 |
| Winter chaos! Sycamore tree. Is this image detailed enough for you? (click to enlarge) Fujifilm X-T2, 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 lens + 1.4x tele-converter @ 186mm; 1/000th sec. @ f/7.1; ISO 640 |
I'm going to express my opinion. Before you sit down to fire off some sort of comment telling me that I'm full of beans remember that opinions are neither right nor wrong, they are merely opinions. Let's get on with it.
I believe it is time to end the longstanding debate as to whether we can get excellent RAW file conversions and top of the line demosaicing of Fujifilm X-Trans II RAW files. We can. I don't think there is any longer a question about it. Why? There are now a number of demosaicing programs available to us that allow us to achieve several degrees of RAW conversion. Pick one that suits your need for workflow and image "look" so you will be satisfied.
If you are a Lightroom Classic CC user, Adobe's conversions are not the absolute best. However, Adobe has made incremental improvements over the past several years that, for me, for the most of my everyday image files, I think they look pretty good and the conversions will suffice. Could they be better? No question about it in my opinion. However, in order to get better RAW file conversions there will be trade-offs. What trade-offs?
I would have to purchase, learn and change my workflow to a different RAW converter and editing software or at least add one to my normal workflow. Do I want to do that? Not necessarily for my everyday images, but I will if I have particular image files that are worthy of the extra time, effort and work. Be honest, most of our images aren't worthy of extra attention. For most of my average images, I feel now I can stick with the Lightroom conversions and get satisfactory results. I've been using Lightroom and its catalog function in my normal workflow since the program's inception. I know it as well as I know any program, am comfortable with it, can do about anything I need to do with it (and the rest with Photoshop) and it works well in converting the RAW images from my other camera systems, namely Olympus, Nikon and Canon. To get better RAW conversions for just my Fujifilm files I would have to change my normal workflow. As I said, there are trade-offs.
Iridient X-Transformer can bring out extraordinary detail in the X-Trans II files. In fact, if you are not careful it can bring out too much detail to the point where the image looks crunchy and unnatural. X-Transformer is my "go to" program for those special image files that deserve extra attention. I bought Thomas Fitzgerald's little ebook where he outlines his extensive testing and experience with X-Transformer so I had a jump on getting the best from the program in the shortest amount of time. This program is not really an editing program as all it does is convert the Fujifilm X-Trans II RAW files into DNG RAW files with the settings you select. Easy and quick. But, it adds another program and a couple of more steps to the workflow. If you use it to convert all of your Fujifilm X-Trans II files, it basically doubles your storage needs as you would now have a RAW and a DNG of each of your image files. (I'm not willing to delete my original RAW files)
Capture One Pro does a wonderful job converting X-Trans files. It is program that is used by multitudes of professional photographers and contains many features that just about any photographer would need. No Fujifilm film simulations, though, to the best of my recollection. Good program. Different from Lightroom but you would expect it to be.
Alienskin Exposure X3 does a wonderful job converting X-Trans files and is very much structured like Lightroom Classic. If you are a Lightroom Classic user, you would be at ease with this program and like the results. Like Capture One Pro, Exposure X3 has so many capabilities that you can do just about everything you need to do in that program with the exception of some sophisticated Photoshop editing. It has layers, a film simulation for about every film that has been produced (including Fujifilm's) and lens corrections as well. It does not have a catalog feature, which would not work for me at this time. If Exposure X3 were to incorporate a catalog program, I would seriously consider switching full time to it. I like it better than Luminar.
I tried and used Photo Ninja for a while. It did a good job in converting the files but I found it cumbersome to use so I personally don't use it any longer. But it is a viable option.
Luminar is another good program that is getting better and does a nice job converting X-Trans files. It, too, has tons of features and is not difficult to learn. The Windows version is still lacking some of the features in the Mac version, but the company promises to match each program, feature for feature. Additionally, Skylum (formerly MacPhun) says they will add a Lightroom compatible database to the program sometime this year. I"m waiting patiently for those two things to happen and I'll test it some more. A nice bonus is that Scott Bourne, one of the best bird photographers in the country, is now the president of Skylum. A real photographer as president has to be a huge benefit in future developments.
I'm sure there are other good programs out there that can convert Fujifilm X-Trans II RAW files but these are the ones with which I've experimented and have personal knowledge.
As I said, I think there are enough alternatives out there that everyone can be satisfied with X-Trans RAW conversions. Once more, there are trade-offs and that is pretty normal in life. Everything we do is a trade-off, why not our image editing as well.
We are really fortunate to have a camera system such as Fujifilm has created for us with the lovely X-Trans II colors and a variety of editing software programs at our disposal to convert those RAW files as well as edit them in just about any fashion we desire.
Let's end the debate and be thankful for all of what we have and not worry about what we don't have.
Thanks for looking. Enjoy!
Dennis A. Mook
All content on this blog is © 2013-2018 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.
Dennis, great post! I agree with you 100%.
ReplyDelete-Les Saucier
Thank you Les.
DeleteRawTherapee and DarkTable get you very good results, and they cost nothing.
ReplyDeleteThank you for that information. I haven't used them so I didn't want to comment on them.
DeleteGood overall discussion, let us get on with creating images instead of endless distractions.
ReplyDeleteExactly. Are we photographers or engineers?
Deleteha! youre cheating, because youre using 24mpx camera! :)
ReplyDeletetry to get such an image with previous 16mpx generation fuji cameras and then we can talk. i really dont know whats the point with a 24mpx sensor.. k thanx and see you around the internet.
A 24mp sensor is my preferred size as I submit work to my stock agency and their clients have criteria to be met or the images don't get licensed. In other words, it is a business decision. My E-M1 Mark II has a 20mp m4/3 sensor and that camera, along with Olympus' superb lenses, really gives me all I need for personal work. In fact, my original E-m1 and E-M5, at 16mp, were also fine.
DeleteYeah, completely agree, Dennis. LR is now "good enough" for most images, although for that extra-special touch I'll use X-Transformer (I find it helps a lot with my architectural shots to bring out the detail in bricks and concrete).
ReplyDeleteSome images require a bit more detail and editing. That is when one of the other programs comes in to give us what we need for those occasions. Thanks for the comment.
DeleteHi Dennis, I could not agree more. Thank you for sharing your thoughts! As an old photographer rooted in the analogue 1980's I mainly like your statement, that "everything we do is a trade-off ..." - that's so correct! So let's step back and see the big picture again - and stop pixel peeping - photography is art, and this is very individual - we could endless discuss about it. Really important is the final image and even more important is the process of making that image - for me this is pure fun. Once again thank you for sharing your thoughts.
ReplyDeleteChristian, thank you for your thoughts and comment. I started passionately photographing in 1970 and I understand your comment about film. Remember when Kodacolor 400 was introduced? We thought that was amazing. It had grain the size of gumballs but we loved it nonetheless since it expanded our abilities to capture images in situations that were previously not available. Yes, the final image.
DeleteStephen, thank you for taking time to comment. I appreciate it.
ReplyDeleteI have also experimented with many raw converters, and as you point out, they have their strengths and weaknesses, and I agree you can get good results from most of them.
ReplyDeleteI avoided LR because, after PS CC, I knew it was just a matter of time before they went all subscription. After paying so much for Photoshop upgrades over the years, it felt like a slap to expect my money monthly. That is why I started experimenting with other converters.
My favorite is Photo Ninja due to the simplicity of the interface, and speed, and quality. I feel it has just enough features and focuses on being the best converter it can be. I've had a few troublesome files that I ended up processing in another converter, but it is my first go-to. One of my favorite features is to single-click on the image and have it zoom to that click location, or out to full image view again. It's fast, the results are great, the colors are usually what I expect, and I spend less time getting the image right vs others I've used.
Right now, my second choice is Rawtherapee 5.x. With this series, the speed became usable (faster than Luminar, which I also own), and once you learn the controls you need, the results are just as good as any other converter (and I like the results better than many others). People have created film simulations for RT5. I really like the Acros one! If Photo Ninja didn't exist, I'd probably just settle on RT.
I also like DxO for non-Fuji files. If they ever support X-trans I will look again.
I've had my eye on C1, just haven't liked the interface. People rave about the results though. I didn't realize it was missing the film simulations.
Nice article, compliment! There are so many programs, there must be one that fits somebody's needs. I noticed that I spend much time in testing and trying these program's in stead of making pictures. So for now and the upcomming time I stay with Affinity and Picktorial together with Aplle Photos. For me, that's just fine, for somebody else, there are so many programs, . . . . . . . .
ReplyDeleteExcellent assessment of what is available today! Always enjoy your insight!
ReplyDelete