Fuji raw Shooters

Fuji RAW Shooters what do you use for your RAW conversion

  • Total voters
    39
SsSsSsSsSnake

SsSsSsSsSnake

Suspended / Banned
Messages
9,886
Edit My Images
Yes
Just wondering what most people are using nowadays though I'm guessing LR is the most popular one, though I hear Iridient takes some beating.

just released is the Iridient transformer which converts to DNG,like a cut down version of ID

thanks for looking and hopefully voting
 
Lightroom. Never tried any others but the Fuji threads are full of discussions about the alternatives. General consensus seems to be that they all have faults. LR seems to be the weapon that does everything every time.
 
Lightroom, that's all I've got that will open the raws, however I use Fuji JPEG 99% of the time so it's largely irrelevant.
 
Interesting Alan,thejpegs are so good it makes one think if shooting raw apart from for a particular reason is really worth it.
 
There are 2 main reasons why I shoot RAW

1 - It retains the maximum amount of data.
2 - this allows me to process them

These 2 reasons is because of 1 reason.

I process them to my liking and my idea of what I want the photo to become and not let the camera decide. A correctly exposed photo is not necessarily enough, it's only half the battle, the processing is a part of me and it would be a while before I give that up.
 
mickledore said:
Do you just use ID to do the DNG conversion? If not what are the benefits of doing things that way round?
Click to expand...

I do use IR for the dng conversion. I am talking about landscapes mainly I don't always use ID for everything. Workflow for landscapes is import into LR as per normal then any I want to process I use ID to do the DNG conversion, the thing I do like is that you can still use the Fuji film simulations on the DNG.
 
Last edited:
SsSsSsSsSnake said:
Interesting Alan,thejpegs are so good it makes one think if shooting raw apart from for a particular reason is really worth it.
Click to expand...

They're good anyway, but the fact that LR cannot get equal results with regard to detail and definition is also important. I will often load a raw back into the camera and use the in camera raw converter if after experimentation in LR I prefer a different profile for example.
 
Lightroom.
Probably as I'm lazy and can't be doing with using different applications.

Choose a film profile and make a few tweaks from there.
 
I have tried most of the applications on the market but still can't find anything which beats Capture One Pro. This applies to just about any manufacturers RAW files.
 
Mainly LR. Occasionally use Iridient, but only in exceptional circumstances do I see a real-world improvement over LR.
 
Thanks for that Stephen(oh he of many fuji cameras ,latest being xpro2 lol)
I have been contemplating getting irridient but if as you say only exceptionally do you see improvement i cant be bothered to learn a new system now.
 
I tried about 8 different lots of software to try and get the best from the Fuji files. Irident arguably gives the best results in terms of sharpness and minimising the painterly/watercolour effect but it's not a nice piece of software to work with imo. Pretty much on par with this is aperture, much nicer but of software but obviously Mac only. However, I tended to use LR as that's my normal workflow and only resorted to aperture if I was having 'issues' with a particular file.
 
Thanks Toby so are you saying that Aperture processing of raf files gave you a very acceptable look even though you just used it on ones that have trouble to others,
The camera raw that Aperture uses is the same that the present Apple photos app uses but that doesn't have the same tools for more advanced work although its basic conversion would be the same,interestin
 
SsSsSsSsSnake said:
Thanks Toby so are you saying that Aperture processing of raf files gave you a very acceptable look even though you just used it on ones that have trouble to others,
The camera raw that Aperture uses is the same that the present Apple photos app uses but that doesn't have the same tools for more advanced work although its basic conversion would be the same,interestin
Click to expand...
Yeah. I first noticed an issue with my holiday pics in menorca where some of the rocks on the coast looked quite plasticky and fake but hadn't seen much about the potential issues with Fuji files. I then got a couple of landscapes with the watercolour/painterly and so my investigations started ;) Totally forgot about aperture and downloaded about half a dozen other lots of software. Didn't like the interface of any and then someone reminded me of aperture. Tried that and the rocks from menorca looked a lot more natural. As for the watercolour/painterly pics I couldn't find any software that gave me satisfactory results, but aperture was better than LR.
 
I've been working with LR since Rawshooter days, and while it still holds mysteries for me, I do now know how to get decent results from Fuji raw files, and that varies widely from X-Trans1 to 2 to 3.

However I've never tried Aperture even though I'm a Mac user.
 
Stephen L said:
I've been working with LR since Rawshooter days, and while it still holds mysteries for me, I do now know how to get decent results from Fuji raw files, and that varies widely from X-Trans1 to 2 to 3.

However I've never tried Aperture even though I'm a Mac user.
Click to expand...
There is only so much that you can do though, and it's not an LR thing per se as some of the 'effects' can be seen in the jpegs too (I always shot RAW and jpeg and checked the jpegs of the 'problem' files).
 
Stephen L said:
I've been working with LR since Rawshooter days, and while it still holds mysteries for me, I do now know how to get decent results from Fuji raw files, and that varies widely from X-Trans1 to 2 to 3.

However I've never tried Aperture even though I'm a Mac user.
Click to expand...
So Stephen even Iridient doesnt do it for you even though its a bit better than LR.?
Try apple photos for a couple just to see how they compare if you want to
 
Last edited:
After years and years of shooting and only processing the raw in my Canon days, 9 times out of 10, I'll use the jpeg file from the Fuji. If I want to make any significant changes, I'll likely do that on the raw in lightroom. I've had Iridient Developer since moving to X Trans, but it was never really worth the effort for the marginal increase. I have however recently bought the Iridient transformer, and there's a nice quirk on the mac in that you can drag your processed raw from lightroom onto the transformer app, sync folder, and the newly 'demonsaiced' dng file will pick up the same edits (presumably because I write them to .XMP files and the files share the same name). I sometime do this if I decide I want to pull in a little more detail after working on the image in Lightroom.

I do keep all the raw files, and import both into Lightroom (stacking the pair, with jpeg on top).
 
SsSsSsSsSnake said:
I wonder if the jpeg could be regulated with different in camera settings.
Click to expand...
I tried various tbh. But these issues aren't frequent and for the most part Fuji render stunning images. If you're not a picky sod like me it's really not an issue ;)
 
SsSsSsSsSnake said:
So Stephen even Iridient doesnt do it for you even though its a bit better than LR.?
Try apple photos for a couple just to see how they compare if you want to
Click to expand...
Lightroom does do it for me. I have taken Apple Photos off my Mac as I hate the way it wants to "own" my pictures. My only issue with LR is that I don't know every feature and get educated every time I read about it!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top