Apologies to Moose, who dislikes all the posts here about Fuji. Can't help it, though, as that's what I shoot at the moment. This post gets more general at the end, though, so hang in there, Moose.

Odd app

Trying to remain teachable, at the suggestion of a number of commenters yesterday I tried out Fuji's X Raw Studio, an app you can download for free on the support section of the Fuji website. (It used to be called X Raw Converter.)

It's an odd concept—basically, you turn on the proper menu item in your camera and connect the camera to your computer via a USB 3.0 micro cable, and then you can use the camera to convert any raw files you took with that camera. So this isn't a standalone raw converter—it's just an app to access the software you already have inside your camera.

The controls are the same as you get when you do the same thing in-camera, accessed in a pane that looks like this:

When you use the up-down arrows on the right, each one gives you a range of basic options such as this one for White Balance:

These are the same controls you have in the camera menus for setting JPEG output, and the same ones you can use in-camera for converting raw files. The app isn't actually a converter—it uses the converter in the camera, so the results are not just similar to what you get from the camera, but the same. (And that's why you can only use the camera for files shot with that same kind of camera—you can't use your X-T3 for processing raw files you took with your X-Pro2, for instance.)

Once you have a batch of settings the way you like them, you can save them as a named Profile. After you apply a profile you can still change any parameters you wish.

Test image processed using Fuji X Raw Studio,

Acros + Y[ellow filter] setting

Detail of above (should be 100% for you after you click on it. Bear in mind

the TypePad blogging software TOP uses softens all images somewhat.)

There are a few advantages to this arrangement—mainly, that you can see what you're doing much better on the larger display of your computer. You can also batch process, and you can export to TIFF for further post-processing in another image editing program. It's also possible to change JPEG output settings after the fact—for instance, if you shot a picture using the Classic Chrome profile, you can change it to the Velvia profile later if you want to.

Conceptually, to use X Raw Studio is to preserve the manufacturer's intentions for conversions from raw to JPEG, which wouldn't be very significant with most manufacturers' cameras. It might be more so with Fuji, though, because of its dedication to the unusual X-Trans array used in many Fuji cameras. If I had to guess why this odd little app exists, I would probably go with Michael J. Perini, who commented as follows (this is lightly edited):

In the comments section yesterday, one critique of this approach, if it is indeed Fuji's approach, was articulated by Severian.

X Raw Studio is refreshing in one way—it's very simple. The range of controls is limited; there aren't even any sliders, which in one way makes things easier: having separate options like –1 and –2 for Highlight detail makes it easier to pick the best one. Infinite variables can be slightly crazy-making. It's like using graded papers in the darkroom vs. using VC papers...choosing between grade 2 and grade 3 was easier than deciding whether a dial setting of grade 2.25 was better or worse than a dial setting of 2.35. If indeed the system had the precision to register such a difference consistently at all.

I don't think I'll be using X Raw Studio, though. I can get much the same effect by choosing the settings I want for in-camera JPEGs in the first place. Its controls are fairly crude, and it adds a ponderous middle step for getting the image into ACR, which is my main editor these days, unfortunately with Photoshop still needed for a few tweaks and last refinements.

Software first

The best option for Fuji might be to choose a complete image converter/editor that's optimized for Fuji files, such as Capture One Fujifilm 20 (although I haven't been terribly impressed with the output from that program—though I don't own the latest version), or picking a raw converter that Internet agrees is optimal for X-Trans files, such as Iridient Digital X Transformer, and adding it as an intermediary step (I agree it does a good job on Fuji files, but I find it unappealing to fight my inherent laziness and lack of organization by purposely adding another layer to my already rather lackadaisical workflow. I downloaded it and used it exactly once!).

In terms of camera choice in general, it might be wise to do what a friend back in Waukesha did when he bought a new used car. What he would do is find the best repair shop convenient to where he lived and make friends with the mechanic he wanted to work with, then ask that mechanic what kind of car he liked to work on the most. If the mechanic said Chevys with such-and-such a type of engine, then my friend would find a used Chevy with that type of engine. In a similar spirit, you could do what Barry H. Prager did and choose a camera based on which image editor you like—Barry likes DxO, which doesn't support Fuji, so Fuji is out for him.

That's fair enough. We don't talk about this much, but knowledge of, and experience with, our chosen suite of digital processing tools should be considered a prize possession of ours, alongside our best lenses and other gear. It's neither an easy nor a short process to change to a different program and abandon familiar tools—it takes time and effort. The interruption is "so destabilizing," to quote what Pak Ming Wan said yesterday.

In this spirit, maybe I should have tried to find the best files to feed to ACR (Adobe Camera Raw), the program I use most and like best. I suspect those wouldn't turn out to be Fuji X-Trans files. (Come to think, ACR seems to work great with Panasonic files, IMO. Could that be one reason I like Panasonic? I suppose it's possible.)

It would also be nice if master software experts on the web would review software that way—for instance, publishing articles like "What Kind of Camera Files Does Affinity Photo Work Best With?" and similar. That's not the way such questions are commonly approached, however. For one thing, such an approach would require a huge amount of work, and Internet likes to publish frothy, echoey little opinionations that are rather empty of actual research and experiment. Like or dislike Ctein, he was/is fantastic at actually carrying out experiments with an open mind and presenting original results. For another thing, it's shooting at a moving target...sensors are replaced and image editors are updated all the time, so today's conclusion might not be tomorrow's. For one last difficulty, that approach would be anathema to the software makers themselves—because they want your business regardless of what kind of camera you use, and their answer would naturally be that their software works great with all kinds of files. Which might be, let's just say, optimistic.

Mike

(Thanks to the commenters from yesterday)

Original contents copyright 2020 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

Please help support TOP on Patreon

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)

Featured Comments from:

Ernest Zarate: "Indeed, working backwards, as your story of your friend’s car purchasing strategy, can often streamline a workflow. What is the end product one desires? What software/program best achieves that final product? What tools work best with that software/program? What strategies/processes are needed to use that tool?

"Many times, we buy the tool first (and often for emotional reasons), then try to find the ancillary items to bridge between tool and final outcome. Sometimes that works seamlessly—many times, though, it becomes a struggle. Sometimes that struggle is so vexing one dumps the tool—and then starts over again."

Malcolm Leader: "I use the Topaz software suite that Ctein wrote about a while back. I have no experience with it on Fuji files but taking my raw files from my Canon 5DsR, that software does magic. I then take those processed files into ACR and I am in love with the results compared to just starting with ACR."

Dr Tom Bell: "I love my X100F...but in fact I loved my X100 and its 12MP Bayer Sensor. I suspect the 24mp Bayer sensor in the X-T200 is also great...and Fuji do great things with Bayer. Personally I stick with Fuji but to be honest I think they would be better offering their cameras with a Bayer sensor as an option. They would draw a bigger crowd. I think I would be a happier bunny."

Aakin: "I think this is why I like Fuji cameras as much as I do, actually. I hate post-processing. And I really like the JPEGs I get out of Fuji cameras. That, combined with how tactile they are, make them very satisfying for me; I can just dump out of camera and be done, and that is exactly how I want to work."

Luke: "Your example photo is so bright! You've pushed the mid-tones way up into...the middle!"

Bruce McL (partial comment): "The hierarchy of profits for camera manufacturers: Lenses Bodies Firmware Software. The hierarchy of needs for photographers, based on time spent fiddling around: Software Bodies Firmware Lenses. I just made that up. :-) "