douglasf13 Offline Upload & Sell: Off
|
Mescalamba wrote:
X-trans has "advantage" in RAW developers (at least today), you can pick if you want it sharp with bit of artefacts, or slightly smoother (with perhaps bit mushy greens) or watercolors.
There are RAW developers which allow very nice files to be created. Just one cant try one option and said "its rubbish". Truth is there were ways to get something usable almost right after X-trans was made, just most people didnt care enough (as its easier to bash Fuji and Adobe than trying to find some way).
I tried almost every RAW developer on market (or free ones) in order to find whats best for my S5 Pro. I cant say its 100% success, but its a helluva lot better than just whine how bad it is (and yes I found some decent options)....Show more →
I have two thoughts on this. My first thought is that I did personally try several raw converters just a couple of months ago with my X-trans files, and, while Adobe is the worst, IMO, they all have trade offs. None of them gave me results that I'd prefer over a regular Bayer sensor.
My second thought is that, after trying several converters, (and even migrating my whole catalogue from LR to another converter,) I realized that, for better or worse, I am married to the LR workflow. I had already determined years ago that other raw converters, like RPP, are a bit better at converting regular Bayer files than LR, but the LR workflow, highlight recovery, and a few other things led me to stick with a LR-only setup, so I'm just not interested in switching, at this point. Maybe if X-trans was giving me files that I was really excited about in another converter, I'd consider the switch again, but not for what X-trans is currently producing with any of the converters on the market.
|