The Fabulous Fuji X owners thread

Got a new PC and I'm about to load the free trial of Lightroom which I've never used before. Any tips?? Am I right in thinking I need to convert the raw files first?
 
Thunderbird010 said:
Got a new PC and I'm about to load the free trial of Lightroom which I've never used before. Any tips?? Am I right in thinking I need to convert the raw files first?
Click to expand...

Here's the basics:

  • You import your files (RAW or JPG) into Lightroom, essentially telling LR that they exist and you want to work on them
  • Images will appear in the Library module, but switch to develop to do any serious pp
  • Any changes you make to your pictures are recorded in the database, rather than your original files
  • When you wish to save the amended file and produce a JPG, you simply right click the image and export it as a new file with all the changes
  • In Library, you can build a set of keywords and assign them to individual pictures - later you can search all your images for these keywords
Some good tips for sharpening Fuji RAW files:

http://petebridgwood.com/wp/2014/10/x-trans-sharpening/
 
manualfocus-g said:
Here's the basics:

  • You import your files (RAW or JPG) into Lightroom, essentially telling LR that they exist and you want to work on them
  • Images will appear in the Library module, but switch to develop to do any serious pp
  • Any changes you make to your pictures are recorded in the database, rather than your original files
  • When you wish to save the amended file and produce a JPG, you simply right click the image and export it as a new file with all the changes
  • In Library, you can build a set of keywords and assign them to individual pictures - later you can search all your images for these keywords
Some good tips for sharpening Fuji RAW files:

http://petebridgwood.com/wp/2014/10/x-trans-sharpening/
Click to expand...

Thanks for that time to do some reading!!!
 
I always import my RAW files into LR but tell it to convert them to DNG. Looses no quality but just strips out lots of extraneous matter so reducing storage requirements.
 
mickledore said:
I always import my RAW files into LR but tell it to convert them to DNG. Looses no quality but just strips out lots of extraneous matter so reducing storage requirements.
Click to expand...

I think I see what you are saying, which makes sense for complete workflow :) I copy mine to the NAS manually and import them from there, so I always have RAF files.
 
After seeing Noel Clegg's fantastic exhibition in Dulwich last weekend I wanted to get out and try some long exposure shots for myself. No chance to get to the sea so the Thames had to do. The cloud cover was a bit too thick but at dusk some colour crept into the scene and a little later the lights came on. XT1 and 35mm, Camdiox ten stop filter

22588393216_a21cb7e041_b.jpg


21993254733_f70e887193_b.jpg
 
manualfocus-g said:
I think I see what you are saying, which makes sense for complete workflow :) I copy mine to the NAS manually and import them from there, so I always have RAF files.
Click to expand...
As I understand things DNG files still have all the requisite information. It's just that unnecessary clutter is removed.
I may be wrong. It has been known!
 
ianmarsh said:
After seeing Noel Clegg's fantastic exhibition in Dulwich last weekend I wanted to get out and try some long exposure shots for myself. No chance to get to the sea so the Thames had to do. The cloud cover was a bit too thick but at dusk some colour crept into the scene and a little later the lights came on. XT1 and 35mm, Camdiox ten stop filter
Click to expand...
Really good photos :)

Could even merge the building lights into the first pic for added dramatic effect?
 
ianmarsh said:
After seeing Noel Clegg's fantastic exhibition in Dulwich last weekend I wanted to get out and try some long exposure shots for myself. No chance to get to the sea so the Thames had to do. The cloud cover was a bit too thick but at dusk some colour crept into the scene and a little later the lights came on. XT1 and 35mm, Camdiox ten stop filter

22588393216_a21cb7e041_b.jpg


21993254733_f70e887193_b.jpg
Click to expand...

Well that's cool! I actually prefer the top shot for some reason :) I must get one of those 10 stoppers at some point.
 
ianmarsh said:
After seeing Noel Clegg's fantastic exhibition in Dulwich last weekend I wanted to get out and try some long exposure shots for myself. No chance to get to the sea so the Thames had to do. The cloud cover was a bit too thick but at dusk some colour crept into the scene and a little later the lights came on. XT1 and 35mm, Camdiox ten stop filter

22588393216_a21cb7e041_b.jpg


21993254733_f70e887193_b.jpg
Click to expand...

Love those the top one is my favourite as well.

Andy
 
mickledore said:
As I understand things DNG files still have all the requisite information. It's just that unnecessary clutter is removed.
I may be wrong. It has been known!
Click to expand...

Interested in this as I do the same because I shoot several different types of RAW and it makes sense to convert them all to DNG. Sometimes I'm not totally convinced that I've been getting the best out of the X-T1 files though, so it's good to get other opinions.
 
Peter B said:
Interested in this as I do the same because I shoot several different types of RAW and it makes sense to convert them all to DNG. Sometimes I'm not totally convinced that I've been getting the best out of the X-T1 files though, so it's good to get other opinions.
Click to expand...

This is worth a read before deciding, especially if you change software at a later date.
 
Interesting point that. Don't know how I can tell if I'm getting the most out the files. I'm happy with the results I'm getting.
Maybe I should try a parallel processing exercise to see if the RAW files are significantly different.
 
I tried Capture One for 20 minutes earlier in the week and struggled to make it work for me. I'm too used to LR :(

I tried Photo Ninja a while back, just to see if it rendered files better, which it does. I found it most noticeable in landscapes and building shots where the smaller details could be sharpened without things getting messy.

My biggest gripe with LR is not the rendering though, it's the speed of importing photos, rendering them and creating smart previews. Why is it so slow? And why did Adobe claim v6.1.1 was faster at processing RAF files when it's not? I found it 30% slower so stayed with 5.7.1 </RANT>
 
I'm still on LR 5.?
I resisted the temptation to move up to v6.
Might look at a trial of Capture One but I too can run through LR blindfolded.
 
I tried an earlier version of Capture One some years ago, but I think it has got quite expensive nowadays for a working version? I've also seen something about a program called Irident or similar, but I'm still not clear about how much more there is to be gained during conversion. I've actually cleared my card of images directly to my back-up drive so that I can play with them via Silkypix or LR as RAW rather than LR as DNG, so I'll be able to compare them directly with the standard DNG in LR workflow. Not sure exactly when I'll get the time to do all this though.
 
I guess I really should try to catch up as I'm still on LR 4. something. I convert everything to DNG and then import to LR with all final editing done in PS 6. Works pretty good for me so I've never bothered to upgrade.(y)

George.
 
G.K.Jnr. said:
I guess I really should try to catch up as I'm still on LR 4. something. I convert everything to DNG and then import to LR with all final editing done in PS 6. Works pretty good for me so I've never bothered to upgrade.(y)

George.
Click to expand...
Yes that's what I do apart from I'm on LR5. Works well for me too. Is it worth the trouble and expense of changing?
Peed off cos Argies lost.
 
G.K.Jnr. said:
I guess I really should try to catch up as I'm still on LR 4. something. I convert everything to DNG and then import to LR with all final editing done in PS 6. Works pretty good for me so I've never bothered to upgrade.(y)

George.
Click to expand...
That must take you ages! Lightroom is way faster than using photoshop.
 
mickledore said:
Yes that's what I do apart from I'm on LR5. Works well for me too. Is it worth the trouble and expense of changing?
Peed off cos Argies lost.
Click to expand...

Just a thought. Can other programs read DNG Files?
 
snap-happy said:
That must take you ages! Lightroom is way faster than using photoshop.
Click to expand...


Lightroom is not able to do everything that PS can ie layers etc, etc, so I do some editing in LR and then do the more detailed stuff in PS.

I'm not after speed or trying to save time and It's the way I prefer to work. I'm perfectly happy with the results I get from my workflow. And as they say "It Works For Me" which for me is all that matters.(y)

George.
 
Last edited:
It's that moment just after light was right, your subject had given you a cheeky tongue laden smile and the shutter had made that wonderful klonk noise. You're chuffed with your well planned shot. Then you remember he still had Halloween face paint on :eggface:

By the lake
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top