The Fabulous Fuji X owners thread

dave.hallett said:
You can do pretty much everything with it that you can do with a RAW file. It's the same bit depth and everything. It's not like you've flattened to a 16-bit TIF, quite the contrary. You can even pick the film simulations from the Camera Calibration profile. The only exception is probably LR's lens profile corrections, because I think the plug-in has its own version of that.
Click to expand...
Ah okay, so you literally use it for ALL editing then? Severely reduced the usability of LR then, which would essentially mean it's almost just cataloguing software [emoji87]
 
What? No! I've given you the wrong idea entirely ;-). I mean, once the converted file (the TIF/DNG) comes back into LR, you can then work on it just as if it were a better version of the RAF. Except you probably won't to want to do sharpening, noise reduction or lens profile corrections, because you'll have done those once already. Is that clearer? :-)
 
dave.hallett said:
What? No! I've given you the wrong idea entirely ;-). I mean, once the converted file (the TIF/DNG) comes back into LR, you can then work on it just as if it were a better version of the RAF. Except you probably won't to want to do sharpening, noise reduction or lens profile corrections, because you'll have done those once already. Is that clearer? :-)
Click to expand...
Oh! Yes, that's perfect now Dave. Sorry, I was maybe just being a little slow. That's pretty much how I envisaged it working but assumed that the process would need to be completely exclusive to LR.

Did you say you purchased it? What was the cost if you don't mind me asking?
 
Ian W said:
Oh! Yes, that's perfect now Dave. Sorry, I was maybe just being a little slow. That's pretty much how I envisaged it working but assumed that the process would need to be completely exclusive to LR.

Did you say you purchased it? What was the cost if you don't mind me asking?
Click to expand...
£35 after VAT. Not too unreasonable, I think.
 
I still haven't tried irident developer with any traditional landscapes, but with building landscapes (is that a term?) it seems to produce a fair bit more detail at pixel level. I haven't provided the crops here here yet, but from my example scene there was a car in the distance and the number plate was barely readable in the original JPG or RAW file, even when heavily sharpened. It was readable in the Irident file (with low sharpening selected). Diagonal lines render better as well, with less jagged bits. However, the difference isn't that great, you need to pixel peep with my examples so far. Foliage I guess will be the real test.
 
BacktotheFuji said:
I still haven't tried irident developer with any traditional landscapes, but with building landscapes (is that a term?) it seems to produce a fair bit more detail at pixel level. I haven't provided the crops here here yet, but from my example scene there was a car in the distance and the number plate was barely readable in the original JPG or RAW file, even when heavily sharpened. It was readable in the Irident file (with low sharpening selected). Diagonal lines render better as well, with less jagged bits. However, the difference isn't that great, you need to pixel peep with my examples so far. Foliage I guess will be the real test.
Click to expand...
There's a thread on dpreview where a guy has posted up some foliage examples with and without sharpening. I don't have it to hand right now, but a quick Google will surely turn it up.
 
Theres also this - its the full developer rather than XTrans but interesting to see a side by side LR vs ID for sharpness\contrast.

 
...and my quick test - all complete defaults.

If only they could read in the images direct from SD Card and convert into another folder.

In opposition to what I've read elsewhere I did have the Fuji preset available in Lightroom.


ID vs LR by John Norton, on Flickr
 
Not hugely different, but noticeable wouldn't you say John?
 
The irridient one just looks like it's pre-sharpened, which is what the X program does isn't it? I have the free trial here, will have a play later.
 
To my eyes theres a huge difference in sharpness, sure it could be pre-sharpening but even if I take sharpening up in LR to 70 (as far as I can go before it looks like a worm farm) its not quite as good, closer but not there.

lol, @imattersuk - nice choice of words - I was typing that and fafing with the image when you posted :)
 
Although in certain circumstances Iridient can give more detailed images, I prefer the colour interpretation of Lightroom. And the interface is more intuitive for me. That's possidown to practice, though.
 
JohnN said:
To my eyes theres a huge difference in sharpness, sure it could be pre-sharpening but even if I take sharpening up in LR to 70 (as far as I can go before it looks like a worm farm) its not quite as good, closer but not there.
Click to expand...
I'd never really noticed the worminess before, but was clearly visible in a portrait shot last week at 1:1.

I may give it a shot before deciding if it's worth it, but even then it's only £35 so hardly breaking the bank.
 
Any experience here with the 23mm F2? I'm selling my M43 gear to concentrate on Fuji and am contemplating adding this to my 35/1.4 and 18-55mm. I would see both as being used when travelling, the 23 in the daytime and the 35 at night. Is that stupid?
 
abryx said:
Any experience here with the 23mm F2? I'm selling my M43 gear to concentrate on Fuji and am contemplating adding this to my 35/1.4 and 18-55mm. I would see both as being used when travelling, the 23 in the daytime and the 35 at night. Is that stupid?
Click to expand...
Tried the f2, soft, wasn't impressed, the f1.4 is way better despite what reviewers say, i've owned both.
 
JohnN said:
...and my quick test - all complete defaults.

If only they could read in the images direct from SD Card and convert into another folder.

In opposition to what I've read elsewhere I did have the Fuji preset available in Lightroom.


ID vs LR by John Norton, on Flickr
Click to expand...
Wow that's quite a significant difference viewing on my phone.
 
imattersuk said:
To my eyes it is hugely different, far more detail in the Iridient one, better skin tone, far far nicer.
Click to expand...

Might be my monitor, but I'm not seeing any tone differences, just sharpness tbh. Maybe it's fooling the eye a little?

Are people simply glancing over the fact that the irridient one is pre sharpened? If you sharpen the lightroom one you'll get a much closer match
 
Last edited:
Cagey75 said:
Might be my monitor, but I'm not seeing any tone differences, just sharpness tbh. Maybe it's fooling the eye a little?

Are people simply glancing over the fact that the irridient one is pre sharpened? If you sharpen the lightroom one you'll get a much closer match
Click to expand...

Here you go.

Lightroom set to my sharpening limit for this image - 88 - for ease of compare I've relinked the original one too underneath.


ID vs LR - LR Sharpened to 88 by John Norton, on Flickr

ID vs LR by John Norton, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
Just had a quick go here, and yes, iridient brings out more detail, it's a bit stunning that it makes LR RAW handling look so shabby in comparison! This was all default on both - Iridient on the left. This is at 1:1, random shot of the street I took just this morning

kl8KsZs.jpg


My concern would be that it's also 'working' over areas you want smooth, shallow DOF, noise ... will have to try some more.
 
Last edited:
I think what we need is to play with the sharpening and set it to low or some such and see what that does.

It is night and day though, especially with foliage and buildings.
 
Last edited:
Looking at a few other files here that have 'bokeh' - and it does seem to be a bit aggressive on the sharpening on that side. Will definitely have to play a little more with it. It may be a case of using both for different types of image. Atm I wouldn't use iridient for a shallow DOF portrait for example. Sometimes over sharpening ruins an image. But I would certainly use it for landscape.

Had another fiddle there, and if you set all RAW tweaks to low or none, you get a much closer match. You don't get the horrible 'worminess' in the OOF areas, you will get if you over sharpen.
 
Last edited:
imattersuk said:
Tried the f2, soft, wasn't impressed, the f1.4 is way better despite what reviewers say, i've owned both.
Click to expand...
Thanks. Anyone with a different experience? If not perhaps I should look at the 18/2, for something compact to go along with the 35.
 
Cagey75 said:
Looking at a few other files here that have 'bokeh' - and it does seem to be a bit aggressive on the sharpening on that side. Will definitely have to play a little more with it. It may be a case of using both for different types of image. Atm I wouldn't use iridient for a shallow DOF portrait for example. Sometimes over sharpening ruins an image. But I would certainly use it for landscape.

Had another fiddle there, and if you set all RAW tweaks to low or none, you get a much closer match. You don't get the horrible 'worminess' in the OOF areas, you will get if you over sharpen.
Click to expand...
I agree, the default isn't always what you want in all parts of the image. I've gone for "low" for now, as this is generally inoffensive, but I might go for "none" if smooth bokeh was important.

If the creator could refine the tool so that you can see the result of changes instantly in a preview, that would be very helpful.
 
Theres a lot they could do to make it better, but for now image improvement will do.
 
I've been trying out X-Transformer as well. You can get more detail, but the sharpening is to much for me even at low setting. It gets very noisy in the out of focus areas. It wouldn't really show in print, so not a massive thing and I'd use it for that. I won't use it for anything web sized, as it doesn't make a great deal of difference at that size and just makes the workflow longer. I won't use it for high ISO images either. The sharpening really doesn't work well there, so you end up controlling that in LR anyway. I find LR noise processing better as well. It's still only at beta stage though!

If I shot landscapes I'd likely use it more. The detail it brings out is better and from what I have seen the lens correction is really good as well. I've seen examples of it improving corners quite a lot.
 
Any recommendations for a 3rd party battery for the X-T2? The official one is awfully expensive!
 
Naphta said:
Any recommendations for a 3rd party battery for the X-T2? The official one is awfully expensive!
Click to expand...


Ex-Pro White.(y)

George.
 
abryx said:
Thanks. Anyone with a different experience? If not perhaps I should look at the 18/2, for something compact to go along with the 35.
Click to expand...

My copy of the 23/2 appears fine. It's soft at f/2 if you shoot objects around 30cm away though.

Edit: AF is lightening quick and silent as well. But it's an odd shape :D
 
jj_glos said:
I've been trying out X-Transformer as well. You can get more detail, but the sharpening is to much for me even at low setting. It gets very noisy in the out of focus areas. It wouldn't really show in print, so not a massive thing and I'd use it for that. I won't use it for anything web sized, as it doesn't make a great deal of difference at that size and just makes the workflow longer. I won't use it for high ISO images either. The sharpening really doesn't work well there, so you end up controlling that in LR anyway. I find LR noise processing better as well. It's still only at beta stage though!

If I shot landscapes I'd likely use it more. The detail it brings out is better and from what I have seen the lens correction is really good as well. I've seen examples of it improving corners quite a lot.
Click to expand...
I kind of agree. But generally I find it easier a lot of the time to sharpen and then deal with the noise in the sky and water than to be really careful about where I sharpen :-) I find Dfine very good for that. So a bit of noise I don't mind. It's when the sharpening starts to do odd things with out of focus highlights that I have a big problem, because that's much harder to fix.
 
dave.hallett said:
I kind of agree. But generally I find it easier a lot of the time to sharpen and then deal with the noise in the sky and water than to be really careful about where I sharpen :) I find Dfine very good for that. So a bit of noise I don't mind. It's when the sharpening starts to do odd things with out of focus highlights that I have a big problem, because that's much harder to fix.
Click to expand...

So do I, which is why I prefer Lightroom sharpening with the mask function. Although X-Transformer brings out more detail, most of my shots are people and whilst hair can look great skin can look rough. I probably need to use the smooth setting more though rather than detailed. For the price it's a no brainer to add it to the toolset as far as I am concerned.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top