Pages: 1 [2]   Go Down

Author Topic: How good is raw conversion for X-trans files these days?  (Read 1691 times)

JaapD

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 202
Re: How good is raw conversion for X-trans files these days?
« Reply #20 on: December 12, 2018, 01:47:44 pm »

I find it an incorrect way of working by starting with a lower quality RAW converter, pulling a lower MTF out of the RAW file, and afterwards applying the missing sharpness to correct this. In theory you’ll end with a noisier image as ‘sharpening’ is a high-pass convolution filter.

If you have no problems with your way of working then I have a suggestion for you: don’t invest in high quality glass, since you’re already use a less then optimal RAW converter, and apply all the missing sharpness afterwards.

This may sound a bit harsh and that is by no means my intention. My intention is to get you thinking if you’ve made the right decision for yourself. My honest opinion is to apply the best RAW converter that you can use, maximizing your investment in camera and lenses.

Regards,
Jaap.
Logged

faberryman

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 980
Re: How good is raw conversion for X-trans files these days?
« Reply #21 on: December 12, 2018, 04:13:55 pm »

This may sound a bit harsh and that is by no means my intention. My intention is to get you thinking if you’ve made the right decision for yourself. My honest opinion is to apply the best RAW converter that you can use, maximizing your investment in camera and lenses.
That seems to be the issue: which is the best RAW converter for Fuji files. Is Iridient really better than LR or does it just add sharpening to it RAW conversion to make it look better in a side by side. I have read some articles about the issue and of course read the internet chatter, but have never seen anything authoritative from an independent source.

David_Hallett

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5
Re: How good is raw conversion for X-trans files these days?
« Reply #22 on: December 12, 2018, 05:55:00 pm »

I am still shooting an X-T10 (X-Trans 2), and experiments processing the same pictures with and without the Iridient plug-in have convinced me that for fine detail, it is definitely a little better than LR.

I don't do any sharpening with X-Transformer, because you can't undo it and I'd rather judge each shot on its merits. I just convert to DNG and do very basic processing in LR before exporting as a Smart Object to PS. which is where any sharpening is done, usually with Smart Sharpen and a mask if needed. For certain textures, such as rough stone, I've found it's possible to get more detail in PS from the files that have been processed with X-Transformer, without having to sharpen them to the point where artefacts start to appear. However, there are not many shots where the difference is important to me. YMMV, of course.

I'm told the difference with X-Trans 3 files is not as pronounced, although I've yet to test that for myself.
Logged

Alan Smallbone

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 779
    • APS Photography
Re: How good is raw conversion for X-trans files these days?
« Reply #23 on: December 12, 2018, 08:23:23 pm »

If you want to pixel peep then Iridient X transformer is a good choice, for a full featured editor Capture ONE is the way to go. With the latest release of Capture One, they have an agreement with Fujifilm and helped to improve the conversion and to provide the film simulations. To me that is way to go. I am not a pixel peeper, to me I edit the photo until it conveys the message I am trying to pass one. I like Capture Ones color editing features, they have layers and masks. Like anything a camera is a tool. Does it convey your message and your intent, does your processing tools help convey that message, if so then the image is done. "Best" is subjective and you need to determine what it is that matters to you. They all have trials, rent a camera, spend the time, do your due diligence and see what works for you. Not trying to sound vague but it really comes down to personal preferences.

Alan
« Last Edit: December 13, 2018, 08:33:58 am by Alan Smallbone »
Logged
Alan Smallbone
Orange County, CA

David_Hallett

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5
Re: How good is raw conversion for X-trans files these days?
« Reply #24 on: December 13, 2018, 02:48:45 am »

If you want to pixel peep then Iridient X transformer is a good choice

Or if you have an established workflow with LR and PS, and don't want to abandon it, and buy and learn a new piece of software just for small details that probably don't matter much to your creative intent. That too  :)
Logged

TommyWeir

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 239
Re: How good is raw conversion for X-trans files these days?
« Reply #25 on: December 13, 2018, 12:20:52 pm »

for a full featured editor Capture ONE is the way to go.

Yes to this.  It's fantastic.

rdonson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3010
Re: How good is raw conversion for X-trans files these days?
« Reply #26 on: December 13, 2018, 12:47:34 pm »

Or if you have an established workflow with LR and PS, and don't want to abandon it, and buy and learn a new piece of software just for small details that probably don't matter much to your creative intent. That too  :)

I'm with David's thoughts. 

I use Iridient X-Transformer from within Lr.  I look at my photos and promising ones get get a round trip to X-Transformer using "Edit In"   Then I usually apply some basic Lr edits in the Develop Module and if necessary do an "Edit in" to PS. 

That's what works for me.  Of course, use whatever tools and workflow fit your desires.
Logged
Regards,
Ron

armand

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3308
    • Photos
Re: How good is raw conversion for X-trans files these days?
« Reply #27 on: December 17, 2018, 12:10:22 am »

Still some issues in LR, most of the times can be minimized to the point that it doesn’t show up in print.
Haven’t had a big need to try again the other converters. I played a little with the free version of CO, it requires a steeper learning curve than I might be able to put up with.

PS. getting the colors close to the Fuji profiles used to be an issue, I think CO still didn’t have them.

DP

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 546
Re: How good is raw conversion for X-trans files these days?
« Reply #28 on: December 17, 2018, 09:28:52 am »

PS. getting the colors close to the Fuji profiles used to be an issue, I think CO still didn’t have them.

C1 v12 has Fuji profiles emulation, for recent cameras, based on apparently on 3 different CFA "color" types: X-H1 for all supported 24mp models, X-T3 for 26mp (only one model) and GFX 50R for all supported 50mp models
Logged

JaapD

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 202
Re: How good is raw conversion for X-trans files these days?
« Reply #29 on: December 18, 2018, 03:58:57 am »

...... which can be found under the 'Curve' menu.

Regards,
Jaap.
Logged

armand

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3308
    • Photos
Re: How good is raw conversion for X-trans files these days?
« Reply #30 on: December 18, 2018, 03:08:37 pm »

I had the v11 installed.
Just downloaded the Fuji Express 12 version and seems to be more friendly at a first look, when I get time I'll run few of the test/ problematic files through it.
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Up