p.2 #1 · Converting Fuji RAW Files in Lightroom Classic
ruthenium wrote:
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. ...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.
p.2 #2 · Converting Fuji RAW Files in Lightroom Classic
gdanmitchell wrote:
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.)...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".
p.2 #3 · Converting 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. :-)
p.2 #4 · Converting 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.
p.2 #6 · Converting 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.
p.2 #7 · Converting 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!
p.2 #12 · Converting 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.
p.2 #13 · Converting 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.
p.2 #14 · Converting 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.
p.2 #16 · Converting Fuji RAW Files in Lightroom Classic
I had forgotten about that 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.
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. 
