# Software suggestions



## jrh108 (May 20, 2017)

After much great advice from members of this forum concerning cameras, some hands-on time in stores, and consideration of my previous experience and preferences with film cameras, I have decided to re-engage with photography with a Fuji X Pro2 purchase. In preparation for that, I am also having to enter into the software world (instead of chemicals and darkrooms), and am unsure of the best route to go with the competing programs, unsure of present state of each program's ability to support Fuji RAW format, their ease of use, learning curve, etc. I have no reference for any of this in my previous photography experience, having only used film and a darkroom for B&W work, and all of that many years ago. 

So I am requesting some guidance in this specific area for choice amongst Lightroom, Iridient + Lightroom, Capture One Pro 10.x, and Phocus. All input welcomed and appreciated. 
Thank you.


----------



## Light Guru (May 20, 2017)

I personally rally like Capture One Pro, I have used it at work in the past.  But it is expensive, so I ended up going with Lightroom.  Get the CC bundle with photo shop its the best option.

Of the other software you listed the only one I have experience with is Phocus, and it only works with hasselblad files.


----------



## Ysarex (May 20, 2017)

jrh108 said:


> After much great advice from members of this forum concerning cameras, some hands-on time in stores, and consideration of my previous experience and preferences with film cameras, I have decided to re-engage with photography with a Fuji X Pro2 purchase. In preparation for that, I am also having to enter into the software world (instead of chemicals and darkrooms), and am unsure of the best route to go with the competing programs, unsure of present state of each program's ability to support Fuji RAW format, their ease of use, learning curve, etc. I have no reference for any of this in my previous photography experience, having only used film and a darkroom for B&W work, and all of that many years ago.
> 
> So I am requesting some guidance in this specific area for choice amongst Lightroom, Iridient + Lightroom, Capture One Pro 10.x, and Phocus. All input welcomed and appreciated.
> Thank you.



Excellent camera choice.

Are you working with an Apple MAC computer? If yes then you can use Phocus as long as your MAC OS is up to date and contains Apple's RAF built-in demosaicing. Phocus will rely on that and would otherwise not be able to process the RAF files from the XPro2.

You do have the option to begin with no cost and use the raw converter that Fuji supplies with the camera. Basically it's an OEM version of SilkyPix. It does a good job with the Fuji files but is otherwise a basic raw converter. Buying the Fuji Camera qualifies you to upgrade at a reduced price to the full version of SilkyPix Pro (currently out in version 8) -- just so you know.

You mention Iridient + Lightroom which suggests you have already encountered at least mention of the Adobe X-Trans "problem." The XPro2 is fitted with Fuji's X-Trans III sensor and uses the proprietary Fuji X-Trans CFA. Read post #16 in this thread: X-T10? X-M1?

A lot of people use Lightroom with Fuji cameras and are completely satisfied. A lot of people won't go near a Fuji camera with Lightroom and spit on the ground at the mention of Adobe's name. Can't predict which group you'll fall into. A lot of folks in group 1 claim those in group 2 are fantasizing and seeing things while a lot of folks in group 2 claim those in group 1 are blind. I'll just say that the Adobe "problem" is real.

Some points: Ideally you want to learn to process RAF files (seems you've figured that out already).
Ideally then you want a work flow that as often as possible permits you to do the above using a single parametric editor and no additional software.
Ideally you'll want to keep any use of a raster editor to a minimum but you will occasionally need one.
Best chance to achieve the above ideal goals is to use a robust and feature rich parametric editor and that means pick one: Lightroom or Capture One.

That was easy; if you chose Lightroom you'll be using the most popular professional photo editing software. It's an excellent product and is available alone with a license for approx. $150.00 or bundled with Photoshop in subscription form for $10.00. If you go the license route you'll still need a raster editor occasionally and Affinity Photo for $50.00 will serve nicely. If you go the subscription route you'll have all you need with PS thrown in. Unless of course you discover that you believe the Adobe "problem" is very real at which point you will begin  your trip down the agonize kludge road.

If you chose Capture One you can buy it with a license or subscription -- recommend the license. Most folks prefer Lightroom's DAM functions over Capture One's but when it comes to actually processing the photo with that robust set of features I mentioned Capture One is top dog. Phase One is pretty good with support and upgrades are $99.00 when new versions are released. If you skip a version they still let you upgrade for $99.00. You'll still need a raster editor occasionally and just as above, Affinity Photo will server nicely for $50.00.

The Adobe X-Trans problem is unfairly named or rather unfairly assigned exclusively to Adobe. Other raw converters also find X-Trans challenging and that includes Capture One. So you're going to encounter Fuji users ranking the different converters in a hierarchy of best to worst with Adobe bringing up the rear and a lot of controversy about who's in the top slot. The most common contenders for the top slot are Iridient, RawTherapee, PhotoNinja and Capture One. Only Capture One fits the earlier noted criteria of robust and feature rich.

Joe


----------



## jcdeboever (May 21, 2017)

If your a Windows user, you may want to at least check out Alien Skin Exposure X2.  I don't do much editing but it has been the best one for me. It seems to render the simulation modes accurately, compared to everything I have tried and that is important to me.  No one ever mentions it on here probably because it's not Lightroom which I found totally gets the simulations wrong. Again, I am no expert and not as technical as Joe in these matters but simply, this software does what I need to and is easy to use. It's non destructive as well, which is nice. They also have a plethora of easy to follow, how to videos. 

Exposure X2 | Creative photo editor and organizer


----------



## jrh108 (May 22, 2017)

What an incredible wealth of information, presented with clarity. Thank you so much. I admit that I had to to spend some time looking up the acronyms and terms, which led to further learning opportunities. 
I am a long-time Mac user, BTW.

I think that I would really like to keep my photo files in a separate folder(s) on separate drives rather than managed by the program used for editing, and need to spend some time figuring out the best ways to do that, as well as how each program imports, exports, saves, etc.  Playing with the free download of Phocus, I haven't even figured that part out!

I assume that keeping the workflow in one program obviates other problems, but if one were to use a program such as Iridient for the RAF conversion, then in what format should those files then exported to the editing program?

To stay in one parametric program, I'm leaning toward the purchase of Capture One Pro from the information given above and from other reading, but I am making many assumptions, my inexperience being the most obvious. But I am also not sure if my eyes have the ability to see the differences anyway, though I hope to train the mind part.
So much to learn! That is actually why I went into medicine: That I would always have to keep learning and being challenged.
Thank you again,
Bobby


----------



## Ysarex (May 22, 2017)

jrh108 said:


> What an incredible wealth of information, presented with clarity. Thank you so much. I admit that I had to to spend some time looking up the acronyms and terms, which led to further learning opportunities.
> I am a long-time Mac user, BTW.
> 
> I think that I would really like to keep my photo files in a separate folder(s) on separate drives rather than managed by the program used for editing, and need to spend some time figuring out the best ways to do that, as well as how each program imports, exports, saves, etc.  Playing with the free download of Phocus, I haven't even figured that part out!



Capture One supports both options in this case. You can use C1's cataloging feature or just keep your photos in your own folders and use what C1 calls sessions. Lightroom isn't quite as flexible and will require that you import photos into their catalog. Your originals however stay unmolested in their original folders and drives. It's a little more complicated to set up LR but if you embrace the catalog you'll find it's one of LR's real strengths. LR's DAM functions are what make it the industry choice software.



jrh108 said:


> I assume that keeping the workflow in one program obviates other problems, but if one were to use a program such as Iridient for the RAF conversion, then in what format should those files then exported to the editing program?



The issue with X-Trans is demosaicing the X-Trans CFA. What you're ultimately going to get and be able to do depends on the demosaicing algorithm used by the raw converter. What folks get concerned about is the rendition of fine detail -- some demosiaicing algorithms do a better job than others. So a lot of Fuji photogs who love LR and will no way let go of LR's DAM features aren't happy with Adobe's demosiacing of X-Trans. So they use an alternate converter to get that job done and then continue with LR. In that scenario you would from inside LR pass the RAF original to let's say Iridient. Iridient takes care of the demosaicing job and returns to LR a DNG (linear DNG) that contains the demosaiced RGB file which you can continue to process in LR. Down side is you're getting files on top of files to maintain.



jrh108 said:


> To stay in one parametric program, I'm leaning toward the purchase of Capture One Pro from the information given above and from other reading, but I am making many assumptions, my inexperience being the most obvious. But I am also not sure if my eyes have the ability to see the differences anyway, though I hope to train the mind part.



Bedtime here -- in the AM I'll run some samples for you and point out the differences between the processing software.

Joe



jrh108 said:


> So much to learn! That is actually why I went into medicine: That I would always have to keep learning and being challenged.
> Thank you again,
> Bobby


----------



## Gary A. (May 22, 2017)

I have Capture One, Affinity and Irident for processing my XP2 and XT2 files. I don't see a significant difference between the three.  Capture One and Affinity have slick UI's ... Irident feels basic, like a stick shift compared to paddle shifters.  I am leaning to Irident because it does all I need in an easy straight forward manner.  My needs are simple.

With the XP1 and XT1 I use Aperture for RAW conversion, global manipulations and Photoshop for polishing and selective manipulations. 

Again, my needs are simple. To qualify my post:  I put far more importance in content than dynamic range.  I don't give as rat's about shadow detail or clipping the highlights as long as my subject has the impact to carry the day.  Therefore, I'm probably not the best guy to ask about technical stuff. But I believe all three have free trial downloads ... download them, toss 'em against a wall and see what sticks.


----------



## Gary A. (May 22, 2017)

PS- I convert to JPEG.  To my simple eye and needs, the dif between TIFF and JPEG isn't significant.

G


----------



## Gary A. (May 22, 2017)

PPS- One of my test for significance is: If you need a computer to see a difference, then there is no difference. (The general exception being sharpness.  If the image is soft at 100%, then I most likely will dump it.)

G


----------



## Gary A. (May 22, 2017)

PPPS-  I remove the cards from the camera, load them into the computer and manually move the images to where I want them, in a folder I manually create.

G


----------



## Ysarex (May 23, 2017)

jrh108 said:


> To stay in one parametric program, I'm leaning toward the purchase of Capture One Pro from the information given above and from other reading, but I am making many assumptions, my inexperience being the most obvious. But I am also not sure if my eyes have the ability to see the differences anyway, though I hope to train the mind part.



Bedtime here -- in the AM I'll run some samples for you and point out the differences between the processing software.

Joe



jrh108 said:


> So much to learn! That is actually why I went into medicine: That I would always have to keep learning and being challenged.
> Thank you again,
> Bobby


[/QUOTE]

Good morning.

Before getting into any Adobe bashing let's start with a note of reason and moderation. Normally Adobe does a completely acceptable job with X-Trans demosaicing and here's an example. This was taken with a Fuji X-T2 and the Fuji 14mm lens.






And here's detail at 100%





Most folks using LR with X-Trans are happy with results like you see above. No complaints from me. And on top of that I'll endorse LR as the overall best choice raw converter for the best mix of capability and ease of use. This is the leading photo productivity tool available.

Where Adobe runs into trouble with X-Trans is in the rendition of very fine detail, especially very randomly occurring very fine detail. Here's an example photo and this is rendered in LR -- at screen resolution it's fine:





So Adobe get's into trouble when we zoom in -- pixel peep as they say. And that does of course beg the question does it matter. For most modern uses that involve a screen and in fact a phone or tablet screen no it doesn't really matter. However make a decent size print and it will matter.

OK, here's the 100% blow up of four raw converters processing the same X-Trans file. CAVEAT: only look at the detail rendition. I'm not going to make the effort here to try and match color and tone response. These are done to show the differences in detail: color and tone are another topic.





I could spend a week just chasing after "how to sharpen X-Trans in LR" -- there are hundreds of pages of blog posts on the topic. Above is a middle of the road option without reliance on something like Nik sharpener etc. Everyone has their own magical formula. Look at the grass in the LR version and you can see the issue. No matter what you ultimately do with post demosaicing sharpening that LR rendition is baked in from the demosaic algorithm and it's not going away. The other three converters avoid it. Raw Therapee (free) is the best at extracting the maximum amount of fine detail but it lacks the feature set you need to get the work done in the parametric editor. Same goes for Iridient unless you use it in conjunction with LR.

What you see in the Adobe rendition get's called various things like the watercolor effect or Adobe worms (grass). It shows up primarily in landscape work and most noticeably in foliage but you'll also see it in other fine textured subjects like roofing tiles. Don't pixel peep and it won't bother you.

Full disclosure: I get paid to teach college students how to use Adobe software so I have a vested interest in supporting Adobe -- see LR endorsement above. When I get home to work on my own Fuji camera RAF files I usually go straight to Capture One which has been my 1st choice editor for years now.

Joe


----------



## Gary A. (May 23, 2017)

Yes, sometimes size counts ...


----------



## Dave442 (May 23, 2017)

I went with LR when I moved to digital. It felt like a good transition from previously organizing slides and negatives and doing B&W darkroom stuff. 

I would not be surprised if someone in my group shows up with a Fuji and with my preference now for managing the files in LR I plan to bring those images into LR as well, just not sure yet if the initial conversion of the RAF will be done in LR or another program. 

I am sort of like Gary in that I want to keep things simple and don't really worry that much about the fine detail.  But if I have an image that can benefit from different processing then I will do that, just like you might do some toning or other processing in a traditional darkroom.


----------

