Have you tried with the latest version of Lightroom. What do you think?
Frankly, I downloaded LR trial version and yet to see major issues. My experience in RAW is very limited.
Do you have experience on Lightroom and witness Adobe's improvement on this software? I like Lightroom's user interface but just worry about its RAW decoding quality after I see the web's comments.
Lightroom is my main software program for processing raw files, however I use Olympus and Panasonic cameras and I am please with the processing.
I also use several other raw processors, Capture 1 Express, SilkyPix, Qimage Ultimate, Olympus Viewer 3, which I also consider premium quality processors.
I have a Fuji X-E1 and do all my processing in Lightroom 5.6. I have heard about demosaicing issues, but I haven't been able to reproduce myself. The results I get with LR from foliage pictures are practically indistinguishable from OOC jpeg.
Sorry, I can't see the additional detail... I am focusing on the fence and grass and can't see a single pixel on the Iridient jpg that I cannot see on the LR rendering... Which makes me a lucky person because I can save on software! On the other hand... what would be the point of trying to sharpen a part of the picture that is out of focus to start with?
Here is a smaller area of foliage at the bottom left of the cropped example. To my eye, the texture of the foliage is finer in the non-Adobe version:
I'm viewing things on a 1680x1050 22"-diagonal monitor and can see individual pixels if I look closely. If you are using a 4K monitor then maybe the differences aren't as apparent.
LR adjusted for the foliage
I am not sure we are providing good guidance to typewritter99. Developing a raw file is an interpretation by itself and it is the operator's choice to bring the emphasis on what the focus should be on the picture. You are focusing on a part of the picture that would represent less than half an inch by a quarter should we printed this on an 11x17 sheet of paper. Moreover, the area you are looking at is out of focus to start with. Frequently we would throw parts of the photo out of focus to drive attention into the subject. Why are we trying to rescue it in the first place? What is it bringing to the overall picture? (and as you can see top left, it is not that LR does a worse job than Iridient).
I mean.... this is the detail we are looking at in the context of full picture posted in the article (http://www.thevisualexperience.org/web/processing-x100s-raw-with-iridient-developer-part-2 /):
The capture above was processed with Lightroom from the RAW file shared in the article... can you highlight any quality issues? Color bleeding, artifacts? I guess that was the point of the original question.
I would certainly recommend typewritter99 to download the free trials of all available converters and test them to see which one fits his needs best from a holistic point of view. But in honesty I cannot personally say I find any quality issues on Lightroom when processing my X-E1 files.
Thanks for bringing me these examples for me to compare. I will certainly work more on the trial version and try to compare it with other raw editors. It is true that I quite like the user interface and workflow.
The Adobe treatment looks like it was made with a paintbrush, still, whereas other software that probably uses the open-source DCRaw as its basis for processing, has finer detail without the "brush strokes" look.
Camera sensors only have on color per pixel and the x-trans layout is unique, so the differences are due to how Adobe interpolates the missing RGB pixels compared to others.
The artificial brush strokes are reasonably apparent on this one, and without the original raw it's hard to compare to other processing:
Now I am learning a lot with this conversation...
I took that picture with very little light and with and old Pentax 50mm opened at 1.4. To compensate for the lens softness I pushed the sharpness all the way to 62... which gave the effect you are showing. At the time I was looking at the picture overall and didn't check the detail. Thank you for bringing it up!
What I did just now is to bring down the sharpness to 52 and detail 100 and this is what I get...
The JPG out of the camera looks a bit better:
And processed with Silky's Raw developer it looks like this:
It seems to me that both the OOC JPG and the Raw Developer's JPG have a bit of an edge in reproducing the stone's texture.
For general purposes I will control the sharpening a bit better and will consider adding the Raw Developer step should I need to print really large. It looks like it pays to keep the detail tab under control!
In my opinion the Adobe rendering is about half the resolution as the non-Adobe renderings.
Looking at this bright area on the rock, the smoothness of the Adobe outline and the jaggedness of the non-Adobe outline illustrates the difference:
Flickr initial version:
The oversharpened Adobe version originally on Flicker has the same smoother outline, just an extra scratch down the middle and edges, which is likely caused by a Detail slider turned up too high, but perhaps the Sharpen Mask slider too low, as well.
Again, I believe that you are looking at the trees and not the forest. I agreed that I overdid the sharpening and reduced it to make it look more organic. Having said that, it is important to look at the overall picture... which version would you actually prefer and why? There is a lot more to a shot than ultra pixel sharpness...
Here are the three full files...
I am looking at the veins on the leaves of the trees in the forest; otherwise, I might just as well use my 13MP phone camera.
The X-E1 takes 15.2MP images. The Flickr gallery has 5MP images. Maybe they are central crops?
The point is that the Adobe processing is less detailed than non-Adobe processing and is the original and continuing complaint on various forums and blogs.
If the less detailed processing is ok for you, then fine, but initially you said that the processing is the same, and it clearly is not, and it is apparently not fine with the original poster.
I would not expect Adobe to change how X-Trans is handled without using a new process-version, just to keep already processed photos looking the same by default, but who knows when a new PV might show up. Probably not before Lightroom 6 or Lightroom 7. In other words, probably not LR 5.7 if there will be such a version.
I downsize my pictures to post them on flickr. You mentioned that your monitor has a resolution of 1680x1050... that is less than 2MP... So I would say that if you want to see a picture full size, 5MP is more than enough... unless you are into pixel-peeping porn. Not my sport, though... and I do not want (or expect) anybody to print my flickr images.
If my phone had the dynamic range, low light capability and dof control my camera has, I would totally be using it instead of my camera. (But it is not there yet...)
As I said, I am happy with the results I get from LR. What you call less detailed, I consider more organic... just look at the shadow side of the stone...
Raw Developer (by Silkypix)
I never said that the processing is the same. However I showed that you were using a biased article to prove a point that is not such, and recommended to test all packages available and make a decision considering many factors not just one.
I guess you have an agenda, and that's ok as well, but perhaps you should share some of your own X-trans work to demonstrate how ultra-details make or brake a photo.