Fuji RAWs are rubbing me raw

[pixmedic]

Additionally, as I become more familiar with Fuji, I have found that my manipulations for a typical, basic image becoming less and less ... I really don't touch sharpening at all.

I actually noticed this as well, even compared to my FF nikon raw files.
the x-e2 files required less dramatic editing in LR.

honestly, i haven't noticed anything "terribly off" just using LR to process my fuji raw files...
the pictures have all looked good to me. (though admittedly i have not dont any heavy pixel peeping)
so if the consensus is that other raw converters produce a better result, im interested to see just how much better i can feel about the decision to go fuji when me and the wife are already extremely pleased with it.

 

[Ysarex]

so, one more question, if you will indulge....
since i saw darktable was for linux, i went with RT.
just got it installed and opened...so...new program to learn.
I see it does a lot of what LR does, but am I supposed to do all the editing in RT and export from there a finished product? or just do the raw conversion in RT and import the jpeg into LR to do my editing?
if the latter, how do I do just the raw conversion in RT to where i would do my actual editing in LR but still get the advantage of the better conversion from RT?
#@*&^!* adobe...messing up my whole workflow 'cause they cant adapt to fujis file system well...

You're not going to like this, so don't forget you can instead just stick with using LR.

Do a base conversion in RT. You're concern then is WB, detail and a full tone scale. Output a 16 bit TIF (huge file) to LR for further processing if you want to retain full DR adjustment capacity in LR or output an 8 bit TIF to LR if you've got the tone response in RT close to what you need. Hang on a minute and I'll show you the differences your dealing with.

Joe

 

[Gary A.]

I dunno about RT or LR or even LSMFT ... but here's my workflow. I import everything, all my RAW files into Aperture where I perform as much global manipulation(s) as required/as possible. Color Balance, Levels, Contrast, Exposure, et al then save as a JPEG. Then import all the JPEGs into PS when I run them all through again for cropping, burning and dodging and maybe some cloning/dust removal if required. While it takes longer, I think the time between the first Aperture run and the second PS run helps sharpen my overall content intent and focuses my individual image intent and increases Delete Button implementation.

 

[Gary A.]

But, the big but, if you're happy with your output ... then don't worry about it. You can always download a 30 day trial of the various mentioned programs and see if there is a difference in the final image.

Remember that if you need a computer to see a difference ... then there really isn't a difference.

 

[pixmedic]

But, the big but, if you're happy with your output ... then don't worry about it. You can always download a 30 day trial of the various mentioned programs and see if there is a difference in the final image.

Remember that if you need a computer to see a difference ... then there really isn't a difference.

me and the wife really love the x-e2. its been so much better to use than the big Nikon cameras. the controls are very intuitive once you get the placement down, and it doesn't feel like dragging a 12lb turkey around your neck when we are out with it.
I just want to get the most out of it. The wife has been fine with the LR processing, but I still want to see if there's any improvement to be had using other methods. we just dont have the budget right now for any additional software purchases,
(kid has endocrinologist and neurologist visit coming up) but if a free program like Raw Therapee can net me a little better result, even with a slightly longer workflow, Ima gonna give it a go.

 

[Ysarex]

Here's a good example RAF: Dropbox - DSCF4797.RAF

you can download it and process it yourself. I'll be back in a minute with some examples.

Joe

 

[Ysarex]

Here's Wimpy processed using Adobe's default detail and output sharpened for screen:

Here's a 100% crop of the detail processing the file with ACR/LR. In the 2nd version detail was increased using adjustments similar to what Peter Bridgwood suggests in the article posted above.

Hang on more coming.

Joe

 

[Derrel]

Does Raw Therapee have the ability to output a .DNG file instead of a .TIF?

 

[pixmedic]

Does Raw Therapee have the ability to output a .DNG file instead of a .TIF?

no. jpeg, png, tiff

 

[Ysarex]

Here's RT's processing of the same file with the detail cranked up. Arguably this is overdone and the 2nd version is showing noise and artifacts that I'm not trying to remove -- point is you want max detail you get some noise with it. But the detail amount you see below isn't coming from Adobe no matter what you do.

Now put that in perspective: we're pixel peeping here and do we really need theses at 100% and this sharpened? What's your output requirement?

Joe

 

[pixmedic]

the LR file using the adjusted detail numbers looks better compared to LR default.
now i have to compare it to a file processed in RT.

 

[pixmedic]

RT edit, all auto adjustments.
RTtest by pixmedic, on Flickr

LR edit with sharpening 40, radius 1.4, detail 90 (instead of default) all else is auto.
LRtest by pixmedic, on Flickr

 

[Ysarex]

RT edit, all auto adjustments.
RTtest by pixmedic, on Flickr

LR edit with sharpening 40, radius 1.4, detail 90 (instead of default) all else is auto.
LRtest by pixmedic, on Flickr

Here's a side by side of your LR version and my RT version. Notice the lettering and how Adobe is beginning to halo the edges.

Joe

 

[pixmedic]

that was my first edit with RT. definitely NOT proficient with it yet.
I dunno though...you really have to do some serious pixel peeping to see any significant difference.
to me, at normal viewing anyway, the differences are negligible. even at 100%, the difference is noticeable, yes, but im not sure that its such a difference that most people would even notice it.
I may have to just keep messing with RT and see what happens, but im really not seeing why people are having major coronaries
over how LR deals with the fuji files...i think they come out fine for most applications.

 

[Ysarex]

that was my first edit with RT. definitely NOT proficient with it yet.
I dunno though...you really have to do some serious pixel peeping to see any significant difference.
to me, at normal viewing anyway, the differences are negligible. even at 100%, the difference is noticeable, yes, but im not sure that its such a difference that most people would even notice it.
I may have to just keep messing with RT and see what happens, but im really not seeing why people are having major coronaries
over how LR deals with the fuji files...i think they come out fine for most applications.

There you go. Pixel peeping can be an addiction disease just like crack. This Adobe/Fuji X-trans issue is real but it gets blown way out of proportion by people afflicted with the pixel peeping addiction. It's unfortunate that Adobe's default processing for X-Trans is so poor. IM_Duval here may have been reacting to Adobe's default settings which really do render an RAF soft, but a little time spent working with Adobe may be the best solution. In addition to what you can get working with the detail panel in LR you also want to pay attention to output sharpening. An LR processed RAF sized to output and then appropriately output sharpened may be more than adequate.

I'm a printer and I make some big prints so that last bit of detail matters to me. I tend to default to C1 or PhotoNinja for my RAF files for that reason, but if I had to stick with LR I'd be reasonably happy with what I could get.

Joe