Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main Photography Discussion
Raw processing for Fuji
Page 1 of 3 next> last>>
Jan 23, 2019 09:16:03   #
suntouched Loc: Sierra Vista AZ
 
For those of you that process Fuji Raw data what software are you using? Capture One has "Fuji Express" software that is free. Just wondering if one software is better than others.

Reply
Jan 23, 2019 09:20:50   #
Mama Bear984 Loc: Langley, BC Canada
 
Capture one seems to be the go to.
But I’ve seen others use Luninar & Aurora.

Reply
Jan 23, 2019 09:22:00   #
Mama Bear984 Loc: Langley, BC Canada
 
But I have to ask with the jpegs being so good why shoot raw anymore.
I don’t, can’t stand sitting attbe screen for hours anymore
.

Reply
 
 
Jan 23, 2019 09:31:39   #
olemikey Loc: 6 mile creek, Spacecoast Florida
 
I process my Fuji P&S superzoom stuff with Nikon ViewNX-2, same with my Sony & Canon output, all seems to work fine.

Reply
Jan 23, 2019 09:35:10   #
suntouched Loc: Sierra Vista AZ
 
Me either. However my photographs aren't close to perfectly executed right out of the camera and sometimes I want to add or delete components so that requires some post processing. Raws are easier to post process than Jpegs.

Mama Bear984 wrote:
But I have to ask with the jpegs being so good why shoot raw anymore.
I don’t, can’t stand sitting attbe screen for hours anymore
.

Reply
Jan 23, 2019 09:43:43   #
al13
 
I am still using LR for my XT3.

Reply
Jan 23, 2019 09:51:22   #
suntouched Loc: Sierra Vista AZ
 
I read awhile back that LR was not the best to use for Fuji Raw files- it escapes me exactly why but think LR process was thought/known to add artifacts during Raw processing. Anyway it was recommended to try other Raw processors. That was awhile back and I'm not sure if those issues were addressed/resolved.

al13 wrote:
I am still using LR for my XT3.

Reply
 
 
Jan 23, 2019 10:00:58   #
al13
 
It is better with the last upgrade.

Reply
Jan 23, 2019 12:07:27   #
Cany143 Loc: SE Utah
 
More recent --possibly the last two?-- LR updates seem to have addressed the Fuji RAF 'worm' problem. Still have C1 Fuji Express installed, but seldom use it any more since I'm far more comfortable in LR.

Reply
Jan 23, 2019 12:21:13   #
deer2ker Loc: Nashville, TN
 
I have encountered the "worm" problem in Lightroom and haven't updated yet. Right now I put my pics through Iridient X-transformer and then into Lightroom and it has helped a lot. I have the express version of Capture One but haven't had the time to learn how to use it properly so we will see! Hopefully if I get around to updating Lightroom, it will work better.

Reply
Jan 23, 2019 14:25:43   #
suntouched Loc: Sierra Vista AZ
 
I'm thinking :)
I have Luminex and heard that was better than LR. I could download C1 Fuji express for free. I might try the Iridient X- transformer as well. I don't use LR although I do know how. I just don't like the organizational module and if you don't use it as a package deal...

Instead I use Camera Raw and Bridge along with PS, OnOne and sometimes Luminex. My copy is a stand alone and because of that somewhat of a pain to leave PS; yada yada.

It wasn't only the artifacts with LR, it was colors being off and images looking "flat" for lack of a better term.


Ok I will compare the above (with the exception of LR) and see.

Thanks

Reply
 
 
Jan 23, 2019 15:51:44   #
Cany143 Loc: SE Utah
 
suntouched wrote:
I'm thinking :)
I have Luminex and heard that was better than LR. I could download C1 Fuji express for free. I might try the Iridient X- transformer as well. I don't use LR although I do know how. I just don't like the organizational module and if you don't use it as a package deal...

Instead I use Camera Raw and Bridge along with PS, OnOne and sometimes Luminex. My copy is a stand alone and because of that somewhat of a pain to leave PS; yada yada.

It wasn't only the artifacts with LR, it was colors being off and images looking "flat" for lack of a better term.


Ok I will compare the above (with the exception of LR) and see.

Thanks
I'm thinking :) br I have Luminex and heard that... (show quote)


As is often the case, it comes down to what software apps one has/prefers. Can't address conversion of X-Trans RAF image files in anything but C1 and LR (and though I could, I don't bother to use PS ACR much at all), but I can address the artifacts and 'flat' issues by saying I simply don't see it at present with Fuji files in LR.

Attached are two images of the same scene, the first is an untouched (other than downsizing and converting to .jpg) Nikon raw image file, the second is an untouched (other than downsizing, de-emphasizing portions of the full frame shot to emulate the Nikon shot) Fuji (X-T2) raf image file. Both were shot minutes apart, though under particularly flat lighting conditions. Though not visible in these downsized and converted versions, there are no artifacts whatsoever as viewed at 100% in their original state, and the Fuji shot cannot be said to be any 'flatter' than the Nikon version (given the lighting conditions, the differences in systems, lenses, etc.). I suppose I could do a similar A/B comparison of a LR version and a C1 version, but past experience tells me there wouldn't be any ostensible difference between the two.


(Download)


(Download)

Reply
Jan 23, 2019 18:21:51   #
suntouched Loc: Sierra Vista AZ
 
Thanks for posting that- I agree.

Cany143 wrote:
As is often the case, it comes down to what software apps one has/prefers. Can't address conversion of X-Trans RAF image files in anything but C1 and LR (and though I could, I don't bother to use PS ACR much at all), but I can address the artifacts and 'flat' issues by saying I simply don't see it at present with Fuji files in LR.

Attached are two images of the same scene, the first is an untouched (other than downsizing and converting to .jpg) Nikon raw image file, the second is an untouched (other than downsizing, de-emphasizing portions of the full frame shot to emulate the Nikon shot) Fuji (X-T2) raf image file. Both were shot minutes apart, though under particularly flat lighting conditions. Though not visible in these downsized and converted versions, there are no artifacts whatsoever as viewed at 100% in their original state, and the Fuji shot cannot be said to be any 'flatter' than the Nikon version (given the lighting conditions, the differences in systems, lenses, etc.). I suppose I could do a similar A/B comparison of a LR version and a C1 version, but past experience tells me there wouldn't be any ostensible difference between the two.
As is often the case, it comes down to what softwa... (show quote)

Reply
Jan 24, 2019 07:18:14   #
Grnway Loc: Manchester, NH
 
suntouched wrote:
For those of you that process Fuji Raw data what software are you using? Capture One has "Fuji Express" software that is free. Just wondering if one software is better than others.


LightRoom Creative Cloud. I hadn't updated to the latest version in a while. When I first attempted a raw import from XT-3 it couldn't process it. Once I updated, it's fine. I have not noticed any aberrations in raw files brought into LR.

Reply
Jan 24, 2019 07:19:35   #
berchman Loc: South Central PA
 
suntouched wrote:
For those of you that process Fuji Raw data what software are you using? Capture One has "Fuji Express" software that is free. Just wondering if one software is better than others.


The free version does not convert Fuji RAW files to DNG so that they can be imported to Lightroom and processed there. So I found it useless. You have to pay for the Capture One Pro to get that capability.

Reply
Page 1 of 3 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main Photography Discussion
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.