Using Iridient X-Transformer v1.03 on Fujifilm X-Trans III Files; A Worthwhile Addition To Your Editing Process

CSX trains in Richmond, Virginia.  Lots of fine detail in the coal, foliage, branches and people on the right. (click to enlarge)
Fujifilm RAF file edited as I would normally.
X-T2, 16-55mm f/2.8 @ 55mm; 1/750th sec. @ f/5.6; ISO 400

In the past year or so , I played with and conducted some experiments using Iridient X-Transformer (IXT) to get an idea of how that particular RAW converter handled my Fujifilm RAF files as compared to Lightroom Classic (LR), which is my normal editing software.  At that time, I concluded that IXT gave me mixed or "okay" results, but the program was still in beta.  I don't think I would have purchased that beta version and added the extra workflow to my editing process with the differences I saw at that time.  In February 2018 I did some more experimenting with IXT and generally found it worthy of limited future use.  But that was still with a beta version.  Beta testing is now over.

Now, since beta testing is over and the manufacturer has released version 1.0 (currently 1.03), I wanted to nail down IXT's effects on my Fujifilm RAF files (from the X-T2).  I wanted to know:

a) which, if any, settings will give me the results I'm looking for when I use the program in lieu of LR to convert my RAF files,  

b) which settings produce what kinds of visible differences in my image files, 

c) which image files I think I would use with IXT since it adds a significant step to my workflow, and

d) if using the program is at all generally worthwhile.  

So....I recently purchased IXT , installed it and used various combinations of settings on a number of my Fujifilm RAF files to just see for myself what difference IXT makes.  

For those of you who don't want to read to the end, yes, IXT made a difference in every Fujifilm RAF file with which I tested it using most of the settings I tried.  In some files minute differences could be seen and other files significant differences.  The differences, in my opinion, seem to depend upon the subject matter in the file.  One thing that struck me when directly comparing files at 100% is that IXT produces files that make the LR edited files look slightly out of focus.  The image files look noticeably sharper and more detailed.  When comparing the IXT file details next to the LR converted files, I can't help but be no longer satisfied with what LR produces.  IXT seems to bring out resolution, fine detail and make the file look sharper.  If you think your Fujifilm lenses are sharp using LR, they look even better using IXT.  But that isn't the end of the story.  Read on.

Bass Harbor Lighthouse in Maine.  Detail here is in the hard surfaces such as the rocks, bricks of the lighthouse,
trees and people standing next to the lighthouse. RAF file edited as I normally would. (click to enlarge)
X-T2, 16-55mm f/2.8 @ 16mm; 1/220th sec. @ f/11; ISO 200

Here's the thing.  Unless you are examining the files at 50% or greater on a high resolution monitor (mine is 2560 X 1440, not the highest but high enough), it really doesn't much matter because at normal viewing sizes and distances, the extra detail is not really noticeable or, if you really stare hard, you might be able to see the extra fine detail in some of your files.  Only when you look at your files magnified on your high resolution monitor can you see more detail and better sharpness.

In my experience with printing images, I venture to say you won't see any differences at all.  Prints never replicate the extremely fine detail you see on a high quality monitor.  

If you are OCD and as fastidious as I am about the quality of your image files, you should process your files in IXT for "your own satisfaction" because other viewers probably won't see any differences since they will be viewing them on the web or in print.  And the concept of doing something for "your own satisfaction" is very important, otherwise, you wouldn't be pleased with the outcomes of your photography.  But I digress.  Back to the long version.

IXT, thankfully, isn't expensive in my opinion but it will provide me with another option for converting my Fujifilm RAW files when I don't like what I see in LR.  Sometimes when I look closely at my image files in LR, I feel they could be better. 

For this post, I have taken three Fujifilm RAW files (I experimented with many more but I've chosen three with which to illustrate differences), each having different types of content and converted each using several different groups of IXT settings.  I'm not going to post all the examples with all of the settings but a representative sampling from each file.  There are numerous settings available in IXT and I experimented with different ones to see what effect I could easily see in my image files.  My goal was to make a better, more detailed and better resolved DNG file from my RAF files.  

At the end of the post, I've included comparison files.  I don't know what Blogger will do to the resolution or fine detail, but my descriptions may give you as good or better indicator as to what IXT does for them.

Historical Westover Church and adjacent graveyard, Charles City County, Virginia. (click to enlarge)
RAF file edited as I normally would in LR.
X-T2, 16-55mm f/2.8 @ 22mm; 1/60th sec. @ f/16; ISO 200 (tripod mounted)

LR's downfall with demosaicing RAF files, in my opinion, is with fine detail not only in foliage, but in most objects.  I didn't know that until I started experimenting with IXT.  Once you see the differences you can't "un-see" them, unfortunately.  For the most part, the extra detail revealed is so fine that it really doesn't matter in a practical sense when you consider the overall meaning of any particular image.  In other words, bringing out fine detail won't necessarily make your photograph any better, it just reveals more fine detail.  In most cases, it will make no difference at all in whether viewers think your images are good or meaningful.  You may be the only one who notices.

However, for some image files, it may matter.  That's why I'm trying to determine the best way "for me" to use IXT to bring out what "I want to see" in my files.  You may have differing standards and differing objectives with your Image files.  Remember what I said above.  I can be a bit OCD and fastidious about my work and I buy the best gear to bring out the minute detail in my images.  And...I know that is meaningless most of the time but I am who I am and you are who you are.

Over the past couple of LR updates by Adobe, I've become relatively pleased using LR to convert the vast majority of my Fujifilm RAW image files.  Not totally pleased, but mostly.  Every once in a while I still see some mushiness in some fine green foliage and detect a tad of worminess in some fine hard details (like gravel).  That kind of bothers me as those anomalies shouldn't occur in a product like LR.  But, all in all, I think Adobe has largely solved almost all of the early complaints we Fujifilm users had with LR.  You've seen many of my X-T2 images on this blog and I never received a complaint about detail in any of the hundreds of images I've posted, either here, on my website (www.dennismook.com) or on Instagram (@dennisamook).  

However, on occasion, upon very close examination (i.e., pixel peep to the extreme) of a RAW file in LR and I just don't like what LR does to it. This is totally subjective on my part.  I can't say it is any one thing but, in summary, the detail I would expect is not as visible as I had hoped.  Also, some files don't seem as sharp as I believe they should be.  The Fujifilm lenses are as good as it gets, so it is not the lenses and not technique.  As a result, as I mentioned, I played with IXT in beta on and off for several months.  I've also tried a couple of other RAW converters but haven't really found one that suits me.  I'm back to IXT and am now pleased with what I see.  However, there are downsides as well.

Using IXT as an LR plug-in adds to my workflow, adds to the number of files I have to store and adds to storage space requirements.  I find the DNGs that IXT creates are about twice the size of the losslessly compressed RAW files directly from my camera.  For these reasons, I would not use IXT on all of my Fujifilm RAW files.

Recently, I was in Richmond, Virginia photographing.  Being a railroad enthusiast (have been since I was a kid) there is a pleasing S-curve on the CSX railroad next to the James River on which I've long wanted to make a photograph of a train.  The area is surrounded by vegetation (one of the two original weaknesses of the Fujifilm X-Trans sensor array) and hard fine detail and would make a good image for comparison using the current version of LR (v7.4) versus the current version of IXT (v1.03).  This is not a technical, under the microscope comparison but a practical look at what differences I can see at 100% file size.  The railroad image and the other two images are shown above as I would normally edit them in LR.  

As a note, for all of the files, my technique was to edit an RAF file in LR as I normally would.  Then I would make a number of conversions in IXT.  In IXT I used no sharpening to adding varying degrees of sharpening to the conversions. Everything else was turned off.  No luminance noise reduction, no color noise reduction, etc.  My goal was to have as clean a RAF to DNG conversion as possible then do all of my refining editing in LR.  

IXT takes the unedited RAF file and converts it.  It ignores any changes I had already made to the file in LR.  Then I would copy and past the settings from the edited RAF file into each of the IXT DNG conversion files, with the exception of sharpening.  That, in my experience, has to be applied carefully, depending upon the IXT settings used in each conversion.  I wanted all files to look identically—final editing the same for all.

Here is the basic conversions I made:

A) Smoother, No Sharpening

In my test files I really didn't see any noticeable differences in resolution or sharpness in foliage.  I can see slightly more detail in some objects but not everywhere, mostly hard objects such as rocks, etc. The current version of LR seems to be able equal this setting if I judiciously work with the Amount and Detail sliders.

B) Smoother, Low Sharpening

Again, in my test files, I really don't see much if any differences in the RAF file converted in LR versus the IXT converted file in foliage.  In a couple of the images I saw what I could "perceive" as a difference, but not that it is any "practical" difference that you would notice under normal circumstances.  Again, in hard objects, such as rocks, I can see a small bit of additional detail.  These are the first files where the IXT converted images appear as though they are more sharply focused and it looks like the program brings out more from the lenses.

C) More Detailed, No Sharpening

This is the setting where I can start to see more detail in green foliage, whether leaves, pine needles, grasses, etc.  Quite a bit of more detail is revealed in rock faces, etc.

D) More Detailed, Low Sharpening

This setting is the setting where I start asking myself, "why am I using LR at all?"  The differences can clearly be seen in some files and not so much, but they are still there, in other files.  Be judicious with you subsequent LR sharpening settings as the image can get "crunchy" easily if you apply additional sharpening in LR.  The Fujifilm 24mp sensor almost looks to be now a 36mp or 42mp sensor camera with all of the additional detail and sharpness that is now visible in my files.

E) More Detailed, Medium Sharpening

 I clearly see a difference in all the files I tried.  This is the setting in all of the examples accompanying this post.  There is now noticeably more fine detail in all objects, distant leaves are more individually defined and finely resolved.  Every type of subject in an image file is more finely resolved.  There are distinctive differences. Additionally, when looking at the identical LR converted files, the LR converted files look even worse.  The IXT image files are "snappier" and "crisper" and, again, look like they came from a sensor much larger than is in the X-T2.  At first I found it hard to believe I had been missing so much fine detail in my images using LR.  I had no idea the detail was present in the files.  Also, again, the LR files look as though they are slightly out of focus while the IXT files look like you switched from a mediocre lens to a top notch lens.  For some of you, this might be too much, but if I'm going to try to recover maximum detail and maximize what is in my image files, this is probably the setting I would use.

There are three considerations when applying sharpening in IXT.  First, sharpening is applied to the entire image and not selectively.  Keep that in mind and its ramifications.  

Second, the danger here is that it is easy to apply too much additional sharpening.  You have to apply no or little additional sharpening in LR.  The files will look "crispy" very quickly and you will need to back off the Amount slider.  In my tests, depending upon the individual file, I've gone as high as 20-25 in LR, but mostly around 10-15 on the Amount slider, if I apply any at all.  

Third, you might want to use just a little Luminance Noise Reduction post conversion if you are subsequently editing your converted files in LR.  In a couple of files I could see just a tiny bit of noise now "found" in my image files.  That "noise" was smoothed over (also with the loss of detail) by LR in its conversion algorithms, even if you didn't apply any noise reduction.  With most files I found noise reduction is not necessary, but if you use it judiciously, you won't lose any of the "newfound" detail and resolution you now have.

If you have a portfolio grade image and want to really make it the best you can, you may want to export both the original RAF LR converted file along with the IXT converted file to Photoshop as Layers.  They you can reveal only the detail areas and keep skies, areas of no detail, etc. masked so no noise is discernible.  That being said, I've had good luck just added a judicious amount of Luminance noise reduction in LR and I'm happy with that.

There are a couple of ways to incorporate IXT into your workflow, depending upon your preferences.  First, you can import your images into LR as you normally do, then pick the ones you want to "maximize" as I'll call it, and use IXT as a plug-in to convert the RAF to DNG then be returned and automatically added to your LR catalog.

If you are really "taken" by what you see and what to use IXT for all of your Fujifilm files, you could import your images to a folder in your computer, run IXT as a standalone image converter on all of your image files, saving them to the same folder or a different one, then import the DNGs into LR as you would normally have done with your RAF files.  

Two warnings: you will tie up your computer's processor for some time, as IXT seems to be a processor hog and it takes several seconds to convert each image and, each DNG is significantly larger than the original RAF files.  Hard drives are not expensive anymore so the extra hard drive space required may not be much of a cost concern to you.  The bigger question for me is having to decide whether or not to delete the RAF files or keep them along side of the DNG files.  Personally, I have a hard time deleting original files.  How about you?

Then there is a hybrid of the two methods just described when you want to maybe convert more than one but not all of your image files.

On all of these comparison images below, the RAF file is on the left and the Iridient X-Transformer converted DNG file is on the right.  Both files have been identically edited in Lightroom Classic. The only difference being the amount of applied sharpening after conversions.  For the IXT converted files, these all illustrate the "More Detail," "Medium Sharpening" settings with all other settings turned off.  The reason for the "Medium Sharpening" is as a demonstration, I wanted to show you significant changes versus small changes. I didn't even experiment with the "High Sharpening" as I thought the medium was probably far enough if not too far for most files.  No noise reduction has been applied to any of these files.  No additional export sharpening was applied from Lightroom to create these JPEG files.  

I hope the differences I can easily see on my monitor are visible to you on yours.  But, again, I don't know what Blogger or other technology does to the images once they leave my computer and are posted on the Internet.

UPDATE: After sending this post to the Internet and then looking at the comparison images on my 12.9" iPad Pro, the visible differences in fine details are not as distinct as from what I can see on my computer monitor.  If you don't see significant differences, that is most likely the reason.  I don't know how the images are affected by Blogger, but obviously, some lessening of quality does occur.  Just FYI.

Notice the fine detail in the clumps of coal on the right versus the RAF file on the left.  Also, the detail
the details on the locomotive and in the leaves behind the train is evident (click to enlarge)

I see a remarkable difference in foliage detail on the right versus the RAF file converted in Lightroom
on the left.  (click to enlarge)

Not only is there more detail in the foliage, but in the people as well.  Details in the clothing, hair, arms, etc. can
be seen.  This part of the image is on the extreme edge, where lenses have the hardest time with sharpness and clearly
resolving fine detail.  I think IXT really helps the lens resolve better on this edge. (click to enlarge)

Not only is there much more detail in the lichen on the headstone, but I can see many more individual blades of grass
in the IXT DNG file son the right versus the Lightroom RAF converted file on the left.
At 200% on my computer I can just about read the small name plate on the headstone in the IXT file. (click to enlarge)

There is a remarkable amount of deliniation in the individual leaves and shrubbery in this image.  The IXT DNG
file is on the right and the Lightroom converted RAF file is on the left,  Even that small piece of headstone
on the right shows the texture of the granite in the DNG file. (click to enlarge)

The DNG converted in IXT on the right makes the image on the left look like a cheap kit lens was used.  There
is a remarkable difference in sharpness, detail and resolution.  It almost appears as though the X-T2 had a
36mp sensor in it with all the extra detail now visible. (click to enlarge)

Finally, the detail in the brick, the rocks, the individual long grass blades as well as the man's plaid shirt can be
discerned in the IXT converted DNG file on the right. (click to enlarge)

I guess in conclusion my thoughts are that when looking at IXT converted files as compared to LR files, the IXT DNGs look like what I saw from my NIkon D810 full frame camera and not an APS-C sensor camera.  They look as though they came from a camera with a 36mp or 45mp sensor rather than a 24mp sensor.  They look demonstrably sharper. There is a remarkable difference in detail and resolution.  

If all of this is of interest to you, I recommend you download and install the demo version of IXT.  It is the full version but when the DNGs are generated, there are watermarks across the image.  

What I think is most important is you experimenting on your files using your standards for your happiness which is much more valuable than taking my word for anything.  As I've said many, many times, opinions are not right nor wrong, merely opinions.  What I've written are my opinions and you may photograph different types of subjects than me, have a different idea of what pleases you in your photographs and may want to use an entirely different set of IXT settings for your images.  You won't know unless you do the work and look at your own images.

If you are interested in learning more about IXT, I suggest you visit Thomas Fitzgerald's website.  He has experimented much more than have I and has created an e-book with his recommendations.  I bought it and it helped me better understand all of the settings  available in IXT.  You can find Fitzgerald's site here.

If you have questions, I'll be happy to answer them.  These tests cannot be considered scientific.  They are demonstrative tests and very subjective.  I do these test for my own benefit and knowledge as I believe the more I know about my gear and the other tools available to me, the better my imaging will be.  I like to share what I've learned so others can potentially benefit from my work.  If IXT intrigues you, again, I highly suggest you run tests for yourself as you may come to very different conclusions than me.

As for me, I see quite a bit of value in adding IXT to some of my image files workflows.  Most of my image files don't deserve the extra work and care that adding IXT to my workflow will require.  But for those where I want to maximize image quality, I will most certainly use IXT.  Not only will I use it, but I will probably try converting a file using a couple of different groups of settings because if I'm going to put that effort into a file, I want to bring out the best in it possible.

Join me over at Instagram @dennisamook or my website, www.dennismook.com.

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.