LR5 and Fuji XT-1

[James R]

I've noticed that Capture 1 8.2 is optimized for the XT-1, while LR 5.7 doesn't seem to be.  When I "Enable Profile Corrections" only the X100 appears.  Will LR address this in LR6, or does this even matter?  C1 does a better job with Fuji files than LR.

[Ann JS]

I imagine that Lr6 will have the same camera profiles as ACR 8.8 and the Fuji X-Trans profile in 8.8 produced very good results on the file on which I tested it if that is any re-assurance.

[James R]

Thanks.

[Johnny_Johnson]

With most of their cameras Fuji writes the lens correction instructions into the RAW file. LR applies that information automatically. No separate profile is needed.

Later,
Johnny

[Ken Bennett]

With most of their cameras Fuji writes the lens correction instructions into the RAW file. LR applies that information automatically. No separate profile is needed.

This.

With the Fujis, and many other mirrorless cameras, the lens corrections are "baked in" and thus always on. You don't need to select a lens correction profile, it's just always there.

[James R]

That makes sense.  I will continue to use C! on Fuji images until LR6 comes out.  Hope to get back to one program, though C1 8.2 is pretty sweet. 

[AlterEgo]

This.

With the Fujis, and many other mirrorless cameras, the lens corrections are "baked in" and thus always on. You don't need to select a lens correction profile, it's just always there.

there are nuances with other mirrorless cameras at least = for example Sony A7* = there are manufacturer's profiles and then P1 has their own sometimes, at least for one Sony FE zoom lens (apparently when Sony's own are too bad) - so you can select between those, so you still might want to pay attention

[rdonson]

I've noticed that Capture 1 8.2 is optimized for the XT-1, while LR 5.7 doesn't seem to be.  When I "Enable Profile Corrections" only the X100 appears.  Will LR address this in LR6, or does this even matter?  C1 does a better job with Fuji files than LR.

In what ways does C1 (8.2) outperform LR 5.7?  Just seeking to understand.

[James R]

C1 renders a cleaner image than LR.  Using a slightly under exposed image shot at ISO 2500 to test these programs.  After ingesting, I don't apply noise reduction in C1, but push the LR NR slider to 56, to render the same clean image.  This aggressive use of NR has a negative overall impact on the finished image.   Also, C1 processed RAFs are warmer than LR, which, IMO tends to render all images a little on the blue side. 

I have used LR exclusively with NEF files for years.  I should give these programs a test with NEF files and see how different they handle those those files.

This is not a big deal.  I'm too intwined with LR to abandon it; even though there is a lot of good stuff about C1.

[Paul2660]

C1 is a bit cleaner, I have noticed with night photography work, however, with the details, I find that C1 can't get anywhere near as much out of the files as LR.  C1 to me does a great job on the Nikon, Canon and Phase One file I have, but I just don't see the same ability to pull out the details of the Fuji files, mainly in areas of finer details, like tree branches or leaves. 

LR gets more details, but I still don't like the final output from LR as the images seem to be too smooth.  Rocks especially seem to look very bland to me, no finer details that are there, somehow LR smooths this over, giving the image more of a plastic look.  It's not over done noise reduction either as I tend to turn it off on lower iso files, 200 and 400.  It's like the finer textures are scrubbed.

As already mentioned by others, LR takes the lens data from the metadata and auto applies it.  C1 doesn't so, if you try to combine images from C1 and LR, (I sometimes do this), they wont' align since the LR image has the lens corrections applies and C1 does not by default and if you apply the C1 corrections, they will not be the same as the ones in LR. 

LR is very close for my work, but I would like to see more the finer textures come out.

Paul

[rdonson]

Thanks, James R and Paul for responding.

I was curious.  I read a lot about LR not doing a good job on Fuji X-Trans.  I had significant challenges with files from my X-T1 at first.  I was so used to what it took to get good images out of my Canon DSLRs in LR that I just assumed the same approach worked for Fuji.  I was dead wrong.  Once I starting using Peter Bridgwood's recommendations things turned around for me.  I'm quite happy now but I'm always looking for ways to get better results.  I don't see myself abandoning LR as I've got a lot invested in its Library but perhaps there's another RAW converter that would be worth putting into the workflow.

Thanks again!