RAW and the software you use

S

SnapperJ

Established
Local time
8:09 AM
Joined
Sep 30, 2006
Messages
53
Hello fellow photographers,
I am looking into buying an x-Pro 1 camera. I have worked with a DSLR for some time. Before that I had a Leica M8 which was temperamental to say the least. I now need to have a camera that is lighter and portable. My only concern with the x-Pro 1 is processing the RAW files. I have read a lot of conflicting information regarding different types of developing software.

I would be very interested in hearing what you use and see some examples.

Thanks,

Jeremy
 
I use LR 4 and select sharpening parameters that are compatible with the X-Trans sensor and the subject matter. If I use LR as I do for Bayer sensors, I see strange things from time to time. However, with experience you can find rendering parameters that produce nice images from the X-Tran sensor. For instance, rarely careful attention to the color temperature can make a huge difference. For my subjects, Adobe's rendering is acceptable most of the time. However Adobe's rendering algorithm must be improved. The most serious problem is color bleeding into white pixels in high contrast regions. I would use Capture One if they decide to release a less expensive version so I can import tiffs into LR. For those images where Adobe's rendering is unacceptable, I will use Raw Photo Processor (RPP) to make tiffs for optimization in LR. But so far this hasn't been necessary. I can understand how some photographers feel Adobe's rendering is unacceptable. For me, the X-Trans raw files render as well as those from the D700.

The high degree of automatic correction for barrel distortion on the 18/2 lens sometimes requires extra work in LR. The chromatic abberation at the edge of the frame in high contrast regions occasionally is quite different tha the correction model in LR. I see this about 10% of the time. I have never seen this with the 35/1.4 lens.

I think the issue of X-Trans raw image quality depends on what you photograph, how you display your photos and what aspects of photography are important to you. There are images floating around so a Google search could help you find a few to play with.
 
Thanks for taking the trouble to reply to my question.

I shoot a verity of subjects the one constant is that I print my work at A2 size (594 x 420mm, 23.4 x 16.5in)

I am sure that from what I have read that the x-Pro 1 is more than capable of producing files that will print this size.

I am using Photoshop CS5, but from what I have found out so far I would need to move to CS6. Have any of you used CS5 or CS6 to develope your RAW files. I would rather stay with Photoshop, but if the only way to obtain high quality RAW conversions is to change my software then so be it. The important thing for me is to reduce the weight I am carrying without reducing the image quality.

Thanks for your help.
 
I believe the CS6 raw rendering engine is based on adobe camera raw which identical to the raw rendering engine used in a Lightroom.
 
SnapperJ said:
I would rather stay with Photoshop, but if the only way to obtain high quality RAW conversions is to change my software then so be it.
Click to expand...

Why not download Adobe DNG converter? It handles X-Pro1 files, it's simple to use, and it's free! Photoshop CS5 handles the DNG files, so there's no need to change.

The only down-side is that there's an extra (small) step in your workflow, but it's not much of a penalty for the ability to stay with your existing software, and at no extra cost.:)
 
jarski said:
Wasnt Adobes support to XTrans Raws still somewhat lacking :confused:
Click to expand...

Hmmmm.... I've seen this debated in various places. Before I replied to the OP, I downloaded an X-Pro1 Raw file from a review site (I don't have an X-Pro1), and converted it using Adobe's DNG converter in order to check that it worked.

The resulting DNG file looked fine to me, but IIRC the problem with some conversions is reputed to be a "painterly" look when there is foliage in the image. Unfortunately, the file that I converted did not have foliage in it, so I was unable to check this aspect. That said, I would have been happy with the quality of the DNG file that I got from the converter.

As always, YMMV.:)
 
The resulting DNG file looked fine to me, but IIRC the problem with some conversions is reputed to be a "painterly" look when there is foliage in the image. Unfortunately, the file that I converted did not have foliage in it, so I was unable to check this aspect. That said, I would have been happy with the quality of the DNG file that I got
Click to expand...

Thanks again for the useful information. I will check out the RAW converter. I have read about problems with the dgn converter and also CS6/bridge! It's hard to decide which way to go.

I will check what RAW files are available to test.

Thanks again for helping me.
 
SnapperJ said:
It's hard to decide which way to go.
Click to expand...

This is how I feel after doing extensive reading on-line :bang:! Being a new owner of an X-E1 I've decided to stick with Lightroom, shoot RAW+jpeg, and use Fuji's own (free) RAW converter to generate TIFFs to be imported into LR if need be.

This way, if Adobe gets it's act together, I can always go back to a specific RAW file to reprocess. The endless discussions on the web had me forgetting the whole reason I got this camera in the first place -- shoot, man, shoot!
 
SnapperJ said:
I will check out the RAW converter.
Click to expand...

It's got to be worth a try, as it's free!

I should have mentioned one other minor (depending on your storage space) disadvantage: the resulting DNG file seems to be around 50% larger than the RAF file from which it is generated.
 
jarski said:
Wasnt Adobes support to XTrans Raws still somewhat lacking :confused:

Maybe am having just old information...
Click to expand...

In my experience Adobe's support of XTrans raw is lacking.

The thing is, if you adjust the rendering parameters used in ACR, PS or Lightroom differently than you typically do for Bayer raw then the deficiencies are minimized. The work flow to achieve the best rendering for XTrans is different.

In my experience the issue is real, but not serious. For some scenes the deficiencies are more obvious.
 
right now - c1 -> TIFF -> LR for crop / final adj and cataloging. c1's image rendering is great but everything else about it is alien to me coming from LR. i guess i could use silkypix to do the same thing. maybe i'll do that when my trial period ends at C1.
 
FA Limited said:
does anyone export to tiff from the included silkypix 3 and then process in LR after?
Click to expand...

Similar here. After the Raw development in SPx I export to TIFF.
Simple retouch with IrfanView, complex post processing with GIMP.
 
willie_901 said:
I use LR 4 and select sharpening parameters that are compatible with the X-Trans sensor and the subject matter. If I use LR as I do for Bayer sensors.
Click to expand...

Hi Willie,

can you elaborate a bit on the parameter differences you use?
Or point me to a source of information?

Chers,

Robin
 
Depends what you are doing, depends how critical you are.

RAW support for X PRO 1 stinks!
LR is no good and Capture 1 is actually no better, despite what others may say. Silky makes a half decent TIFF, but not brilliant. RPP, forget it. They all exhibit the same problems more or less. Stick with a Bayer sensor camera for the moment until things get sorted out. X100 is good, in fact its very good!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top