Processing X-Trans with Photo Ninja

Thanks for this fantastic contribution, Alan! I have added this to our articles database.  

Question: Why do you use the builtin Profile for your sensor and not profile your camera with a target?

BIG Thank You!!!!

Dallas? Article?

Built-in, Frank. They got it right for the X-T1.

Frank, both the Nik raw pre-sharpener and the output sharpener are very good, I just find the Helicon product to be quicker and simpler to use, although I confess that from time to time I still use the Nik product for its finer control. They both beat Smart Sharpen and Unsharp Mask in its various forms in many programs - Helicon filter have a version of USM in their "advanced" sharpening panel so take note that it is different to the "Sharpen Fine Details" slider.

I'm not sure as to whether HF supports demosaic of the X100T, but it also has the option of using dcraw as a demosaic tool for X-Trans - it works more purely with dcraw giving you access to the command-line switches that Dave Coffin originally wrote into the program. Photo Ninja and most other dcraw-based programs don't give this base level access and supply a basic default demosaic with minimal switching inputs, but you don't have hands-on access like you do with Helicon Filter.

Normally this isn't important, but on very rare occasions (as with many mixed light sources or unusual lighting) you might want to start with just a most basic demosaic and HF gives you that option. A side effect of this is that dcraw is self contained in the program folder without modification so if dcraw gets updated and you want immediate access to that update it is as simple as replacing the dcraw folder in the HF program folder with the new version. This does not work with Photo Ninja - you have to wait for their version update.

Of course Nik is free, whereas HF costs, so there might not be enough to buy HF for some, But I use it as a matter of course now so it has well paid for itself by now.

As always, keep looking for other people's experiences with PN - I don't profess to be an expert, but I do have a lot of experience with processing the X-Trans with many processors since early 2012 brought about by my initial intense dislike for the first Adobe demosaic offering, which nearly sank the X-Trans as people simply refused to blame Adobe and directly laid the blame on Fuji.

Time has proved them wrong, fortunately, because I can't imagine how miserable I would be with my photography by now had I given up, sold the Fuji and continued to struggle with a Nikon line-up that I was getting increasingly disenchanted with, despite that I had been one of those who had lusted after Nikon when at university but simply couldn't afford it, and had jumped at the chance of buying a complete new F4 outfit a couple of decades later when my financial status had improved and it was a deductible business expense. The F4 kept me loyal - serving me faithfully and fuss-free for over a decade without missing a beat, but my experience with their digital products became increasingly jaded as my equipment spent more and more time in the repair facilities, and usually involved an argument over liability for the breakdown with Nikon Australia.

As I've mentioned before, the Fuji X system has rekindled my love for taking photographs (both as a profession and a hobby) in a way that my Hasselblads and that bullet-proof F4 had supplied. Photo Ninja has been a welcome part of that rekindling, getting the most out of my X-Trans raw files.

I have saved a number of situational presets (in forest blue sky, In forest overcast etc) but rarely use them. Somehow things seem quicker if I process one photo, hit done and copy and paste those settings to the following similar photos, then start again when the next set of similar photos different to the first batch presents. Given the compactness and setting out of the panels, I mostly just use the first three, with most time spent on the middle "Exposure and detail" panel, the first "Color correction" and third "Color enhancement" each dealt with in a few seconds. This is the fastest raw processor I have used once I got familiar with what things were for and how they affected the image.

I am wondering what the promised PN V2.0 will be like, although they've been threatening that for a year or more now and still no announcement of a definite date or even a public beta yet. There are a couple of stability issues I have on my machine when Bridge and Photoshop are open and I use Bridge to open a RAF file, which launches Photoshop which then launches PN, which then inevitably crashes PN, Ps or both. So I just launch from Explorer which then opens PN only, and nothing crashes, even if I have Ps running but minimised, so it's no big deal.

The V2.0 allegedly is a major rewrite - I hope that doesn't completely upend the controls layout and menus because I am now very familiar with things and I'd hate to have to start from scratch.

 

The following quote from Purcell's column is somewhat mysterious to me given the photo Alan has just posted above:

Quote

The X-Trans color filter array actually reduces acuity. Yes, really it does! So, as many people have found out, it's not great for images with lots of very fine repetitive detail (such as leaves in landscapes).

I can't imagine why this fellow writes that !!! Methinks that perhaps he does not edit his images properly? Oh well, not everyone likes everything - especially when cameras are involved. But I want to drag this person over here to Fotozones and point out the above fine leaf detail.

 

Pointing to a DPReview jpeg (they only shoot jpeg, as evidence of an acuity test is shaky ground indeed to be judging the actual acuity performance of a sensor (in this case it's the camera's Silky Pix version of X-Trans processing OOC reduced to 8 bits and lossy compressed). I bet he also uses Lightroom to process his own RAFs, if indeed he's ever processed one. I would draw that conclusion as well given these parameters. Anyhow, regarding the universal DPR test photo, a flatly lit studio shot of a bunch of coloured objects, resolution charts, bottles, crayons, balls of thread with a DR of maybe 6 or 7 is hardly the "real life" situation that might actually tax a sensor.

I also tend to immediately dismiss any X-Trans "review" wherein the method used to demosaic isn't mentioned, or indeed if either Lightroom or ACR are named. People get up in arms at this and say they're "satisfied" and "like" the results from those processors, or that they "like" using them, but these are just personal feelings. I have literally reams of files here where I have over and over and over again tried to better, or even equal results from processors such as Photo Ninja by using ACR, and have yet to achieve a positive result. While I sometimes have come close, the pertinent common thing is that to do so with ACR/LR requires a whole lot more messing about than a simple, straightforward processing using just one or two panels and maybe four or so slider movements in Photo Ninja. Hence my heels are dug in on this, but I still don't outright tell people not to use the Adobe product, they're of course free to produce photographs processed to well below their potential if they wish.

I repeat my often stated opinion that the respect given to the majority of online reviewers and bloggers is entirely misplaced - most haven't the first clue or personal experience of what they're talking about, largely recirculating reworded opinion they've read somewhere else. This opinion is indeed mine, isn't reworded or recirculated, and I am convinced is actually a lot closer to the truth than most of the "facts" sprouted by these seekers of their 15 minutes of fame.

The wording of any opinion I express regarding things photographic, however, such as this very article, goes to lengths to point out that I don't claim to be an expert, don't claim that my results are conclusive, and don't suggest that readers blindly follow what I say, but encourages that people do instigate further research for themselves. If I report results, they'll be from experience with my own camera and my own computer, although if I find an online source with graphs and the like (not photos, I do those) that I do not have the equipment to produce I will use them to illustrate the point.

I don't need, or want, the 15 minutes of fame that some seem to crave - there are far more interesting things to do with life than chase that, which is why I don't have a website, don't write blogs, but do write stuff like this if I think something I've learned along the way can be useful or even helpful to others, and maybe save them some of their own life's precious time by not having to reinvent the wheel.

It's also why I write that sort of thing here in Fotozones, because this place is populated by people who listen rather than argue, yet will make counter points without aggression if they think I'm mistaken. Civilized argument is actually enjoyable, but the aggressive, testosterone-charged nonsense that goes on in so many other forums seems to me to give a good indication of where so much of the "expert" opinion of reviewers and bloggers comes from.

Great guide Alan. I will definitely try this at home..

I use Capture One for my X-Trans files but I'm very curious to see how Photo Ninja compares to Capture One.

Please show the results here, Lars, I don't use C-1, but did try it once a long time ago (before I had used PN), a result of which my computer is now disabled from running any newer demos, so I'd have to buy the program to try it out. If you (or anyone else) wants the raw file for the photo I produced here to compare with I can dropbox it.

What is a good lens to rent with the X-T1? (....and thanks...)

I was thinking perhaps the Fuji 16-55/2.8 ??

If you're trying an X-T1 for the first time, get the 18-55/2.8-4 - it gives a better rendition of the Fuji small/light/compact ethos than the 16-55/2.8, which is more a token to appease the Nikon/Canon 24-70/2.8 rusted-on users. The 18-55 is not weather resistant, but a small plastic baggie does the job just fine, or the camera/lens combo is small enough to slip into a rain jacket pocket anyway.

The 18-55/2.8-4 is only marginally slower at the long end, but it does have OIS (good for 4-5 stops, or down to as low as 1/15 sec, whichever comes first) which makes it a faster lens effectively than the 16-55/2.8, which doesn't have OIS. Optically the 18-55 is no slouch - while the focal lengths covered aren't the most visually exciting, the image quality is right up there with all the other Fuji XF zooms, which is to say that it is bloody good.

I don't need, or want, the 15 minutes of fame that some seem to crave - there are far more interesting things to do with life than chase that, which is why I don't have a website, don't write blogs, but do write stuff like this if I think something I've learned along the way can be useful or even helpful to others, and maybe save them some of their own life's precious time by not having to reinvent the wheel.

 

It's also why I write that sort of thing here in Fotozones, because this place is populated by people who listen rather than argue, yet will make counter points without aggression if they think I'm mistaken. Civilized argument is actually enjoyable, but the aggressive, testosterone-charged nonsense that goes on in so many other forums seems to me to give a good indication of where so much of the "expert" opinion of reviewers and bloggers comes from.

Thank you for saying these things, Alan. This is the ethos of what I am trying to accomplish with Fotozones. As I have mentioned in the recently updated foot notes that appear on each page, unlike 99% of the other photography sites and forums out there, this one doesn't create content for the purpose of assisting retailers to move product by means of affiliate advertising. What we want here is the truth about the stuff we use, how it works and how others can benefit from using it. 

Fotozones is going exactly where I want it to go and thanks to the contributions that yourself and others are making, I will continue to get up every morning and steer the ship and stoke the burners because this is what I had in mind when I first started a photography forum back in 2006. A place of reality (long before those "real world" bloggers had even figured out how to use WordPress).