Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Other Raw Converters => Topic started by: RobMacKillop on November 19, 2017, 04:56:09 am
-
I just got a Fuji X-T20, and would like to know which raw converter/editor would be best for it. I'll mainly be doing landscapes and cityscapes, rather than street or portraits.
-
For RAW conversion you'd be hard pressed to beat Iridient Developer or Iridient X-Transformer. There demosaicing is the best I've seen for Fuji X. I use Adobe Lightroom for editing along with plugins and print from Lightroom. It's an extra workflow step to use X-Transformer from Lightroom but for me it's worth it for the superior results.
Others to consider are Capture One and the new Luminar 2018.
-
Cheers, Ron. I appreciate the help. I have Lightroom, but it wouldn't open the raf files.
-
I have Lightroom, but it wouldn't open the raf files.
Sounds like you're running an older version of Lightroom. The T-20 has been supported since March (http://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal/2017/03/lightroom-cc-2015-9-now-available.html) (LR 2015.9, Camera Raw 9.9).
My experience is that you can eke out somewhat better fine detail from Fuji X-Trans files with the Iridient products, but that for many images the difference isn't noticeable unless you're printing very large—or viewing them 1:1 on a computer monitor. I haven't seen anything authoritative from Adobe about this, but my impression is that changes were made to the X-Trans demosaicing a few revs of Lightroom ago that improved the processing of the Fuji raws.
In general, it seems the Fuji files respond badly to aggressive global sharpening. The Iridient programs provide somewhat more headroom than Lightroom in that respect. Deciding whether the extra workflow overhead is worth the effort strikes me as something that is best done on an image-by-image basis.
-
For RAW conversion you'd be hard pressed to beat Iridient Developer or Iridient X-Transformer.
Any raw; been a big fan for over a decade:
http://digitaldog.net/files/IridientDeveloper.pdf (http://digitaldog.net/files/IridientDeveloper.pdf)
-
Cheers, guys. After Ron's mention of Iridient X Transformer, I downloaded it, and it quickly made useable DNG files. Thanks for the tip.
But, getting curious, I downloaded Iridient Developer - wow! What a program. That might be all I need. Its b&w tools are great. Very natural looking. I think I'll invest in it.
Thanks, all.
-
Rob, I'm glad to hear you found Iridient to your liking.
-
Cheers, Ron.
-
Any raw; been a big fan for over a decade:
http://digitaldog.net/files/IridientDeveloper.pdf (http://digitaldog.net/files/IridientDeveloper.pdf)
Thanks for sharing, Andrew!!!! I didn't realize you'd been a fan of Iridient so long!!!
-
I found a useful, easy to read PDF on using Iridient Developer here: PDF (https://store.thomasfitzgeraldphotography.com/product/processing-x-trans-images-iridient-developer-e-book/)
-
Yes, Thomas Fitzgerald has some very good ebooks on Iridient Developer and X-Transformer. I bought them after I was first turned on to Iridient and they helped me get going.
-
Brian Griffith, the man behind this excellent product is also very accessible to answer questions and comments in my experience.
-
I find Iridient results from X-Trans to be harsh, over-sharpened even at the default. I don't think it looks natural.
I much prefer the rendering of Rawtherapee. I have found nothing that is as good.
-
I find Iridient results from X-Trans to be harsh, over-sharpened even at the default. I don't think it looks natural.
I much prefer the rendering of Rawtherapee. I have found nothing that is as good.
I've just looked through your website, and like your cityscapes and "street" style. However, coming from old Nikons, which I take into Photoshop as Tiffs as soon as the Nikon programme permits it, I find everything shockingly harsh, which may simply be my personal reaction from looking at my own work, which has recently been shot almost wide open whenever that's possible; your great DOF could be where the surprise resides, but it still seems over-processed somehow. In other words, I think that I see exactly what you were describing using your least favourite Iridient, but to me, exists with what you use currently. This seems strongest with Death Valley, but having never been there, it may simply be accurate and I don't know that.
Digital comes with all sorts of problems never there with film, but without doubt, has many blessings too!
Rob
-
My current favourite for RAFs is ON1 Photo Raw. For the occasions when it does not deliver, Photo Ninja steps in.
Iridient produces very good results, but I find it too slow.
-
I've just looked through your website, and like your cityscapes and "street" style. However, coming from old Nikons, which I take into Photoshop as Tiffs as soon as the Nikon programme permits it, I find everything shockingly harsh, which may simply be my personal reaction from looking at my own work, which has recently been shot almost wide open whenever that's possible; your great DOF could be where the surprise resides, but it still seems over-processed somehow. In other words, I think that I see exactly what you were describing using your least favourite Iridient, but to me, exists with what you use currently. This seems strongest with Death Valley, but having never been there, it may simply be accurate and I don't know that.
Digital comes with all sorts of problems never there with film, but without doubt, has many blessings too!
Rob
Rob, thanks for looking and even greater thanks for giving a detailed opinion. I really appreciate it.
I just went over the website with your remarks in head. I tend to agree some of the Death Valley pictures could have been better resized for the web, but I cannot say I find them or the pictures on the website to look harsh in a general way.
What I was referring to as harshness with Iridient is distinctive and does not appear on the website, since no Fuji picture is on that website yet, and if there was they would be rendered with either Rawtherapee or Lightroom for the RAW conversion stage.
All the digital pictures on the website are pure Lightroom/Photoshop. There is also one that was taken on 6x7 film, I'm not sure it has a smoother nor harsher look than the others.
-
My favourite is Iridient Developer too. I do take the sharpening settings down, find setting the radius to .5 and the sharpening to below 100, generally 75, both below the standard settings. Works for me in my mainly monochrome work.
-
My favourite is Iridient Developer too. I do take the sharpening settings down, find setting the radius to .5 and the sharpening to below 100, generally 75, both below the standard settings. Works for me in my mainly monochrome work.
Interesting, Tommy.
Off-topic but the converter for my Sigma cameras provides a "sharpness" slider which goes from -2.0 to +2.0, default 0.0. Like your findings in Iridient, for a good (well-focussed) shot, the default setting gives quite visible halos on high-contrast edges - necessitating selection of negative values for "neutral" sharpness.
Ted
-
Does anyone have any experience with Darktable and Fuji Raws? With it now ported to Windows I'm interested in how it handles Fuji Raws, I see X-T2 compressed in the support list.
https://petapixel.com/2017/12/27/darktable-brings-free-open-source-lightroom-alternative-windows/
My current process is to run most images through Iridient X-Transformer then all into LR CC Classic.
-
Does anyone have any experience with Darktable and Fuji Raws? With it now ported to Windows I'm interested in how it handles Fuji Raws, I see X-T2 compressed in the support list.
https://petapixel.com/2017/12/27/darktable-brings-free-open-source-lightroom-alternative-windows/
My current process is to run most images through Iridient X-Transformer then all into LR CC Classic.
There is a comparison between Darktable and Iridient here (https://petapixel.com/2017/02/13/get-performance-x-trans-sensor-free-software/).
Short answer: the author can see no practical difference between the two when it comes to demosaicing.
David
-
Thanks David. Seems like an honest review. If Darktable had a print module I could replace LRCCC with it. Maybe it is time to decouple printing from raw processing. I'll check out the Image Print article on the LL front page...
Well, Image Print looks like a great product, but the cost is extreme and my printer is not supported...
-
I'm thinking along the same lines.
Use Lightroom 5 or 6 for printing and use something else for raw processing and DAM. I can wait until I get a new camera (which will not be supported by LR). No hurry for that.
Though I am taking the precaution of keeping a copy of the LR installers and the licence key. You never know.
David