Site Sponsors
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 50 of 57

Thread: Tips for Raw Processing with the Fuji X-T1

  1. #1
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Tips for Raw Processing with the Fuji X-T1

    Hi There -
    The greens thread has been useful, but I thought it would be a good idea to start a new thread with suggestions - whilst RAW support is sketchy, it's nice to share ways of processing these files.

    I'll get started:

    Using X-T1 RAW files in Aperture
    First of all - many thanks to Ario who got me started down this root. I've had some good results like this (and some surprising ones - see below).

    First you need to get EXIFTOOL by Phil Harvey - then download and install.

    I've taken to doing the conversion on my SD card before importing to Aperture - this will also make it easier for any of you who are not comfortable using terminal.

    1. Load Terminal Applications / Utililities / Terminal

    2. Stick your Fuji SD card into your computer

    3. in terminal type the following:
    exiftool -ext RAF -Model='X100s' /Volumes/Untitled/DCIM/101_FUJI/
    - better still, cut and paste it - the spaces are all important. . . . after a bit it should say something like:
    1 directories scanned
    24 image files updated.
    What you are doing here is changing the Model name in the RAF file to X100s, which has the same sensor, but which IS supported by Aperture

    4. switch to your SD card in finder - delete the 'original' files (or move them somewhere safe if you like). As Chuck so wisely points out, back up any important files properly before starting.

    5. Import normally - I choose Both (use RAW as original) (assuming you're shooting jpg and raw).

    Job Done.

    The only disadvantage is that the exif information in your files will say X100s rather than X-T1 . . . except that most of the time it won't




    I really really don't understand this (perhaps Aperture is collecting the exif from the jpg file rather than the RAW file?) - but Aperture is using the RAW file to process as you can see, and it's reporting the camera correctly as the X-T1 - despite having changed the Model Name . . . . and it is changed - if you don't do the exiftool step Aperture won't read the file.

    I hope this is useful to people - I'm pleased with the Aperture support,

    to prove the point - here is the Garlic shot again with the exif intact.

    Garlic Balls

    Here you'll note that the exif Does say X100s - you can't win every time!

    However, my feeling about this is that when Aperture finally does support the X-T1 it will be easy to use exiftool to change the Camera Model back again, and then just reprocess the RAW files

    All the best
    Jono
    Last edited by jonoslack; 2nd March 2014 at 07:49.

    Just this guy you know
    Likes 6 Member(s) liked this post

  2. #2
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Ithaca, NY
    Posts
    3,541
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Tips for Raw Processing with the Fuji X-T1

    Exif Editor is an alternative app with a nice GUI (uses exiftool) if you don't like using terminal.
    Carl
    Gallery
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  3. #3
    Subscriber Member Chuck Jones's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Studio City, CA
    Posts
    700
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    18

    Re: Tips for Raw Processing with the Fuji X-T1

    This may or may not be a great workaround, but frankly I would manually COPY the files to a very safe place first. Then, and only then, would I ever consider rewriting the header information on my RAW files of any kind. And ONLY ON A COPY, NOT MY ORIGINAL FILES. THIS IS A DESTRUCTIVE PROCESS! Destructive processes can NOT be reversed if something screws up.

    Always copy off files first, archive the originals, then work or manipulate copies to your hearts desire. This way, you never loose an image. Screw up a card rewrite, and your images on it are toast.
    Last edited by Chuck Jones; 2nd March 2014 at 07:55.
    TheCameraForum.Com
    ChuckJonesPhotography.Com
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    netherlands
    Posts
    196
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Tips for Raw Processing with the Fuji X-T1

    jono
    Thank you for this information.
    I'll see if it works for Capture One.
    Chuck, thanks for the heads up. Probably saves me from much misery.
    maurice da silva solis
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  5. #5
    Senior Member Ario Arioldi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Milano, Italy
    Posts
    784
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Tips for Raw Processing with the Fuji X-T1

    It works for Capture One as well, and exiftool by default is saving a copy of the original file. No harm IMHO

  6. #6
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Ithaca, NY
    Posts
    3,541
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Tips for Raw Processing with the Fuji X-T1

    Quote Originally Posted by Ario Arioldi View Post
    It works for Capture One as well, and exiftool by default is saving a copy of the original file. No harm IMHO
    Agree. I've also been using exif editor to insert lens name, exposure data, and location into some of my Sony A7R raw files.
    Carl
    Gallery

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    2,115
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Tips for Raw Processing with the Fuji X-T1

    While this is a nice trick I expect the image quality of both raw converters to improve once they officially support the cameras. The XT1 apparently has a notch less noise, so the curves for noise reduction can be tweaked a little.

    - Ricardo
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    netherlands
    Posts
    196
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Tips for Raw Processing with the Fuji X-T1

    I get very good results using the Fuji X-E2 as camera model.
    It usually takes a while for Capture One to support a new camera, so I am very
    pleased with this alternative and grateful for the tip
    maurice da silva solis
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  9. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    California, US
    Posts
    71
    Post Thanks / Like

    Fuji Raw File Converter is a fine start

    Fuji Raw File Converter does a fine job at the basic task of demosaicing the raw data. Adjust exposure and contrast to avoid clipping, and perhaps a rough adjustment of color temp and tint. (If you shot at high ISO, you might want a good dose of noise reduction.) Don't worry how the image looks at this point. Export a TIF to your favorite post-processing software.

    In PP Fuji files need more sharpening than some other cameras. A good amount at radius 0.3-0.4 and perhaps a second round of a very small amount at radius 1.-2.
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Little Rock AR
    Posts
    1,927
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    4

    Re: Tips for Raw Processing with the Fuji X-T1

    Charles, one question I hope you can clear up for me. Will the Fuji raw file converter work for the X-E2 or T1? I thought you had to use the silkypix software for these cameras and I never found that software that good or easy to use. I like the idea of just doing a basic conversion and save as a tif or dng then opening up in LR.

    Thanks
    Paul C.

  11. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    California, US
    Posts
    71
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Tips for Raw Processing with the Fuji X-T1

    Quote Originally Posted by Paul2660 View Post
    Will the Fuji raw file converter work for the X-E2 or T1?

    Fuji RFC is a custom version that Silkypix provides to Fuji. If the XE-2 and XT-1 manuals refer to the software, presumably it works.

    You are right, the software is clumsy -- if you develop the image to the final product. But for a start on an image, it's easy: a stack of rows at the top left has the exposure, white balance, contrast, and some other controls. Just use those. Ignore the menu bar and toolbar across the top, except of course for File | Open. Ctrl-S will bring up the export dialog.

  12. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    27
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Tips for Raw Processing with the Fuji X-T1

    We still need Adobe to get raw working for Lightroom and also Capture One and others. If this camera is as popular as we hear, what is taking so long???

  13. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    477
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Tips for Raw Processing with the Fuji X-T1

    I wouldn't say they are dragging their heels as it has only just been released, but on the other hand, it is the same sensor as the X-E2, and since just changing the exif info allows you to process the RAW, I would imagine they are combining these changes with other changes (other cameras that have new sensors or...)

    Doug

  14. #14
    Workshop Member ptomsu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Austria, close to Vienna
    Posts
    3,872
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Tips for Raw Processing with the Fuji X-T1

    All this workarounds are nice and while I appreciate all these efforts - this camera is useless without proper RAW support in at least Aperture, LR and C1Pro!

  15. #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    477
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Tips for Raw Processing with the Fuji X-T1

    Sounds like a good reason to wait .

    I'm just planning to shoot Raw and JPEG until LR supports it, and I will play with the exif stuff on a file or two just to make sure the pictures are coming out. I figure I will do fine, and I am betting they will have support by the end of this month when I need it.

    Doug
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  16. #16
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Lake Oswego, OR
    Posts
    38
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Tips for Raw Processing with the Fuji X-T1

    Adobe has a Camera Raw 8.4 release candidate for both CS6 and CC available on the Adobe labs website. Nothing yet for LR.

  17. #17
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Tips for Raw Processing with the Fuji X-T1

    Quote Originally Posted by doc4x5 View Post
    Adobe has a Camera Raw 8.4 release candidate for both CS6 and CC available on the Adobe labs website. Nothing yet for LR.
    The fix above will also work with Lightroom and Capture 1 version 7. if you would rather you can use the Adobe DNG converter release candidate 8.4 to convert the RAF files to DNG and Lightroom will read those too. . . . . so you can do it two ways with LR

    Just this guy you know

  18. #18
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Tips for Raw Processing with the Fuji X-T1

    So - Which RAW converter is best?

    Capture One
    Although I have it, I don't have the experience with Capture One 7 to make the most of the files - so I wouldn't like to comment. . . . . someone else please?
    You can use the renaming technique above ( I guess it would work using X-E2 instead of X100s)

    Lightroom
    Two methods here -
    1. EITHER changing the exif model (as in the first post)
    2. OR using Adobe DNG converter release candidate 8.4 to convert to DNG, and then import to Lightroom.

    I have to say that I'm disappointed with the smudgy artefacts either way - they are only really a problem on foliage etc. but I get a slight waxy feeling on skin tones as well - not horrid, but not the best (IMVHO of course)

    Aperture
    Currently the only way I can get them to work is changing the Model to X100s (as in the top post. I do this on the SD card before importing, it only takes a few seconds and is very little hassle).
    I really like the files in Aperture - they seem to have fewer artefacts and less 'waxiness' than they do in Lightroom. Not quite as sharp as Iridient, but less colour artefacts too.

    Iridient
    Thanks for the heads up on this Ricardo
    Iridient has full support for the X-T1
    This seems to give you the sharpest results, but with some coloured dots with specular highlights (this is something which sometimes happens with the Leica M - reflections in water etc). I like the program, but of course it is only a developer - no DAM - it's cheap and good - excellent to have in the background for 'occasionally'. Here are the detail settings I liked:


    I have tried Photo Ninja, but I didn't like either it, or the results, but that was probably my fault. I've stopped - but please, if you've tried anything else (or you disagree with me) put your results in too.

    Just this guy you know

  19. #19
    Senior Member douglasf13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, California, USA
    Posts
    1,965
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Tips for Raw Processing with the Fuji X-T1

    Hi, Jono. I thought I liked Aperture enough that I moved my whole workflow over from LR last year, but then I started noticing all of these little speckle-y dots in X-Trans problem areas, and then these pretty obvious purple/green artifacts were showing up on some situations. See here:
    https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/to...16/40#12139909

  20. #20
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Tips for Raw Processing with the Fuji X-T1

    Quote Originally Posted by douglasf13 View Post
    Hi, Jono. I thought I liked Aperture enough that I moved my whole workflow over from LR last year, but then I started noticing all of these little speckle-y dots in X-Trans problem areas, and then these pretty obvious purple/green artifacts were showing up on some situations. See here:
    https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/to...16/40#12139909
    HI Douglas
    Interesting you should say that Thanks for the heads up - I'd noticed similar artefacts in Iridient - I've processed over 1000 files in Aperture now, and I haven't seen it (I'm sure I will). It does the same with Leica files on occasion. I think that as you increase the detail they start to appear.

    I think the trouble here is that there isn't a right answer - but perhaps there are some wrong ones (LR for instance).

    Aperture is certainly much worse than LR for noise reduction generally, but I like the results better - they seem to me to have a more 'analogue' feel about them than most other RAW programs.

    One thing I have decided is not to change my whole workflow on the basis of a camera, so for me it's more a way of making it work (or choosing the E-M1 or A7 or whatever).

    Just this guy you know

  21. #21
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    27
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Tips for Raw Processing with the Fuji X-T1

    Photo Ninja and Raw Developer work, but I want my Lightroom and Capture 1. Just waiting.

  22. #22
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    netherlands
    Posts
    196
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Tips for Raw Processing with the Fuji X-T1

    Jono,
    I am using the Exif Editor workaround, with X-E2 as the Camera.
    Having used Capture One since my first digital camera (Olympus E-1) and subsequently M8 and M9 I find the program very easy to use.
    I catalog in LR and take a first look there but do the developing in Capture One or occasionally Irridientand send the result back to LR catalog and sometimes do some work in Phootoshop CC.
    With the X-Trans sensor I find Capture One is the best compromise, detail miles better than Lightroom/ACR, slightly less sharpness than Irridient but also less to zero of the artifacts.
    The (technical) quality of what I was able to produce in the darkroom on slides and B&W
    from 1954 until 2006 using mostly Leica's from M3 to MP and enlarging on Cibachrome for color compared to what the "worst"programs can make of the X-Trans files are reason for me to put things into their proper perspective.
    maurice da silva solis
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  23. #23
    Senior Member douglasf13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, California, USA
    Posts
    1,965
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Tips for Raw Processing with the Fuji X-T1

    Quote Originally Posted by archiM44 View Post
    Jono,
    I am using the Exif Editor workaround, with X-E2 as the Camera.
    Having used Capture One since my first digital camera (Olympus E-1) and subsequently M8 and M9 I find the program very easy to use.
    I catalog in LR and take a first look there but do the developing in Capture One or occasionally Irridientand send the result back to LR catalog and sometimes do some work in Phootoshop CC.
    With the X-Trans sensor I find Capture One is the best compromise, detail miles better than Lightroom/ACR, slightly less sharpness than Irridient but also less to zero of the artifacts.
    The (technical) quality of what I was able to produce in the darkroom on slides and B&W
    from 1954 until 2006 using mostly Leica's from M3 to MP and enlarging on Cibachrome for color compared to what the "worst"programs can make of the X-Trans files are reason for me to put things into their proper perspective.
    If it were an issue with grain, tonality, etc., I'd agree, but my X-Trans camera's files issues and general look, particularly in my usual converter choice of LR or Aperture, are my least favorite looking files that I've had since getting into digital.

    I've been shooting the X100 over the RX1 these days, so I'm not clamoring for the best IQ, since just about any digital is good enough these days, but the "weirdness" of certain X-Trans files was enough for me to loose money by going back to the X100 from the X100s. Of course, YMMV.

  24. #24
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Tips for Raw Processing with the Fuji X-T1

    Quote Originally Posted by douglasf13 View Post
    If it were an issue with grain, tonality, etc., I'd agree, but my X-Trans camera's files issues and general look, particularly in my usual converter choice of LR or Aperture, are my least favorite looking files that I've had since getting into digital.

    I've been shooting the X100 over the RX1 these days, so I'm not clamoring for the best IQ, since just about any digital is good enough these days, but the "weirdness" of certain X-Trans files was enough for me to loose money by going back to the X100 from the X100s. Of course, YMMV.
    Hi Douglas
    Like you I'm not clamouring for the best IQ; I'm trying to decide which to keep out of an A7, an E-M1 and the X-T1, but now I'll be on my toes, looking for weirdness!

    Just this guy you know

  25. #25
    Senior Member douglasf13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, California, USA
    Posts
    1,965
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Tips for Raw Processing with the Fuji X-T1

    Quote Originally Posted by jonoslack View Post
    Hi Douglas
    Like you I'm not clamouring for the best IQ; I'm trying to decide which to keep out of an A7, an E-M1 and the X-T1, but now I'll be on my toes, looking for weirdness!
    I certainly hope you're not bothered by any IQ weirdness, because it really seems that the XT-1 and lens lineup is about is good as it gets in a mirroless camera system these days.
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  26. #26
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Brighton, MI
    Posts
    100
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2

    Re: Tips for Raw Processing with the Fuji X-T1

    Hi Douglas,

    I'm wondering if you might have saved any of the files that caused the strange colors that you could share. It would be interesting to try them in the latest version of C1 or others to see if any improvements have been made to the algorithms.


    Glen

  27. #27
    Member JonMo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Delta BC Canada
    Posts
    100
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    8

    Re: Tips for Raw Processing with the Fuji X-T1

    I can't comment specifically to the x-t1 files as mine has not arrived yet; but the x-e2 files that I have processed have none of the weird stuff that you guys are finding.

    No green sparklies.
    No mushy green foliage.

    I have only used Capture One.
    I have only owned an X cam for 6 months and only the latest x-e2.

    Now the only reason I have used C1 over the years is that for .mos files from my leaf back; they were the only Windows based game in town.

    C1 7.2 has a decent DAM section with catalogs but only if you are starting from scratch. Bringing in an archived library is absolute crap.

    Before the C1 need I had Aperture then Light room, both of which have really nice DAM.

    Outside of this; why is it necessary that a person has to use only one Raw Processor?

    I am not the youngest person here but I remember my darkroom having a vast array of developers and procedures to get the look I wanted.
    The amount of money I spent on various films, chemicals and papers was a bit obsessive.

    When I switched to digital I spent just as much on various printers, inks, third party inks, papers and when they became available; different developing programs for images.

    I know my bias for money spent is off, I have purchased a single tech cam lens for $6000.00 and though it was a great deal, but why is it so important to only use one system for Raw processing?

    A single DAM is important as well as back ups, but all the Raw programs I use all have similar controls, settings, and layouts. The beauty is that they all render different and sometimes; different is good.

    And what the heck is "best image quality"? I had always assumed that was a marketing term for "please buy my camera, pretty please".

    Well, when my cam FINALLY shows, perhaps I will join in on the weird stuff.

    My procedure for initial Raw for Landscape X files in Capture One 7.2;
    1. In the details menu; Set both noise reduction sliders to 0. (default is 50)
    2. color menu; Set the Curve applicable to the subject (I usually like the "film high contrast")
    3. then all the typical settings for exposure, high lights etcetera.
    4. I like to take the Clarity settings with images of fine detail as "Method" Neutral. Commonly seem to be around the 15 value. Its very easy to make the image look stupid with this slider, but with practice it is exceptional with foliage.
    5. Finally back to the Details slider. The X files seem to require very little noise reduction. I will simply nudge them up till acceptable.
    6. SHARPENING; I have no set sharpening that I have found that will always get the look I want. But zoomed to 100%, start with low Rad (.2) High Amt ( as much as 800) Then adjust the sliders towards each other till the micro contrast shows up and the halos are controlled.

    That's it other than prepping the image for print; most the image is perfected in C1 then off to Photoshop to Rez (if necessary) and sharpen for format ( Web, Print, Proof or off to CMYK)

    I know it is not the most scientific list but seems to work for me.
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  28. #28
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    etrigan63's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Earth, Sol System (near Miami, FL)
    Posts
    2,501
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    21

    Re: Tips for Raw Processing with the Fuji X-T1

    Add Lightzone 4.1b6 to the list of rAW converters that support the X-T1. And this one is FREE!

    http://www.lightzoneproject.org
    Carlos Echenique | Carlos Echenique Photography |Olympus OM-D E-M1 MK II | Olympus Pen-F - M.Zuiko 17mm f/1.8, M.Zuiko 25mm f/1.8, M.Zuiko 45mm f/1.8, Rokinon 12mm f/2 NCS, M.Zuiko 75mm f/1.8, M.Zuiko 12-40mm f/2.8 PRO, M.Zuiko 40-150mm f/2.8 PRO
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  29. #29
    Senior Member douglasf13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, California, USA
    Posts
    1,965
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Tips for Raw Processing with the Fuji X-T1

    Quote Originally Posted by GlenC View Post
    Hi Douglas,

    I'm wondering if you might have saved any of the files that caused the strange colors that you could share. It would be interesting to try them in the latest version of C1 or others to see if any improvements have been made to the algorithms.


    Glen
    I've tested C1, LR, Accuraw, Aperture, Iridient and the camera jpegs, and I wasn't really thrilled with any of it (Accuraw seemed best, since the conversion process is adjustable.) C1 doesn't have the artifact issues of Aperture, but there also isn't as much detail. It seems somewhere between LR and Aperture. Besides, like Jono, I didn't really want to change my workflow, and I'm pretty married to LR at this point, anyways.

    Outside of the weird IQ things that pop up, even perfect raw conversion with X-trans can never yield more than half of the chroma resolution of Bayer, so, while luminance resolution is high in X-trans (like with test charts,) color just looks oddly smooth to me. I'm just not a fan of the look of the files, and LR is particularly bad to me.

    This all used to be mentioned more in the forums, but I think that most of us that were disenchanted with this sensor have already moved on. Since I've recently come back into the Fuji world with the "old" X100, I'm the only one getting sucked into these threads again. LOL

    Either way, if you like the look of the X-trans files, the X-system really looks great.
    Likes 3 Member(s) liked this post

  30. #30
    New Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    5
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Tips for Raw Processing with the Fuji X-T1

    Quote Originally Posted by aragdog View Post
    We still need Adobe to get raw working for Lightroom and also Capture One and others. If this camera is as popular as we hear, what is taking so long???


    You can download the Adobe DNG Converter 8.4 Beta here: Download Adobe Photoshop Camera Raw 8.4 Beta - Adobe Labs

    It will convert the XT1 raw files to DNG (in batches) which can be imported and edited in LR. Only slightly inconvenient, but works fine until LR gets it's update out.

    I've converted 500 or so XT1 files and imported them into LR.

  31. #31
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    523
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Tips for Raw Processing with the Fuji X-T1

    You've nailed it, Douglas. I too find the Xtrans file 'look' a little artificial under too many circumstances and see no problem with bayer cameras. I think Fuji solved a problem that's not really there and in the process created a bunch of their own. It will be interesting to see what sensor appears in the X-Pro 2....

  32. #32
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    2,115
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Tips for Raw Processing with the Fuji X-T1

    Outside of the weird IQ things that pop up, even perfect raw conversion with X-trans can never yield more than half of the chroma resolution of Bayer, so, while luminance resolution is high in X-trans (like with test charts,) color just looks oddly smooth to me. I'm just not a fan of the look of the files, and LR is particularly bad to me.
    I would really like to know where is this idea that Xtrans can't yield more than half the chroma resolution of a Bayer sensor. That seems rather odd to me even after taking into account the less red, less blue, more green of Xtrans over a Bayer.

    Also one thing where Xtrans really shines over is B&W photos and it does do this better than Bayer (because it has more green). The luminance resolution is not just about "test charts"- this is real world.

    Here's one of the issues of AA less Bayer- this issue doesn't show up on the Fuji in this area. The Fuji can still get color moire but it's much more rare.

    (Ricoh GR - a phenomenal camera, this is not a completely regular occurrence this bad and a non issue in B&W)

    I find the Xtrans has a vibrancy of color that nails a lot of skin, and others really rather well in mixed light I am not seeing as easy to get with other equipment. This could be partially the lens & coatings but could also be the Xtrans and how Fuji massages the data.



    One thing Fuji mentions is that they find they can keep color accuracy/tone better due to the way the Xtrans samples the color. I would imagine this is at a slight expense of resolution (chroma) but gradients and general tone may very well look better.

    How Xtrans samples color vs Bayer:


    My conclusion here is both Bayer and Xtrans have their own artifacts- and I see a lot of Xtrans examination of a shot where some artifacts showed up without having the exact same shot on a Bayer to see what it would do, which I believe it's not fair to the Fuji engineering solution.

    Fuji traded some artifacts for others, with the mind of eliminating the AA filter risking less color moire than an AAless Bayer solution. I do think it pays off in them keeping a bit of a "3d bite' a step towards Foveon, while actually making B&W photography better.

    I also agree getting a good RAW converter can be a pain, and if your workflow depends on Adobe, then it's totally understandable why not get Xtrans.

    But many pros are getting awesome landscapes full rich in color and at this point I don't think the sensor is really overall an issue taking exception with having to use a pure Adobe workflow.









    - Ricardo

  33. #33
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    2,115
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Tips for Raw Processing with the Fuji X-T1

    For landscapes, I'll refer you to Lawrence Ripsher:

    Lawrence Ripsher

    Of course there's Jim RadCliff's good stuff too :-)

    Fuji X-T1 Photography by Jim Radcliffe


    - Ricardo

  34. #34
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    2,115
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Tips for Raw Processing with the Fuji X-T1

    One more thing for Douglas- on first pass it seems there isn't much detail with Capture One 7. I discovered proper tweaking with "Structure" slider and the usual iteration of sharpness and luminance noise reduction can get you some very sharp files.

    - Ricardo

  35. #35
    Senior Member douglasf13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, California, USA
    Posts
    1,965
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Tips for Raw Processing with the Fuji X-T1

    Quote Originally Posted by raist3d View Post
    One more thing for Douglas- on first pass it seems there isn't much detail with Capture One 7. I discovered proper tweaking with "Structure" slider and the usual iteration of sharpness and luminance noise reduction can get you some very sharp files.

    - Ricardo
    These posts by Joakim "theSuede" sum things up nicely. He works in the industry and is probably among the most knowledgeable tech guys on just about any camera forum, so he's a good guy to ask. You could probably send him your questions directly.

    X-Pro 1 tested by Pop Photo - FM Forums

    My X-E1 vs D7100 High ISO comps - FM Forums

    http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/top...542/1#11653796

    While I'm at it, here is a pretty interesting recent thread comparing Bayer to X-trans, and, even with some of the more highly thought of raw converters for X-trans, like Photo Ninja, there is a difference in "look" with X-trans files in some scenes. My X-E1 vs D7100 High ISO comps - FM Forums

  36. #36
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    2,115
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Tips for Raw Processing with the Fuji X-T1

    Quote Originally Posted by douglasf13 View Post
    These posts by Joakim "theSuede" sum things up nicely. He works in the industry and is probably among the most knowledgeable tech guys on just about any camera forum, so he's a good guy to ask. You could probably send him your questions directly.

    X-Pro 1 tested by Pop Photo - FM Forums

    My X-E1 vs D7100 High ISO comps - FM Forums

    My X-E1 vs D7100 High ISO comps - FM Forums
    I would probably ask about the 50% chroma resolution, but I think that's about tit.

    He can be pretty knowledgeable but so can the people at Capture One, and I am not going to take one man's explanation over what I am seeing myself as output from Capture One. Theory is nice, but doesn't mean he's infallible, and a lot of the talk I am seeing here does not reflect the reality of the output I am getting.

    Do note the does mention that there are other more computationally heavy options to get more detail as he sees it (which could very well be what Capture one 7 is doing).

    I still stand by what I said- I see picking on Xtrans artifacts, which it has, without looking at AA Bayer which has its own set of issues, or AA less bayer which introduces other issues.

    Finally keep in mind some of the links you are quoting are pretty old by now.

    While I'm at it, here is a pretty interesting recent thread comparing Bayer to X-trans, and, even with some of the more highly thought of raw converters for X-trans, like Photo Ninja, there is a difference in "look" with X-trans files in some scenes. My X-E1 vs D7100 High ISO comps - FM Forums
    I am only seeing LR 4.x there. I am vouching for Capture One 7.
    If you can point to where they are using Iridient or Capture One 7 in that thread, I would appreciate it.

    - Ricardo

  37. #37
    Senior Member douglasf13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, California, USA
    Posts
    1,965
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Tips for Raw Processing with the Fuji X-T1

    Quote Originally Posted by raist3d View Post
    I would probably ask about the 50% chroma resolution, but I think that's about tit.

    He can be pretty knowledgeable but so can the people at Capture One, and I am not going to take one man's explanation over what I am seeing myself as output from Capture One. Theory is nice, but doesn't mean he's infallible, and a lot of the talk I am seeing here does not reflect the reality of the output I am getting.

    Do note the does mention that there are other more computationally heavy options to get more detail as he sees it (which could very well be what Capture one 7 is doing).

    I still stand by what I said- I see picking on Xtrans artifacts, which it has, without looking at AA Bayer which has its own set of issues, or AA less bayer which introduces other issues.

    Finally keep in mind some of the links you are quoting are pretty old by now.



    I am only seeing LR 4.x there. I am vouching for Capture One 7.
    If you can point to where they are using Iridient or Capture One 7 in that thread, I would appreciate it.

    - Ricardo
    Sorry, I linked the wrong link for the recent thread comparing Bayer and X-trans: Fujifilm X-Trans Infinity Scene RAW Processing Comparison - FM Forums

    FWIW, Joakim's opinion about X-trans hasn't changed since those threads, and his statements about the cfa arrangement won't change, anyways.

    I'm happy that you're satisfied with C1's output and X-trans. I certainly wish I was, but, like some others, I've tested it along with many other converters, and I wasn't happy with X-trans, so I went back to the Bayer in my lowly pair of X100 cameras. To be honest, among the converters I've tried with X-trans, I found C1 to be middling.

  38. #38
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    2,115
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Tips for Raw Processing with the Fuji X-T1

    Quote Originally Posted by douglasf13 View Post
    Sorry, I linked the wrong link for the recent thread comparing Bayer and X-trans: Fujifilm X-Trans Infinity Scene RAW Processing Comparison - FM Forums

    FWIW, Joakim's opinion about X-trans hasn't changed since those threads, and his statements about the cfa arrangement won't change, anyways.
    That's fine, if that's his opinion- he's more than entitled to it. My point is that since then progress has been made in raw conversions. Keep in mind again, he does mention that more computer intensive algorithms can do a better job than what he was showing.

    I'm happy that you're satisfied with C1's output and X-trans. I certainly wish I was, but, like some others, I've tested it along with many other converters, and I wasn't happy with X-trans, so I went back to the Bayer in my lowly pair of X100 cameras. To be honest, among the converters I've tried with X-trans, I found C1 to be middling.
    That's cool. In either case, I have from my view posted evidence that the so called mush in green is a non issue with proper converter use. I can also post a couple of shots with greenery I have that show the point. But I don't mean to convince you of otherwise. I just mention it in the general terms of the discussion because I have seen several issues pointed out that have a solution.

    - Ricardo

    PS: I looked at the thread you pointed out. If anything, several of those examples the Xtrans look better. In some others they are comparing images solely on Xtrans without a Bayer equivalent when Xtrans is showing quite a bit of detail.

    And who knows what Capture One 7 settings they are using, etc.

    Anyhow, thanks for the links. Keep in mind I am going by my direct experience too, not some link that some guys over the net are doing.

    I leave with this link to a scene with a lot of greenery. I don't see any "mush" and there's quite a stress on DR in this scene too:

    (full size, converted with Capture One 7)
    http://raist3d.typepad.com/files/fullsizegreen2.jpg

    Note: the burned areas in the following shot are recoverable. I left them as is for an overall impression of more contrast.
    http://raist3d.typepad.com/files/fullsize_green3.jpg
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  39. #39
    Subscriber Member Chuck Jones's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Studio City, CA
    Posts
    700
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    18

    Re: Tips for Raw Processing with the Fuji X-T1

    I don't have a dog in this hunt since my X-Trans sensor Fuji is now an antique X-E1, but here are a couple of thoughts to keep in mind from the research I've done.

    First thing, the X-Trans sensor is different from the Bayer based sensors and DOES require a different decode scheme that according to Brian at Iridient is a serious bit of work to program. Not a trivial task. So over a year ago when TheSwede wrote his comments, most of the RAW converters at that time had NOT implemented any change to their decoding algorithm. This resulted in a lot of the problems at that time.

    I can't confirm all RAW converters have now been updated to accommodate the new sensor. Some may never, it is after all a lot of work. I would caution that even those that have may still need more work for optimization to get everything "dialed in" with any new camera release such as the X-T1. Those pixel herders are hard at work pushing around the digits, but good code takes time, so we all need to be a bit patient and give them some.

    I can state for a fact that anyone using an older RAW converter is NOT going to see the advantages (or disadvantages as some see it) of the X-Trans sensor, even IF the image will open up. Most chose to just implement the same Fuji processing code used for the previous sensor when the X-Pro1 was released. While possibly a mistake in conversion accuracy, at least they had support for the new Fuji cameras. (Their thinking, not mine!)

    Capture One 7.1 first implemented the correct algorithm changes. Even with the current 7.2 release I believe Capture One are still calling the X-Trans support "preliminary" not something they consider fully stable.

    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.

    Adobe has included preliminary support as well in the current Beta for the X-T1, but again I caution this is a new camera system, and beta software is just one small iteration past Alpha, the first try. Beta is NOT A FULL RELEASE - so things can, and often do, change prior to final release.

    As far as Aperture, God and Steve Jobs only know what they are up to, and where they stand on support for the X-Trans sensor decode change. Apple seem to keep to themselves and rarely talk to outsiders like me, so I have no information to share here.

    RAW Developer, or Iridient Developer as Brian now calls it, does have full and accurate support for the X-Trans products. Brian is one of the few who actually writes his own decoding algorithms, one of the major differences Iridient Developer has always had. Personally, of the many RAW converters I have evaluated I find Iridient to be my own first quality choice, though I use Lightroom for most quick processing as it is my Digital Asset Management system as well.

    Many RAW converters rely on a GPL licensed public domain set of Objects for their actual conversion. This obviously would not work well for X-Trans sensor based cameras, as to my knowledge presently none of them have done the X-Trans changes. These libraries see no difference pre-X-Trans and post, so impossible to get even close to perfect conversions.

    Uwe Steinmueller hasn't weighed in on this thread yet, and he has over two hundred and fifty seriously great X-T1 images posted here last I counted:

    Fuji X-T1 - Digital Outback Photo

    I believe Uwe is still using C1 and his own sharpening/finishing plugins, but as you can clearly see he is not experiencing smearing, color shifts, or anything else in the way of distracting nasties, nor has he commented to me about seeing any problems. He seems to really love the X-T1. I'll ping Uwe and see if he can shed any light here. It may be that a change in sharpening or workflow makes the difference....
    TheCameraForum.Com
    ChuckJonesPhotography.Com
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  40. #40
    Senior Member douglasf13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, California, USA
    Posts
    1,965
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Tips for Raw Processing with the Fuji X-T1

    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.

    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.

  41. #41
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Little Rock AR
    Posts
    1,927
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    4

    Re: Tips for Raw Processing with the Fuji X-T1

    Quote Originally Posted by Chuck Jones View Post

    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
    Last edited by Paul2660; 15th March 2014 at 08:36.

  42. #42
    Senior Member douglasf13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, California, USA
    Posts
    1,965
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Tips for Raw Processing with the Fuji X-T1

    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.
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  43. #43
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    2,115
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Tips for Raw Processing with the Fuji X-T1

    Quote Originally Posted by douglasf13 View Post
    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

  44. #44
    Subscriber Member Chuck Jones's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Studio City, CA
    Posts
    700
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    18

    Re: Tips for Raw Processing with the Fuji X-T1

    Quote Originally Posted by Paul2660 View Post
    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.

  45. #45
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Little Rock AR
    Posts
    1,927
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    4

    Re: Tips for Raw Processing with the Fuji X-T1

    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

  46. #46
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    2,115
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Tips for Raw Processing with the Fuji X-T1

    Quote Originally Posted by Paul2660 View Post
    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

  47. #47
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA & Dublin, Ireland
    Posts
    77
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Tips for Raw Processing with the Fuji X-T1

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

  48. #48
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Northern California
    Posts
    32
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Tips for Raw Processing with the Fuji X-T1

    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.

  49. #49
    Member JonMo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Delta BC Canada
    Posts
    100
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    8

    Re: Tips for Raw Processing with the Fuji X-T1

    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.

  50. #50
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    netherlands
    Posts
    196
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Tips for Raw Processing with the Fuji X-T1

    Quote Originally Posted by JonMo View Post
    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.
    maurice da silva solis

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •