of us using the Adobe CC get continual updates, not only the major releases, and I haven't seen anything yet.

From the image samples I have seen, they do have the same characteristics as the older X-E1 files, but both the X-E2 and the X-T1 samples look different to me. Close, but improved dynamics. I will check and see if I can find out for sure, rather than any of us just speculating further. I do not have an X-T1 myself, so have no way to personally test this hunch.

You are right about Uwe. He isn't using C1 beta, he is using ACR RC 8.4, which indeed does have X-T1 support included for the conversions, then finishing up processing in Lightroom for his posted X-T1 gallery.

 

[Paul2660]

Chuck, not sure either, but it works as a workaround for now. I actually don't think anymore than that has to happen. It's just a flag for the software to see it as a camera supported. I know it's the same sensor for sure as Fuji has verified that.

The X-T1 came out a strange time for both LR and C1 as I don't think C1 will have support for a while as they have to issue a full release as LR does, where as ACR can just make a quick change and put out a new installer.

With the software exiftool and the GUI, the process is very simple to do and since I am still keeping a copy of the raw in my backup it works for now.

It would be interesting to see how Uwe is getting around some of the issues with the Adobe (LR or ACR) conversions, i.e. smearing of greens, and plastic look on rocks/lichen.

My solution has been low sharpening in ACR/LR then focus magic, which does pull out an amazing amount of detail. Then maybe a tweak with Photokit creative sharpening.

Paul

 

[raist3d]

Chuck, not sure either, but it works as a workaround for now. I actually don't think anymore than that has to happen. It's just a flag for the software to see it as a camera supported. I know it's the same sensor for sure as Fuji has verified that.

Actually what happens in the final supporting version is better calibration for the particular camera. The XT-1 may be *almost* well supported with the trick, but the RAW converter company may do tweaks to the correction- could be a color channel clips slightly earlier, could be tweaking the noise reduction as ISO goes up (the Xt1 has slightly less noise than any other xtrans camera), etc.

I do agree in this case, it is pretty close to what seems quite a workable output, but just bringing the point what things they could tweak further in the official support of the camera model.

So I would still expect the final support version of the software do to a tiny itsy bit better.

- Ricardo

 

[white.elephant]

Boy, this kind of thread is why I come back to this forum time and time again. I learn so much...

 

[glennedens]

Adobe has released Lightroom 5.4 with support for XT-1. Just downloading it now, looking forward to seeing how it handles RAF files compared to Aperture.

 

[JonMo]

Well I don't know how well Aperture works but;

Maybe I was hoping for too much from this version of Lightroom.
Did a test on a image with an evergreen blowing in the wind, after quite a bit of playing around, the best I got was a "water colour painting" look.

Granted it is a little surreal but I was kind of hoping for that "tree in wind" look.

At this time I am definitely sticking with C1.

Maybe there is someone out there who is better with Lightroom than I who can share successful settings.

 

[archiM44]

Well I don't know how well Aperture works but;

Maybe I was hoping for too much from this version of Lightroom.
Did a test on a image with an evergreen blowing in the wind, after quite a bit of playing around, the best I got was a "water colour painting" look.

Granted it is a little surreal but I was kind of hoping for that "tree in wind" look.

At this time I am definitely sticking with C1.

Maybe there is someone out there who is better with Lightroom than I who can share successful settings.

I am also sticking with C1, but for many files LR isn't bad at all.
Set sharpening to 0, edit in Photoshop and sharpen there using Focus Magic
gives me the best results after trying just about every darn thing.

 

[Nathan W. Lediard]

I am a mainly people photographer, but sometimes my backgrounds do show the so called watercolour effect... I have Lightrom as my main tool as this is what I use for my Hasselblad files, but sometimes I get better conversions from Phocus (hasselblads own software) I have no problem in dropping out of lightroom, developing the raw to a 16 bit tiff and then syncing it back in Lightroom ready for other adjustments, I now do the same with my X camera files... I am actualy using silkypix 5 on the Mac and once you get used to the workflow it has given me the best results of anything I have tried so far, including c1 and aperture... I just export a 16 bit tiff and do the rest in Lightroom..

 

[MCTuomey]

Nathan, your workflow (SP5 conversion then tiff import to LR) - you lose access to the new LR fuji profiles, right?

 

[Nathan W. Lediard]

Nathan, your workflow (SP5 conversion then tiff import to LR) - you lose access to the new LR fuji profiles, right?

yes, that is the only downside I can see... you can also not apply the profiles to a camera produced jpeg, sof if you have a jepeg in colour, you cannot use the fuji black and white profiles for any mono-conversion you might like to do... The new profiles only work on raw files. Luckily its not often I need silkypix, but the times I do it is worth the trouble, and with a bit of tweaking I can get the colurs to match pretty good... Silkypix has some profiles built in, but they are not exactly the same as the adobe ones... havnt done any indepth comparisons yet... but so far I prefer silkypix to Aperture and C1 when I hit that watercolour problem, which for me is as I said luckily not very often I just did a commercial shoot where I would normally use both my Hassy and my Canon, I switched out the canon for the X-T1 for the first time and what I did was to convert all X-T1 files in silky pix and all hassy files in Lightroom.. I then just synced the folder and did the final adjustments on the tifs.... didnt really add that much time to my workflow...

 

[mranger211]

I am actualy using silkypix 5 on the Mac and once you get used to the workflow it has given me the best results of anything I have tried so far, including c1 and aperture... I just export a 16 bit tiff and do the rest in Lightroom..

Nathan,
how are the skintones out of silkypix 5? I have a hard time getting good skintones out of silkypix 6 (trial version). Other than that I agree, Silkypix gives the better results than C1.

Martin

 

[Nathan W. Lediard]

Nathan,
how are the skintones out of silkypix 5? I have a hard time getting good skintones out of silkypix 6 (trial version). Other than that I agree, Silkypix gives the better results than C1.

Martin

To be honest I havnt done that much testing with portraits in silkypix yet... my portraits dont generally suffer from the problems that sometimes show up with adobe... That said, what little I have seen seem OK I will have to play with a file or two and see...

 

[Nathan W. Lediard]

just had a quick look at a couple of portraits and taking into account I am sitting on the sofa with my MBP retina (got the flu) and not on my Eizo I just looked at a snapshot of my ypungest son, taken with horrible tungsten light, and with a quick white balance adjustment things looked pretty good.. maybe a tad magenta in skin tones but tjis was easily adjusted with the "fine color adjuster" just clicked on the magenta area and then moved the hue slider of the selected colour and bingo The more I use silkypix the more I like it! yea it uses funny terminology, but once you get used to it I find the workflow is really as bad as some would have it to be Yea it doesnt have all the bells and whisltes like gradient tools etc, but you can work around that if you have too...

 

[mranger211]

Nathan, I am with you about Silkypix. I does give the best results, and is not really all that horrible to work with. I checked the colors again, and it seems to be a Silkypix 6 problem (at least for me). Using the Silkypix 4 color setting in SP6 solves the problem more or less.