Disappointed with X-T30 images in Lightroom

jonbeeza said:
It is getting silly, the amount of models they are bringing out. The way they are going, the model numbers will be clashing. :oops: :$
Click to expand...

Yeah but the X-T100 was due a refresh. Nearly 2 years on.
 
Wow so many replies, I still see worms and water colour effect but not in all images. I don't want to start using Capture 1 as I have a massive library in lightroom and the hassle of using two types of software is too much. I've tried iridient x and it solves the issue and the latest images I've processed the raws in photoshop and I'm much happier with them. Maybe I'm just pixel peeping too much but some of the straight out of camera jpegs are dreadful.
 
c22w1 said:
I do agree though, I originally bought photoshop which is not cheap and then spent hour upon hour learning it and watching tutorial videos on youtube etc only to find that I now have to use a different software just for the Fuji files, I still have Nikon and Olympus cameras so photoshop will still be used and it's not a total loss.
Click to expand...

Capture One isn't a replacement for Photoshop, only ACR/Lightroom. Many people who use Capture One round trip from Capture One to Photoshop or Affinity Photo for final editing. You could just use C1 for the basic raw processing and then use the "edit with" option to get C1 to open a PSD in photoshop for editing.
 
That's exactly what I do. ACR is no good for fuji RAF files, it's just frustrating, unfortunately.
myotis said:
Capture One isn't a replacement for Photoshop, only ACR/Lightroom. Many people who use Capture One round trip from Capture One to Photoshop or Affinity Photo for final editing. You could just use C1 for the basic raw processing and then use the "edit with" option to get C1 to open a PSD in photoshop for editing.
Click to expand...
 
c22w1 said:
That's exactly what I do. ACR is no good for fuji RAF files, it's just frustrating, unfortunately.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I understand, what I suggested can't be "exactly what you do" for if it was, the issue with ACR and fuji wouldn't be an issue, because you wouldn't be using ACR.

I'm suggesting you use c1 instead of ACR, and open the C1 "demosaiced file" in Photoshop as a PSD (from C1) for editing (instead of opening the ACR demosaiced file in Photoshop). So you are still making use of your Photoshop skills, but taking advantage of the C1 demosaicing to avoid the ACR/Lightroom demosaicing issues.

edit: or have I misread this and you are saying you already use the C1 "edit with" option to round trip PSDs to Photoshop
 
Last edited:
I now use C1 for the RAW and then "edit with PS" for the Fuji files, for other cameras I still use ACR (still prefer ACR to C1 but not on fuji)
myotis said:
I'm not sure I understand, what I suggested can't be "exactly what you do" for if it was, the issue with ACR and fuji wouldn't be an issue, because you wouldn't be using ACR.

I'm suggesting you use c1 instead of ACR, and open the C1 "demosaiced file" in Photoshop as a PSD (from C1) for editing (instead of opening the ACR demosaiced file in Photoshop). So you are still making use of your Photoshop skills, but taking advantage of the C1 demosaicing to avoid the ACR/Lightroom demosaicing issues.

edit: or have I misread this and you are saying you already use the C1 "edit with" option to round trip PSDs to Photoshop
Click to expand...
 
c22w1 said:
I now use C1 for the RAW and then "edit with PS" for the Fuji files, for other cameras I still use ACR (still prefer ACR to C1 but not on fuji)
Click to expand...
OK, it was just the original post suggested you were complaining about the time spent learning photoshop you now had to use C1 for raw processing Fuji Films, where I was suggesting the time spent learning Photoshop was still valuable because regardless of how you processed the RAW, (C1 or ACR) the Photoshop skills needed for detailed editing in PS were almost the same.

I've been using C1 for 10 years now for raw processing Nikon files, so when I got a Fuji I escaped the LR/ACR issues, and there have been big improvements in the integration between PS and C1 during that time. One possible big advantage of C1 is that given the direct collaboration between Fuji and Phase One, you can be reasonably confident of always going to get as close to the best out of Fuji files as is possible.

But I agree it adds an extra level of complexity.
 
Does C1 allow you to convert to dng? If so has anyone tried converting the Fuji raw to dng in C1 and the importing the dng’s into LR? Would this get around the demosacing issue, ie C1 demosaics the raf file and exports the dng in the ‘standard’ pattern?
 
snerkler said:
Had another go with the raws and tbh I can't really see any of the old artefacts (unlike the jpegs) so I might have to eat humble pie :coat: Strangely I've found that they now need some sharpening rather than none, but still need the detail slider quite high.
Click to expand...
Ok another change of heart, worked on some other images from the X-T30 and they still look odd, thought I’d cracked it but back to the drawing board :facepalm:
 
snerkler said:
Does C1 allow you to convert to dng? If so has anyone tried converting the Fuji raw to dng in C1 and the importing the dng’s into LR? Would this get around the demosacing issue, ie C1 demosaics the raf file and exports the dng in the ‘standard’ pattern?
Click to expand...
I am pretty confident, that although C1 will export as DNG, it won't do it for Fuji files (or at least it didn't), but Phase One make minor improvements (some of which are important to a small number of people) at every point release.

Personally, It seems a waste to just demosaic in C1 and then move the file from C1 to LR for editing, as I find the editing tools in C1 to be more intuitive and powerful than those in LR.

I now primarily use LR as a DAM (as well as Neofinder) and for some other functions, but I work the other way round and send RAW files to C1 from LR for demosaicing and editing, before round-tripping to PS from C1 for final editing. Final files as PSDs, TIFFs or Jpegs are then catalogued back in LR and Neofinder.

If I wanted to use LR for editing I would probably bypass C1 altogether and just go with Iridient X, with its proper LR integration.
 
I've been out with the X-T1 this morning but the weather was dismal so I've got nothing to write home about. I'm going to try editing the RAW files solely in C1 later to see what I get and wether I'm going to keep the X-T1 or not.
If I don't get better results than the fuji SOOC jpegs then it'll have to go. Hope not though it was bargain of a price and I really do like the body. Report back later
 
myotis said:
I am pretty confident, that although C1 will export as DNG, it won't do it for Fuji files (or at least it didn't), but Phase One make minor improvements (some of which are important to a small number of people) at every point release.

Personally, It seems a waste to just demosaic in C1 and then move the file from C1 to LR for editing, as I find the editing tools in C1 to be more intuitive and powerful than those in LR.

I now primarily use LR as a DAM (as well as Neofinder) and for some other functions, but I work the other way round and send RAW files to C1 from LR for demosaicing and editing, before round-tripping to PS from C1 for final editing. Final files as PSDs, TIFFs or Jpegs are then catalogued back in LR and Neofinder.

If I wanted to use LR for editing I would probably bypass C1 altogether and just go with Iridient X, with its proper LR integration.
Click to expand...
How exactly does trident work with LR? I assume it's a plug in and as such won't the demosaicing still be done by LR?
 
myotis said:
Iridient X opens the raw from inside LR and converts (demosaics) it into a DNG for further editing in LR,

https://www.iridientdigital.com/products/xtransformer.html
Click to expand...
Thanks. I couldn’t get it to work as a plug in (possibly a limitation of the free trial?) but I’ve converted the raf files to dng in the irident x transformer then imported to LR and unfortunately the ‘artificial’ looking rendering is still there in some of the images. What I would say though is that this method does extract a tad more detail.

I’ll try the C1 free trial over the next day or so but after all this I’m still not convinced you can ever fully negate the artificial rendering of certain Fuji xtrans shots. They are a lot better than they used to be now though, and the raws actually now show less of an issue than the SOOC jpeg.
 
snerkler said:
Thanks. I couldn’t get it to work as a plug in (possibly a limitation of the free trial?) but I’ve converted the raf files to dng in the irident x transformer then imported to LR and unfortunately the ‘artificial’ looking rendering is still there in some of the images. What I would say though is that this method does extract a tad more detail.
Click to expand...

I confess to not having used it as a plugin, only read of people using it as such e.g. https://www.aevansphoto.com/ixt-lightroom-plugin/

edit: have you tried RawTherapee, it's a bit of a steep learning curve, and I haven't used it with Xtrans (but I think it has a choice of three different demosaicing algorithms). In terms of raw processing its certainly a step above C1 or ACR/LR for my Nikons, and I would assume it also does a very good job with X-Trans.

Here is a video on the new capture sharpening feature of RT to give you a flavour of it
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3OJhnKQzUuw&t=4s
 
Last edited:
myotis said:
I confess to not having used it as a plugin, only read of people using it as such e.g. https://www.aevansphoto.com/ixt-lightroom-plugin/

edit: have you tried RawTherapee, it's a bit of a steep learning curve, and I haven't used it with Xtrans (but I think it has a choice of three different demosaicing algorithms). In terms of raw processing its certainly a step above C1 or ACR/LR for my Nikons, and I would assume it also does a very good job with X-Trans.

Here is a video on the new capture sharpening feature of RT to give you a flavour of it
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3OJhnKQzUuw&t=4s
Click to expand...
Tried it ages ago when I had the X-T1.
 
snerkler said:
Tried it ages ago when I had the X-T1.
Click to expand...

Probably worthwhile trying again if it was ages ago, as being open source, development and changes, even big changes, can happen very quickly. The capture sharpening mentioned in the video is incredibly good.
 
myotis said:
Probably worthwhile trying again if it was ages ago, as being open source, development and changes, even big changes, can happen very quickly. The capture sharpening mentioned in the video is incredibly good.
Click to expand...
TBH it seems silly changing my workflow too much just to try and get images to look good when there are plenty of other cameras out there. I’ve given it a try using methods people swear by but I just don’t think x-trans is going to be for me (y)
Diamonddec said:
Now £299 Toby … https://www.hotukdeals.com/deals/fujifilm-x-t100-with-xc-15-45mm-lens-3395767

:p
Click to expand...
What’ve you gone and done that for :eek::LOL:
 
People still moaning about XT issues in 2020?? so glad I know how not to make it an issue :P

That XT100 deal is very nice btw
 
snerkler said:
TBH it seems silly changing my workflow too much just to try and get images to look good when there are plenty of other cameras out there. I’ve given it a try using methods people swear by but I just don’t think x-trans is going to be for me (y)
Click to expand...

Yes, I agree.
 
Cagey75 said:
People still moaning about XT issues in 2020?? so glad I know how not to make it an issue :p

That XT100 deal is very nice btw
Click to expand...
Well I believe I’ve tried everything you’ve suggested so I think you’re just immune to it :p
 
snerkler said:
Well I believe I’ve tried everything you’ve suggested so I think you’re just immune to it :p
Click to expand...

I guarantee if I was to sit down with you and go through some Fuji RAWs in LR I'd change your mind, but it's difficult to get across my process online.
 
Cagey75 said:
I guarantee if I was to sit down with you and go through some Fuji RAWs in LR I'd change your mind, but it's difficult to get across my process online.
Click to expand...
Tbh I’d love as I’d love an X-Tx camera. Would you mind if I forward you some raws and then you send me your exported jpegs back to see if I still see weird rendering or not please?
 
snerkler said:
Tbh I’d love as I’d love an X-Tx camera. Would you mind if I forward you some raws and then you send me your exported jpegs back to see if I still see weird rendering or not please?
Click to expand...

Sure, pm me and I'll give you my email to send the files, I'll give it a shot :)
 
I can't see how you can go wrong with an XT100 plus lens for that money, also it's a Bayer sensor so snerkler should find the files easy to manage :P
 
twist said:
You seem to keep spending money on the wrong cameras. :LOL:
Click to expand...
Curiosity and all that ;) It’s only as a ‘snapshot’ camera and is much cheaper and will give better results than the G5x-II I was considering ;)
 
Diamonddec said:
Nice one. Hope your "6th sense" doesn't rear its head again...... [emoji23]
Click to expand...
Shouldn't do, it's got a bayer sensor ;)

As an added bonus I've got their last one which is a display model and got it reduced even further, so I've got a mint X-T100 with 15-45mm lens with 2 year warranty for £269.
 
Diamonddec said:
Result. (y)
Click to expand...
Yeah, even if the AF performance etc isn’t up to scratch it’s still a lot of camera for the money, especially when you compare it to the 1” compacts and cameras like the G1x.
 
snerkler said:
IMO worms are definitely a result of of sharpening artefacts.
Click to expand...

I'd put it differently, and say the worms are an artefact of the demosaicing process, made worse (or more obvious) by some sharpening processes. Having compared Capture 1 with Lightroom (with and without the Iridient plugin and the 'enhance details' option) I see significant differences between each solution on certain raw files, but it's not straightforward to do a 'like for like' comparison.

I'm only in week 4 of my 'Fuji x-t3 journey', having flogged all my Nikon kit, so take this with a pinch of salt.
 
snerkler said:
Why would you risk losing even 1% of potential buyers (although it might be higher than that) over a sensor that offers no benefits (that I'm aware of).
Click to expand...

X-trans does have benefits (such as lower apparent moire, apparently). Whether they are benefits to you (or me) is another matter.
 
old_codger said:
X-trans does have benefits (such as lower apparent moire, apparently). Whether they are benefits to you (or me) is another matter.
Click to expand...

I read a piece on this quite a while ago and the conclusion was that the differences between xtrans and bayer are swings and roundabouts. I'll see if I still have the link, but I may not.

The one significant thing I remember is that the xtrans pictures are in camera process heavy, x3 maybe?

Ha! I still have it. Make of this what you will...

https://petapixel.com/2017/03/03/x-trans-vs-bayer-sensors-fantastic-claims-test/
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
I read a piece on this quite a while ago and the conclusion was that the differences between xtrans and bayer are swings and roundabouts. I'll see if I still have the link, but I may not.

The one significant thing I remember is that the xtrans pictures are in camera process heavy, x3 maybe?

Ha! I still have it. Make of this what you will...

https://petapixel.com/2017/03/03/x-trans-vs-bayer-sensors-fantastic-claims-test/
Click to expand...
I read an article that said Fuji deliberately ‘smooth’ their files as the Japanese ladies prefer this for their portraits. Quite bizarre and sexist I thought ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top