Since this is clearly a subject still mired in confusion, I thought it would make an interesting topic for another article. (I don’t have access to Lightroom and therefore cannot provide my own example of its output, but a simple web search will provide you with more than you need to confirm this assertion.)Īdmitting that if we want to preserve fine color detail we must abandon the camera JPEG output, the question remains: which raw processing software will provide the best results? While everyone seems to agree that Iridient is better than Lightroom, the question has never been answered as to whether or not it is better than Darktable. ![]() Iridient has become a popular alternative/adjunct to Adobe’s Lightroom for FujiFilm X-Series camera users who wish to process RAW files, due not so much to Iridient’s excellence as to Lightroom’s inadequacy in desmosaicking X-Trans images. (But I also pointed out the compromise between color detail and false color/m oiré inherent in X-Trans.) Several commenters suggested that I could get better results from a commercial software product called called Iridient Developer (which, it should be noted for those yet unaware, cannot be installed into your FujiFilm camera’s firmware in order to improve its JPEG output). I showed that, specifically in terms of color detail, Darktable was able to do a better job than FujiFilm’s own processing. In my previous article, X-Trans: The Promise and the Problem, which focused on the difficulty of demosaicking FujiFilm’s X-Trans sensor data while preserving fine color detail and in particular the trouble FujiFilm’s own image processing pipeline has with it, I used the Free/Libre software Darktable to process the RAW examples. Eking the Most out of X-Trans: Can Free Software Beat Iridient?
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |