# lightroom classic and fujifilm files



## kingfisherbooks (Feb 20, 2021)

the best way to deal with fujifilm files?


----------



## kimballistic (Feb 20, 2021)

Either use Classic's built-in "Enhance Details" function, or Iridient Digital's X-Transformer plug-in.

Both will result in doubling your number of files leading to asset management headaches (IMHO).  Both produce Linear DNG files that exist separately from your raw and are 3 times the size.

Personally I don't use either unless I _really_ notice the crazy worms and watercolor effects.

Reducing LR's sharpening amount and lowering the detail slider to 10 or even 0 also helps.


----------



## Adrian Malloch (Feb 21, 2021)

Absolutely agree with lowering the detail slider. I personally always set Detail to 0 for any camera but with Fuji (non-Bayer) files definitely 0, every time.
For my Fuji cameras (XPro2 and GFX50R) I import uncompressed raws and process in LR as normal. If a file needs to be used at a higher specification, such as for a commercial client or for a large print, then I will use Iridient XTrans (for the Xpro's files) and then turn the sharpening off in Lightroom, then Edit with Open in Photoshop as a Smart Object, then Smart sharpen in PS using the much more nuanced sliders there. I also may continue doing more image-work in layers there until I have the file I need. I then save that file and it will now appear in Lightroom (as a 16bit proPhoto Tiff in my workflow) which is a very tidy clean file compared to the scrappiness of the LR sharpened original Fuji-X raw. To be fair on Fujifilm, this workflow (without the Iridient XTrans bit) is what I do on photos from any camera,  that get published or supplied, so it's not just an issue with the Fujifilm cameras.


----------



## clee01l (Feb 21, 2021)

John Beardsworth is our resident Fuji Guru.   Contact him for advice treating fuji RAWs imported into Lightroom.


----------



## Colin Grant (Feb 21, 2021)

It would be good to hear what @John Beardsworth has to say for I have no real issues with worms, certainly see no need for Iridient and very rarely use the Enhance Detail function. I do take care when adding additional sharpening though. I tried to message John to draw his attention to this thread but his name does not come up in messaging.


----------



## johnbeardy (Feb 22, 2021)

I'm with you, Colin, as I feel the worms thing is greatly exaggerated. I try to judge the final result or usage rather than torture myself with pixelpeeping. Sure, compared with my Nikon files, with Fuji files I would say that it is easier to push Detail panel sliders to the point where their effect becomes obvious - so I don't.  I'd also agree with kimballistic "Reducing LR's sharpening amount and lowering the detail slider to 10 or even 0 also helps", especially regarding the Detail slider, but I'd add that I use the Masking quite actively. So while I certainly try favourite pictures with 3rd party alternatives or the equally-cumbersome Enhance Detail, I'd just don't feel much need for them.


----------



## Colin Grant (Feb 22, 2021)

Thanks John. The trouble is the worms thing has become the centre of the Lr/C1 is best argument and an awful lot of the diatribe is just a repeat of what people have read rather than experienced. I would suggest a lot of those asking the question are new to all this and they run the risk of believing all they read on the likes of Facebook. As for Enhance Detail, I m still not sure where is the best to use it in the workflow. Have tried it start and finish and in lieu of sharpening but see no significant difference, although there is some so maybe good for a huge print!

Cannot argue that C1 is a nice piece of kit, but the dam is poor by comparison to LR. Strengths and weaknesses on both sides then with the only significant difference that impacts me being colour rendering. Some find C1 too vibrant.


----------



## johnbeardy (Feb 22, 2021)

That repetition is important, Colin, and it's as if those making most noise never noticed the improvements Adobe made a couple of years ago and they just carried on repeating their convictions. One can't really tell someone they don't know LR well, and/or use its controls crudely, and/or spend too much time pixelpeeping crappy photos, and/or are really just against Adobe and the subscription business model.

As for C1, I've used it on and off over the years and it might be my first option if I wanted to move away from LR and Photoshop. The DAM is a problem because while it has some strong features, it also has gaps, doesn't seem to scale well (yet) and they're squeezing it into an already-fiddly UI. Image quality is good, in my view, but being lukewarm about something isn't the best start one would hope for!


----------



## Colin Grant (Feb 22, 2021)

Yes C1 would be my first option too. I would miss Ps though, it is just a wonderful bit of kit and with stuff like the TK7 Action Panel et al it is priceless!


----------



## kimballistic (Feb 22, 2021)

It's worth pointing out that the worms and detail smearing are dependent on the subject.  For example, if you're mostly shooting portraits you likely won't see them.  Whereas if you're mostly shooting outdoors in nature, it's much more likely you'll see them in the fine details of rocks, grass, and foliage as you work on your image.

Has Adobe's processing improved over the past few years?  Maybe, but see here.  Clearly Adobe is still way behind others.

As far as I'm concerned, if Fuji files still require special treatment and a different workflow when demosaiced by LR, but no special treatment is needed if demosaiced by Iridient, C1, or other raw processors, then Adobe is still greatly lagging behind.



johnbeardy said:


> One can't really tell someone *they don't know LR well*, and/or *use its controls crudely*, and/or *spend too much time pixelpeeping **crappy* *photos*, and/or are really just *against Adobe and the subscription business model*.



This is incredibly insulting and conspiratorial.  I expect better from someone who has gone out of their way to label themselves as  a  "Community Professional."

Pixel peeping crappy photos?  Yes, some people prefer to denigrate totally normal tasks that are part of working on any image as "pixel peeping."  Given that Adobe itself recommends reviewing sharpening at 100% or greater zoom, I find those dismissals quite humorous and akin to "_if you don't look closely, you won't see Adobe's flaws_."

The fact is there's a number of totally normal, respectable tasks that are often better done by zooming to 100% or more.  Sharpening.  Noise reduction.  Manual masking.  Retouching.  Spot removal.  And if every time you do this you see flaws in your image caused by your raw processor, not by your camera or lens, then you have a right to be frustrated, and anyone who casually dismisses you as a "pixel peeper" who "doesn't know LR well"  or who takes "crappy photos" should no longer be trusted or respected.

It's funny.  I've shot Fuji for 6 years, and Nikon for 10.   Sure, not the 40-50 years that some of you have under your belts.  But I have hung out in a lot of forums for different brands for many years.  And I've absolutely noticed a pattern: the folk who are the most stridently anti-"pixel peeping" are the Fuji shooters who use Adobe products.  Maybe because they have the most to be defensive about?


----------



## Colin Grant (Feb 22, 2021)

I am looking at a Raf file here at 100%. It is a landscape. There are no worms. If I overdo the sharpening I can create them - user error.  I do not consider viewing an image at 100% to carry out a sharpening function pixel peeping - it is using the sharpening tool sensibly and in a manner that helps ensure sharpening is not overdone, which is a common occurrence in a lot of images irrespective of the camera used. I have seen plenty of Nikon images ruined. What I have also seen is people pointing to worms and to illustrate the point they have shown images pushed to well over 100%. Now that is pixel peeping and no doubt it is to this that John was alluding. I am surprised you use Adobe products and belong to this forum. I also feel you are protesting a little too much. Push an image far enough and you will start to see flaws - that does not mean that the image is not fit for purpose when viewed at sensible levels.


----------



## kimballistic (Feb 23, 2021)

I'm not here to worship Adobe and claim they can do no wrong.  Their products have issues, but their products that I use are still the best tools for the job, IMHO.

Neither am I here to worship Fuji and claim _they_ can do no wrong.  Their products also have issues, as all products do.

I'm here because I'm interested in practical and constructive solutions to problems encountered in Lightroom.

What's neither practical nor constructive is claiming worms are always user error.  Yes, there are ways users can mitigate them, but worms are a standout problem in LR for Fuji users, while at the same time--and with the same files--they are simply not an everyday issue in C1, Iridient, Affinity, Apple Photos, etc.  This is a LR-specific problem.

What's also neither practical nor constructive is making overly broad and insulting claims about everyday Lightroom users -- _the very people this forum is designed to help_ -- and how  1)_ they don't know Lightroom_, 2) _they use it crudely_, 3) _they engage in "pixel peeping crappy photos" _(John's exact words), and 4) _they complain because they don't like the subscription model_.

Neither is gatekeeping this community, BTW.  That's pretty tacky.


----------



## clee01l (Feb 23, 2021)

kimballistic said:


> This is incredibly insulting and conspiratorial. I expect better from someone who has gone out of their way to label themselves as a "Community Professional."


"One can't really tell someone they don't know LR well, and/or use its controls crudely, and/or spend too much time pixelpeeping crappy photos, and/or are really just against Adobe and the subscription business model."
I'll come to John's defense.   I recommended him to this topic because he is probably the "Community Professional" here that knows the most about Processing FujiFilm with Lightroom.   As experienced as I am, I am not in the least offended if John were to tell me that I don't know LR well enough to process FujiFilm images.   Everything he says is true for me.  I had a Fujifilm mirrorless camera for a while.  I could not get the results that I wanted out of Fuji and I considered my self a successful Nikon shooter.  If you best recommendation is to  use Iridient Digital's X-Transformer plug-in. Which I also tried and gave up on, then you probably don't know how to use Lightroom well at all when it comes to Fujifilm images.  
This topic is the* best way to deal with fujifilm files in Lightroom*.  Let's stick to that and and not take potshots at Adobe or any volunteer wanting to help.


----------



## johnbeardy (Feb 23, 2021)

johnbeardy said:


> One can't really tell someone they don't know LR well, and/or use its controls crudely, and/or spend too much time pixelpeeping crappy photos, and/or are really just against Adobe and the subscription business model.





kimballistic said:


> This is incredibly insulting and conspiratorial.  I expect better from someone who has gone out of their way to label themselves as  a  "Community Professional."


I'm not insulting anyone, rather describing the behaviour or reactions I've experienced as soon as one tries to provide balance.


----------



## Colin Grant (Feb 23, 2021)

Getting back on topic. I have read, but never tried, that adjusting Lr's settings on import to mirror those of C1 brings equivalent (more or less) results. What would those setting be? This is purely out of interest as it is an intriguing approach if one wants a C1 type result.


----------



## Ollie (Mar 20, 2021)

I’m having trouble drawing conclusions from what I’ve read (here and elsewhere) about LTR’s ability to process Fuji RAF files. In coming weeks I’ll be switching to the subscription model of LTR-Classic, so should have access to the latest version. A lifelong Canon user I’m now researching APS-C sensor options, aiming to lighten the weight of my camera backpack. Fuji gets great reviews on certain bodies and excellent lenses. Canon has less to offer at present. I was going to buy Fuji till I started reading about LTR difficulties processing RAF. So my questions:

Without buying Irident X-transformer will I be able to import RAF files into LTR? My practice has always been to upload Canon raw files as DNGs. Will I be able to do that from Fuji RAFs?
For someone committed to LTR but not yet committed to Fuji is there a reason to avoid going down the Fuji path?
I’m not a high-tech person. Need to keep things simple. I never print my work. My final product is a jpeg file I then send to my stock agency and make available on my own website. It’s possible buyers might want to print.

Thanks for advice.


----------



## Hal P Anderson (Mar 20, 2021)

Ollie said:


> Without buying Irident X-transformer will I be able to import RAF files into LTR? My practice has always been to upload Canon raw files as DNGs. Will I be able to do that from Fuji RAFs?


Yes and yes.


----------



## Colin Grant (Mar 21, 2021)

Hal P Anderson said:


> Yes and yes.


Absolutely. I do it all the time. It is my basic workflow and requires nothing different. I have never used X Transformer.


----------

