Converting Fuji RAW Files in Lightroom Classic
p.2 #1Converting Fuji RAW Files in Lightroom Classic
ruthenium wrote:
From all evidence you can use pretty much any raw converter you prefer with fine results.
Obligatory smiley goes here.That's exactly the point: it helps to have evidence and to make decisions based on sufficient evidence.
As to one "can use pretty much any raw converter ... with fine results" this hasn't been my experience in the specific case of Capture One and DxO Photolab 9. In my usage, when processed independently, I almost always like the result from C1 better than than that from PL9. However, when processing in C1 from the original raw files and from the corresponding dng exported from PL9, some times I like the result of processing from the dng. The differences can be...Show more →
From what I’ve seen the difference in output from various post-processing applications is generally a minor issue when it comes ot the quality of the final issue… and that over time it tends to cut both ways. As a contemporary example, some have said that Adobe’s NR in raw conversion is not as good as that in other tools. for the sake of argument, let’s say that this was true at some point. Recently Adobe itself upped its game with its new and hugely powerful AI Denoise function which, I’d say, swings things back to Adobe.
And even there (where my hypothetical argues for Adobe) I think the real world differences in the end are likely to be largely invisible. We’re talking here about things that are both quite small differences and in many cases somewhat subjective.
I also think that some (and sometimes a lot) of the perceived differences among raw conversion tools is more about the user’s comfort and familiarity with their favorite tool and less about the actual capabilities of the tool. (And, yes, you could make that point about me, since I’ve been happily and successfully using Adobe products for years — so playing with the other tools always feels a bit… awkward, and I don’t have the same well-developed instincts for them.)
But my main issue — and that is what I was really getting at in my post — is the hyperventilating description is of the differences between things, always in an effort to sensationalize differences that are much smaller and often not even really all that important. That stuff is probably very exciting to the poster, but it is also extremely misleading.
(Hint: That point is not directed at your post.)
gdanmitchell wrote
FIf you only rely on microscopic inspection at huge magnifications to search for exciting but tiny differences between things that may or may not make any objective difference you can have the thrilling experience of imagining that there are huge, earth-shaking problems with things that work great and, as a consequence, feel all tingly and alive.From all evidence you can use pretty much any raw converter you prefer with fine results.
Obligatory smiley goes here.
As to one "can use pretty much any raw converter ... with fine results" this hasn't been my experience in the specific case of Capture One and DxO Photolab 9. In my usage, when processed independently, I almost always like the result from C1 better than than that from PL9. However, when processing in C1 from the original raw files and from the corresponding dng exported from PL9, some times I like the result of processing from the dng. The differences can be...Show more →
From what I’ve seen the difference in output from various post-processing applications is generally a minor issue when it comes ot the quality of the final issue… and that over time it tends to cut both ways. As a contemporary example, some have said that Adobe’s NR in raw conversion is not as good as that in other tools. for the sake of argument, let’s say that this was true at some point. Recently Adobe itself upped its game with its new and hugely powerful AI Denoise function which, I’d say, swings things back to Adobe.
And even there (where my hypothetical argues for Adobe) I think the real world differences in the end are likely to be largely invisible. We’re talking here about things that are both quite small differences and in many cases somewhat subjective.
I also think that some (and sometimes a lot) of the perceived differences among raw conversion tools is more about the user’s comfort and familiarity with their favorite tool and less about the actual capabilities of the tool. (And, yes, you could make that point about me, since I’ve been happily and successfully using Adobe products for years — so playing with the other tools always feels a bit… awkward, and I don’t have the same well-developed instincts for them.)
But my main issue — and that is what I was really getting at in my post — is the hyperventilating description is of the differences between things, always in an effort to sensationalize differences that are much smaller and often not even really all that important. That stuff is probably very exciting to the poster, but it is also extremely misleading.
(Hint: That point is not directed at your post.)
May 25, 2026 at 09:15 AM
p.2 #2Converting Fuji RAW Files in Lightroom Classic
gdanmitchell wrote:
From all evidence you can use pretty much any raw converter you prefer with fine results.
Obligatory smiley goes here.That's exactly the point: it helps to have evidence and to make decisions based on sufficient evidence.
As to one "can use pretty much any raw converter ... with fine results" this hasn't been my experience in the specific case of Capture One and DxO Photolab 9. In my usage, when processed independently, I almost always like the result from C1 better than than that from PL9. However, when processing in C1 from the original raw files and from the corresponding dng exported from PL9, some times I like the result of processing from the dng. The differences can be visually very significant despite the same person doing the processing.
My evidence is limited of course, but I have the impression that processing a raw file in different raw converters is likely to give visually different results. It is possible that, technically, all these can be "fine results" when processed expertly. Nevertheless, I believe that the choice of a raw converter is an important decision that can significantly impact one's photography and experience.From what I’ve seen the difference in output from various post-processing applications is generally a minor issue when it comes ot the quality of the final issue… and that over time it tends to cut both ways. As a contemporary example, some have said that Adobe’s NR in raw conversion is not as good as that in other tools. for the sake of argument, let’s say that this was true at some point. Recently Adobe itself upped its game with its new and hugely powerful AI Denoise function which, I’d say, swings things back to Adobe.
And even there (where...Show more →
Dan, I am less concerned with some minute detail. Where I see important visual differences, these arise from a combination of (mostly)
1) different color profiles
2) different interpretations of white balance
3) possibly, different demosaicing algorithms that may allow one converter to give a bit more information at the extremes - but this is more subtle.
This is why the same skilled photographer can end up with two similarly processed, yet significantly differently looking variants of the same photo. I don't have enough evidence to support this claim, but it wouldn't surprise me if this should happen often that variants of an image processed in LR vs C1 vs PL9 would look different.
I don't mean to "sensationalize differences" here - merely to re-state my opinion on that different converters are more likely to produce different renderings, rather than the same rendering, of a photo. I also think that personal preferences can differ: one photographer may like the rendering from converter A, and another may prefer the look of the rendering from converter B.
Thus, I don't expect that we should ever have a consensus on which one is "better".
ruthenium wrote
gdanmitchell wrote
FIf you only rely on microscopic inspection at huge magnifications to search for exciting but tiny differences between things that may or may not make any objective difference you can have the thrilling experience of imagining that there are huge, earth-shaking problems with things that work great and, as a consequence, feel all tingly and alive.From all evidence you can use pretty much any raw converter you prefer with fine results.
Obligatory smiley goes here.
As to one "can use pretty much any raw converter ... with fine results" this hasn't been my experience in the specific case of Capture One and DxO Photolab 9. In my usage, when processed independently, I almost always like the result from C1 better than than that from PL9. However, when processing in C1 from the original raw files and from the corresponding dng exported from PL9, some times I like the result of processing from the dng. The differences can be visually very significant despite the same person doing the processing.
My evidence is limited of course, but I have the impression that processing a raw file in different raw converters is likely to give visually different results. It is possible that, technically, all these can be "fine results" when processed expertly. Nevertheless, I believe that the choice of a raw converter is an important decision that can significantly impact one's photography and experience.
And even there (where...Show more →
Dan, I am less concerned with some minute detail. Where I see important visual differences, these arise from a combination of (mostly)
1) different color profiles
2) different interpretations of white balance
3) possibly, different demosaicing algorithms that may allow one converter to give a bit more information at the extremes - but this is more subtle.
This is why the same skilled photographer can end up with two similarly processed, yet significantly differently looking variants of the same photo. I don't have enough evidence to support this claim, but it wouldn't surprise me if this should happen often that variants of an image processed in LR vs C1 vs PL9 would look different.
I don't mean to "sensationalize differences" here - merely to re-state my opinion on that different converters are more likely to produce different renderings, rather than the same rendering, of a photo. I also think that personal preferences can differ: one photographer may like the rendering from converter A, and another may prefer the look of the rendering from converter B.
Thus, I don't expect that we should ever have a consensus on which one is "better".
May 25, 2026 at 09:56 AM
p.2 #3Converting Fuji RAW Files in Lightroom Classic
To be clear, I don’t think that converters necessarily produce identical output — if for no other reason than their default starting points may be a bit different. And, as, as I’ve repeated in one of my mantras here often, not every difference is a better/worse thing. (Blue is different than green, but it is not possible to say which is the better color.)
The following isn’t about anything you said — in fact, I’m pretty much in agreement with the point of view you expressed in our last paragraph: to some extent things boil down to subjective preference, what we’re familiar with, our expertise with the controls in one or another programs, even our feelings about the companies that produce the software.
But, to use another of my forum mantras — I’m positive that if we took excellent prints from 10 photoraphers who use one raw converter, 10 from fine photographers who use a second one, and 10 from those using a third option… and hung them in a gallery… it would be utterly impossible to figure out which photographs used which converters.
Finally, about that “sensationalizing” thing — I was not thinking fo you when I wrote it. :-)
The following isn’t about anything you said — in fact, I’m pretty much in agreement with the point of view you expressed in our last paragraph: to some extent things boil down to subjective preference, what we’re familiar with, our expertise with the controls in one or another programs, even our feelings about the companies that produce the software.
But, to use another of my forum mantras — I’m positive that if we took excellent prints from 10 photoraphers who use one raw converter, 10 from fine photographers who use a second one, and 10 from those using a third option… and hung them in a gallery… it would be utterly impossible to figure out which photographs used which converters.
Finally, about that “sensationalizing” thing — I was not thinking fo you when I wrote it. :-)
May 28, 2026 at 10:12 AM
p.2 #4Converting Fuji RAW Files in Lightroom Classic
I don't use Lightroom but I use Photoshop....it should be the same right? These are SOOC. First one is Adobe Color color profile and then camera matching Fuji X100VI using Astia.
May 28, 2026 at 01:37 PM
p.2 #5Converting Fuji RAW Files in Lightroom Classic
LR and PS use the same raw conversion engine according to people I’ve heard from Adobe.
May 28, 2026 at 02:52 PM
RoamingScott
Offline
Activity
[X]
Details
p.2 #6Converting Fuji RAW Files in Lightroom Classic
VERY obvious color differences here. Film profiles aren’t just about colors though.
jojib wrote:
I don't use Lightroom but I use Photoshop....it should be the same right? These are SOOC. First one is Adobe Color color profile and then camera matching Fuji X100VI using Astia.
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/media/1_dsf8223-2ac-jpg.4612982/full.jpg
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/media/1_dsf8223-jpg.4612981/full.jpg
jojib wrote:
I don't use Lightroom but I use Photoshop....it should be the same right? These are SOOC. First one is Adobe Color color profile and then camera matching Fuji X100VI using Astia.
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/media/1_dsf8223-2ac-jpg.4612982/full.jpg
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/media/1_dsf8223-jpg.4612981/full.jpg
May 28, 2026 at 02:59 PM
p.2 #7Converting Fuji RAW Files in Lightroom Classic
Lightroom classic and X-Trans 5 do not play well.
I find theres very visually noticeable noise / artifacting in backgrounds and shadows. I run enhance details across every X-Trans 5 image in lightroom now.
My workflow after import is to:
- Apply default preset (Provia),
- Selects / Rejects - delete rejects,
- Apply tags
- Apply Enhance Details & Sharpening Profiles -> Begin adjustments
Capture One output is undeniably better; with a faster UI to boot.
Lightroom Classic feels like it has a huge amount of technical debt on Windows - its slow and chews VRAM... however they have me locked in as its not easy to take your catalogue elsewhere!
I hope Fuji either drops Bayer or works with Adobe to improve support!
I find theres very visually noticeable noise / artifacting in backgrounds and shadows. I run enhance details across every X-Trans 5 image in lightroom now.
My workflow after import is to:
- Apply default preset (Provia),
- Selects / Rejects - delete rejects,
- Apply tags
- Apply Enhance Details & Sharpening Profiles -> Begin adjustments
Capture One output is undeniably better; with a faster UI to boot.
Lightroom Classic feels like it has a huge amount of technical debt on Windows - its slow and chews VRAM... however they have me locked in as its not easy to take your catalogue elsewhere!
I hope Fuji either drops Bayer or works with Adobe to improve support!
May 28, 2026 at 11:38 PM
p.2 #8Converting Fuji RAW Files in Lightroom Classic
I strongly disagree with the claim that “Lightroom classic and X-Trans 5 do not play well.”
“ I hope Fuji either drops Bayer…” <~~ huh? Unless you refer to GFX, Fujifilm does not use Bayer.
“ I hope Fuji either drops Bayer…” <~~ huh? Unless you refer to GFX, Fujifilm does not use Bayer.
May 28, 2026 at 11:53 PM
p.2 #9Converting Fuji RAW Files in Lightroom Classic
RoamingScott wrote:
VERY obvious color differences here. Film profiles aren’t just about colors though.
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/media/1_dsf8223-2ac-jpg.4612982/full.jpg
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/media/1_dsf8223-jpg.4612981/full.jpg
I am a sucker for Fuji Astia thus I will use that one as my base.
VERY obvious color differences here. Film profiles aren’t just about colors though.
jojib wrote
I don't use Lightroom but I use Photoshop....it should be the same right? These are SOOC. First one is Adobe Color color profile and then camera matching Fuji X100VI using Astia.https://www.dpreview.com/forums/media/1_dsf8223-2ac-jpg.4612982/full.jpg
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/media/1_dsf8223-jpg.4612981/full.jpg
I am a sucker for Fuji Astia thus I will use that one as my base.
May 29, 2026 at 03:44 PM
RoamingScott
Offline
Activity
[X]
Details
p.2 #10Converting Fuji RAW Files in Lightroom Classic
"I don't deeply understand thing, so I strongly disagree with your informed statement on it", version 27,858.
Feel free to run me out of town if I'm still here posting like that in 30 years, y'all.
Feel free to run me out of town if I'm still here posting like that in 30 years, y'all.
May 29, 2026 at 03:52 PM
|
p.2 #12Converting Fuji RAW Files in Lightroom Classic
jojib wrote:
I don't use Lightroom but I use Photoshop....it should be the same right? These are SOOC. First one is Adobe Color color profile and then camera matching Fuji X100VI using Astia.
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/media/1_dsf8223-2ac-jpg.4612982/full.jpg
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/media/1_dsf8223-jpg.4612981/full.jpg
great photos mate, im still playing with settings 😁
I don't use Lightroom but I use Photoshop....it should be the same right? These are SOOC. First one is Adobe Color color profile and then camera matching Fuji X100VI using Astia.
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/media/1_dsf8223-2ac-jpg.4612982/full.jpg
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/media/1_dsf8223-jpg.4612981/full.jpg
great photos mate, im still playing with settings 😁
Jun 01, 2026 at 04:04 AM
p.2 #13Converting Fuji RAW Files in Lightroom Classic
LR is the dominant software used by photographers, so if it's good enough for almost everyone else, it's probably good enough for you 
Also, since it's a wider-angle lens on the X100VI, you probably won't be taking photographs where those "wormy" or soft details would be apparent.
That being said... if you want to be super nitpicky (which some people are ...) I think that C1 still renders fine details and "microcontrast" better than LR directly on import. You could fiddle around with the Detail settings in LR to narrow that gap, though.
Also, since it's a wider-angle lens on the X100VI, you probably won't be taking photographs where those "wormy" or soft details would be apparent. That being said... if you want to be super nitpicky (which some people are ...) I think that C1 still renders fine details and "microcontrast" better than LR directly on import. You could fiddle around with the Detail settings in LR to narrow that gap, though.
Jun 01, 2026 at 08:02 AM
p.2 #14Converting Fuji RAW Files in Lightroom Classic
When the original hoohah was at it's height, with some justification but 'blown up' beyond sense by some who enjoyed over processing and taking a magnifier to everything I installed Iridient, and processed through that on the odd occasion it was beneficial. Then Adobe incorporated something similar into LR, which took 3 times as long and produced a huge file while doing similar (but not identical) to Iridient. I haven't found a need for either for some time.
Gerry
Gerry
Jun 01, 2026 at 08:25 AM
p.2 #15Converting Fuji RAW Files in Lightroom Classic
A74me wrote:
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/media/1_dsf8223-2ac-jpg.4612982/full.jpg
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/media/1_dsf8223-jpg.4612981/full.jpggreat photos mate, im still playing with settings 😁
Thanks for the kind words! I absolutely love this little camera---especially when I am doing more than 15,000 steps on a vacation.
Astia la vista baby---I'll be back!!!
jojib wrote
I don't use Lightroom but I use Photoshop....it should be the same right? These are SOOC. First one is Adobe Color color profile and then camera matching Fuji X100VI using Astia.https://www.dpreview.com/forums/media/1_dsf8223-2ac-jpg.4612982/full.jpg
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/media/1_dsf8223-jpg.4612981/full.jpg
Thanks for the kind words! I absolutely love this little camera---especially when I am doing more than 15,000 steps on a vacation.
Astia la vista baby---I'll be back!!!
Jun 01, 2026 at 08:53 AM
p.2 #16Converting Fuji RAW Files in Lightroom Classic
I had forgotten about that old Adobe tool that “took three times as long and produced huge files.” Now that you mention it, the result was excellent but it was virtually never worth bothering.
gyoung143 wrote:
When the original hoohah was at it's height, with some justification but 'blown up' beyond sense by some who enjoyed over processing and taking a magnifier to everything I installed Iridient, and processed through that on the odd occasion it was beneficial. Then Adobe incorporated something similar into LR, which took 3 times as long and produced a huge file while doing similar (but not identical) to Iridient. I haven't found a need for either for some time.
Gerry
Edited on Jun 05, 2026 at 12:11 AM · View previous versions
gyoung143 wrote:
When the original hoohah was at it's height, with some justification but 'blown up' beyond sense by some who enjoyed over processing and taking a magnifier to everything I installed Iridient, and processed through that on the odd occasion it was beneficial. Then Adobe incorporated something similar into LR, which took 3 times as long and produced a huge file while doing similar (but not identical) to Iridient. I haven't found a need for either for some time.
Gerry
Edited on Jun 05, 2026 at 12:11 AM · View previous versions
Jun 01, 2026 at 08:59 AM
p.2 #17Converting Fuji RAW Files in Lightroom Classic
jojib wrote:
I don't use Lightroom but I use Photoshop....it should be the same right? These are SOOC. First one is Adobe Color color profile and then camera matching Fuji X100VI using Astia.
Not going to get sucked in to the debate, but Jojib, if you are doing Portraits, with more human than background environment, try Pro Neg Hi instead of Astia, or pro Neg Std to tone it down a micro-bit...
I don't use Lightroom but I use Photoshop....it should be the same right? These are SOOC. First one is Adobe Color color profile and then camera matching Fuji X100VI using Astia.
Not going to get sucked in to the debate, but Jojib, if you are doing Portraits, with more human than background environment, try Pro Neg Hi instead of Astia, or pro Neg Std to tone it down a micro-bit...
Jun 04, 2026 at 06:00 PM
p.2 #18Converting Fuji RAW Files in Lightroom Classic
RWNPhoto wrote:
Not going to get sucked in to the debate, but Jojib, if you are doing Portraits, with more human than background environment, try Pro Neg Hi instead of Astia, or pro Neg Std to tone it down a micro-bit...
I'm easy....I tried Pro Neg Hi before and I like it. The only drawback is the blacks are kinda blocked. No problem, I can just raise the shadows/blacks in post. Still my fave is Astia and will continue to be my go to film sim with Fuji.
Some Pro Neg Hi
jojib wrote
I don't use Lightroom but I use Photoshop....it should be the same right? These are SOOC. First one is Adobe Color color profile and then camera matching Fuji X100VI using Astia.I'm easy....I tried Pro Neg Hi before and I like it. The only drawback is the blacks are kinda blocked. No problem, I can just raise the shadows/blacks in post. Still my fave is Astia and will continue to be my go to film sim with Fuji.
Some Pro Neg Hi
Jun 05, 2026 at 05:10 PM
p.2 #19Converting Fuji RAW Files in Lightroom Classic
And Pro Neg Std is perfectly alright too :-) Following the philosophy of my idol GOAT investor Warren Buffett------'I'd rather be vaguely right than precisely wrong'.
Jun 06, 2026 at 11:14 AM
p.2 #20Converting Fuji RAW Files in Lightroom Classic
jojib wrote:
I'm easy....I tried Pro Neg Hi before and I like it. The only drawback is the blacks are kinda blocked. No problem, I can just raise the shadows/blacks in post. Still my fave is Astia and will continue to be my go to film sim with Fuji.
Some Pro Neg Hi
Yeah. In this post with 3 images, the first one, the sun didn't help you any in my opinion. Pretty harsh day, but her legs look good. Not like that, like the gradation and the black, which didn't look blocked to me.
The 2nd one I like it, she should like it, but the sun, on the forehead, maybe could make some picky people go "Ehh".
The last one, pretty nice one. But a lot going on, much more shadowy, dark, so easier to control any hot spots. Maybe the best one for color, mood, environment.
Then the last image in the next reply, nice. Bright background is tough with shadow foreground. Nice coloring on her, and her dress.
Good stuff
Edited on Jun 06, 2026 at 12:07 PM · View previous versions
I'm easy....I tried Pro Neg Hi before and I like it. The only drawback is the blacks are kinda blocked. No problem, I can just raise the shadows/blacks in post. Still my fave is Astia and will continue to be my go to film sim with Fuji.
Some Pro Neg Hi
Yeah. In this post with 3 images, the first one, the sun didn't help you any in my opinion. Pretty harsh day, but her legs look good. Not like that, like the gradation and the black, which didn't look blocked to me.
The 2nd one I like it, she should like it, but the sun, on the forehead, maybe could make some picky people go "Ehh".
The last one, pretty nice one. But a lot going on, much more shadowy, dark, so easier to control any hot spots. Maybe the best one for color, mood, environment.
Then the last image in the next reply, nice. Bright background is tough with shadow foreground. Nice coloring on her, and her dress.
Good stuff
Edited on Jun 06, 2026 at 12:07 PM · View previous versions
Jun 06, 2026 at 12:00 PM