Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5]   Go Down

Author Topic: Fuji vs Nikon  (Read 19289 times)

Telecaster

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2495
Re: Fuji vs Nikon
« Reply #80 on: January 07, 2015, 05:50:12 PM »

I am OK with the X-Trans sensor as such but I do understand that a lot of people only want to use LR (I use Iridient) and the fact that LR after 3 years is still not supporting Fuji X optimally is and remains an issue for Fuji, whatever way you look at it.

This feeds back into the idiocy of "proprietary" RAW data formats. If I were Fuji I'd simply offer my X-trans demosiacing code to anyone who wanted to use it. No strings attached.

-Dave-
Logged

StephaneB

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 123
    • http://www.lumieredargent.com
Re: Fuji vs Nikon
« Reply #81 on: January 16, 2015, 01:17:13 PM »

This feeds back into the idiocy of "proprietary" RAW data formats. If I were Fuji I'd simply offer my X-trans demosiacing code to anyone who wanted to use it. No strings attached.

-Dave-

They did exactly that to Adobe, I think. I find that LightRoom gets results that are very close to the camera jpeg files. Problem is, there is more to get from the files. And no, Capture One does not do an optimal job. It is readily apparent when you see what Photo Ninja and Rawtherapee can do.
 
Logged

Stéphane

My Webpage

armand

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2133
    • Photos
Re: Fuji vs Nikon
« Reply #82 on: January 16, 2015, 03:17:22 PM »

I keep hearing what a great job the Photo Ninja does but this was not my experience when I tested them on the same file.

Can you Ninja advocates post some examples? Ideally they should include areas of sky (where the false detail that the PN creates is more evident) and darker shadows (where the extra noise it introduces is more obvious). A triad comparison of LR vs CO vs PN would be great.


PS. The only place where I found PN to be truly superior was in highlight recovery
PPS. In LR the Provia simulation would be preferred
« Last Edit: January 16, 2015, 03:19:31 PM by armand »
Logged

StephaneB

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 123
    • http://www.lumieredargent.com
Re: Fuji vs Nikon
« Reply #83 on: January 16, 2015, 07:55:33 PM »

Can you Ninja advocates post some examples? Ideally they should include areas of sky (where the false detail that the PN creates is more evident) and darker shadows (where the extra noise it introduces is more obvious). A triad comparison of LR vs CO vs PN would be great.
PS. The only place where I found PN to be truly superior was in highlight recovery
PPS. In LR the Provia simulation would be preferred

Right. Before ordering a custom-made job, have you tried to download the trial versions of the aforementioned software?
Logged

Stéphane

My Webpage

armand

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2133
    • Photos
Re: Fuji vs Nikon
« Reply #84 on: January 16, 2015, 08:27:17 PM »

Right. Before ordering a custom-made job, have you tried to download the trial versions of the aforementioned software?


Right.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=94681.0
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=86367.60

And some extra that I didn't feel posting.


I would love to see some photos that give a meaning to the words that PN is so much better.

armand

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2133
    • Photos
Re: Fuji vs Nikon
« Reply #85 on: January 16, 2015, 09:06:23 PM »

Oh btw, reading one's post is a nice thing to do before replying.

Quote
I keep hearing what a great job the Photo Ninja does but this was not my experience when I tested them on the same file.
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5]   Go Up