Camera Raw/Lightroom: Fuji X-Trans Support?

  • 190
  • Problem
  • Updated 3 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 Stephen Dixon

Stephen Dixon

  • 0 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Out of interest, have any of you come across this method for using LR detail slider to obtain Deconvolution sharpening that claims to be as good as Irident Developer? See http://petebridgwood.com/wp/2014/10/x... and comments from various people who have tried it out (in particular on images other than landscapes) at http://www.luminous-landscape.com/for...
Haven't tried it out myself yet, but will be a huge relief to me if I can do everything within LR and not have to learn a new program/workflow and pay for additional software.

Interested to hear your thoughts if you've tried this out on portraits.
Photo of Andreas März

Andreas März

  • 22 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
I've tried to increase the detail slider to 100 and use a small amount value. I've also tried the values suggested in the mentioned articles. But in my case the results have been worse.

My default settings for the XT-1 are:
Amount: 35
Radius: 1,6 (I know that's quite much)
Details: 45
Masking: 30 (Depending on the subject)
Photo of Aleksei Isachenko

Aleksei Isachenko

  • 34 Posts
  • 9 Reply Likes
On the left is Iridient, on the right is Lightroom
Photo of Aleksei Isachenko

Aleksei Isachenko

  • 34 Posts
  • 9 Reply Likes
Iridient gives more smooth gradients while LR gives rough and dirty picture.
Photo of diego lythgoe

diego lythgoe

  • 3 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
can you provide an example?
Photo of john mclaughlin

john mclaughlin

  • 1 Post
  • 0 Reply Likes
iridient developer is the way to go, then just use lightroom to catalog your images, capture one pro produces great images but is way too cumbersome in my book, not to mention 300.00. seems like the latest update was just "more of the same"
Photo of Andreas März

Andreas März

  • 22 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
XTrans Sharpening in LR 5.7 seems better to me than in 5.6.
Is it the placebo of the new version or is there really an improvement???
Photo of d4ger

d4ger

  • 3 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
I see no change
Photo of Hakkalgui

Hakkalgui

  • 1 Post
  • 0 Reply Likes
I'm new to the X100T and Xtrans sensors in general. But I can say definitively from my own experience that the RAW conversion problem in LR 5.7 and Camera Raw in general has not been fixed. In fact I'm finding the results so poor as to render the images useless when processed by Lightroom, even with high levels of sharpening applied.

See the example below. The detail crop on the left is a RAW file processed by Iridient Developer, and by Lightroom 5.7 on the right. Each is displayed at 100% scale.



I have years invested in LR both as a catalog for image archive spanning 13 years of digital imagery, but also as my RAW conversion and editing package. At this stage I will probably sell my X100T due the inability to maintain my existing image editing workflow with Lightroom and Photoshop.
Photo of Arne Junker

Arne Junker

  • 2 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
This reply was created from a merged topic originally titled Improvement for Fuji XT-1 RAW files and Fujifilm lenses.

Hey guys, I love to work with Lightroom as it complements my professional workflow. Yet, I started shooting with the Fuji X-T1 in addition to my Nikon kit and I have the impression Lightroom could do better. Please improve the RAW rendering of Fuji RAW files and please include the lens profiles for the lens correction, as well.
Photo of Michael Fleck

Michael Fleck

  • 17 Posts
  • 9 Reply Likes
The Lens Correction Data is embedded in The Raw File. You don't Need extra Lens Profiles oft you use Original Fuji Lenses.
Photo of Andreas März

Andreas März

  • 22 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Yes, Adobe could do a bit better here.
Fuji's sensor is really great but Adobe needs to improve demosaicing and sharpening.
I hope this wil be addressed in LR6.
Photo of Michael Fischer

Michael Fischer

  • 1 Post
  • 0 Reply Likes
i pay every month for adobe. so please fix this!
Photo of Michael Fleck

Michael Fleck

  • 17 Posts
  • 9 Reply Likes
you should stop paying and quit adobe. they are unable to fix this. this issue persists for 2 years now.

wake up. they don't fix this.

fujis x-trans sensor is not important enough for them.

if you get familiar with capture one, you will laugh about lightroom.

another example: DXO. the do not support x-trans, because they are honest and want to do it right. ... "and this takes time..."

i like to call everybody here in the forum to quit adobe and stop throwing money in their throat. switch to another software. lightroom is not worth the money and your precious time!
Photo of Peter Davison

Peter Davison

  • 1 Post
  • 1 Reply Like
Yeah, I'm sick of waiting for this too. Switching to iridient.
Photo of Jim Dobbins

Jim Dobbins

  • 1 Post
  • 0 Reply Likes
I use LR and love it. I've switched from Canon to the Fuji X family. Generally I find the results of LR conversions to be acceptable. That said I would like to see LR conversions improved as I don't want to complicate my workflow with using other converters.

Oh and kudos to Adobe and the Lightroom team for the Fuji film style emulation profiles.
Photo of Michael Fleck

Michael Fleck

  • 17 Posts
  • 9 Reply Likes
@ Jim Dobbins: i don't like "acceptable" Quality for my outstanding Fujifilm X-Trans Images.

LR has a good workflow, for sure. LR has some good points. but the most important point should be Image Quality. They fail in so many ways in that point.

too bad...
Photo of Andreas März

Andreas März

  • 22 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
It would be acceptable if Adobe improved this with a new process version. Hopefully LR6 will have this new process version.

Lightroom has it's strengths in comparison to C1 - for example highlight recovery. Please improve detail rendering with Xtrans sensors.
Photo of Aleksei Isachenko

Aleksei Isachenko

  • 34 Posts
  • 9 Reply Likes
I also wait for LR6 and hope, there will be significant improvements in processing of x-trans RAWs. But now I purchased a license for Iridient Developer and can say, that this is very good software for our needs.
Photo of Andreas März

Andreas März

  • 22 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
I've read that there is an official statement from Adobe that this would be improved in LR6. Unfortunately I cannot remember where I read this.
Photo of Mark Kinsman

Mark Kinsman

  • 2 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Plus one on Adobe needing to address the x-trans issue. Great cameras, irridient does do a noticeably better job of processing. I've incorporated it into my workflow now. Watching other companies software offerings and will abandon LR if one comes along that offers some of the module features. Just listened to a podcast about Corel's offering for images that sounds great for an interface, but I don't know if they support the x-trans.
Photo of Andreas März

Andreas März

  • 22 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Do you mean Corel AfterShot Pro?
Its image quality is awful - I used it several months for my Nikon Cameras.
Lightroom is lightyears ahead. Noise reduction and highlight reconstruction are just a joke.
Photo of David Christy

David Christy

  • 1 Post
  • 0 Reply Likes
I would like Adobe to make a statement on fixing the Fuji X RAW files. Adobe, can you please address this problem.
Photo of Ulrich Callmeier

Ulrich Callmeier

  • 1 Post
  • 0 Reply Likes
I would appreciate a statement as well.
Photo of jimkit

jimkit

  • 45 Posts
  • 9 Reply Likes
A simple acknowledgement would go a long way - but I started this thread 5 months ago and nothing. However it's building all the time so I still hope Adobe will reward our loyalty and patience with an acknowledgement.
Photo of ARTHUR ESCOBADO

ARTHUR ESCOBADO

  • 2 Posts
  • 3 Reply Likes
Please Adobe, let's improve Lightroom's (and Bridge's) X-Trans processing.
Photo of Larry Clark

Larry Clark

  • 3 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
I'm of the opinion that Adobe is fully aware of the problems, knows how to solve them, and has decided that this is as far as they go. My guess is that the problem is the time it takes to process X-Trans files to the level that some ask for. Adobe's worry is that if they go to that level (and which Adobe already has built an equivalent -- somewhere) the complaints will start streaming in from LR users about how long it takes to process each image file. The users that are "really serious" have integrated other RAW processors into their workflow -- so problem solved there.

I've been using Photo Ninja since the Beta that included X-Trans support and it is linked to PhotoShop (I rarely use LR and use my own filing/cataloging approach). I know that you get a better file using Photo Ninja, but the files do take longer to process.
Photo of jimkit

jimkit

  • 45 Posts
  • 9 Reply Likes
You have things backwards. Those that are really serious have invested many years and hours in the Adobe eco system of tools and they are the ones who have stayed with Lightroom hoping and waiting for improvements.

It;s the enthusiast with just a few thousand photos who is able to jump ship to pastures new; not the professionals who have large catalogues.
Photo of Larry Clark

Larry Clark

  • 3 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
I have over 220,000 image files on my main photo drive. The only thing I had to change for X-Trans files was the association for the RAW processor. When Photo Ninja is done, the image is instantly available in Photoshop. I understand that you can also do that with LR.
Photo of t.linn

t.linn

  • 16 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
LR offers an advantage no other product does in terms of its integration with PS. You can maintain a complete end-to-end non-destructive editing workflow by exporting from LR to PS as a smart object. That is aside from the issues of catalog management created by using different processors—not that it can't be done but what a hassle.

Now if one didn't use a managed catalog, didn't employ smart objects, and maintained master files as "developed" TIF files (for example), then switching between processors would be a trivial thing. There is nothing wrong with this workflow if it works for you but it is less sophisticated and less flexible than the former.
Photo of Andreas März

Andreas März

  • 22 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Okay, then they could let the user choose if he wants the fast or the high quality algorithm. A single option field would solve that problem.
Photo of Larry Clark

Larry Clark

  • 3 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Yes. That makes sense. But it also requires a bit of corporate courage. Can you see them giving you two choices?

(a) Good
(b) Good Enough for Facebook