al13

I am looking at leaving LR/PS and exploring moving to ON1 or Capture One. I would appreciate Fuji users experience with either of theses programs. The cost of Adobe is not my reason for wishing to move.
Thanks

lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

Isn't that a bit like home down scaling by moving from Brentwood to Compton (California)?

I have a Fujifilm X-100T camera. I don't have any issues with using it with Photoshop (I don't use Lightroom). The only difference I see in my Fuji images is probably intentional on the part of Fujifilm. They use a modified six unit repeat pattern in their Bayer array sensors. Thus the images look a bit different from my Pentax images. Actually more so than the images I get from my Samsung Galaxy Note 8 & 9 Smart Phones. I also have an old Kodak digital PnS and a older tiny Samsung PnS both of which take much softer images than my "real" cameras or cells. Likely due to their tiny sensors and ancient technology. From what I can tell, all recent Fuji cameras are great. I took classes and learned how to use Ps and I'm quite happy to keep using it.

Most camera files should process up the same with any general use PP. My understanding is that there are a few things that one might need to do with Canon or Nikon files using their propitiatory software. And the Fuji X-T3 does not have pixel shift, does it?

al13

The X-T3 doesn’t use a Bayer type sensor but the X-Trans sensor. Adobe did add an additional adjustment for Fuji cameras but still doesn’t render the same color as the two I am looking at. I rarely use PS mostly only using LR.

al13

Forgot to add that it’s not quite the same as moving from Brentwood to Compton. Maybe moving from Brentwood to Williamson County.

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

I'm a very happy Fuji user currently keeping my XT-2. Before I switched to Fuji I had already begun to move away from Adobe products and was pretty confident that I would settle on Capture One. In fact it was the announcement by Phase One of Fuji X-Trans support that finally sent me into the camera store to buy my first Fuji X camera.

Still working with both Adobe and C1 I started testing my new Fuji and on frame #17 of my first test I saw something disturbing in the Adobe rendering of the image. I had discovered whatever you want to call it the Fuji X/Adobe "problem."

My original impetus for looking at C1 wasn't the Fuji X/Adobe "problem" but rather my search for a raw processing workflow that would be 100% non destructive and non-linearly re-editable. Back then (2013) I saw the contenders as only LR and C1 and decided that C1 held more promise. Now in 2019 there are some other alternatives to consider. The Fuji-X/Adobe "problem" was a further complication.

I'm still getting paid to teach LR/PS but have now removed LR from my personal computer and only maintain a copy on my teaching laptop. I'm very happy with C1 and pretty confident my earlier assessment was accurate. C1 does an excellent job with the X-Trans CFA and I believe is the best available option to deliver on my raw workflow goal.

Demosaicing the X-Trans CFA is tricky and I'm not convinced Fuji's innovation in that regard is more positive than negative. This is clear: because of the complications with demosaicing the X-Trans CFA there is a much wider range of variation in results available from the different raw converters available and that makes choosing one over the other more complicated.

Joe

al13

Just what I was looking for, thank you. It may be that Fuji actually worked with C1 developing the Fuji only C1.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

It's not that complicated. All modern raw converters seem to handle it with ease.

Fuji's innovation is to break up the regular pattern of the Bayer array (that uses 18 green, and 9 each red and blue sensels in a 36 sensel pattern) into a less regular arrangement that uses 20 green and 8 each red and blue sensels. This allows Fuji to avoid the AA filter despite the fact that all Fuji sensors (other than MF) are APS-C. You start off up with sharper images than with a Bayer array and an AA filter.

Then there is the fact that Fuji has concentrated their attention on the design of lenses for APS-C rather than the lesser quality line offered by others.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

The C1 development department worked closely with their own marketing department (not with Fuji), just like they did for Sony, to introduce you to a lower priced product in the expectation that you would get hooked and buy the full Pro version to use with other camera brands.

I don't regret getting hooked. When I saw the free Sony version I was happy to pay the full price so I could use it with other brands.

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

No they don't all handle it with ease. Try using DXO Photolab. LR/ACR still struggles with it unless you use the new enhance detail kludge which is impractical. Affinity Photo struggles with it.

LR/ACR, Affinity Photo, and DXO take a pretty big chunk out of "all modern raw converters."

Joe

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

The only program I have tried that cannot open a raw Fuji file is Silkypix.

Paintshop Pro, Picture Window Pro, LightZone and RawTherapee can all open and edit the RAF format. Many other programs can open and display an image that they create from the raw file, not just the embedded JPEG.

A program that struggles with a Fuji raw file probably has lots of other issues.

I'm not really interested in trying another raw converter just because it's popular. I stopped using Adobe products several years ago.

I just happen to prefer Capture One Pro. It may not do everything but it does more than I need.

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

SilkyPix is one of the better choices for X-Trans raw files and is of course the raw converter that Fuji supplies with their cameras. SilkyPix works well for Fuji X-Trans.

DXO Photolab won't open any Fuji X-Trans raw files.



Paintshop Pro/AfterShot do a very poor job demosaicing X-Trans raw files -- they just suck.



I'm sure then that you'll claim LR/ACR which are used by more photographers than any other raw conversion software have lots of other issues therefore removing them from consideration to be on the list of all modern raw converters.

All modern raw converters don't handle Fuji X-Trans with ease.

Joe

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

I can't imagine why not. It's not like they haven't had time to figure it out.

There has been no development done on Picture Window Pro in the five years since the developer retired but it can handle the RAF files.

If they don't do a very good job it has nothing to do with their ability to demosaic the raw data. If they can do the demosaicing at all then maybe they suck for other reasons.

Lot's of programs don't meet my needs even though they can handle the demosaic step.

I don't care how many people use LR/ACR any more than it matters to me how many people live in China and India. Find something else to argue about.

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

No need to argue at all. In response to my comment you said this: "It's not that complicated. All modern raw converters seem to handle it with ease."

Clearly that is wrong. All modern raw converters do not seem to handle X-Trans with ease.

Joe

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

"Handle" is a little vague.

Demosaicing is straightforward - cut and dried. It's not the demosaicing step that you see, it's what follows - the application of the tone curves to the three channels.

Software that "do not seem to handle X-Trans with ease" probably also has problems with the Bayer conversion.

I have been in the software development business for nearly fifty years. I understand the stages involved in the process.

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

That's your word. You used the word "handle" when you made this incorrect statement: "All modern raw converters seem to handle it with ease."

The "it" you refer to is the X-Trans CFA.

DXO won't touch it. They even have a statement on their website about it: https://support.dxo.com/hc/en-us/articles/115003106067-Why-DxO-OpticsPro-doesn-t-support-Fuji-cameras-with-X-Trans-sensors-

That alone proves what you said is wrong.

Some other raw converters that do demosaic the X-Trans CFA do it poorly. They don't demosaic Bayer arrays poorly they just demosaic X-Trans poorly. What you said is wrong.

Joe