Does Lightroom Now Do Better Converting X-Trans Raw Files Than When The Cameras Were First Introduced?

The full image as posted and processed in Lightroom in March of 2014 (click to enlarge)

In late February of 2014, I bought a Fujifilm X-T1.  From what I had seen and read, it appeared to be a perfect camera for me and the type of photography I practice.  As I normally would with any new camera, I made a number of images of various subjects to fully test it for function, imaging capability as well as really getting to know all its controls.

As I went out to photograph with the X-T1, I purposely made images of grassy areas, green foliage and fine detail as I had already read that the X-Trans sensors didn't render those subjects well when the raw files were converted in Lightroom or Adobe Camera Raw, which I and, it seems, the majority of photographers, use.  I edited these test images in the version of Lightroom that was, at that time current, and posted some of the results.  I wasn't impressed with the images as the green foliage looked "smeared" and "watercolored" in nature and fine detail appeared as though it had developed a "squiggly line" nature and had black lines around each piece of detail.  So, I sent the camera and lenses back, disappointed because I liked the camera and lenses.

Now, Lightroom has been updated a couple of times and some say that the program does much better with X-Trans files.  But does it?  Of course, I have to see for myself.

I bought the camera and kit lens again the first of January and have been out photographing with it exclusively for the past month.  I like this camera but I'm trying to love this camera.  I'm not there yet, but I'm continuing to use it as I don't want to prejudge it.  But what about the new version of Lightroom and ACR and does it render the files more satisfactorily?

To find out, I'm reposting some of those original demonstrative images I edited last year in that earlier version of Lightroom so we can compare the same images edited in Lightroom 5.7.1, the current version.

The image immediately below is a 100% crop of a grassy area in Petersburg National Battlefield in Petersburg, Virginia (It is kind of hard to find a lot of green, grassy areas in February in Virginia).  The small object in the bottom left corner is part of a wheel from a canon, if you were wondering.  Notice the green areas of the grass.  To me, it appears indistinct and with no real detail, a bit smeary and some say, kind of a "watercolor" effect.  

Does this matter?  Well, if you just casually look at images in their entirety, probably not. If you are an enthusiast or professional, I think it does matter.  We want everything in the image to be rendered as best it can be to reflect real life to the best of the sensor's ability.

A 100% crop of the image above showing the grassy area as best I could render it in Lightroom (click to enlarge)

This is the same image now edited in the current version of Lightroom, version 5.7.1.  For this particular image, and I have to say "this particular image" as I find different performance for different images, it may be a little better.  

This is the same image now edited as best I can in the current version of Lightroom, 5.7.1. (click to enlarge)
I see a little difference but it appears to me that, for this image, there isn't much difference between the
rendering of this grassy area and the small branches behind of the two versions of Lightroom.  I do see
some improvements.

I experimented with Topaz Detail 3 and found some success.  However, I found that it works well to extract detail on some images better than others.  Under full disclosure, I don't have a lot of experience with the software but it is pretty stratight forward to use.  The image on the right looks like the detail in the green grass has been rendered in a much better manner than either Lightroom alone.

And here are two images from an earlier post.  You can read the entire post here and see the other Lightroom vs.
Topaz Detail 3 comparisons.  The left one is the same as the Lightroom edited above.  The photo on the
right half was processed in Topaz Detail 3.  I think the Topaz rendition still beats the older or newer versions of Lightroom
but still doesn't render the details as good as Bayer-type sensors.
(click to enlarge)

Over the past year, I've kept up with improvements documented for X-Trans raw files.  Two programs that continue to get praise for fully rendering the detail in the files is Iridient, for MAC only , and Photo Ninja, which is for both MAC and PC.  Since I use Windows, I downloaded a trial copy of Photo Ninja and have been experimenting with it.  So far, I like what I see.  Photo Ninja seems to have the ability to extract all the detail, but....  It can cause some other issues such as color shifts and digital noise.  I'll write more about that later.

Here is a 100% crop using Photo Ninja to convert the RAF file.  Note the color difference, as does happen in
Photo Ninja.  (click to enlarge)

In this particular example image, which was specifically chosen for the fact that I had processed the same image in a previous version of Lightroom, the newest version of Lightroom, version 5.7.1, doesn't do a much better job of extracting the detail from the grassy area. Topaz Detail 3 and Photo Ninja do manage to get more detail out of the grassy area, with Photo Ninja doing the best of the three.  I say, this particular image as over the next few posts, I will show you some other images that Lightroom and ACR do a better job.  It depends upon the subject matter in the individual image.

I also want to say that the X-Trans files translate well with Lightroom in areas that are not green foliage and very fine detail.  So, if you aren't a landscape or nature photographer, you probably won't have any issues with the way ACR and Lightroom render the raw files.

In my next post, I'll compare other images showing other types of issues.  In the following post, I will show you the difference between Olympus E-M1 files and Fujifilm X-T1 files are rendered of exactly the same scene taken side by side.

Thanks for looking.  Enjoy!

Dennis Mook

Many of my images can be found at www.dennismook.com.  Please pay it a visit.  I add new images regularly.  Thank you.


All content on this blog is © 2013-2015 Dennis A. Mook.  All Rights Reserved.  Feel free to point to this blog from your website with full attribution.  Permission may be granted for commercial use.  Please contact Mr. Mook to discuss permission to reproduce the blog posts and/or images.