I read the blog and that mentions about the images of Nkon D 810.
This is actually a known issue that is already stated by Adobe.
I second the post of the starter of this thread. I am an owner of a Fuji X-T1 and feel that we Fuji owners are in no way supported properly by Adobe in regard to the raw conversion of raw files from the X-trans sensor. Please Adobe hear our voice and do something about it.
Two of the three examples in the linked article are about consistency not quality and the three items have nothing to do with each other.
The D810 article was from a year and a half ago, was using a beta version of the Camera Raw plug-in and didn't include any raw files so who knows if the problem still exists.
The 5DS crushed-blacks problem still exists and I concur there should be new profiles released that have the same tone curve as other Nikons have.
The Fuji conversions having a lack of detail is apparently due to how well Adobe does other traditional Bayer conversion and that they haven't figured out a way to convert the sparse red-blue color pixels into a more normal Bayer layout for further processing and otherwise haven't written an entire Fuji-specific imaging pipeline, yet, although they say they continue to work with Fuji to try and figure something out.
Art M. wrote:
Please read Nasim's blog note very carefully here:
He is very careful and meticulous, and has been dedicated to Adobe products, but feels he must switch because of the RAW engine.
That doesn't make him any more worth taking notice of than anyone else that runs a website.
Funny that back when he was enjoying himself beating up on the Canon 7D's supposed IQ failings, I pointed out to him that what he saw was down to the converter he was using for his tests, and he arrogantly dismissed that as an explanation.
Yet now, because a Nikon has a "problem"...
Point being, careful and meticulous doesn't automatically equal right.
The article is vague to the point of uselessness (what does "Raw handling" even mean? A million things, and nothing at all), but the D810 issue he discussed is not a "raw handling" issue as I would use the phrase - it's just a dodgy profile issue, which as Jitendra points out, is in hand.
Added: and having now looked at his responses to some comments, he's frequently just plain wrong in some of his comments about Lr. His response to your post 15 being a case in point. Of course he's conveniently very non-specific about which "those settings" he means.
He even recommends On1 as an alternative Raw converter to Lightroom. Seriously? What's the basis for that recommendation? The fact that he's a bit bent out of shape with Adobe? He's recommending a program which lays no claim to being a Raw converter!
He also rebuts the idea that it's entirely possible for us to create our own bespoke profiles for Lr if we're not happy with Adobe's - "why should we have to?" - but many of us experienced Capture One users have been reduced to doing just that in order to get conversions to look the way we want them.
Art M. wrote:
There are endless stories on the internet about other RAW engines being far superior for certain cameras.
"Endless" stories on the internet? Show us five...
It's an absolute, rock-solid, cast-iron certainty that some cameras convert better in one converter than another - I see that myself with my Canon files, and that will never change. It is utterly unrealistic to expect one converter to excel across the board to the exclusion of all others, which is why many of us use two, three, or even four converters, as circumstances and requirements dictate. Wanna know what "bad" really looks like? Have a look at AfterShot Pro...
Personally I use Lightroom, Capture One, DxO Optics Pro and ("or", really) Photo Ninja, because I know that one converter does not rule them all.
Accepting that "Raw engine" = demosaicing: could Lightroom's demosaicing algorithm be better? Yep - I've said so myself. But is it more than good enough for 99% of what most of us will ever need? Yep. And profiles can sometimes need further work - that's the pesky Real World for you.
But Lr's other abilities - particularly in its handling of highlights and shadows; its selective adjustment capabilities; its colour editing tools; and its ease of use - are at least the equal of the rest, and frequently the best of the bunch.
You cannot ignore "The Big Picture" in these discussions.
Interesting that he's lauding Capture One: its profiles are terrible for many cameras - there are pages and pages of ill-tempered debate on the Capture One forum about that. The point here being that one person's "better than Lightroom" is another person's (and my) "for the love of God, make your profiles look more like Lightroom's, and less like a fire in a fluorescent street-light factory..."
And as for Fuji conversions: there's an enormous thread on here already, kicking at that door. Strikes me as pretty self-evident that anyone waiting for an "imminent" improvement in Lr's Fuji conversions is wishing his life away.
Time to move on, I'd suggest. Lr isn't going to do it for you.
The blog has ads so as long as people click over to it based on the controversial title about a popular product, the contents of the article only have to appeal to the masses who generally want to read something they agree with so the more unrelated complaints the better. It got the article linked over here on the Adobe forums for a few more clicks.
Yep, oldest trick in the "clickbait" book, Steve - post something vaguely contentious (usually with the emphasis on vague), gleaned from whatever the latest internet "hot topic" in the chosen subject (in this case, photography/Raw conversion) happens to be, sit back, and await the page hits.
I haven't looked, but I bet pounds to pennies there's stuff on there about "evil" Adobe and CC...