I think it’s because Adobe’s conversion is optimized for RGGB Bayer pattern sensors which Fuji’s is not nearly the same sensor layout as most other cameras; whereas, Irident is using the Mac’s built-in codec (that Aperture would have used) that is written by Fuji for the Mac or at least optimized for Fuji somehow. A clue is that there is no Irident for Windows, right? There also might be copyright, patent or licensing issues if Adobe tried to find out or copy and use what the Fuji conversion is, either from Fuji or what some other third-party has figured out. Irident is probably trying harder, as well.
Irident is actually using dcraw: Decoding raw digital photos in Linux
You can try out Photo Ninja for Windows if you like, I hear that you can get great results from that and others as well.
You are correct that Fuji is a different sensor layout but it's been on the market for several years now and others seems to be able to figure it out.
We (Adobe) actually did work with Fujifilm on the revised X-Trans implementation in ACR / Lr and this shipped in ACR 7.4 and Lr 4.4. We also worked with them on the development of the Camera Matching color profiles that shipped for all of the X-Trans Fujifilm camera models (and a few non-X-Trans models as well), starting with ACR 8.4 and Lr 5.4.
I think the point was that the dcraw implementation is more detailed, though there may be reasons that Adobe can’t or chose not to use something similar.
I don't have anything meaningful to add unless we get into the specifics of a particular image. If the OP has a particular image that he's concerned about, I encourage him to post it (publicly or privately) and we can take it up from there. The specifics will help us determine what can be done (if anything) going forward to improve things.
Reply #26 has an example RAF to download: https://forums.adobe.com/message/6505059#6505059 a roof and tree scene.
Here is a blog post with the fence and cactus RAF at the top of the above forum thread:
There is a sample RAF, here, and if you’re not the person at Adobe referenced at the bottom of this thread on the Feedback forum, then you might want to find out who it is:
Good to see an Adobe staff member replying and thanks ssprengel for providing a link to some examples. As is also mentioned in the thread there're plenty of examples/blog posts/articles to be found in the internet about this. Photography is only a hobby for me and I would like to keep using LR but having bought a Fuji X-T1 recently, I've not been impressed by the results I get from processing the images in LR and I have recently looked at alternatives like Irident developer. You can see a discussion with more examples here: XF 56mm f/1.2 first pictures - FujiFilm Zone - Fotozones. The thread doesn't start with this discussion but skip to post #9 where it starts talking about Irident developer. It is of course an option to use Irident for processing the RAW files and then export it as tiff and import that in LR but that's hardly an optimal work flow.
There are plenty of side-by-side comparisons but very few actual RAF download links.
BTW, I was also originally pronouncing and spelling the other software as ear-ih-dent (Irident) similar to irritant, but it is actually ear-ih-dee-ent (Iridient), similar to iridium the element and the satellites, and a much cooler name.
I was quite concerned myself when reading some of the posts about LR processing X-trans files, even after the fix done in LR 4.4 (Adobe's Fujifilm X-Trans sensor processing tested: Digital Photography Review)
What I noticed though, is that the articles with "comparisons" are biased and usually talk about "detail" and trying to "fix" it to no avail. My experience with every single raw file available was, however, that it is possible to do a much better job with LR than what the articles present, leading me to think that the authors are either clueless or marketing agents in disguise.
Moreover, some of the files that are presented as "better" are in fact quite over-sharpened showing an obviously digital result.
My recommendation is to try and see with your own eyes. I was able to test the packages using trial periods and finally ended up sticking to LR for the overall way it handles the images.
Here go a couple of raw files for you to try:
100% comparisons between LR (PROVIA profile) and OOC jpg (PROVIA Film Simulation):
1.A and 2.A are the Raw files processed with LR. 1.B and 2.B are OOC JPG, PROVIA
Here is a side-by-side of the detail near the center of the leaf image in RawTherapee 4.1 which I believe uses DCRaw for its demosaicing and Adobe ACR 8.6. I removed any sharpening or noise-reduction so as to compare the raw demosaicing. The DCRaw has finer textures than Adobe's. I've pointed at one plus-shaped object that is clearer in DCRaw compared to Adobe:
The ACR one can be made to have more fine texture by adding Sharpen Amount and Detail, but increasing the Detail adds a fine texture of gray, whereas the DCRaw starts with a finer texture of color details without any grayness and increasing the sharpening doesn't add grayness while still show details:
Just for fun, here is what oversharpening looks like, which is another way to see how small the details are in the Fuji version, and all Adobe seems to be able to do is muddy things with brownish gray overlay of fine texture that obscures fine details, not actually sharpening the colors and the tiny details. The gives an illusion of sharpness especially when resized down, but if you look at the wider veins of the leaf at the right, the Adobe fine structure seems mostly an illusion because the veins are filled with tiny gray areas the same as the rest of the smaller veins whereas in the DCRaw version, the large veins are relatively free of texture, which I'm sure matches more the original object:
I would choose Lightroom over other products, as well, it's just I'd like Lightroom to have as detailed of a starting point with X-Trans compared to most everyone else that does have a more detailed starting point.
If we are getting to the point of blowing %200 details to show a difference, it is obvious to me that LR is not bad at all... You have to magnify an area that would print at less than 1 square inch (300dpi) to 30 square inches (in a 22" monitor) to see a slight difference? Really? And do you expect anybody normal to go buy and learn yet another software package? Is that the marketing strategy?
I am a user like yourself so I don't have a marketing strategy. Back in 2010 Adobe changed how they demosaicked raw files and increased the detail quite a bit so it was important to them, back then. They just haven't quite figured out how to do that same level of detail with the novel X-Trans layout, yet, like others seem to be able to do.
To see what everyone is up against, here is what the sensor sees for that circular brown spot and the vein next to it in the lower right portion of the oversharpened example, above. The non-symmetry of the red and blue photosites and the uneven green pattern is the issue. Adobe's routines are optimized for a normal repeating 4x4 RGGB pattern and Fuji's repeating pattern is much larger. The extra green photosites allows more detailed rendering of luminance detail if an X-Trans-specific algorithm is used:
Adobe - are you working on this issue currently or not? I am an Enterprise customer and can say for a fact that Lightroom cannot work out fine details on any of my X-Trans originated files. I would love to use lightroom in my workflow as it is a wonderful package but I feel i will have to abandon it soon unless i know the solution is coming!
Fine detail is very important, as I am looking to print large , say around 30inch prints and the issues really do show up at this scale - now sure i can carry a medium format kit around the world instead. But frankly i dont need to as other Raw processors do a good job at "de-codeing" the X-Trans files from the fuji --- So i am not letting software dictate hardware, I will simply use better software - Its just such a shame as Adobe Lightroom is a better featured program to have in my workflow ---
Tell me the answer is coming and you are looking into this please???
I would learn any package if it means unlocking the full potential of the wonderful sensor fuji has laboured over to bring to market -- I want to use the cameras full image quality as anyone would -
Adobe does not preannounce what they are working on. The only exception might be when they have completed something and they know it will be released in a week or two.
I suspect changing how Fuji X-Trans is handled will take a new Process Version so as not to mess up everyone’s existing work, and I don’t expect we’ll see a new process version until at least ACR 9 and Lightroom 6, though Adobe may not be working on X-Trans things at all and nothing will change in those versions.
This quick demo is very telling -- its clear the micro detail is not there - the thing this does not show is the awful oil painting look it gives this fine detail on skin in the shadow transition area -- i am still looking into some sort of work around using various other plugins etc - but the cold hard truth is currently the camera can create a Jpeg of higher detail using a raw file then Lightroom is currently able to do - fortunately I am not doing any real assignments until early next year, so am happy to wait and continue with Adobe Lightroom is a solution is coming --
lets hope it is..
Guys - There is a post on the official Lightroom feedback page here: Camera Raw/Lightroom: Fuji X-Trans Support?
If people click the +1 button in the original post to "meet too" the problem, that will raise the issue to the top so that it get's a response from Adobe.
It would probably be helpful to actually post a link to the post you’re talking about rather than just the feedback home page, because the new topics will push the older topics down off the first page.
The link goes to the correct page