UKC

Only had a tinker with JPEGs from my XT-1 in Lightroom so far - the word out there seems to be that Fuji RAW files in LR leave something to be desired and are actually not even as good as the JPEGs?! Just wondering what experience/opinions people have on this....

In reply to mudmonkey5:

As far as I am aware RAW files are never as 'good' as JPEGs, until you work on them,


Chris

In reply to mudmonkey5:

I'd more or less agree with CC, they're certainly never any better imo. Have you tried editing some of the RAW files to see if they are better than the jpgs *post* production?

In reply to Chris Craggs:

'RAW files are never as 'good' as JPEGs, until you work on them'

But JPEGS are constructed from RAW data, so it is impossible for a JPEG to be better than the best possible photo processed from a RAW file. A JPEG might be as good as a photo processed from RAW, or it might be worse (or indeed better if the person using Lightroom is not very competent).

The issue of Fuji RAW files in Lightroom is to do with Fuji's non-standard X-Trans sensor, and by all accounts Lightroom 6 handles Fuji RAW files better than Lightroom 5 did.

In reply to John2:



A well processed JPEG will always 'look' better than the RAW file you started with - that's the whole point isn't it?

Chris

In reply to Chris Craggs:





OK, I wasn't quite clear - I meant after the RAW file has been edited in LR!

In reply to mudmonkey5:

It can if you edit it badly!

In reply to Fraser:

That's certainly possible with me! The gist of the argument seems to be that the LR handling of the RAW file is not as good as the Fuji in camera processing that creates the JPEG (assuming competent human editing in LR).

In reply to mudmonkey5:
OK so here are my thoughts about this topic - they are not specific to Fuji but more about RAW vs jpeg in general - ignore them if you wish.
When we take a picture we have some idea about how we want to see it later - either to communicate to others or to appreciate what we saw when we recorded it. In my experience saving a picture as jpeg tends to:- even out exposure, add contrast, increase saturation & add sharpness to produce what we might call 'A shiny happy image'. As this is what most people want it is well accepted as a 'good' image. However if you saw a dark, moody, soft & low contrast scene then the jpeg processing does not give you the result you want. The only way to get your desired image is to save a RAW image and process it accordingly. That is the reason why I always work in RAW - I can control the look of the image to suit my original visualisation. It takes effort to get from the RAW file to an acceptable version that I am happy with and sometimes it is similar to the 'Shiny happy' version that a jpeg would have given me but the key factor is that I have chosen that form rather than the jpeg algorithm doing a generalised version for me. Processing RAW images is indeed time consuming ( I am currently working on over 2000 images from a big trip) but for me it is the only way to have control over the final result of an image.

In reply to Chris Craggs:

No, the point is can someone processing the RAW file in Lightroom produce a better result than the camera firmware that produced the JPEG?

In reply to John2:


AFAIK, this answers the OP.

In reply to mudmonkey5:


Funnily enough, earlier this week I was on a half day workshop, run by Jessops and sponsored by Olympus. The photographer taking the course was saying that some cameras' RAW files don't get processed as well as others in Lightroom. He uses Capture 1, so couldn't remember which manufacturers those were, but he was certainly aware of an 'issue' with some LR RAW files.

In reply to mudmonkey5:

First off, in response to CC's post, you can't actually view a RAW file. A RAW file contains an embedded low quality JPG produced by the camera that is used for previews, even by the camera itself.

Secondly, LR uses predefined profiles to process RAW files, and the profiles for some cameras produce images that are closer to the proprietary JPGs than others. Olympus ones aren't all that near but I'd bet Canon ones are pretty close. There may be some profiles out there for the XT-1 that someone has created which produce images you like.

Note I'm saying "Close" and not "Better". "Better" is entirely subjective. What comes out of the camera is just the result of how the manufacturer has decided to render the image, not the "best" image.

If you want to put the effort in, have a go at creating your own profiles for your XT-1. Plenty of tutorials out there on how to do it, it can be worth the effort.

In reply to mudmonkey5:

I posted these thoughts about it on another thread using a X100T and LR6:
--------------

Some general initial thoughts on Fuji jpg & RAW.

The the noise reduction on the jpg engine is a bit aggressive and does smear a bit of detail, so have turned down to NR to -2.

Having shot around 1300 jpg, now having a go at RAWs in LR6 - Adobe have matched each 'jpg' setting really well via the RAW Profile setting - so you are not fixed at capture stage (you can bracket the effects at jpg capture though).

Side by side of Fuji-jpg versus RAW with LR-Profile shows just how damn good the jpgs are!, Only small IQ gains (100% pixel peeping) with RAW. Changing profile in RAW is a real advantage if you like the different jpg styles (which i do), and highlight/shadow recovery is also a bit better. Worth the extra file size.... not sure yet (no extra real processing faf in LR if using RAW).

----------------

Now >400 RAWs later, I will continue to be fully shooting in RAW on the X100T.

For people not familiar with Fuji Cameras, these are the jpg film simulations you get (which are great fun to use):

PROVIA/STANDARD
Velvia/VIVID
ASTIA/SOFT
Classic Chrome
Pro Neg. Hi
Pro Neg. Std
MONOCHROME
MONOCHROME+Ye FILTER
MONOCHROME+R FILTER
MONOCHROME+G FILTER

To the OP, I found this very useful:

https://photographylife.com/how-to-get-accurate-fuji-colors-in-lightroom

In reply to ChrisJD:

Pffft........I get the authentic 'simulation' putting those films through my Fuji 6x9

In reply to John2:

The Fuji jpgs are not like normal jpg.

They process in LR in an almost RAW like manner - so much so you forget that are actually jpgs as they can deal with aggressive PP. (I've processed a lot of Canon DSLR RAW, and quite a few from Pano & Sony in LR).

In reply to dek:

But can it fit in your pocket (or are you just pleased to seem me)..

In reply to ChrisJD:


I'm very well 'Hung' when out and about with that big plastic lump...

In reply to mudmonkey5:

Capture One does a better job of dealing with Fuji Raw than LR5+, but having tested both a fair bit (same issues, X-T1) I haven't noticed anything that would justify the switch from LR5.

The Iridient Developer plugin for LR (in my opinion) brings things back to a level playing field. Check it out.

LR kicks ass over C1 when it comes to digital asset management anyway, so I'd stick with it if you can.

In reply to ChrisJD:

That may well be, but they are still generated from raw data by firmware in the camera.

In reply to John2:

Completely qualitatively:

If RAW is 100% optimal, then Canon jpgs are about 60-70%, Fuji jpgs are 85-90%

In reply to mudmonkey5:
Ah, that set the RAW cat amongst the JPEG pigeons! Thanks for all replies and some interesting thoughts/tips, will continue to blunder my way around LR and shoot some RAW + JPEG next time I'm out so I can have a tinker myself. Doesn't seem like it is really an issue at my level of "expertise" so I'll continue with getting to grips with LR and sounds like upgrading from 5 to 6 might be worth it.

In reply to Si Withington:


I'm another Fuji (X-E1) user and would be interested to hear a bit more about how you've found Iridient, if you've a moment. Thanks.

In reply to Solaris:

Take a look at this http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/54247370 . I have to say, I'm not sure that I would describe the Iridient phtos as better than the better standard Lightroom ones.

In reply to John2:

Aha! Of course, should have thought. Thanks for the link, and for the opinion.

In reply to ChrisJD:

Ah, just got round to reading this now - indeed, really useful thanks. Starting to see how it all comes together now.