I have 1 place left on my waterfall workshop on October the 21st. If you are interested, follow the link for more info 👍👍 www.iworthphotos.com/workshops/waterfall-workshop
I have a Sony a1 ,a Fujifilm GFX 100s and an OM System OM-1, with all of them I am using the DXO PuroRaw 2 or DXO PhotoLab 6.When you are using it as a stand alone program the results are even better than LRC with this plugin.
I have PureRaw 2 and agree; it does a much better job than LR alone. However, having done a three-way comparison recently on files from my X-T5, I find converting to Tiff in Fujifilm X-Raw Studio works even better.
@@ian_worth It’s only with the latest sensors that X-raw Studio allows export to TIFF. Previously it was only the GFX sensors. X-series were stuck with exporting to jpeg.
It’s worth pointing out that the Fuji x trans sensor technology is different to bayer sensor technology used on many other cameras. The sharpening algorithm and methodology in Adobe LR or camera raw in PS is totally different to get the best results. Instead of using the sharpening slider upwards, this should dropped (to around 25) and the sharpening is actually achieved then with the detail slider below it. This methodology doesn’t give you the quirky colours or ‘worms’ that muddy the image and make it look less sharp and generally poor. This methodology has been known I think for at least 7/8 years now, Pete Bridgwood wrote an excellent article back in 2014. It might be worth having a dabble and see what you think, it may save you the cost of an additional plug-in, although if you’re happy with the results of the DxO plug-in then that’s equally fine. As with everything in photography there’s multiple ways and none is really a right way as photography is a delightfully subjective art and in the technicalities and post processing. A well presented vlog though Ian, always enjoy your in the field videos.
Cheers Rob, yes mate, great comment. I did a video on this sharpening technique back in 2019. You can check it out here - ua-cam.com/video/24QIfOfi3l8/v-deo.html
I've been using DxO RAW 2 for a few months and have also been very pleased with the results on my Fuji files. A great video, Ian, and you explained the process very well.
Guys I am a semi professional landscape photographer in a place called Albany Western Australia and I have done lots of photography for a long time I’m not sure I want to go down this path of having images pristine clean in for every single image I don’t feel that this is a part that we need to go down. It almost gets to the point where people are pixel peeping at an image to see if there’s one Skerritt of noise in a photo and almost like we have to get rid of all of that noise I’m not sure that’s the path I want to go down. And to be honest you can use linear grads to get rid of a lot of noise anyway and radial grads as well. I think the key is actually removing noise often from the sky as that is often where noise will appear if you’ve got like a full ground like that there shouldn’t be too much noise in that image because it’s Sandy anyway so you’re not going to see it so I don’t believe in applying all of the noise reduction stuff to the foreground.. I’ve seen bad photographers now or using that the de-noise software ….hmmm. With one point you made that we can actually have images that are too sharp and it’s too harsh. People when they’re looking at images like to feel relaxed and slightly softening images is what I do. Yeah I actually reduce the clarity and texture and sharpening in my images. I also shoot at slightly longer shutter speeds with a lower ISO So unless there’s a tree in front of me that’s moving I will shoot at a lower shutter speed as this reduces the ISO which gives you a clear image. It’s when people try to shoot high speeds in low light it does not work. Don’t know if you know this but light room has a feature called in hearts which increases the megapixel rate of an image and you can do this to an edited JPEG for larger prints and it cleans up the image quite well I’ve done some really big billboard type style prints as well and this has worked really well a lot of people do not know about that feature and you can convert it to a DNG as well. If you so desire. I just don’t know if I want to be adding to bits of software to my system by then have to use and navigate my way through. A lot of work I do post I try to keep simple and a nice flow to it without getting too over thought process around having the image to be absolutely perfect…I’m not editing the image well I’m just not getting to the point where it has to be absolutely perfect because the more you work you do want an image do you often get to a point where it looks crap and then you have to start all over again. And I think this can be a trap for many people. I did enjoy the video though and I’m not bagging the software I just not sure that this is a part we want to go down. I love your channel and I have subscribed
Your videos are always a breath of fresh air, pleasant and instructive. Wel done and keep it up. I've been using Dx0 for some months on my night photography shots to reduce noise in the foreground; and at least for me it proved to be incredibly useful.
For my Xtrans files I started using Capture One a few years back and never looked back. For as expensive as Adobe is you think they would do a better job. Now that most of my digital work is done with Sony, I still use Capture One as a DAM, and do any heavy lifting with Affinity Photo which is a $25 USD Photoshop clone basically. No monthly payments for me... 🙂 And no third party workarounds to make up for what Adobe does so poorly. The combo of (free) Capture One Express for Fuji and $25 USD on sale to own Affinity just can't be beat.
I have tried capture one in the past but did not like the tools or workflow, and the colors are just nicer in lightroom to my eye. I also tried Iridient x transformer and did not like the results either. DXO looks like one of the best to me. Amazing what it can do with high iso images as well. If I could start over again from scratch I would not buy lightroom and would choose one of the other raw processors instead. Like you my workflow and brain is to used to lightroom workflow and tools. I am still using an old xt-2 but am very interested in trying the new 40mp Fuji sensor. Using programs like DXO will negate any high iso degradation of the higher megapixel sensor. Im sure large prints will look stunning.
Nice video about the DXO Raw 2 plug in. I use a Fujifilm XT 3 and XE 3 camera when I am out and about and I process in Lightroom and photoshop. I've just been to Snowdonia for a week and took dozens of photos which I have been reviewing in Lightroom and cannot see any "worms" or artefacts. I found that these problems appear if you over sharpen the images especially if you over use the Detail slider. I think we are all getting a bit obsessed with pixel peeping and sharpness in photos. Take a look around how much of your view is sharp? If the main subject is in focus then the rest of a image does not need to be pin sharp. Also you did not mention that this Plug in cost £115 which is nearly a year subs for the Photoshop and Lightroom.
I agree, what is important to some may not be so important to others, for me personally, I really want to be assured that if I go out and take an absolute belter of a landscape photo, that I can blow it up big, mount it on my wall and be happy with the results. 👍
This Plug-in make's your APSC files close too full frame cleaness of an image! I have a XT20 and as you can imagine I'm well happy with this! Cheers again Ian 👍
Great to see you again Ian, hope life is good in Wales! Really interesting video, reckon I need to check it out so thanks a bunch for bringing this to our attention . 👏👍😀😊
I am presently using the free Capture One Express for Fuji and the Enhance feature in LRPS and like the results. A video comparing DXO with these two programs would be of interest. Enjoyed the video. Thank you
An informative video Ian, I'm a new fuji user, loving the system but very frustrated that Lr cant read fuji files properly, (does anyone know if Adobe have commented on this issue, do they intend to fix it?!) I have C1 which gives excellent results but I just don't like the programme as much as I do Lr. I take it DXO pure raw 2 means doubling the amount of disk spaced used to store your files?
Adobe have improved things a fair bit over the last 5 years, when i first moved to fuji LR was pretty terrible. They introduced the enhance details feature a while back but I've found that to be pretty useless in my tests. dxo looks to have solved all of my issues, so thumbs up to them. Yes, you will have an extra file for every image that you convert. My advice would be to just convert your very best images or ones you wish to share and print. 👍
@@ian_worth thanks for taking the time to reply Ian. I downloaded the trial of pure RAW 2 this morning and ran a file through it. When comparing it to the same file in C1 (pixel peeping @ 100%), the pure Raw 2 file was cleaner. Incredible software.
DXO seems to give great results (as does iridient and Adobe's enhance details) The one thing I don't like about all these tools is the resulting file size. You always end up with a 100mb+ DNG file.
Jullian Baird did a video comparison on Nikon Z7 files a few months ago. I think he also bought this software. People who shoot Nikon may want to watch that as well.
Nice one, yeah its well worth checking out Julian's video, he goes into it in more detail than I do - watch it here - ua-cam.com/video/h39PVABNFYI/v-deo.html
This is exactly as a landscape photographer, why I sold all my Fuji gear and switched to different brands. It's just too much hassle for every pic to convert etc... it was so, so tiring. I think it's horrible in 2022 that fuji and adobe havent addressed this yet. I spent a good year researching this, taking to Fuji pro shooters, who all confirmed the worming artifacts issue. Horrible.
To reply to your camera brand question : I came from Canon raws to Rafs, Canon DSLR raws are flawless in lightroom. After the Fuji disaster I went back to canon EOS R mirrorless, again raws are flawless. I loved the fuji hardware, but the raw files sucked all the joy out of my hobby.
@@RicardoBryanOfficial exactly! It's a beautiful sensor. DXO Photolab and CO handles Fuji files wonderfully. Pretty much it's just Adobe LR that sucks at rendering these files. Don't blame the sensor.
Well, that cleared up a few questions I was still pondering. It's possible that a 15" retina display isn't enough to see all the differences - then again - it's probably UA-cam processing that's killing it. Even at 1440p. I can see enough to make this worth trying. Since you've tried this one - how about giving Iridient X-Transformer a try (windows version if possible). In my research for the switch to Fuji, I've heard the whole gamut of opinions on Raw processing for X-Trans Raw files - Capture One seems to be one of the favorites, as is Iridient X-Transformer. I don't think I'd see so many complaints about Lightroom if there was nothing to it - and your video proves the point. Thanks!
Thanks buddy, I have used Irdient Transformer in the past and although i haven't done side by side comparisons, my first impressions of the dxo software was much better than that of Iridient. I would need to test this properly to be sure though 👍
Another Lightroom sharpening tip is this: don't sharpen RAF files in Lightroom; sharpen then in Photoshop using, e.g., Filter/Smart Sharpen. This seems to avoid the problems that arise when sharpening in Lightroom, I've been doing this with X-T2 files for years.
Hi Ian. Thanks for your video. Nice advices. Great difference for Fuji-files, very useful. A question though. Is it possible to make a comparison with the new Topas Photo AI as well? In particular using Fuji-files. Kind regards, Peter
Guys.. At10:00 you see that worms because Adobe do not know how to decode properly Fuji Raw files or they made that intended. You do not even know that if you using only LR. Try with purple color in Fuji RAW FILE CONVERTER EX 3.0 and you will see real colors like they are, they are all saved in raw just not properly decoded by Adobe.
I’ve owned several Fuji cams over the years and was always frustrated by the challenges of processing their raw files in LR. But i use other brands as well and don’t want to add another raw processor just for the fujis. Wish Fuji would switch to a conventional bayer sensor, as i still love their build quality and direct controls.
In general, I think LR works just fine with fuji files, its more a case of the sharpening and noise reduction controls are less effective or need to be used in moderation. That's why its great to have a plugin to use to overcome these issues when required. I certainly wouldn't apply pure raw2 to every image, just the ones I want to show on my website or print. 👍👍
Eh, I'll happily pay for DXO, get a properly debayered Xtrans RAW file to Linear DNG and edit that in Lightroom. X-trans has benefits like not needing a OLPF filter in front of the sensor to counter moiré and other issues bayer sensors have deal with. Storage is like fractions of a penny per file. People need to learn how to cull their files better.
Thanks! have you tried AI, and how would you compare them? We may not need to do this with a 40mp sensor. BTW, what ball head are you using? Thanks. Geoff
The Adobe enhance feature creates a huge DNG.file. Better buy a bigger hard drive. And it’s not a perfect result but if you’re stuck to LR then it’s probably the best you can do. LR prefers Bayer sensors over Xtrans.
In wich way does this applies to Fuji ?? It can be used with any RAW files, isn’t it? Why Fuji in the title? / Ah got it. This was back in the times where Lightroom can’t process Fuji RAWs.
It's 2024 and I tried lightroom the other day with and RAF file, still get worms and image degradation when zoomed in and they still haven't fixed this despite it being an issue. The converter program isn't free another cost and a waste of time when you should be able to upload and start editing straight away. Being using capture for years and will continue to do so.
As a retired professional, I find Photoshop to give me much better results than DxO. I do use PureRaw as it is a very good noise-reduction program. But then so is Topaz DeNoise. What I can do in Photoshop is the process for middle tone contrast. In the DxO program, it was not even close. All digital captures suffer from a dearth of middle-tone contrast. I also use a full-frame Nikon system besides a complete Fuji system. Lightroom has improved dramatically in middle-tone contrast adjustments. But Photoshop is still the champ.
I have 1 place left on my waterfall workshop on October the 21st. If you are interested, follow the link for more info 👍👍 www.iworthphotos.com/workshops/waterfall-workshop
I have a Sony a1 ,a Fujifilm GFX 100s and an OM System OM-1, with all of them I am using the DXO PuroRaw 2 or DXO PhotoLab 6.When you are using it as a stand alone program the results are even better than LRC with this plugin.
I have PureRaw 2 and agree; it does a much better job than LR alone. However, having done a three-way comparison recently on files from my X-T5, I find converting to Tiff in Fujifilm X-Raw Studio works even better.
Thats interesting, I will give that a try 👍
@@ian_worth It’s only with the latest sensors that X-raw Studio allows export to TIFF. Previously it was only the GFX sensors. X-series were stuck with exporting to jpeg.
Hi @TarrelScot Thanks for the tip. A question. After converting to tiff, you import the files to LR for post processing?
@@JaapKroon Yes. That way I have the benefit of LR's cataloguing as well as the developing tools.
@@TarrelScot Thanks!!
It’s worth pointing out that the Fuji x trans sensor technology is different to bayer sensor technology used on many other cameras. The sharpening algorithm and methodology in Adobe LR or camera raw in PS is totally different to get the best results.
Instead of using the sharpening slider upwards, this should dropped (to around 25) and the sharpening is actually achieved then with the detail slider below it. This methodology doesn’t give you the quirky colours or ‘worms’ that muddy the image and make it look less sharp and generally poor.
This methodology has been known I think for at least 7/8 years now, Pete Bridgwood wrote an excellent article back in 2014.
It might be worth having a dabble and see what you think, it may save you the cost of an additional plug-in, although if you’re happy with the results of the DxO plug-in then that’s equally fine.
As with everything in photography there’s multiple ways and none is really a right way as photography is a delightfully subjective art and in the technicalities and post processing.
A well presented vlog though Ian, always enjoy your in the field videos.
Definitely worth trying. Thanks for the tip.
Cheers Rob, yes mate, great comment. I did a video on this sharpening technique back in 2019. You can check it out here - ua-cam.com/video/24QIfOfi3l8/v-deo.html
I've been using DxO RAW 2 for a few months and have also been very pleased with the results on my Fuji files. A great video, Ian, and you explained the process very well.
Many thanks buddy, glad its working out well for you 👍👍
Guys I am a semi professional landscape photographer in a place called Albany Western Australia and I have done lots of photography for a long time I’m not sure I want to go down this path of having images pristine clean in for every single image I don’t feel that this is a part that we need to go down. It almost gets to the point where people are pixel peeping at an image to see if there’s one Skerritt of noise in a photo and almost like we have to get rid of all of that noise I’m not sure that’s the path I want to go down. And to be honest you can use linear grads to get rid of a lot of noise anyway and radial grads as well. I think the key is actually removing noise often from the sky as that is often where noise will appear if you’ve got like a full ground like that there shouldn’t be too much noise in that image because it’s Sandy anyway so you’re not going to see it so I don’t believe in applying all of the noise reduction stuff to the foreground.. I’ve seen bad photographers now or using that the de-noise software ….hmmm. With one point you made that we can actually have images that are too sharp and it’s too harsh. People when they’re looking at images like to feel relaxed and slightly softening images is what I do. Yeah I actually reduce the clarity and texture and sharpening in my images. I also shoot at slightly longer shutter speeds with a lower ISO So unless there’s a tree in front of me that’s moving I will shoot at a lower shutter speed as this reduces the ISO which gives you a clear image. It’s when people try to shoot high speeds in low light it does not work.
Don’t know if you know this but light room has a feature called in hearts which increases the megapixel rate of an image and you can do this to an edited JPEG for larger prints and it cleans up the image quite well I’ve done some really big billboard type style prints as well and this has worked really well a lot of people do not know about that feature and you can convert it to a DNG as well. If you so desire. I just don’t know if I want to be adding to bits of software to my system by then have to use and navigate my way through. A lot of work I do post I try to keep simple and a nice flow to it without getting too over thought process around having the image to be absolutely perfect…I’m not editing the image well I’m just not getting to the point where it has to be absolutely perfect because the more you work you do want an image do you often get to a point where it looks crap and then you have to start all over again. And I think this can be a trap for many people. I did enjoy the video though and I’m not bagging the software I just not sure that this is a part we want to go down. I love your channel and I have subscribed
@Br So I actually work in addictions lol 😆 not a bus driver lol
Really big difference...Lightroom have a problem with x-trans sensor now I use Capture One and this works great for details and also colours...
Your videos are always a breath of fresh air, pleasant and instructive. Wel done and keep it up. I've been using Dx0 for some months on my night photography shots to reduce noise in the foreground; and at least for me it proved to be incredibly useful.
Cheers Sam, much appreciated. It definitely improves things significantly for me too👍👍
For my Xtrans files I started using Capture One a few years back and never looked back. For as expensive as Adobe is you think they would do a better job. Now that most of my digital work is done with Sony, I still use Capture One as a DAM, and do any heavy lifting with Affinity Photo which is a $25 USD Photoshop clone basically. No monthly payments for me... 🙂 And no third party workarounds to make up for what Adobe does so poorly. The combo of (free) Capture One Express for Fuji and $25 USD on sale to own Affinity just can't be beat.
Capture One is the best for fuji raw files.
@@janbrzak-photovideo559 Actually DXO Photolab is better, but Capture One is good, much much better than anything Adobe.
I have tried capture one in the past but did not like the tools or workflow, and the colors are just nicer in lightroom to my eye. I also tried Iridient x transformer and did not like the results either. DXO looks like one of the best to me. Amazing what it can do with high iso images as well. If I could start over again from scratch I would not buy lightroom and would choose one of the other raw processors instead. Like you my workflow and brain is to used to lightroom workflow and tools. I am still using an old xt-2 but am very interested in trying the new 40mp Fuji sensor. Using programs like DXO will negate any high iso degradation of the higher megapixel sensor. Im sure large prints will look stunning.
Great info Paul, Thanks for watching mate 😀👍
The new 40mp sensor is insane. Got the X-T5 a couple days ago. Blown away by the quality.
Nice video about the DXO Raw 2 plug in.
I use a Fujifilm XT 3 and XE 3 camera when I am out and about and I process in Lightroom and photoshop.
I've just been to Snowdonia for a week and took dozens of photos which I have been reviewing in Lightroom and cannot see any "worms" or artefacts.
I found that these problems appear if you over sharpen the images especially if you over use the Detail slider.
I think we are all getting a bit obsessed with pixel peeping and sharpness in photos. Take a look around how much of your view is sharp?
If the main subject is in focus then the rest of a image does not need to be pin sharp.
Also you did not mention that this Plug in cost £115 which is nearly a year subs for the Photoshop and Lightroom.
I agree, what is important to some may not be so important to others, for me personally, I really want to be assured that if I go out and take an absolute belter of a landscape photo, that I can blow it up big, mount it on my wall and be happy with the results. 👍
This Plug-in make's your APSC files close too full frame cleaness of an image! I have a XT20 and as you can imagine I'm well happy with this!
Cheers again Ian 👍
Thanks Toby, glad it helps 👍
@@ian_worth still in shock how clean the raw files are and sharper! even with the sharping tab turned off.
"make's your APSC files close too full frame" that doesnt make any sense. Try learning about ISO and where your camera has the lowest noise.
I'm loving DXO Pure Raw 🙂
Great to see you again Ian, hope life is good in Wales! Really interesting video, reckon I need to check it out so thanks a bunch for bringing this to our attention . 👏👍😀😊
DxO PureRaw 2 - Excellent Program!
I agree 👍👍
Incredible tool! Thanks for sharing this Ian. I wonder what it might do for Astro?
I was wondering that too. I must give it a try 👍👍
I am presently using the free Capture One Express for Fuji and the Enhance feature in LRPS and like the results. A video comparing DXO with these two programs would be of interest. Enjoyed the video. Thank you
Cheers buddy, lots of people asking for some comparison videos, maybe one for a rainy day 👍👍
An informative video Ian, I'm a new fuji user, loving the system but very frustrated that Lr cant read fuji files properly, (does anyone know if Adobe have commented on this issue, do they intend to fix it?!) I have C1 which gives excellent results but I just don't like the programme as much as I do Lr. I take it DXO pure raw 2 means doubling the amount of disk spaced used to store your files?
Adobe have improved things a fair bit over the last 5 years, when i first moved to fuji LR was pretty terrible. They introduced the enhance details feature a while back but I've found that to be pretty useless in my tests. dxo looks to have solved all of my issues, so thumbs up to them. Yes, you will have an extra file for every image that you convert. My advice would be to just convert your very best images or ones you wish to share and print. 👍
@@ian_worth thanks for taking the time to reply Ian. I downloaded the trial of pure RAW 2 this morning and ran a file through it. When comparing it to the same file in C1 (pixel peeping @ 100%), the pure Raw 2 file was cleaner. Incredible software.
Loving PureRaw II 🙂
DXO seems to give great results (as does iridient and Adobe's enhance details)
The one thing I don't like about all these tools is the resulting file size. You always end up with a 100mb+ DNG file.
very true Richard 👍👍
So what? I have multiple pictures with 100-4000MB file sizes (some are psds) stored, thats what happens if you edit high resolution photos.
Jullian Baird did a video comparison on Nikon Z7 files a few months ago. I think he also bought this software. People who shoot Nikon may want to watch that as well.
Nice one, yeah its well worth checking out Julian's video, he goes into it in more detail than I do - watch it here - ua-cam.com/video/h39PVABNFYI/v-deo.html
Will definitely give this a go. Could be a game changer for me. I've been very frustrated with the fuji raw IQ.
Hope you enjoy it, pure raw3 is even better 👍👍
This is exactly as a landscape photographer, why I sold all my Fuji gear and switched to different brands. It's just too much hassle for every pic to convert etc... it was so, so tiring. I think it's horrible in 2022 that fuji and adobe havent addressed this yet. I spent a good year researching this, taking to Fuji pro shooters, who all confirmed the worming artifacts issue. Horrible.
To reply to your camera brand question : I came from Canon raws to Rafs, Canon DSLR raws are flawless in lightroom. After the Fuji disaster I went back to canon EOS R mirrorless, again raws are flawless. I loved the fuji hardware, but the raw files sucked all the joy out of my hobby.
@Phillip Banes correct.
Right, I shoot fuji for my street an documentary work, but got a Sony a7iv for my serious stuff like landscapes and wildlife for prints.
@Phillip Banes Capture one had no problems with fuji, so it had nothing to do with the sensor. The sensor is great
@@RicardoBryanOfficial exactly! It's a beautiful sensor. DXO Photolab and CO handles Fuji files wonderfully. Pretty much it's just Adobe LR that sucks at rendering these files. Don't blame the sensor.
Well, that cleared up a few questions I was still pondering.
It's possible that a 15" retina display isn't enough to see all the differences - then again - it's probably UA-cam processing that's killing it. Even at 1440p. I can see enough to make this worth trying. Since you've tried this one - how about giving Iridient X-Transformer a try (windows version if possible). In my research for the switch to Fuji, I've heard the whole gamut of opinions on Raw processing for X-Trans Raw files - Capture One seems to be one of the favorites, as is Iridient X-Transformer. I don't think I'd see so many complaints about Lightroom if there was nothing to it - and your video proves the point. Thanks!
We need an updated video😅 PureRaw3 added extra options, including the desired level of sharpening, and DeepPrime XD for RAF.
I have to try it thanks Ian. Cheers.
Hope you enjoy 👍
What about a comparison between DXO and Iridient Transformer which does the same job, but cheaper??
Thanks buddy, I have used Irdient Transformer in the past and although i haven't done side by side comparisons, my first impressions of the dxo software was much better than that of Iridient. I would need to test this properly to be sure though 👍
Hi Ian I use C1 no apps no problems with wormy effect. good to see you back
Good stuff Mike, I would love to try capture 1, one day 👍👍
Another Lightroom sharpening tip is this: don't sharpen RAF files in Lightroom; sharpen then in Photoshop using, e.g., Filter/Smart Sharpen. This seems to avoid the problems that arise when sharpening in Lightroom, I've been doing this with X-T2 files for years.
Me too, I always use unsharp mask though, it works great 👍👍
Hi Ian. Thanks for your video. Nice advices. Great difference for Fuji-files, very useful. A question though. Is it possible to make a comparison with the new Topas Photo AI as well? In particular using Fuji-files. Kind regards, Peter
That's a good idea, maybe one for the future 👍👍
@@ian_worth Thanks Ian. That would be nice.
Thanks for a great and informative video. Do you see a difference or improvement in highlight recovery with Dx0?
👍 How about if you want to use the hdr merge in lr.
there's no reason why you couldn't convert the files before the hdr conversion 👍
Guys.. At10:00 you see that worms because Adobe do not know how to decode properly Fuji Raw files or they made that intended. You do not even know that if you using only LR. Try with purple color in Fuji RAW FILE CONVERTER EX 3.0 and you will see real colors like they are, they are all saved in raw just not properly decoded by Adobe.
I bought DxO Pure Raw 2 a few weeks ago and then discovered it hasn't been updated for my new X-T5 yet. I have to be patient...
Yep, I'm waiting for the x-h2 support before I purchase it 👍
What is the tripod mount you have on your x-h2?
Can you add the DXO edits without moving the photo to another collection?
I’ve owned several Fuji cams over the years and was always frustrated by the challenges of processing their raw files in LR. But i use other brands as well and don’t want to add another raw processor just for the fujis. Wish Fuji would switch to a conventional bayer sensor, as i still love their build quality and direct controls.
In general, I think LR works just fine with fuji files, its more a case of the sharpening and noise reduction controls are less effective or need to be used in moderation. That's why its great to have a plugin to use to overcome these issues when required. I certainly wouldn't apply pure raw2 to every image, just the ones I want to show on my website or print. 👍👍
@@ian_worth ian, yes, I agree with you…it is really just the sharpening and noise reduction that are problems.
Eh, I'll happily pay for DXO, get a properly debayered Xtrans RAW file to Linear DNG and edit that in Lightroom. X-trans has benefits like not needing a OLPF filter in front of the sensor to counter moiré and other issues bayer sensors have deal with. Storage is like fractions of a penny per file. People need to learn how to cull their files better.
Thanks! have you tried AI, and how would you compare them? We may not need to do this with a 40mp sensor. BTW, what ball head are you using? Thanks. Geoff
Thanks Geoff. Its the Sunwayfoto gh pro2 👍
The Adobe enhance feature creates a huge DNG.file. Better buy a bigger hard drive. And it’s not a perfect result but if you’re stuck to LR then it’s probably the best you can do. LR prefers Bayer sensors over Xtrans.
Nice video, do you still use this technique nowadays ? (convert every .raf with dxo to lightroom)
I only use it on my landscape photography keepers, the photos i want to post online or print 👍
Did youre heatingsystem break down???
Cant afford to put the heating on LOL 🤣
In wich way does this applies to Fuji ?? It can be used with any RAW files, isn’t it? Why Fuji in the title? / Ah got it. This was back in the times where Lightroom can’t process Fuji RAWs.
So its just an upscaler, located as a plugin inside lightroom?
Using Topaz Gigapixel for example would have the same result.
It's 2024 and I tried lightroom the other day with and RAF file, still get worms and image degradation when zoomed in and they still haven't fixed this despite it being an issue. The converter program isn't free another cost and a waste of time when you should be able to upload and start editing straight away. Being using capture for years and will continue to do so.
As a retired professional, I find Photoshop to give me much better results than DxO. I do use PureRaw as it is a very good noise-reduction program. But then so is Topaz DeNoise. What I can do in Photoshop is the process for middle tone contrast. In the DxO program, it was not even close. All digital captures suffer from a dearth of middle-tone contrast. I also use a full-frame Nikon system besides a complete Fuji system. Lightroom has improved dramatically in middle-tone contrast adjustments. But Photoshop is still the champ.
Great comment 😁👍