Fuji X Series

For us Windows users Iridient X-Transformer is a RAF to DNG converter that uses the same techniques from the Iridient software for macs that has been doing a great job of getting the most detail out of the Fuji Raw files.

Its currently in Beta but I can see why all the Mac guys 'n girls were saying it did a great job of pulling out extra detail that PS and LR coudlnt match.

It has a demo mode which just watermarks the dng. I must say I'm pretty impressed and glad it finally made its way to Windows.

http://www.iridientdigital.com/products/xtransformer.html
 
Yeah I've been using it for a week or so, definitely worth adding to the toolkit. I don't like the high ISO results, and it can oversharpen out of focus areas (can get a lot of noise) but it's still just a beta so we'll see where it goes. I've got it setup in LR as an external editor and the workflow is pretty nice. I won't use it a lot, but that's mainly as I don't do landscapes. I can see real value for it there.
 
I find myself using RAW a lot less lately... the Fuji JPEG's are so good and if your exposure is on or around the mark from the off then they are perfectly fine to work with. It has reduced my post-processing workload considerably!
 
Richdog said:
I find myself using RAW a lot less lately... the Fuji JPEG's are so good and if your exposure is on or around the mark from the off then they are perfectly fine to work with. It has reduced my post-processing workload considerably!
Click to expand...

I only keep the RAW's as a backup. The in-camera processing of the JPEGS does a better job than i can do in LR/PS.
 
Same. I've actually disabled RAW to remove temptation- as above whenever I try to tweak I end up preferring the in-camera JPEG.

The near-WYSIWYG aspect of the Fuji EVF has really made my photography so much more enjoyable and immediate. I only find myself chimping when I want to check I've hit the desired focus point in thin DOF situations.
 
I've tried using the jpegs as people rave about them, but apart from Acros (with added grain) I never like the jpeg better than what I get out of the raw. I shot raw + jpeg for the longest time but never really use the jpeg. The only time I need a jpeg in camera is when I want to send it quickly to the phone.
 
I used to prefer the jpegs straight from the XT1 but since moving over to the XT2 I much rather prefer the raw files. I'm not sure if its an issue as such, but straight out of the camera, and when doing a side by side comparison, there is a visible vibrancy to the raw files I have yet to be able to recreate in a jpeg. I'm slowly warming to Photo Ninja as opposed to lightroom and adobe .dng conversion though to rectify this. It seems I'm going the other way compared to you guys, but wasn't there a previous post highlighting this "problem" putting it down to the X-trans processing on the XT2?
 
Last edited:
ethan said:
I used to prefer the jpegs straight from the XT1 but since moving over to the XT2 I much rather prefer the raw files. I'm not sure if its an issue as such, but straight out of the camera, and when doing a side by side comparison, there is a visible vibrancy to the raw files I have yet to be able to recreate in a jpeg. I'm slowly warming to Photo Ninja as opposed to lightroom and adobe .dng conversion though to rectify this.
Click to expand...

seems strange to have a 'vibrant' raw file since raw files are just raw sensor data, though I don't have an XT2 to see what it's like. Not sure from your post what you're actually comparing - It should depend on your default processing settings for raw files though. If they look more vibrant it's because whichever raw converter on your PC is doing things differently to the raw converter in the camera. There's really no such thing as a straight out of camera raw file.

For example the default adobe / lightroom processing for the XE2 raw files appears dull and quite unlike the standard provia jpeg. I set the default in lightroom to be the fujifilm provia camera profile and it's almost indistinguishable from the real provia jpegs.

I wondered if you had changed your default for the XT2 to something more vibrant than what you have set in the camera, e.g. the vivid profile, but it seems unlikely you'd do this without noticing! Then if you're using photo ninja to convert raws it's probably applying some other profile.

Another possibility is you've changed the in camera settings to something less vibrant by mistake, since the settings you make to change the jpeg are not applied to the raw files. Like you say though could just be something weird about the XT2
 
Last edited:
ethan said:
I used to prefer the jpegs straight from the XT1 but since moving over to the XT2 I much rather prefer the raw files. I'm not sure if its an issue as such, but straight out of the camera, and when doing a side by side comparison, there is a visible vibrancy to the raw files I have yet to be able to recreate in a jpeg. I'm slowly warming to Photo Ninja as opposed to lightroom and adobe .dng conversion though to rectify this. It seems I'm going the other way compared to you guys, but wasn't there a previous post highlighting this "problem" putting it down to the X-trans processing on the XT2?
Click to expand...

RAW files are more vibrant than JPEG's straight out of the camera? Considering that JPEG's are processed and RAW's are essentially flat profile until you post process them, I would find that very surprising? :confused:
 
So did I. I shoot both raw and .jpeg and once on the screen doing a side by side comparison the raws appear more vibrant to me using the XT2. I didn't have this with the XT1 unless of course it is something to do with the viewer i'm using to look at the files?
 
It's most likely that you are applying a profile on import. If you are using PhotoNinja that does a lot of processing to the file straight off (I use PhotoNinja as an external editor with Lightroom, it works quite nicely). I've got an X-T2 and don't notice this in Lightroom, I'm still using an X-T1 as well. I would add that I do like the jpegs out of the X-E1, or should say did as I haven't shot with it in a while! I keep meaning to pick up an 18mm or 27mm for the X-E1 and to always have it on me when out and about.
 
X-E1 and to always have it on me when out and about.
Click to expand...
I'm tempted to get rid of my Rx100 for an XE2(S) and throw either the 35mm 1.4 on it or the XC 50-230. What would your view be concerning the use of the 50-230 on it?
 
ethan said:
I'm tempted to get rid of my Rx100 for an XE2(S) and throw either the 35mm 1.4 on it or the XC 50-230. What would your view be concerning the use of the 50-230 on it?
Click to expand...

The X-E1 and 35mm f1.4 are how I got into Fuji, really enjoyed it. I do also have the 50-230. It's not the fastest focusing combo, but should be improved with an X-E2. It's not a bad combo, but I haven't used it a great deal. I mainly used the prime's in the early days, then added an X-T1.
 
In very tempted also . Love my x100t and the new version looks like a big upgrade ,the only thing I don't like is that ISO dial .Its awful in the xpro-2
 
Think i'm going to preorder the X-T2Zero from what I've seen so far if I can sell my X-T1 soon..ish

Not sure I can justify double the cost of the X-T2 now, just for weather sealing :confused:
 
Zaf said:
Think i'm going to preorder the X-T2Zero from what I've seen so far if I can sell my X-T1 soon..ish

Not sure I can justify double the cost of the X-T2 now, just for weather sealing :confused:
Click to expand...

Double the cost just for weather sealing... and:

- An ISO dial
- 1/8000 shutter speed
- A 3-axis tilting screen
- 2 SD card slots
- EVF with greater magnification and a significantly higher refresh rate
- A bigger buffer
- An optional battery grip

...or were you thinking of a another camera? :p

Fact is that if you have the cash then the X-T2 is the superior camera... all it lacks (sadly) is a touch screen.
 
Richdog said:
Double the cost just for weather sealing... and:

- An ISO dial
- 1/8000 shutter speed
- A 3-axis tilting screen
- 2 SD card slots
- EVF with greater magnification and a significantly higher refresh rate
- A bigger buffer
- An optional battery grip

...or were you thinking of a another camera? :p

Fact is that if you have the cash then the X-T2 is the superior camera... all it lacks (sadly) is a touch screen.
Click to expand...

I understand where you are coming from but...

- An ISO dial
Can use custom dial wheel on either back or front

- 1/8000 shutter speed
I've never needed to shoot up to 4000 let alone 8000, and there is still the electronic shutter

- A 3-axis tilting screen
Never had, so wouldn't miss it. I find 2-axis on X-T1 just fine

- 2 SD card slots -
Yes would be nice if I was a wedding tog etc lived with only 1 on the X-T1 so far without wishing for a second

- EVF with greater magnification and a significantly higher refresh rate
This may be an advantage for wildlife and sports but, I got on fine with the X-T1 on Safari, so the X-T2 is still an upgrade over the X-T1

- A bigger buffer
For the difference in price and not really shooting sports, not a big deal

- An optional battery grip
Yes I will miss the extra battery but, for the extra £700+ I'll just carry more spare batteries

The focus point joystick would have been useful though..

I just think for the price difference I can buy a 56mm 1.2 instead and still have the same image quality etc as the X-T2
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom