Comparing editing software for Fujifilm X-trans sensor RAW
After returning from my camping trip, I sat down to edit my photos to share on my YouTube channel. Images from my hike at Lockhart State Park looked lovely, reminded me how much fun I had being close to nature and capturing the beauty of it. It is now live on my channel if you'd like to check it out.
Upon finishing work last week, I decided to spend more time polishing my editing on those photos and making them available as prints for purchase. I try not to pixel peep my images. I truly believe photography is about capturing the vibes, the ideas, or the stories. I personally don't mind if an image is perfectly sharp or not. It is more important to me if an image inspires me or moves me. However, when I sell my work as prints, I try to hold a higher standard and carefully check them before publishing. That's when I shockingly found the infamous worm artifacts of the Fujifilm X-Trans sensor.
Adobe Lightroom has always been my go-to when it comes to photo editing and organizing. X-Trans sensor has a 6x6 pattern that Lightroom doesn't seem to process the RAW files correctly. It does fine with most general photos, but when it comes to some backlit contrasty images that you need a little push, the image started to fall apart. When I zoomed in 200% of this image, I clearly see an unnatural painterly effect.
There have always been talks about editing Fujifilm X-Trans files. Once I noticed the worm artifacts, I started to explore other editing programs that could decode the files better. It's a time-consuming process, and I don't know if I ended up conclude anything.
First, I have the file from Lightroom, and then I also downloaded a trial from Iridient. With my Fujifilm X100V, I got a free copy of basic editing software from Capture One. Lastly, I have Luminar 4 that I haven't been using much. With all these four methods/programs, I tried to edit them as close as possible and pushing the limit of editing to see how they handle the file. After completing my editing on all these programs(Iridient is a RAW decoder), I was shocked to see how different they were. In a way, no one really came up ahead much. They all did something better than the others.
For instance, they all interpret the blue so differently. When I edited in Lightroom, I noticed the color shift from cyan to blue, from the middle to the corner. With the Iridient decoder, the blue seemed to be more consistent. With Capture One and Luminar 4, I had a hard time bringing the blue back.
With the first set of comparison photos, I was zooming in 200% and looking at the tree trunk near the center. The sharpness appeared to be similar for Capture One and Lightroom. Iridient and Luminar 4 seems to create sharper images here. When I looked at the contrast of highlight and shadow, Lightroom and Luminar 4 pushed the highlight slightly to make the tree textures look a tad sharper.
Looking at the twigs on the top left corner, the sharpening on Luminar 4 looked accessive. In opposite, the twigs in Lightroom were just a blur. Iridient seems to be the one that found a balance in sharpness.
There was a lot to compare when I looked through the whole image, particularly where it is very contrasting, where the tree against the sky. Artifacts from editing tend to show up in those areas. Something for me to consider also was the workflow. Although Luminar 4 and Capture One are doing a great job preventing the worm artifacts from showing up, they don't run as smooth as Lightroom, and everything seems to be lagging slightly. I may go ahead and pay for Iridient because the editing process is more integrated with Lightroom, and it does give me much more details when editing Fujifilm RAW files. I can understand many Fujifilm users like using SOOC Jpeg, and I think it works for a certain kind of work. However, if you are dealing with challenging light, Jpeg simply can't provide the flexibility due to the nature of being a Jpeg.
