# Fuji X-Trans users:   What is the consensus on using LR to process Fujifilm X-Trans RAW files?



## clee01l

Operating System:MacOS
Exact Lightroom Version: Classic 7.1
I am considering a Mirrorless camera, specifically the Fujifilm X-E3.   Can I get excellent results using an all LR workflow?  What is the current opinion on LRs ability to handle the X-Trans sensor data, specifically the Fujifilm X-E3?  

Also I am looking for opinions on the Iridient Developer software and the Iridient X-Transformer Fujifilm RAF to DNG conversion utility.


----------



## johnbeardy

I don't think there is a consensus, Cletus, more like an assumption that there is a problem.

I bought an XT2 a little over a year ago as a second camera, it was my first Fuji and first mirrorless, and it quickly became the camera I use most often. I think it's the same sensor as the XE3. I get excellent results using an all LR workflow.

Because I wanted to see "the issue" for myself, I have experimented with the raw files in CaptureOne and Iridient X-Transformer (which produces demosaiced DNGs, so keep your raws) and I feel that in LR I can always match their results. But by comparison with NEFs in LR, I do feel the RAFs need more individual Detail panel settings. What I mean is that with Nikon I pretty well have a standard setting, essentially quite high sharpening and also high masking, but I don't really have such a standard with Fuji. I still don't feel I have nailed the settings, and I have 3 or 4 presets that I'll apply before I decide which way to go. I sense it's partly ISO-related, but also content (greens). Doing more Detail work isn't a big problem for me because I have already saved time in the Basic panel because the viewfinder is WYSIWYG and my exposure is often much closer to the final result than it is with a DSLR where I tend to be shooting more "correctly" (as in exposing to the right).

A lot of the talk about a wormy look and advice about LR sharpening applies more to the earlier XTrans models like the XT1. I don't see it so much with the newer bodies, or with LR since they improved Fuji handling, and it's more of a pixel peeping thing - not something that I see in prints.

Hope this helps (glad you're back).

John


----------



## clee01l

I was able to download some X-E3 raw files and processed them with the latest version of Lightroom Classic. I could see no issues with my results. I also downloaded a trial of the Iridient app (not X-Transformer).  I’ll try it and also download a trial of CaptureOne and try that for comparison also.
The Iridient app is on sale for 25% off. So I may pick it up as an External Editor for use with LR


----------



## Dave Miller

Am I missing something here? What exactly is wrong with allowing Lightroom to process Fuji RAW files. It has never occurred to me not to use it to process my x-Pro2 files!


----------



## johnbeardy

I'm always wary of claims of "lots of talk about it on the internet", Dave, because a quick Google search can confirm whatever prejudice one may have. But it's pretty easy to find complaints about a "wormy" look affecting some Fuji files in Lightroom, especially in foliage. This talk began with the earlier, smaller sensor XTrans cameras like the XT1, and Pete Bridgwood wrote a widely-shared article on XTrans sharpening. My theory was that people had also been applying his method - pushing up the Detail slider - to the newer cameras too. It certainly produced horrendous results with my XT2 and I see that he only recently updated the article. Others looked at other apps for more out-of-the-box solutions. I think there's too much pixel-peeping involved, and the grass is always greener, isn't it?


----------



## Dave Miller

Thanks for your explanation John.

I shall now keep a sharp (no pun intended) lookout for wormy things invading my foliage.  Up to now I have been very happy with my Lightroom / xPro2 prints so I doubt that I will be making too many changes.


----------



## Bob Johnston

Hi there. I was idly looking at the forum when I noticed this post. I joined so that I could reply! I have Lightroom Classic CC and Iridient X-transformer.The problem is definitely a real one, applies only to Adobe Camera Raw and is seen with the later sensors (I have an X-T2). It only affects foliage and grass (basically anything green and detailed) and occasionally some other kinds of fine detail. Also it is not noticeable unless you make big prints or crop heavily. If you pixel peep at 100% you will see it immediately and no, you can't get rid of it with the sliders. I make prints that are usually around A3,and provided I have not cropped heavily, the effect is rarely if ever seen. I bought X-transformer and I have got to know which images will benefit from it by experience. It works as stand alone or as a plug-in. There is a free trial available that puts a red line across the image but it will give you an idea of whether you think you might need it or not. I find that the best way of using it is to not use the sharpening or noise reduction in X-Transformer but instead to do those in Lightroom once the file is converted to the DNG. Also, usually the 'smoother' option is the one to use.


----------



## Dave Miller

Bob Johnston said:


> Hi there. I was idly looking at the forum when I noticed this post. I joined so that I could reply! I have Lightroom Classic CC and Iridient X-transformer.The problem is definitely a real one, applies only to Adobe Camera Raw and is seen with the later sensors (I have an X-T2). It only affects foliage and grass (basically anything green and detailed) and occasionally some other kinds of fine detail. Also it is not noticeable unless you make big prints or crop heavily. If you pixel peep at 100% you will see it immediately and no, you can't get rid of it with the sliders. I make prints that are usually around A3,and provided I have not cropped heavily, the effect is rarely if ever seen. I bought X-transformer and I have got to know which images will benefit from it by experience. It works as stand alone or as a plug-in. There is a free trial available that puts a red line across the image but it will give you an idea of whether you think you might need it or not. I find that the best way of using it is to not use the sharpening or noise reduction in X-Transformer but instead to do those in Lightroom once the file is converted to the DNG. Also, usually the 'smoother' option is the one to use.



Interesting reply Bob. Is it possible to have a picture showing the problem?


----------



## clee01l

Welcome to the forum.  We do need a better description of the issue.  That screen shot will help.  Is the issue expressed as RAF to LR (ACR) and not RAF > Irrident >LR?  I have not notices any issues importing my RAFs from my X-E3 directly into LR?
And can you process the same image with LR and again with Irrident and post a detailed 1:1 crop of the same area showing the differences?


----------



## johnbeardy

Any screenshot should include the Detail panel. Poor choice of settings makes much more difference with Xtrans files.


----------



## Bob Johnston

Hi Dave. Yes certainly. It might take me a little while to sort one out as I deleted all the test files. I will have a look to see what I have got tomorrow.  The issue is found when the raw conversion is done in lightroom and is not found when the raw conversion is done in X-Transformer. As I said, this is not a bad issue. Unless you are pixel peeping or making very large enlargements you probably won't see it. Also it seems to occur with some images but not others. Some people on other forums seem to blow it up out of all proportion. However it does exist.

John, I can assure you that it makes little difference what detail settings are used. The 16mp sensor responds well to quite a high detail setting. The 24mp sensor less so, but it can still take a high setting. If I can find time I will demonstrate with two different detail settings. Say, one at 25 and one at 80.
Regards Bob


----------



## johnbeardy

Detail makes a world of difference, Bob, and it's the whole Detail panel that matters, both the sharpening and the noise sides. I've not processed enough 16mp images but I just don't think the high sharpening detail setting should be carried over to 24mp files. I think that's behind people blowing it out of proportion, which began before Adobe improved their processing of Fuji files. 

But as I said in my first reply I do find it frustrating that RAFs need more individual Detail panel settings than other raw files. One can't just whack on one's preferred sharpening and largely leave noise reduction to itself, so I spend more time reviewing Detail panel settings and less on the Basic panel.

John


----------



## Bob Johnston

John, I agree with what you say regarding the detail setting. In general I find the same. However, as far as the poorer detail performance of Lightroom is concerned, it cannot be fixed with low or high detail settings. There are two different demosaicing types in X-transformer. 'More detailed' certainly gives more detail but is too sharp for general use with the 24mp sensor in my opinion. The other is 'smoother'. I made some examples this morning. The conditions were not good so I used 400iso and then I lightened them by about a stop - so really 800iso - not ideal but real world at least. Each filename describes the detail panel settings used e.g XT smoother after LR_A30_R1_D80_M0_crop is a crop of a RAF that was demosaiced in XT-transformer using the smoother option and then sharpened in Lightroom with amount 30, radius 1, detail 80 and no masking. I did not use any noise reduction or sharpening in XT and I did not apply any noise reduction or clarity in Lightroom. All other settings were identical. If you look at the grass and the top of the hedge you will see that XT makes a better job of demosaicing than Lightroom. There are two Lightoom demosaiced files. In each case I have tried to get an image that looks as detailed as the XT versions, one with detail set to 80 and one set to 35. The 35 detail example had to have the amount set to 48 to get a result, which of course is far too high. I don't know that I would describe the Lightroom output as 'worms' though, but certainly the XT processed rafs look better. This is all pixel peeping of course. My monitor is about 100 ppi so at that resolution the full image would be five feet wide! So a bit silly really and probably not applicable to the 40cm prints that I make, but the difference can be seen. Here is a link to the files. They are all max quality jpeg crops.
Dropbox - demo crops


----------



## Dave Miller

Thanks for taking the trouble to post the comparison images Bob. 

It seems to me that the problem only manifests itself at very high enlargements, much higher than I would normally use for my prints that don't normally exceed A2. Equally, in my case it could be a combination of a non-4k screen and poor eyesight that is hiding the problem from me.


----------



## Bob Johnston

I think it's just a case of taking things to extremes John. I don't believe that any non photographer would care about the differemce. I think we should get out more and take some pictures!


----------



## zepp2010

Hi all,
I recently purchase the x100t and have been playing with Lightroom, Capture One and Iridient. Lightroom definitely shows the worms at 100% while C1 and Iridient are very close (with Iridient being slightly ahead). There is a free version of C1 and could be worth it just to process the tricky landscape / fine detail shots. I prefer the colour adjustments in C1 anyway. With C1 and Iridient I import them into Lightroom as that's my main programme for cataloging and general adjustments. I've attached three 100% crops of a susceptible subject. I know we don't all pixel peek but for those that do I think you'll be able to tell the difference between the images. 1st place goes to Iridient, very close 2nd place to C1 while LR struggles with 3rd.


----------



## clee01l

zepp2010 said:


> Hi all,
> I recently purchase the x100t and have been playing with Lightroom, Capture One and Iridient. Lightroom definitely shows the worms at 100% while C1 and Iridient are very close (with Iridient being slightly ahead). ..I think you'll be able to tell the difference between the images. 1st place goes to Iridient, very close 2nd place to C1 while LR struggles with 3rd.


 Welcome to the forum.  Unless there is a big difference in the files posted and the actual images that you processed, I think you have a case of preconceived bias.  I see very little difference in the images viewed full screen.   And I certainly do not see anything called "worms".  
I've used all three to process my X-E3 RAW images.   I do not see either Irident or Capture One  better at handling the X-Trans RAW files.  So, I would have to say that my preconceived biases don't favor one processor over another.
Your LightroomForums profile (which may not be up to date) suggests that you are using a legacy version go LR.    There was an early issue with LR handling of the X-Trans files, but this was resolved some time ago.


----------



## zepp2010

clee01l said:


> Welcome to the forum.  Unless there is a big difference in the files posted and the actual images that you processed, I think you have a case of preconceived bias.  I see very little difference in the images viewed full screen.   And I certainly do not see anything called "worms".
> I've used all three to process my X-E3 RAW images.   I do not see either Irident or Capture One  better at handling the X-Trans RAW files.  So, I would have to say that my preconceived biases don't favor one processor over another.
> Your LightroomForums profile (which may not be up to date) suggests that you are using a legacy version go LR.    There was an early issue with LR handling of the X-Trans files, but this was resolved some time ago.



Hi Clee01,

I hear what you're saying but I do see a significant difference between LR and the other two when I view them at 100% in LR. Maybe that hasn't translated in the crops I've provided though. I'd have liked to keep my workflow simple, so I was willing LR to perform better.

I'm using LR Classic CC version 7.7 (Camera Raw 10.5). Is that the most current version?


----------



## clee01l

LR Classic CC version 7.*5 is the latest version and my testing was done with a LR version 7.x that was earlier than the current release.   There may be an issue with the posted images.  You could send a copy of the images that you worked with in LR to  WeTransfer and email from there to customer.clee(at)att.net*


----------



## zepp2010

Sorry, I am on 7.5. typo 

That's kind of you, Re sending the images. I've just do that.

Thanks again,
Dayve


----------



## clee01l

I got your image sand imported them into LR.   I don't see what you are calling "worms" at any resolution and  I still think the post processing on each is about the same for all three.


----------



## zepp2010

clee01l said:


> I got your image sand imported them into LR.   I don't see what you are calling "worms" at any resolution and  I still think the post processing on each is about the same for all three.



It’s interesting that we’re seeing different things. I realise we all have our own expectations and tolerances; not better or worse, just different. Lightroom  is a powerful application and well embedded in many a photographers’ workflow. It has to take a more generic approach to things, whilst Iridient X-Transformer, for example, has the luxury of applying it’s efforts to a specific application and outcome. I’d say that it performs better than Lightroom purely for that reason. 

I apreciate your time to look at my examples. It’s always good to have an expert’s eye and very welcome opinion.

Best wishes,
Dayve


----------



## tspear

Dayve,

I would suggest you state where on the image you see the problem. Preferably put a circle on it and post. So Cletus can compare there.
There is so much green in the shot, I have no idea what you are looking for....

Sent from my SM-J737T using Tapatalk


----------



## zepp2010

I've attached an enlarged portion of the area where I see the issue. The left image is Lightroom while the right image is Iridient. What I see is, in the case of the LR render, a wavy nature to the leaves. The Iridient renders a more natural structure. Neither are perfect but I fell the Iridient does a better job of this trick subject.


----------



## Victoria Bampton

I think it's one of those "blind man would like to see it" situations. It's visible if you pixel peep and you're looking for it, but when was the last time someone walked round your house with a magnifying glass examining the leaves in a beautiful landscape? On a billboard, it might notice a little more, but if people are looking that hard at the minutest of details, then the question is why the photo isn't good enough to hold their attention.


----------



## clee01l

Operating System:MacOS
Exact Lightroom Version: Classic 7.1
I am considering a Mirrorless camera, specifically the Fujifilm X-E3.   Can I get excellent results using an all LR workflow?  What is the current opinion on LRs ability to handle the X-Trans sensor data, specifically the Fujifilm X-E3?  

Also I am looking for opinions on the Iridient Developer software and the Iridient X-Transformer Fujifilm RAF to DNG conversion utility.


----------



## zepp2010

Victoria Bampton said:


> I think it's one of those "blind man would like to see it" situations. It's visible if you pixel peep and you're looking for it, but when was the last time someone walked round your house with a magnifying glass examining the leaves in a beautiful landscape? On a billboard, it might notice a little more, but if people are looking that hard at the minutest of details, then the question is why the photo isn't good enough to hold their attention.



Hi Victoria,

Yes, I think you are spot on. I suppose one can get carried away with a level of detail with the danger that it transcends the actual reason for view an image. I've seen beautiful work which is out of focus. Technical aspirations should be second to artistic flair (unless we are talking about a technical piece of photography such as copywork etc!).

Thanks for your enlightening comments.
Dayve


----------



## tspear

zepp2010 said:


> Technical aspirations should be second to artistic flair (unless we are talking about a technical piece of photography such as copywork etc!).



For those of us, who have not an artistic bone and have to rely on technical knowledge, I have to disagree!


----------



## zepp2010

tspear said:


> For those of us, who have not an artistic bone and have to rely on technical knowledge, I have to disagree!



Lol, well, fortunately, there room for all of us


----------

