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 James Whitehouse

James Whitehouse

  • 17 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
I bought an X-T1 again, and tried running the same files through LR and Iridient. The difference is unbelievable, frankly. I will post some images later on, but I will say my own, subjective, conclusion is that it is more than just a sharpening problem - there appears to be more detail de-mosaiced in the Iridient file to begin with, detail which doesn't appear to be there for LR to sharpen in it's own rendering.

I don't actually like having another RAW developer in the workflow, though, and would prefer to work with just LR. At the moment, for landscape work at least on x-trans, I find this is simply not an acceptable option. How long have Adobe had to get on top of this now? Three years? Four? Whereas a standalone developer who designed Iridient has nailed it. Couldn't you just employ the guy and have done with it?
Photo of jimkit

jimkit

  • 45 Posts
  • 9 Reply Likes
Thanks for the input James, please do post some photos, JPEGS & RAWS preferably.

Are you using LR 6? For me that's even worse, opening files and basic editing takes forever.

Adobe really have lost touch with it's customers, still not even commenting despite this being the third most popular problem in the entire feedback forum.

Makes one wonder what the point of the forum is to be honest.
Photo of Darius Kupczak

Darius Kupczak

  • 5 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
Good news. fujirumors.com posted, that Adobe will improve X-Trans support.

http://www.fujirumors.com/adobe-says-...
Photo of jimkit

jimkit

  • 45 Posts
  • 9 Reply Likes
Finally the hard work paid off, Adobe have today confirmed they are working on improving Fuji X Trans RAW files.

From the Lightroom June update release notes.

In collaboration with Fujifilm, we are still investigating methods to improve fine detail rendering and overall edge definition.

https://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjour...
Photo of Marat Mukhametshin

Marat Mukhametshin

  • 4 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
That sounds very encouraging! I dicscovered, that sticking to other RAW-development SW by means of exporting to TIFF and opening the file in PS chews up my time. My workflow is completely broken.
Photo of Aleksei Isachenko

Aleksei Isachenko

  • 34 Posts
  • 9 Reply Likes
Well, now we know that Adobe is working under improvement of rendering x-trans RAWs. And also we know, that in todays update of LR 6.1 is nothing improved yet.
Photo of Michael Fleck

Michael Fleck

  • 17 Posts
  • 9 Reply Likes
That News means, it will take another 3 years from now until we see some improvements... :/
Photo of Aleksei Isachenko

Aleksei Isachenko

  • 34 Posts
  • 9 Reply Likes
I hope a little less, may be 2 years and a half ;)
Photo of Denis de Gannes

Denis de Gannes

  • 24 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
I understand the concern as I have been shooting raw since 2004.

Adobe is a third party supplier of software for rendering raw files from digital cameras, Lightroom and Adobe Camera Raw. If Adobe's rendition of the file data from your particular camera model does not satisfy your taste, why is this a critical problem? There are at least a dozen other providers of software that can match or improve on their rendition, including the software provided by the camera manufacturer.

Choose the one that satisfies your needs, convert your raw files to tiff files and do further work on them with Adobe Products.
Photo of Maxxxx

Maxxxx

  • 5 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
I don't see how this is helpful. I am sure Adobe is interested in knowing that their products don't work well for certain cameras.
Photo of jimkit

jimkit

  • 45 Posts
  • 9 Reply Likes
Denis - are you joking?

"If Adobe's rendition of the file data from your particular camera model does not satisfy your taste, why is this a critical problem?"

Let's imagine you drive a Toyota. Let's also imagine where you live there is just one petrol station, it's the only petrol station in a 50 mile radius. Naturally you and many of the folk in your town have been using this station every day for several years, until one day the station decides to stop providing premium petrol like everyone else and instead they start selling petrol of less quality than other suppliers.

What's worse is that this petrol really doesn't work nicely with Toyota's - it causes them to splutter, loses acceleration, and create a lot of smelly fumes.

What would you do?

The participants of this forum would request that the petrol station rectify this and improve the quality of petrol. You are the only one who would change their car.
Photo of James Whitehouse

James Whitehouse

  • 17 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
OK, here is a little comparison, as promised. LR CC (latest update) vs Iridient (latest version). I tried to get the best sharpening I possibly could in LR (100% detail method, Radius 1.0, Amount 40, no masking, no luminance or colour NR) any more than this didn't help actual acuity, just looked more exaggerated and painterly in the fine detailed foliage mid-scene.

Iridient wasn't maxed out by any means at all. Settings were - V3 Detail+ X-Trans, Method-Iridient Reveal, Radius 0.75, Edge Detail Landscape/Strong 150, Texture/Micro detail 15, Edge Masking 0. No noise reduction. This produced a file which might look a little crisp on screen, but was print ready (and indeed produced a lovely, natural looking A2 print). The LR print didn't offer any more real sharpening even at print stage, just nothing more there to work from.

Sorry, didn't work out how to downscale the file-size to post a meaningful 100% crop here, so hope it's OK to just link to a file on my photobucket account? 100% view of a larger file in PS side by side. LR rendering on left, Iridient on right.

http://s122.photobucket.com/user/jame...

[edit: click on the magnifying glass to open a 100% view in browser].
Photo of Jason Huxman

Jason Huxman

  • 2 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
Am following this thread with great interest as I have used Lightroom CC for my RAW's since I acquired my Fuji X-E2. I just recently downloaded a trial version of Capture One Pro 8 and am astounded at how much better the sharpening is in Capture One verses Lightroom. Here's another vote for Adobe to improve their X-trans support.
Photo of H108X-M1

H108X-M1

  • 1 Post
  • 1 Reply Like
This thread is very important. Adobe, please read this and act.

I'm a new owner of Fujifilm X-M1, upgrading from X-A1. I was so surprised to find out that I have to use a free minor program, RawTherapee to get the details out of my RAF files. My workflow used to go through Adobe Camera Raw but not anymore!
If you want me back, please get your software on par with competition by providing competitive X-Trans RAW support!
Photo of Federico Montag

Federico Montag

  • 1 Post
  • 0 Reply Likes
Nice point, the fact that an open-source software does a much better job than multi-billion Adobe is embarassing.
Photo of Retro Fokus

Retro Fokus

  • 4 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
Glad I found this thread before making the switch to Fujifilm. Hopefully Adobe will pull their corporate act together and provide RAW processing worthy of the X-Trans sensor. If Adobe doesn't, I'll make the switch nonetheless, and then proceed to throw the Adobe baby out with the bathwater in the same instant. I am the consumer, I wield power! Or so they (who?) say...
Photo of James Whitehouse

James Whitehouse

  • 17 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
I have recently been using Capture One for X-Trans, and found it a great compromise between the Adobe workflow and file management, and the better detail rendering of Iridient.

If you try C1, be sure to drag the luminance and colour NR sliders to 0, but leave detail slider where it is. I find the default sharpening with a level of 200 works well. The colour correction wheels in C1 are just awesome, by the way, and I like the default colour profiles much better than Adobe.

None of this is to say I don't want Adobe to fix this in LR, but for now there are valid alternatives.
Photo of Mike-Photos

Mike-Photos

  • 60 Posts
  • 7 Reply Likes
The problem is that C1 is not as powerful as C1 as regards auto masking, and I use it a lot in LR. It doesn't look like C1 are ever going to add full support for the X-Trans files.
Photo of James Whitehouse

James Whitehouse

  • 17 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Sorry, you confused me now. Do you mean LR or C1 won't add full support? C1 supports X-Trans as fully as any other camera.
Photo of Mike-Photos

Mike-Photos

  • 60 Posts
  • 7 Reply Likes
C1 does not support auto masking on X-trans files, and they have no plans to do so. Auto masking is available for most, if not all, other cameras.
So, no, they do NOT fully support X-trans files.
I think there are more limitations as well, I can't remember what they are.
Photo of Mike-Photos

Mike-Photos

  • 60 Posts
  • 7 Reply Likes
Here's another one, C1 does not support graphics processing with X-trans files, so processing is much slower than with other formats.
Also, does not support lens correction tool with X-trans files, so if you use non-Fuji lenses you can't make adjustments.
Photo of James Whitehouse

James Whitehouse

  • 17 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
I didn't know that about auto-masking an X-trans, thanks for clarifying. Maybe there are additional overheads involved, x-trans does seem to be a little harder to demosaic, etc. In any case, I still prefer the overall look of my files when I process Fuji through C1.
Photo of Marat Mukhametshin

Marat Mukhametshin

  • 4 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Dear fujiguys, I've compared the RAW conversion from the old and the fresh bugfixed LR CC 6.2 version and I found there is no apparent changes in X-Trans RAW processing, i.e. the images still have the mentioned drawbacks. If you observe the opposite please give us know here.

According to the changelog https://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjour... there is no info about X-Trans optimization as well.
Photo of Aleksei Isachenko

Aleksei Isachenko

  • 34 Posts
  • 9 Reply Likes
What I've noticed is a little better result in shooting close-up portraits at closed aperture and not so good result at open apertures:
Lightroom vs Iridient

and
Photo of diego lythgoe

diego lythgoe

  • 3 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
But who's to be blamed really? Fuji's own jpeg renderings are not much better than LR's


Particularly when compared with the same image taken with a Ricoh GR...

Photo of jimkit

jimkit

  • 45 Posts
  • 9 Reply Likes
It's totally irrelevant how good or bad Fuji Jpegs are when what's being discussed (and complained about) is the comparison of Adobe RAW to Iridient, Aperture, Capture One, Photo Ninja etc etc and how Adobe are producing the worst results of the lot.
Photo of verbaud

verbaud

  • 10 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
I'd also like to note that the compared jpgs look wholly similar. It's the DNG vs RAF that stands out. That RAF displays the "oil painting" look we are all so familiar with. It's awful. 
Photo of Jeroen Mentens

Jeroen Mentens

  • 9 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
I recently bought a XT10 with a bunch of lenses and only noticed the Adobe-demosaicing problem afterwards :-(

Any news from Adobe on this topic?

I'm currently using LR CC 2015.2.1 and it's giving me weird demosaicing.
A look I've often seen refered to as "water color effect".

Example:


Looking at an image at 33% makes it look fine, but what's the point then of having 16MPix?
Photo of Howard Dickson

Howard Dickson

  • 19 Posts
  • 9 Reply Likes
As a long time Lightroom user, and small time LR tutor, I am delighted to see that version CC/6.3 was released today, fixing most of the bugs and Import process issues, after the furore from seasoned users.

It is also a huge disappointment that I still cannot get acceptable results from my Fuji x100t when raw converted in LR. Is there an actual response from Adobe to give us TransX users a timeline when we might expect to see this issue resolved. I shouldn't have to use other software to get reasonable RAW conversion and work outwith my normal workflow. It's been well documented for long enough... Adobe?
Photo of bill bane

bill bane

  • 1 Post
  • 0 Reply Likes
Adobe has history of being arrogant SOB's. They think their current monopoly is impregnable, and this is incorrect. The shouts of happiness will be deafening when their castle crumbles.
Photo of d4ger

d4ger

  • 3 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
i made the change to C1
Photo of James

James

  • 2 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Adobe, it'd be nice to have another update. 9 months ago you said you were working with Fujifilm - please could we know how you're getting on? When we could expect to see an improvement? We won't go on paying monthly Creative Cloud subscriptions forever in the hope you deliver on this! Thanks.
Photo of Rog Ber

Rog Ber

  • 3 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Adobe are totally ignorant of their customers - 2 years and no reply from them despite this being in the top 5 problems on the consumer > developer forum.

I waited a whole year and gave up and sold my Lightroom and now use Capture 1.

Screw  Adobe and their attitude to customers. 
(Edited)
Photo of Jason Huxman

Jason Huxman

  • 2 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
I went all in learning Lightroom and love it, but also went all in with Fuji.  Love the Fuji files more than LIghtroom though, so seriously looking at Capture 1 as I downloaded the trial and was blown away by how much better the sharpening is with Capture 1.
Photo of Rog Ber

Rog Ber

  • 3 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
You won't regret it - after all, Capture 1 care about customers and Adobe don't. It really is as simple as that. They are too busy wondering why their stock value has been falling since December.
Photo of t.linn

t.linn

  • 16 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
Capture One Pro 9 is definitely superior to LR6 in terms of both X-Trans rendering and color rendering. It also has some very powerful features that LR lacks. That said, it is also missing some functionality that seems so obvious it is maddening. No history panel, for example. What the heck, Phase One? No plug-in architecture either.

To be fair, LR is far more full featured as an asset manager. It will allow you to view more file types, has very good geotagging functionality, and has an awesome print engine. So even though I use C1 for RAW processing, I use LR for asset management and printing. It is unfortunate that I can no longer just rely on an LR-PS combination for my editing needs but now that I'm used to C1's IQ, Adobe would really have to raise the bar to get me to abandon C1.
Photo of Maxxxx

Maxxxx

  • 5 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Personally I think LR is better C1 in all aspects but one. The only aspect it's behind is image quality for Fuji files. This  is quite a major problem for an image processing software  :-). 
(Edited)
Photo of Aleksei Isachenko

Aleksei Isachenko

  • 34 Posts
  • 9 Reply Likes
I bought Iridient Developer and for already two years I am happy with sharpness and in general demozaic of Fuji RAWs. Brian - the chief developer said that in several weeks he will launch a beta version of Iridient for Windows users.
In my opinion Iridient is very easy and powerfull RAW converter.

I would stopped my CC subscription, but I still need Photoshop. Alresdy try Affinity as a Photoshop replacement, but it is not so advanced as PS :(
Photo of verbaud

verbaud

  • 10 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
In what respect do you think that Affinity is not up to par with PS? 
Photo of Rog Ber

Rog Ber

  • 3 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Lightroom is the superior cataloging and organising tool, but it's quickly falling behind on actual image editing and producing professional quality output for print. I think they are just focused on it being a database for your photos, with the image editing side of it being hugely neglected.

That's opened the door for others such as Photo Ninja, Iridient etc.
Photo of David Stevenson

David Stevenson

  • 3 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
This reply was created from a merged topic originally titled I recently acquired a Fujifilm X-Pro 2.

Lightroom's handling of X-Trans files has always been poor, but since getting the X-Pro2 with 24mp, file importation, preview generation and scrolling between files has become terribly slow.  I discovered that generating 1:1 previews helps moving between files (I used to use standard preview) but Lr's handling of X-Trans files is simply subpar. 

I recently downloaded a trial version of Capture One and was amazed to discover how quickly it imports files and generates previews.  Five times faster, eight times faster?  I don't know but it makes Lr look amateurish in comparison.  The fuji files also look considerably better in Capture One, not in all cases but often enough to make me question my continued use of Adobe products.

I have the CC Photography plan but seldom use Photoshop.  While I'm used to Lr and like many of its features, I'm seriously considering cancelling CC and switching to Capture One.  

I recall Adobe saying several times over the years that they will improve their support for X-Trans, and there has been some improvement in raw conversion, but the overall handling and speed with the files is poor and with the larger file sizes, getting worse not better.  

Will Adobe ever rectify the issues with X-Trans or not?
Photo of Andreas März

Andreas März

  • 22 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
It's time for process version 2016 . Hopefully there will be an improvement - as Adobe promised.
Photo of David Stevenson

David Stevenson

  • 3 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
Agreed!  It's well past time.  
Photo of verbaud

verbaud

  • 10 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
Have you guys tried using Affinity Photo? For as much as I use PS *cloning/clone stamp/repair etc.. * Affinity Photo does an equally good job. If only Adobe would sub LR for $4.00 a month without PS, that would be a great combo. 
Photo of David Nogol

David Nogol

  • 8 Posts
  • 3 Reply Likes
This reply was created from a merged topic originally titled Bad support for Fujifilm raw files - slow and without details.

I love Lightroom - it's perfect tool for my workflow. But since day I started shooting with Fujifilm (model X-E2, but it is the same for all current Fujifilm X cameras), working with Fuji raws in Lightroom is painful. Import and export are terribly slow (slower than bigger raws from cameras like Nikon D800). I am working with lot of raws, so this speed issue is really problem for me. I want to know if there is a plan from Adobe to optimise Fuji raw processing?

Another issue is well known small details rendering. This is no big issue for me, but another applications for raw developing can render far more and better details from Fuji raw files. So it will be great if Adobe can improve it.