Camera Raw/Lightroom: Fuji X-Trans Support?

  • 190
  • Problem
  • Updated 2 months ago
  • In Progress
  • (Edited)
Is Fuji X-Trans support being worked on?

I appreciate that the support is better now than it was, but the reality is that Lightroom is still a long way behind other RAW developers, all of which are less well funded and with smaller teams working on the software.

Lightroom has been the leader in RAW processing an image cataloging as far back as I can recall; but with the Fuji X-Trans files many people I know are leaving Adobe Lightroom for one of the many other developers, all of which are producing far better results than Adobe Lightroom.

Ones I have personally tested are as follows:

Iridient Developer
Photo Ninja
LightZone
Capture One
Aperture
SilkyPix
Raw Therapee

Iridient is very good, and this is a piece of software made by a single man.

My question is, if he can get it right, why can't Adobe? They have been leaders in innovation for many years but it seems in some areas now they are falling behind - I have never seen so many people leave a major developer for smaller independent ones, but to Fuji users (both enthusiasts and professionals) it's a pretty simple decision when you compare results.

So all I'd like to know is if my patience sticking with Lightroom is justified, and whether a solution is being worked on - or will always be worked on. Or is it a case that the users wanting such a change are not enough to support such work.
Photo of jimkit

jimkit

  • 45 Posts
  • 9 Reply Likes
  • frustrated

Posted 5 years ago

  • 190
Photo of Steve Sprengel

Steve Sprengel, Champion

  • 2673 Posts
  • 348 Reply Likes
Having Fuji's algorithms is probably what lead to the current situation, unless Fuji is licensing the algorithms rather than giving them away, and maybe Adobe didn't want to pay the licensing fee. I do know that Fuji failed to give Adobe any help or warning originally and that is why their first set of conversions was so terrible, and I agree that while the current conversions are better, they aren't nearly as detailed as others seem to be able to do, although if you look at the other conversions, sometimes there is a bit of artifacting, for example in fine green grass, so they are not perfect, either.

The current Adobe demosaicking process for traditional Bayer sensor layout has bits of the noise-reduction and sharpening built into it, so merely swapping out Adobe algorithms for Fuji isn't going to make things work entirely, either.
Photo of Aleksei Isachenko

Aleksei Isachenko

  • 34 Posts
  • 9 Reply Likes
Steve Sprengel are you an Adobe employee?
If not, we have nothing to discuss.

I already bought Iridient Developer and I am happy with it. Also I tried free software Dark Table and RawTherapee which works with x-trans files much better than Adobe Camera RAW or LightRoom.
5-7-9 years ago I could buy Photoshop as standalone program, now I have to subscribe to "photography plan" but I do not need such poor Lightroom. So, many Fuji users should pay for not working properly software. Why?

We were patient, and the only thing Adobe need to do is to say will this problem be fixed or not. Is it so difficult?
Photo of jimkit

jimkit

  • 45 Posts
  • 9 Reply Likes
Yes, the issue on this thread is quickly becoming the lack of any support from Adobe, any acknowledgement to it's long standing customers as to the issues and concerns they share.

It would be very helpful even if they just said they were not going to do anything, but the silence is deafening.
Photo of asda aasdas

asda aasdas

  • 1 Post
  • 0 Reply Likes
Adobe please resolve this issue
Photo of Andreas März

Andreas März

  • 22 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Yes, please improve detail rendering and sharpening for XTrans RAWs.
Photo of James

James

  • 2 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
I have just bought an X-T1, foolishly assuming that Lightroom would support the camera well. Oh dear :(

Adobe, please improve your support, or at least answer!
Photo of jimkit

jimkit

  • 45 Posts
  • 9 Reply Likes
We could all move to the upcoming Apple Photos app

It's doing a much better job in beta than Adobe Lightroom, in fact it's liek going from a camera phone to a DSLR in terms of quality.

See below, Lightroom is obviously the one on the left that looks like a low res shot; Apple Photos version on the right - MASSIVE difference!



Please read about the difference here
Photo of verbaud

verbaud

  • 10 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
Let's keep things serious, eh? Photos is the last thing a photographer should use for processing. It should only be used for iCloud sharing, and iOS editing, at most. Also, I see zero difference in those two images, aside from the exposure.
Photo of jimkit

jimkit

  • 45 Posts
  • 9 Reply Likes
Have you actually clicked on the photo? If you have and still can't see the difference you really do need glasses; I know that is often used a humorous quip but in this case it's a serious recommendation.
Photo of jimkit

jimkit

  • 45 Posts
  • 9 Reply Likes
The fact a half-baked consumer product renders photos 20x better than Lightroom is exactly the point everyone is making on this board. Lightroom is poor.
Photo of verbaud

verbaud

  • 10 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
Not much to say that hasn't already been said. The problem for the most part, is that Adobe doesn't HAVE TO acknowledge anything. As far as user bases go, that of Fuji's, is minuscule when compared to that of other camera manufacturers whose sensors are of the Bayer type.

This means that they have a cash cow, regardless of whether or not Fuji users use LR/PS. They also know that they have us by the balls, since all the other options leave us feeling like we are using an UI made by Fisher Price on crack.

We basically have to deal with these crap results, until we basically no longer can.... And that time frame will be different for everyone, I suppose. Or, we use another application for the RAW processing, and then to right back into PS for further tweaking etc.. Long winded workflow of course, but I fail to see a better alternative, if we're being realistic.

Doug
Photo of jimkit

jimkit

  • 45 Posts
  • 9 Reply Likes
Fuji isn't that small as to not be of any value to Adobe - it's growing and so is mirrorless; so it's a good opportunity for Adobe to show some reward to it's many loyal Nikon and Fuji professionals who are now migrating to mirrorless.

if Adobe were ignoring this problem due to percentage of users it's be very short sighted.

My guess is that they simply aren't competent enough to produce better results. It's not a question of time or money when RAW developers run by 1 man teams are producing better results than a company valued at 36 billion dollars.
Photo of L1dimup

L1dimup

  • 17 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
I'm a stock image contributor and I can confirm Adobe's FujiX raw conversion is broken.

90% of my images shot with XT1 XE2 are rejected due to low sharpness in small detailed areas such as foliage. Also there's noticeable halo as demonstrated in this post.

I know iridient does a very good job but I work on Lightroom from a PC. Now, I'm forced to shoot jpg with XT1.
Photo of Francine Raymond

Francine Raymond

  • 5 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Huge claim you are making about Fuji!
If Iridient does a great job with these files, then how could it possibly be fuji- raw that are the culprit?

You really to back-up such claimes with proof.
Photo of L1dimup

L1dimup

  • 17 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Seems that you're replying my comment. Read carefully. "Adobe's FujiX raw conversion is broken"

In simpler English so you can understand: Adobe's raw conversion method is bad.

Don't act like a fuji fanboy here, please.
Photo of Erik Korte

Erik Korte

  • 1 Post
  • 0 Reply Likes
A one man show like Iridient is doing a clearly better job handling .RAF files.
Please acknowledge this Adobe.
Photo of Aleksei Isachenko

Aleksei Isachenko

  • 34 Posts
  • 9 Reply Likes
Just take a look at screenshots:
LR 5.7.1 - upper pic with sharpening, lower pic sharpening is OFF


LR CC (6) - upper pic sharpening is OFF, lower pic with sharpening


Iridient Developer 3.0.1 - - upper pic sharpening is OFF, lower pic with sharpening BY DEFAULT


So new LightRoom is the same piece of ............ [censored] and Adobe does not care about its customers at all.
Photo of jimkit

jimkit

  • 45 Posts
  • 9 Reply Likes
Care to post the RAW file? The hair shows a lot of improvement in Irridient Developer.
Photo of Aleksei Isachenko

Aleksei Isachenko

  • 34 Posts
  • 9 Reply Likes
You mean to upload a RAF file and to give a link here?
Photo of jimkit

jimkit

  • 45 Posts
  • 9 Reply Likes
Yes please. Lots of Adobe guys ask for them but not many people willing to share them.
Photo of Aleksei Isachenko

Aleksei Isachenko

  • 34 Posts
  • 9 Reply Likes
Well, if my client know that I shared her picture, she will kill me. But I will do this nevertheless, because I still hope, that Adobe will improve the demozaic.
So the RAF can be downloaded here http://www.mediafire.com/download/rbl...
Photo of L1dimup

L1dimup

  • 17 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
I don't get why can't Adobe guys just shoot their own pictures. They have worked with Fuji in the past. Surely, they must have fuji cameras in house.
Photo of Darius Kupczak

Darius Kupczak

  • 5 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
I waited for LR 6, because I hoped, that the fuji X support will imporve. I tried to communicate with Adobe, but they ignored me.
And LR6 isn't faster, it's even slower, then LR5.

So I'm not willing to spend money for LR6, I will use this money to switch to a raw converter, which works good with fujis raw files.

So long and thanks for all the fish
Photo of L1dimup

L1dimup

  • 17 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
LR6 is faster for me(6core@4.3ghz, GTX970, 16gb ram) in most functions except start up time.

I did the opposite to you. Just ditched my XT1. I recon XTrans sensors are more trouble than benefit. Plus, they've been recycling the same sensor since xpro1. That's 2012!

Other raw converters do indeed give better results for xtrans but they're no match for what LR can do with conventional sensors.

I'm moving to Sony A7ii. It's not that much bigger than XT1. Brand new A7 is now $1000, too.
Photo of jimkit

jimkit

  • 45 Posts
  • 9 Reply Likes
Don't really see the point of the a7 with the slow focus and large lens footprint you'd be better off with a dslr from nikon.
Photo of L1dimup

L1dimup

  • 17 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Depends on what you shoot. There're really small lenses to choose from like loxia. If you shoot anything fast paced. Better keep your dslrs for now.
Photo of Corey Butler

Corey Butler

  • 3 Posts
  • 3 Reply Likes
Bought LR6 with eager fingers crossed... Adobe didn't fail to disappoint.

Incredibly frustrated.
Photo of Oliver Wendel

Oliver Wendel

  • 49 Posts
  • 5 Reply Likes
Fuji has a market share of what? 7-8%? So any more questions why nobody cares?

Oli
(Fuji User)
Photo of t.linn

t.linn

  • 16 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
7-8% is better than I would have guessed. I think companies care about 7-8%. That isn't much different than the Mac's market share—a little low.

Adobe has put just enough effort into X-Trans demosaicing to make it good enough that they retain the majority of Fuji customers. None of them may be happy but Adobe gets their money anyway. It's a crappy way to treat customers but until there is more than fringe competition there is no market pressure to do anything differently. If Capture One were more reasonably priced that might make a difference.
Photo of Darius Kupczak

Darius Kupczak

  • 5 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
So what's the message of adobe to their customers? If you don't use a nikon or canon system, then LR is the wrong raw converter for you? We don't want your money? You are not important enough? We are unable to render files like most of our competitors? We rather implement usles features, then improve the most important core feature?

If I (and I think most of customers like me too) switch to Capture One, Iridient Developer, Photo Ninja or every other raw converter, that renders the files much better, I will never switch back. Why? A switch is complex and much work. I have to learn to use the software and I have to organize my files again.
And most important: I learnd, that adobe don't care. Pay and shut up, or leave.
So I leave.
Photo of jimkit

jimkit

  • 45 Posts
  • 9 Reply Likes
I think what you can take from the lack of comment from Adobe is basically "we don't give a sh!t". 10 months and no reply, no acknowledgement on what is an official Adobe to consumer forum speaks volumes. I can't think of any other brands where 100+ complaints would go unheeded for that length of time.

Personally, I have given up. I said I would give them until LR6 and I did.

I will continue to use LR5, the software I once paid for but will not be investing in Adobe products from here on in.

Much like their Creative Cloud service; Adobe have ZERO commercial interest in upgrading and improving their software because all the people that are tied in are forced to keep using it, regardless of features and bugs, because if those users stop paying their rental fee the software becomes deactivated. They have a constant revenue stream regardless of what software they develop.

Go back a couple of years and Adobe knew that unless they addressed bugs and improved their software nobody would upgrade, and no upgrades used to + no money so these little bugs were addressed. Not any more.

So, much like my standalone Creative Suite CS6, I plan on using Lightroom 5 for non-important work and will use one of the other RAW developers such as Capture 1 or Iridient for professional and print work - I have no intention of ever upgrading.
Photo of Darius Kupczak

Darius Kupczak

  • 5 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
I think the same way.
Photo of t.linn

t.linn

  • 16 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
A good strategy. Just say "no" to their rental scheme.
Photo of Aleksei Isachenko

Aleksei Isachenko

  • 34 Posts
  • 9 Reply Likes
People, I use Iridient Developer for five month already. I can say that this software is perfect and since that time I don't need Adobe anymore.
Photo of Marat Mukhametshin

Marat Mukhametshin

  • 4 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
I was about to buy a Fuji system in order to switch from Sony in a week. I've red the thread and I'm feeling quite frustrated now. So I'm forced by Adobe (in a figurative sence) not to switch to Fuji. I did huge comparison work but such a dissapointment at the last moment. LR+PS workflow did well for me up to now as I get that Adobe does not want to follow essential suggestions for months.
Photo of Aleksei Isachenko

Aleksei Isachenko

  • 34 Posts
  • 9 Reply Likes
With hundreds of wedding photos, for example, I open RAFs in Iridient, do sharpening and export as 16 bit tifs. Than these tifs send to LR and work there.
Photo of L1dimup

L1dimup

  • 17 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
I used to do that. With addition of converting to lossy dng.

My latest workaround before selling my XT1 was using Proneg low with low hilight and shadow jpg. It is enough for most wedding cases. Only small hilight is lost. Saved me a lot of time.
Photo of James Whitehouse

James Whitehouse

  • 17 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
I sold my X-T1 because of this, such a shame as it was a lovely camera, but I bought it primarily for landscape use and the awful 'plasticky' demosaicing in LR killed it for that. I tried other developers on trial, some were nice, but ultimately my whole workflow and catalog is based around Lightroom, and I'm used to it, and I already own it.

So, I'm NOT going to say I'll move to another raw converter, when the one I already own should do this fundamental task perfectly well. I'm going to add another request Adobe  actually do something about it. I'd love to move back to a Fuji body and glass. If others, including solo bedroom developers can do it perfectly well, there is clearly no excuse.

Come on Adobe, you have the resources, what's the sense in making a lot of people very unhappy, and very vocal, when you could make them very contented by simply fixing this? At least make an official announcement of progress, especially now that LR6 has shown no improvement in this area, as many had hoped.
Photo of t.linn

t.linn

  • 16 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
Why would Adobe lift a fat finger to do anything when people are willing to sell their camera bodies to accommodate Adobe's laziness? I'm not criticizing your decision, James, but your post doesn't do much to further the cause. Then again, there isn't much to suggest Adobe cares about any of its users. Their rental scheme seems to have worked so what motivation do they have to fix anything.
Photo of Marat Mukhametshin

Marat Mukhametshin

  • 4 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Thank you guys for sharing your thoughts!

I've decided to buy a Fuji body in spite of known LR's deficiency and I'm going to buy the Iridient Developer for it. I'm quite happy with PS as an edit/retouche software but if I would know a comparable software to PS, I could also say bye-bye to Adobe...
Photo of Francine Raymond

Francine Raymond

  • 5 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
I agree with you t.linn. I am not willing to give up my X-T1. And I don't think I should have to.

On the other hand, I fail to see what unsubscribing to Adobe will accomplish. If Fuji's market share is less than 7%, I seriously doubt that our defection will make much of a difference. How many of these 7% actually care that much about it. Lots of JPG shooters in the group, I am sure.

It is Fuji that will suffer I believe. Already, a number of my colleagues have decided NOT to purchase an X-T1 because of the problem.

And although I am more than frustrated with Adobe about this, I wonder what, if anything Fuji is doing about it. I am sure they have more clout than any of us.
Photo of t.linn

t.linn

  • 16 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
Yes, I believe your assessment is exactly correct. And to be clear, I wasn't suggesting unsubscribing from Adobe in my last comment—though that is my advice to anyone who doesn't want to willingly put themselves in a position of having to pay Adobe a monthly fee for the rest of their life to have editing access to their images. My advice is CS6 and a perpetual license of LR until this is no longer a viable option. At that point I am hopeful that some other company will have stepped in to offer some competition. It's not like Adobe is actually advancing the state of the art with their relatively infrequent CC releases. PS is a relatively stationary target.
Photo of Andy Charnas

Andy Charnas

  • 28 Posts
  • 3 Reply Likes
+1 to t.linn and Francine.

Fuji needs to help and/or put pressure on Adobe to fix their raw support if they want to help grow their customer base.

AND...Adobe needs to respond on this thread to this issue, or it will continue to lose support, and give a boost to their competitors.

7-8% market share is not insignificant. And, what should be more troubling for Adobe, it is growing.
Photo of Aleksei Isachenko

Aleksei Isachenko

  • 34 Posts
  • 9 Reply Likes
+1
In general, the trend is that a lot of non professionals, hobbyists and semi-pro photographers (pros also, but not so many) understood, that DSLR is big and heavy and do not have the "magic" button "masterpiece". And this people switch to mirrorless, and mostly to Fuji. So in one or two years this 7-8% will increase, but Adobe will not get them as customers. Iridient, Capture One will get new customers.

I payed for Iridient $99 and this is not a small amount of money, but I vote for client-oriented developer.
Photo of James Whitehouse

James Whitehouse

  • 17 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Oddly, having commented here the other day, I ended up inadvertently discussing this yesterday with a pro photographer who uses Fuji system - in fact I was cheating to him about something else but we got onto the subject. I won't mention names, because I didn't ask his approval to post what he said here.

Now, he apparently used to work for Fuji, and said they are notoriously, almost ridiculously, tight lipped about their Intellectual Property. He claimed to have got them and Adobe 'round the same table' a while back, which is why there was a small step up in processing quality.

My point (or rather, his point) is that we may need to be putting pressure on Fuji to be more forthcoming with Adobe about how to de mosaic x-teams files properly, and not only on Fuji themselves. He told me that recently another friend of his (another pro) had a photo which was processed by a top lab here, then, for some reason, by Fuji themselves in Japan. The difference in the final prints was quite substantial, to the extent they asked what on earth Fuji were able to do to the file that they couldn't. Essentially, he said that the Fuji print was 'everything we're all wanting', which I took to mean it didn't have the artefacts we're all concerned with.

I have no reason to suspect the guy is making it up, as I say, we only wandered on to the subject in the middle of another conversation, but it may be worth everyone pressuring Fuji more. If they really are being so protective of their x-trams IP it's damaging the output quality of the files it claims to improve, their users' experience, and even, in cases like myself, losing customers, that really is crazy. That said, I still think Adobe could at least respond to our concerns - how hard would it be, if the above is indeed true, for them to simply say that it's out of their hands, and to approach Fuji for a fix, for example?
Photo of Aleksei Isachenko

Aleksei Isachenko

  • 34 Posts
  • 9 Reply Likes
James, all you said sounds strange at least. If I process x-trans RAW in Iridient Developer or Capture One, or in Darktable I will get perfect demosaic. So why they can but Adobe can't?
Moreover I know from a guy from Fujifilm-Russia, that Fuji gave to Adobe all necessary data, but the only thing Adobe did is included film profiles to LR and ACR.
Photo of James Whitehouse

James Whitehouse

  • 17 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Aleksei, you may well be right, I can't vouch for the veracity of any of it, just passing on what I heard.

Are you getting a perfect demoniac in C1? I tried it a while back and found it much better in terms of colour profiling and other areas, but only mildly better at demosaicing. It's not as strong as LR in other areas, although the new colour correction workflow does look very nice!

Never heard of Darktable, might look it up, although LR handles my current E-M1 files just fine so I have little incentive to move developers right now.
Photo of Aleksei Isachenko

Aleksei Isachenko

  • 34 Posts
  • 9 Reply Likes
I bought and use right now Iridient Developer (you may scroll up and see my comparison with LR 5 and 6). Capture One I tried couple of times, but this software demands to deep study and I don't have free time to learn one mor RAW-processing software (because I shoot 25-30 hours a week and need to give the decent result to my clients).
Darktable is free and open-source software. It works great, especially if you chose 5-step demosaic. But it is also demands some time to study it. I know that in net there are blogs where it is explained, how to work with Darktable. I can't give you the link because I speak Russian and I know about one blog which is written in Russian. But I am sure you manage to find. Moreover, Darktable is for Win, Mac and Linux. A friend of mine who is very successful stocker works in Darktable and he says that demosaic is perfect for stock demands.

So, Adobe can't - other manufacturers can. What does it mean? In my opinion, Adobe has got a "star-in-the-forehead" disease and don't give a damn on its clients.
Photo of jimkit

jimkit

  • 45 Posts
  • 9 Reply Likes
Sorry James, but Adobe not working with Fuji is more of an Issue for Fuji than it is for Adobe - they stand to lose far more.

I have heard from many sources that Fuji have given Adobe all the algorythms and data needed, but Adobe don't feel there is benefit in pooling resources into this for Fuji users (instead they make new features like iPhoto 1990 face detection).

And even if that was the case it wouldn't explain why all the other RAW developers are producing better results than Adobe, which really is the issue here.

Adobe does and OK job in the main, but it's obviously not up to the standard of some far smaller softwares written by lone people in bedrooms; and that really is the crux of the problem - Fuji Lightroom users simply want an explanation why this is, or even some comment saying they don't care for Fuji users.

But Adobe just continually fail to respond to this which just exaggerates the issue for consumers, for Fuji and for Adobe.
Photo of Steve Sprengel

Steve Sprengel, Champion

  • 2673 Posts
  • 348 Reply Likes
It is very unlikely Adobe would make negative comments about Fuji or toward Fuji-camera-owners or give hints about their attitude toward revamping Fuji processing--such things could get them into legal trouble as well as affect their stock price.

Adobe is still getting 100,000+ new CC subscribers each month. When improving Fuji support has higher marketing potential for increasing LR's contribution to those CC subscribers than adding new features like facial recognition or a touch-friendly interface maybe it'll be done, right?

I think Adobe has to be careful about using a third-party demosaicking solution like Darktable or dcraw, even if it's free, because at some point it might not be free and then Adobe would owe someone lots of money for using it and if it's open then Adobe would be expected to contribute their improvements which they may not want to do. It's far safer to buy someone else's intellectual property or develop in house, and so far neither of those options have provided superior quality.
Photo of jimkit

jimkit

  • 45 Posts
  • 9 Reply Likes
Consumers just want 2 things.

1) For Lightroom to match (or better) competing RAW processors
2) For Adobe to comment on the issue
Photo of Steve Sprengel

Steve Sprengel, Champion

  • 2673 Posts
  • 348 Reply Likes
For the reasons, above, you're unlikely to get #2 until if and when #1 has occurred.
Photo of jimkit

jimkit

  • 45 Posts
  • 9 Reply Likes
There is no legal reason why they can't comment on their own software. They have the option of simply acknowledging the many users complaining about the issue and have a choice whether they see this as something that needs improving, or whether they see it as something which they are unable or unwilling to focus on.

There is no reason or them not to communicate with their users.