![]() ![]() So apart from examining the evidence yourself and making up your own mind you can find lots of support for any position you'd like to take. There are plenty of LR/ACR users out there who will forcefully insist that anyone claiming weaker performance from LR/ACR with Fuji X-Trans raw files are incompetent fools imagining things. It has also remained basically unchanged. The issue with X-Trans and LR/ACR goes back to the introduction of the X-Trans array and has been corrected by Adobe at least 500 to 1000 times with the introduction of each new version of the X-Trans sensor and or each new upgrade of LR/ACR. You should be able to find a basic consensus that the results from Adobe LR/ACR leave a lot of people unhappy and they complain that LR/ACR mushes, worms, watercolors, smears, blurs, degrades, (add ten more similar verbs) the fine detail in their X-Trans images. You can search the topic: X-Trans and worms or X-Trans and watercolor or X-Trans and fine detail and read for the next three weeks all kinds of opinions and all kinds of solutions and no chance you'll find real clarity. Some people aren't bothered by it and some people are. Some raw converters are weak in rendering fine detail from X-Trans raw files. As a result there's a wider range of results available from the various raw conversion options available. The Fuji X-Trans CFA is trickier to demosaic. ![]() Which have you found to be the best in various aspects?įuji X-Trans cameras don't use a Bayer array over the sensor. Hopefully Photo Ninja will reward us with something more than a point release update with no features.Why are your thoughts on the following methods of converting/processing Fuji RAF files: LR, Iridient, Fuji X Raw and Capture One, and any other options you’re aware of (Iridient was new to me). I'm cautiously curious about On1's offering. They confirmed they are doing a digital asset manager to work with their Affinity Photo. I'm hopeful Affinity gets their converter up and running before long. ![]() I wish Adobe would improve the processing algorithms and lots more but it's not in the cards probably. It's a lot more flexible and you can always round-trip to another converter easily enough. It does everything at least good enough and some things very very well. I tried Alien Skin's product but the conversions were terrible. ![]() Plus it doesn't really do much that Lightroom doesn't already do. SilkyPix actually has gotten to be fairly decent but their interface is still non-standard and they don't seem to want to hire native English speakers to do their translations. Same issues I have with Dark Table, Raw Therapee, and Raw Photo Processor. It's a personal reason that wouldn't apply to everyone: I hated the interface. I tried Iridient Developer but trashed it pretty quickly. LR at least has the default Fuji ones out of the box. There's too much chicanery required to get film simulations for Fuji or you have to buy them. I've tried CaptureOne and the latest version I like more than the previous ones but I don't really mesh with it like I would like. My biggest issues with PN is the lack of good film simulations (the default stuff they have is pretty rudimentary in my opinion), the lack of using the optical lens corrections provided in the raw file, and a terrible file based browser. Photo Ninja is nice but they have gone 2 years now promising their version 2.0 that hasn't appeared yet. It's not perfect but once you nail down the sharpening a lot of the problems people have with LR go away. It does very well and has a broader range of integration and tools than the other choices. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |