Thanks to the quirkiness of the Trans-X sensor, the topic of the raw conversion remains fertile ground for those who blog on the Fujifilm line of cameras.

For those of you not familiar with this issue, the color pattern of the Fujifilm Trans-X sensor, is more complex than that of a more conventional Bayer sensor used in pretty much every other digital camera.  For many years, we have sought the best method for the conversion of raw files from this unique sensor.  I’ve written on this multiple times in the past.  Now in 2019, we are faced with some new choices and options,several of them free. I though I would do an informal comparison.

There has been, and always will be, Adobe’s raw conversion software either in Lightroom or Photoshop versions.  This converter has been accused of less-than-stellar performance with the Trans-X sensor.  But lo and behold, Adobe has included a new feature, in their latest Photoshop version called “Enhance Details”.  This is said to be aimed in part, at the Fuji sensor problem.

Phase One, whose “Capture One” software, has always performed somewhat better with Fuji raw files, has been updated to version 12.  More interestingly, they have released a free Fujifilm only version, which presumably replaces the former Silkipix software that was bundled with the Fuji cameras.  The latter software performed very well, but because it was in no one’s workflow, it always felt kludgy and uncomfortable to use.

Another free software workaround for Fujifilm raw files comes from Irident Digital.  Though the company offers a fairly reasonably priced raw development package, many of us frugal types, have taken advantage of their free “Irident Transformer”.  This is a simple application that transforms Fujifilm raw files into another raw file, in this case, the ubiquitous .dng files championed by Adobe.  It does this in a clever way so that they may be processed more easily, particularly by Adobe Products.  This has proven to be an excellent way to avoid the muddled details, and “wormy artifacts”, often seen in straight Adobe Camera Raw conversions.

I thought it would be interesting, to compare files, converted in as close a manner as possible, for different methods, in this case straight Adobe camera raw conversion, then a conversion using the “enhance details” feature.  These can then be compared to conversions done by Irident/Adobe, and by the free Fuji version of Capture One 12.

I decided to use 24-megapixel X-Trans 3 files from both my new Fujifilm XE3, as well as the 16-megapixel files of the previous X-Trans 2 sensor from its predecessor, my now departed X-T10.

Now right up front, this is an inexact comparison.  I did play around to try to obtain the best image possible from the different conversion software, but I don’t think things like sharpening and clarity for instance, can be directly correlated between Capture One, and Photoshop.

A word about the workflow.  Perhaps because of familiarity, there’s no doubt that for me that Adobe Bridge, Camera Raw, and then Photoshop make for an extremely comfortable process.  I’ve used Capture One for many years, but even now I’m a little vague on some of its features.  This may be my fault in that I have probably not been as diligent as possible watching their tutorials.

Adding Irident Transformer conversion to the Adobe workflow ads exactly one step, and works pretty well.  Conversion is quick, and I have set up a file called “Irident conversions” on my computer to receive them.  One then the open is a converted, you can open file in your raw conversion software of choice.  My only gripe, would be that there does not seem to be a way to have the image open automatically in Photoshop after it is converted to a .dng file which would be handy.

Oddly enough, the Adobe “enhance details” feature is less conveniant inthat it seems to take forever to process a file.  It can take up to 2 to 3 minutes to run on my fairly high-end Intel I7 desktop.

So how do they perform?  Here first is a representative file from the XE3 at 200%:

I think it’s fairly obvious that the straight Photoshop version, even given the limitations involved in these jpegs, is inferior to the image processed using either of the other methods. I was hard-pressed, even looking at the original files, to decide on a winner among these though I settled on the Capture One conversion as slightly more detailed than the others. I was initially unhappy with my original Irident conversions which looked “harsh”. I came to realize however that there is some sharpening occurring in that during the .raw to .dng conversion. Once I backed off on the sharpening in Camera Raw, things improved markedly.

Also, I didn’t attempt to convert the Irident file using Capture One , Though it is certainly possible, given that the .dng file format was created by Adobe , I assume their software will convert it as well or better than anyone else .

Now let’s have a look at the X-T10 files, again at 200%

In posting these, I fear that, the JPEG compression of the files, plus the compression inherent in WordPress, has somewhat minimized the differences between these files.  Yet I can tell you that on my monitor, there is a clear difference between the straight Camera Raw conversions and the other methods.  I would say that between the Enhanced Detail, Adobe conversion, Irident plus Camera Raw, or Capture One 12, there is no clear winner.

Also it is intriguing to me how similar the detail is when comparing between the 16-megapixel, X-Trans 2 files, and the 24-megapixel X-Trans 3 files.

I must say, given the effort required to optimize X-Trans files, and that diminishing value of the technology as time marches on, I can certainly be convinced, that at some point, perhaps this sensor type should be abandoned.

On the other hand, those of us who have been Fujifilm shooters for a long time know that a portion of the brand’s appeal has always been unique sensor technology (remember the SuperCCD of the S3pro?).

In summary, I would say that Adobe has finally given us the ability to process with Fujifilm files at a level that matches the best rival conversions.

I just wish it wasn’t so slow both in coming, as well as in use.

Like many photographers, I’ve used Photoshop software for many years.  I think the first version I owned was Photoshop 6. I’ve consistently upgraded version by version since that release.

This was necessary in part, because I am a raw file shooter, and as we all know, Photoshop does not perpetually update Camera Raw for all new models, unless you have purchased the newest version.

I’ve accepted this, like most other photographers as the cost of doing business.  And I recognize that Photoshop is an extremely powerful program, and I’m sure quite expensive to manage and update.  So the $180 I typically pay for an upgrade roughly every two years seems justified.

Now I have no issue with companies profiting from the intellectual property they have cultivated.  But Adobe’s latest moves have me befuddled.

As many people know, Adobe has decided to forgo further Photoshop version releases.  Instead Photoshop will be a program that you’ll license, and for its use pay a monthly fee .  This new system requires that the computer where the software resides, periodically check in with the mother company for confirmation that the user has paid his tithe to Adobe.  That monthly fee for basic access to Photoshop, (after a yearlong discount) will be roughly $20.00 a month, or obviously $ 240 a year.

So instead of $180 every two years, I will be paying $480 for the same time period.

Granted, one will have use of a constantly evolving software product, with access to the newest updates.

I could understand a modest price hike to perhaps $10.00 a month, or $240 every two years.  But the current pricing is seen by many (including myself) as rapacious.

In many ways it’s an in-your-face challenge to photographers.  I think this policy has the potential to create a enough resentment, that many former users will look for a work-around, either holding onto their current version of Photoshop for as long as possible, or investigating other software.

This is especially poignant to me, as the user of Fuji cameras, and particularly the X Trans imager, for which Photoshop and camera raw are not the premier raw converter.  This fact has prompted me to purchase alternative software for raw development.

There are other software packages available for photo editing including several that are free, but not nearly as powerful as Photoshop.  However not everyone needs such feature rich software.

My style of photography for instance is more involved with the capture of the image than aggressive postproduction work.  For the most part images that I publish or sell, have had a modest amount of massaging, mainly levels adjustment, perhaps color balance or saturation changes, and then sharpening.  I occasionally use the healing brush, to remove an inconveniently located power line, or a piece of debris.  I’m not particularly enamored of high dynamic range images which always look unnatural to me.

I’ve never thought of myself as a particularly clever Photoshop user.  And it looks like I may not get a lot better now.

For now,  the raw files I produce are covered by Photoshop CS 6.  Given the relatively crappy job, Photoshop and Camera Raw do with X Trans files, I have been getting comfortable using for instance, Capture 1 in its place.  Perhaps GIMP, the somewhat Photoshop-like freeware program will be a” work around”.  Even Photoshop “Elements” May be useful.

No product or service, no matter how good and how ubiquitous, is ever essential.

I think Adobe is about to find this out.