Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Mirrorless Cameras => Topic started by: datro on August 27, 2013, 03:49:20 pm
-
I recently acquired a new Fuji X-E1 and took it on a trip abroad. I love this camera! It's much easier to carry than my Canon gear and produces very good IQ. Now it is time to process my RAF files and I'm wondering what everyone is using for the raw developer. I normally use Lightroom, but I'm reading that maybe there are better developers for the X-Trans sensor. I use Windows so unfortunately Iridient is not an option. Is Silkypix any good compared to Lightroom? What about Capture One? Is Iridient so good in comparison to the others that I should consider acquiring a Mac to run it? Is anyone aware of an in-depth write-up comparison of the available developer software for the X-Trans sensor?
Thanks,
Dave
-
There were problems when the X-trans sensors first came out. Fuji has worked with Adobe to improve the demoasicing of the Fuji files and the results are quite good. I've found no evidence really of the chroma smearing problem using Lightroom. Based on what I've read, it doesn't seem that Silkypix is any better than Adobe products. I think C1 is about the same as the others. Sandy McGuffog has his Accraw product but it's Mac-only. I don't know if Raw Therapee can handle the X-trans files, but it's free so might be worth a look.
-
For my X-Pro 1 I use Lightroom most the the time, but while the conversion is much better than it used to be, it is still far from perfect on occasion.
If I have something I really want to work on, then I use Capture One.
A useful 3 part general discussion here:
http://gambofoto.blogspot.de/2013/04/fuji-x-pro-1-raw-conversions-other-day.html
http://gambofoto.blogspot.de/2013/07/fuji-x-pro-1-and-six-raw-converters.html
http://gambofoto.blogspot.de/2013/08/fuji-x-pro-1-and-raw-converters-part.html
There is also a lot of good discussion, including a whole forum dedicated to post production from x-trans, on the fuji x-forums:
http://www.fujix-forum.com/index.php/index
Hope that helps.
-
Have you tried Lightroom? I've been generally pleased with its raw processing of my Fuji files.
-
I am using the latest version of SilkyPix 5.0.44 and I like it.
I cannot compare to LR though as I don't use LR.
I have also tried Capture 1 and Iridient Developer but in most cases I prefer SilkyPix.
If you are already are a LR user I think it makes sense to just stick with LR and only look for another developer if you are really dissatisfied.
Both Capture One and SilkyPix have trial versions that allow you to use the product for 30 days if you are interested.
-
I am using LR for convenience, but there are still some "watercolor" artifacts if too much sharpening is applied.
Silkypix is slightly better what comes to quality, but it is so slow and the interface so clumsy (and does not have all the goodies LR provides) that I have not used it at all since LR 4.4 came out. Just do not sharpen too much (max 40 on the amount slider, or so).
-
In my personal experience C1 (7.1.3) is the best raw converter for the X-Trans sensor. LR4.4 is pretty much an inferior product, the smearing and sharpness is so poor in ACR. I have not tried any of the Mac only version raw converters, so I can't give a personal opinion.
-
I'm primarily a landscape photographer and I was not happy with the results I was getting with Lightroom 5 and the X-Trans sensor. There are still noticeable artifacts and lack of detail in foliage with ACR when compared to the in-camera jpegs, and the color felt a bit flat.
I tested Iridient and I find the results much more pleasing to my eye - so much so that I purchased the application even though I would prefer an all-Lightroom workflow. After development I import the files into Lightroom as a 16-bit .tif file.
The differences aren't very noticeable on all files, and sometimes Lightroom wins, but I'm glad to have an option that pulls the maximum detail from this sensor.
I've heard good things about Capture One as well, although it's a bit pricey for me.
-
I just did a test with the most recent release of Raw Therapee. It definitely can't handle X-Trans raw files.
-
Thanks everyone for the comments, suggestions and pointers to other discussions. Very helpful. For now I'll move forward with LR5 since that is my current tool, but enough of you commented on C1 giving slightly better results in some cases that I will plan to experiment. I really hate to add complexity (and cost!) to my workflow, but for some images it might be worth it.
Dave
-
There are also a couple of topics here about the same question, one started by me; if you didn't read them you might find more information there also.
With my current LR 4.4 the processing seems to be mostly good. Probably should handle some details better but if you don't print very large it shouldn't be a major thing, makes it look more like film. The main issue for me is color accuracy as it does a poor job with some colors, magenta to red range and it's quite difficult to correct. I guess you can take a test shot and make a profile for scenes you think will be troublesome but I really didn't have the energy or time to do so.
-
I don't see how anyone could miss the watercolor effect even in the latest update to LR. Just shoot anything that has a fine pattern of color and open in both C1 and LR and it's night and day.
Mind you my opinion is highly biased - we teach Capture One classes (https://digitaltransitions.com/event/training) - but I'd be the first to say that C1, LR, Aperture are all very good bits of software. But when it comes to the X-trans sensors I can't imagine not going with C1.
There is a free trial, and depending on your needs you may be able to get away with the "lite" version for $100. Considering the ratio of time you spend in raw processing versus shooting images this seems like a very small sum to pay.
But anyway, there is a free trial, and I have no hesitation in saying that it's at least worth your time to download, learn the very basics of the software, and do your own tests.
-
It's funny I have yet to see the "watercolor" effect on anything I have shot with the Fuji X-E1, in Lightroom 4.4 conversions. After reading all the posts that showed issues, I was a bit concerned, but so far I just don't see it. This is on all Landscape shots, with lots of green and finer details. Watercolor effect IMO tends to be from over process noise reduction and on the Fuji files I have processed out I find I don't any noise reduction much past 3 on the Luminance slider. This is with files shot as raw, iso 200, 400 and 800. I do use the extra Dynamic range settings for both iso 400 and 800.
I have used both Capture One and LR.4.4 on my files and can't say either one is better than the other, as each has unique features I like. Capture One's lack of plug-in support is a big issue for me, as I am a big users of the Nik suite and some of the Topaz products.
With LR I will have problems at times on "pine needles", again not a watercolor look but just overall lack of details. Where as on other green leave, Oak, Maple, Hickory, no problems. Capture one does do better on this subject. I will also use the "creative sharpening" set of algorithms from photokit on some of the output on both the Lightroom and Capture One files. Lots of good tools there.
I believe that neither LR or Capture have any lens profiles, and it would be nice to see these added, at least for the 14mm and 18-55mm. Both tools also seem to have only one color profile to pick from (this is pretty standard with Capture One) but on Lightroom on many cameras LR offers several different profiles to try out.
Coming from the Sony Nex-7, I have to say I am just totally amazed by this camera and the results. DR is close to that of the D800e especially in shadows. Noise is just non-existent in files taken up to iso 800, and even 1600 and 2500 are very clean.
I just started to use the X-E1 for night work and overall I was very pleased with the results, clean files and very few stuck pixels, but I do expect this to change over time (stuck pixels). There are several non-branded remotes that offer interval and longer times so it works well in my stacking methodology.
I only wish that this camera had a iso base of 100 for raw (don't understand this) but it's been an issue with Fuji ever since the old S2.
For sure the silkypix's software that comes with the camera is pretty worthless overall.
Paul Caldwell
-
It's funny I have yet to see the "watercolor" effect on anything I have shot with the Fuji X-E1, in Lightroom 4.4 conversions.
I tend to not see the "watercoloring" unless I underexpose, and using the higher DR settings of 200% and 400% in camera almost always generates this artifact for me to some extent.
It's not a Windows solution, but I find Aperture has been working better than ACR/CS6 after various updates that seem to include fixes for .RAF handling. All I do is exposure and white balance adjustments in Aperture, and then finish editing in CS6. It seems to require less tweaking to get the initially imported Xtrans II file to a usable state.
-
I have used both Capture One and LR.4.4 on my files and can't say either one is better than the other, as each has unique features I like. Capture One's lack of plug-in support is a big issue for me, as I am a big users of the Nik suite and some of the Topaz products.
Don't disagree with anything you've said, Paul.
I would add Iridient Developer to the C1/LR5 combo I'm using right now. The latest ID 2.2 seems to be a definite step-up. ID has a checkbox for lens profiles, with various options but no lens profiles other than 'Use Source Image Metadata' and an option to 'Load from LCP file ..'. Anyone have any input on lens profiles and LCP files (whatever they are) ?
-
The Fuji files contain the lens correction information in the file header, it is an EXIF field, I believe the Olympus does this as well. Lightroom and C1 both use this information and apply the lens correction automatically, that is why there are no lens profiles, none are needed. If you try to convert a file use DCRAW you can see the difference as DCRAW does not apply the lens correction. Iridident only recently added support for that feature from what I have read.
Alan
-
The Fuji files contain the lens correction information in the file header, it is an EXIF field,..Lightroom and C1 both use this information and apply the lens correction automatically, that is why there are no lens profiles, none are needed... Iridident only recently added support for that feature from what I have read.
Alan, thank you.
I was aware of the C1/LR auto correction and assumed Iridient also, but have never heard of LCP profiles. Any idea what they are ?
M
-
Another thing that I've noticed and I don't think it's just my imagination is that it doesn't do as well as my D90 in underexposed shadow areas when I try to compensate in post by more than 0.5-1 EV, gets noisy faster.
-
... it doesn't do as well as my D90 in underexposed shadow areas when I try to compensate in post by more than 0.5-1 EV, gets noisy faster.
Armand,
What are you using ? Out of curiosity, I did a quick check in LR5 and though my shots tend to be more 'street' with the XE-1 ( I dial-in +0.3EC, recover highlights and increase contrast to taste) I can't say I've noticed any excessive increase in noise - and that's up to +1.5EV - that isn't marginally correctable via LR's built-in noise reduction.
ps can't comment in comparison to the D90 - don't have one.
-
I do pretty much the same thing as Manoli, shooting at +1/3 exposure compensation most of the time, then pulling back highlights in Lightroom. But when the files are underexposed, which happens for me sometimes when shooting in very dark rooms with small bright sources (someone's living room, for example), I find I'm able to push the exposure well over a stop without any issues, even at very high ISO values.
In all seriousness, perhaps my expectations and standards are lower.... but I'm pretty happy with my Fuji system after several months.
-
Alan, thank you.
I was aware of the C1/LR auto correction and assumed Iridient also, but have never heard of LCP profiles. Any idea what they are ?
M
LCP are just Lens Correction Profiles, they are embedded in the Fuji raw files for Fuji and Zeiss lenses and some m-mount Leica lenses via the Fuji M-adapter. Obviously adapted lenses will not have built in profiles and the Samyang lenses do not have profiles.
You can create your own LCP's via Adobes DNG lens profile creator, you can download from Adobe Labs, it is basically photographing a grid from different angles and letting Adobe's software measure and estimate the lens correction from the images you took with the pattern. This works for any lens but can be time consuming and depending on your skills be difficult.
Alan
-
Alan, many thanks.
-
I would add Iridient Developer to the C1/LR5 combo I'm using right now. The latest ID 2.2 seems to be a definite step-up.
I would agree with that. I wasn't entirely convinced with 2.1 but 2.2 seems to be more pleasing.
But when it comes to the X-trans sensors I can't imagine not going with C1.
C1 definitely is a contender but in my opinion does not stand out from the others.
-
Alan:
I am curious on the automatic application of the Lens correction profiles as at least with LR 5 and 4.4 no vignetting correction seems to be applied. I have worked several different series now taken the the 18-55 @ 18mm and most times no vignetting correction is being applied. With Canon and Nikon lens if you pick the specific lens and use the auto function a vignetting correction is also applied (not always perfect but at least a start) along with distortion.
Also LR lists the Fuji X-100, with it's fixed lens, which is why I assumed that LR only had worked up profiles for the X-100, and non of the X-1pro etc and lenses. Looking back on Capture one work, I do notice on the same file less vignetting so it must be seeing something.
Curious also what the Fuji meta has that LR sees, which is different than say a Canon or Nikon as they also write all the lens info to the metadata. Tried to google this, but came up empty.
Thanks
Paul Caldwell
-
Curious also what the Fuji meta has that LR sees, which is different than say a Canon or Nikon as they also write all the lens info to the metadata. Tried to google this, but came up empty.
Not that I have any idea what the data means, but this is a screenshot (courtesy of Jeffrey Friedl's Metadata Viewer) which I suspect applies the lens correction parameters.
-
Alan:
I am curious on the automatic application of the Lens correction profiles as at least with LR 5 and 4.4 no vignetting correction seems to be applied. I have worked several different series now taken the the 18-55 @ 18mm and most times no vignetting correction is being applied. With Canon and Nikon lens if you pick the specific lens and use the auto function a vignetting correction is also applied (not always perfect but at least a start) along with distortion.
Also LR lists the Fuji X-100, with it's fixed lens, which is why I assumed that LR only had worked up profiles for the X-100, and non of the X-1pro etc and lenses. Looking back on Capture one work, I do notice on the same file less vignetting so it must be seeing something.
Curious also what the Fuji meta has that LR sees, which is different than say a Canon or Nikon as they also write all the lens info to the metadata. Tried to google this, but came up empty.
Thanks
Paul Caldwell
Paul,
I have never looked into the actual values in the metadata. I have compared the images before and after lens correction by using dcraw and comparing with lightroom. There is a difference and it is slight on on the vignette correction. I believe that Eric Chan stated in the LuLa video that was the update to the LR4 videos that they do apply the data but maybe not full strength. I am pretty sure that is what I remember I will have to go back and look. Vignetting is easy to correct using ACR or LR and also C1.
I don't believe that Canon and Nikon write lens correction information, they have data about the lens settings and focus point but not correction. Olympus is one that writes the data and Eric mentioned that as well in the video interview.
Alan
-
I believe that Eric Chan stated in the LuLa video that was the update to the LR4 videos that they do apply the data but maybe not full strength. I am pretty sure that is what I remember I will have to go back and look.
Alan: You are correct. Eric talks about 4/3rds, and other mirrorless cameras which enable LR to read the lens data. It is on the LR 4 Update video titled "Eric Chan Interview Part 1" and starts at the 7:18 mark.
Mark
-
Many of the mirrorless models do have metadata-driven lens corrections. In the case of vignetting and distortion, these corrections are often a bit conservative (i.e., they tend to undercorrect, rather than correct fully).
-
Thanks to Alan, and others who answered this.
I wasn't aware of this process being done under the covers. Based on my results LR is doing a bit more heavy lifting on the Canon and Nikon preset lens profiles. So far I am not too impressed with the results on the 18-55 in this regard. LR in the past has always been tack on with default vignetting corrections from the LCP's that are fixed. On the Fuji, it's not very accurate and in fact tend to over correct in the opposite direction.
Paul Caldwell
-
While a total newbie to this forum, I feel pressured to add a comment.
I recently bought an X-E2 (having got tired of lugging my heavy Pentax DSLR around while out trekking, etc). Though I love my Pentax, I am blown away by the quality of the X-E2 files (all Raw).
I spent a significant amount of time looking for a suitable converter. While I really love my LR 4.x, I have a problem at the moment with Adobe's CC plans, so have looked for alternatives (I am a PC, Win 7 user). Photo Ninja has some nice features, but I could find no way to do copy/paste of edits, so this was out. For financial reasons, I selected Capture One Express 7 (really great range of first-rate options, very well presented & easy to use) as I did not need the extras for the Pro version.
What followed was a nightmare - I was totally unable to activate my purchase, despite multiple attempts and numerous emails to Support. They ended up suggesting that I disable my firewall & antivirus software before trying the activation process again! Whoa, hello, why must I do such a stupid thing, something that I have never ever had to do before? Needless to say, I have now requested a full refund, & would to raise a minor alarm about this problem for other potential purchasers.
As a result, I have gone back to the SilkyPix which came with the camera. While not particularly friendly or easy to use, I have got wonderful results by using this to simply produce my tif file, then have continued the editing with an older version of Photoshop or LR - miles better than the C1 files. My thinking is that Fuji have helped & worked with these guys (who I have previously avoided, having LR) because they have been able to generate the best demosaicing algorithm for their X-trans files. Once I have a great quality tif, I can do whatever I want afterwards. I have been astounded at the sharpness of my edited file (with a little help from Topaz Detail) - examples available if anyone wants to see them.
While this process is more time-consuming than LR alone, the quality of the result more than justifies it - I am gob-smacked!
-
As a result, I have gone back to the SilkyPix which came with the camera. While not particularly friendly or easy to use, I have got wonderful results by using this to simply produce my tif file, then have continued the editing with an older version of Photoshop or LR - miles better than the C1 files. My thinking is that Fuji have helped & worked with these guys (who I have previously avoided, having LR) because they have been able to generate the best demosaicing algorithm for their X-trans files. Once I have a great quality tif, I can do whatever I want afterwards. I have been astounded at the sharpness of my edited file (with a little help from Topaz Detail) - examples available if anyone wants to see them.
While this process is more time-consuming than LR alone, the quality of the result more than justifies it - I am gob-smacked!
I don't disagree with you. I used SilkyPix 3 and CS5 initially. While the user interface is retarded I thought as a raw converter it worked quite well.
I then bought a license for SilkyPix 5. The user interface is definitely not perfect but it is better than version 3.
I eventually switched over to Iridient Developer and CS5 because with version 2.2 I thought Iridient got it right.