Why is Lightroom 4 so bad at rendering Fujifilm X Trans RAW images?

Lightroom 4 is constantly put down as being very poor at rendering Fujifilm X Trans RAW files.  Fujifilm claims to have assisted Adobe with this new sensor design yet LR falls down hard.  Why is that?  Will it get better or are we stuck with what LR can do now?
Does anyone have any idea?
Thanks,

richardplondon wrote:
Lightroom/ACR has got a great deal better through its versions, at demosaicing and rendering conventional (Bayer) pattern Raw data. What we see now, is the outcome  of several years' continual development.
I expect the lessons from Bayer will shortcut this development and optimisation (quality and speed) for the new pattern. But it will still need to be done. I guess Fujifilm had expended a big effort on this, internally, before release - and Adobe now has to play catch-up after the fact.
IMO it is actually in Fujifilm's overall interest to rapidly assist Adobe here; it would surely improve the general acceptance of these camera models given the dominant positions of LR and of ACR in particular. At the moment it is probably holding them back in the marketplace.
Is there proof that Fujifilm is helping Adobe or is that speculation?

Similar Messages

  • Why is Lightroom 2.4 Thumbnail Rendering SLOOOOOOOOW...?

    For some reason Lightroom 2.4 is taking an enormous amount of time to render thumbnail previews and in spite of having my thumbnail cache set to 50 GB, it still re-renders the thumbnails every single time I use the scroll bar.
    Every other aspect of Lightroom performs just fine on my machine.  But the library is so slow that it is unusable.  Every time I touch the scroll bar I can see a somewhat darker preview of the thumbnails and then as soon as I stop scrolling, the CPU shoots up to 100% utilization and I watch as the thumbnails brighten and adjust one by one.  30 to 45 seconds later I can click on the thumbnails and navigate around just fine.  Performance is great in fact until I touch the scroll bar again.
    The basic question is this.  Why does Lightroom refuse to cache my thumbnails?  And why does it take soooo long to render them when Vista's explorer can render hundreds of thumbnails off even a flash card in seconds?  Even if thumbnail rendering was slow it would be fine if Lightroom would only cache them for me so it doesn't have to redo it every time I scroll back and forth.  Shouldn't there be an option to render thumbnails on import as well as 1:1 previews?
    I am running Vista 64 bit with 4GB of RAM with a Gforce 7600GT graphics card.  My library has about 18,000 images in it.  But I've also tried with a brand new small catalog.  I'm shooting and processing Nikon D300 RAW files.
    I've done all the standard performance tweaks that everyone talks about:
    1.  I render 1:1 previews and never expire them.
    2.  I have tried all the various nvidia card tweaks.
    3.  I've updated to the latest and greatest nvidia drivers.
    4.  I have my catalog on a separate drive from my images, and my thumbnail cache on yet a 3rd drive.
    5.  My machine has plenty of RAM, and in fact Lightroom is only using 1.5GB leaving me with well over 1GB remaining.
    6.  My machine is not swapping at all.
    I've been reading and reading for the past 24 hours about this issue but have yet to come up with an answer to it.  I did find this old thread from over a year ago that describes the EXACT same problem I am experiencing except his problem was with version 2.3:  http://forums.adobe.com/message/1395391#1395391
    Does anyone have ANY idea what can be causing this?  As is, I can't use Lightroom under these conditions.
    Thanks!

    So I spent all evening experimenting with different things in Lightroom to try and improve performance and found 1 solution that worked.  Although I'm not sure why.
    I understand that a design decision was made to render thumbs on the fly.  Fine.  But what I couldn't understand was why it took so incredibly long.  I mean the process was literally locking up my entire machine every time I touched the scroll bar.
    The ONLY thing I could get to clear up the problem was to select the top level folder in my catalog, and export the entire catalog as a new catalog.  For export I did NOT choose to export the image files or the previews since I only wanted to keep my database (image adjustments, keywords, etc).
    Upon opening this newly created catalog, of course everything was slow because there are no previews for anything.  Fine.  So I chose to render standard sized previews for a couple of the folders in the catalog (about 150 photos each).  And then lightroom became extremely fast for browsing and scrolling through thumbnails on those particular folders.
    What I can't undertand is why rendering standard sized previews on my old catalog (same photos, same folder) does not improve performance, yet doing it for the new catalog which should be an exact copy DOES improve performance.
    The only thing I can think of is that my original catalog must have either been corrupt or there may be some upper limit on how many previews Lightroom can handle gracefully?  Since I had standard previews for my entire catalog before.
    I'm going to try and render standard sized previews on my entire new catalog tonight and see if the performance remains snappy.  But something is definitely not right here.

  • Is Lightroom able to accept and edit Nikon D4s RAW images?

    A professional photographer from a nearby town said he heard Lightroom either did not or had difficulty working with Nikon D4s RAW images. I want to find out if this true or not.

    huskersbob wrote:
    A professional photographer from a nearby town said he heard Lightroom either did not or had difficulty working with Nikon D4s RAW images.
    Might have been true around the time the camera was launched but it usually only takes Adobe a few weeks to issue updates for new camera models.
    As Bob says, the D4S has definitely been supported for a while now.
    Camera Raw plug-in | Supported cameras

  • Why is Lightroom significantly altering the color and saturation of my images?

    The past few weeks I have been working on a project that involves some very low key and low saturation images.
    After creating the general mood and tone of the shots in Lightroom. I then export them to photoshop for retouching and final adjustments. I an exporting to photoshop in profoto RGB. The images open in photoshop looking just fine. I complete the work and save them. When I review the saved tiffs in Lightroom they are much much darker than my working file and signifigantly reduced in saturation (almost to grayscale). There is also a signifigant change in the image when moving from develop to library modes. I know there is always a small change, but this is a very noticeble and signifigant one. When I open the file in PS it looks ok. But when I export the file from LR as a jpg it is again washed out, darker and in general wrong.
    This is onl happenign with thes elow saturation color images - All my other images work fine and export as expected, and this workflow has worked well for me for some time. Any thoughts would be apprecaited.

    Here is side-by-side comparison of LR, Saved-back-to-TIF-in-LR, and PS versions that doesn't really show any difference other than the estimated sharpness of the CR2 being too much:
    The LR settings applied to the CR2 are:  Exp -0.5, Cont +50, Clarity +40, Vibrance -60
    I have a calibrated normal-gamut monitor, not a wide-gamut monitor.
    If you can provide your edited TIF file out of PS via copy.com I can test things with your exact adjustments, instead of guessing some reduced exposure and color settings.
    As a comparison of what you're seeing, here is a all-in-one side-by-side of the three images you included, above, where you saved out of PS as sRGB, and in that case, the Library version seems less saturated than the PS and LR-Dev versions which seem similar:
    For each side-by-side screenshot, above, I have opened it in Photoshop, which is untagged, and assigned my monitor profile, then converted to sRGB, so the screenshots, themselves, should look right when viewed using an sRGB colorspace.

  • Will there be an improvement of X-Trans RAW Files Developing in Lightroom?

    Hey, dear Ladies and Gentlemen of Adobe!
    I am very upset because of your lousy support of Fujifilm X-Trans RAW Files Developing in Lightroom. I spent a lot of money to buy Lightroom. Now this Software is not useable to me because it handles RAW Files of my Camera (Fujifilm X-T1) very unsatisfying.
    It is not just me, you can read it all over the Internet. The Fujifilm X-T1 is a state of the art camera and delivers very good Pictures, but why - in the name of god - is lightroom handling it so lousy?!?
    You are forcing me to look for another Software. I have tried a lot apps the last few days. And EVERYONE has a better result but Lightroom.
    Even the to be discontinued Aperture by Apple has a far better result of developing that raw files. A small one-man Company named "Iridient Developer" has the best result i have ever seen with all that apps! To name them:
    I tried Aperture, Iridient Developer, Photoninja, AccuRAW, Capture One, SilkyPix 5, and a lot more. All of them are making better, sharper, crispier Pictures than Lightroom 5.5. Yes, i have the latest Version.
    The Pictures are like painted in Watercolors. No Details, no fine Structures. I am heavily disappointed!
    I do not expect to get an answer with a satisfying solution. You already have my money. Why care about customers?!?

    fleckintosh wrote:
    Hey, dear Ladies and Gentlemen of Adobe!
    This is a user to user forum - you're not talking to Adobe. 

  • Lightroom quality on x-trans raw files.

    I see a lot of complains on Lightroom's ability to decode fuji x-trans raw file.  Is it now getting better?

    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.

  • Lightroom doesn't recognize ACR 5.5 and my D300s RAW images

    Lightroom 2.4 does not recognize my Nikon D300s RAW images. I downloaded ACR 5.5 and after install both Bridge and Photoshop CS4 handle the D300s RAW images but my Lightroom 2.4 will not import them saying that it is a damaged or unrecognized file type. I have rebooted my entire Vista system and the problem persists. Any suggestions on how I might make Lightroom recognize ACR 5.5 and my D300s RAW images? Thanks in advance.
    Harry Campbell

    Harry Campbell wrote:
    Any suggestions on how I might make Lightroom recognize ACR 5.5 and my D300s RAW images?
    You don't want Camera Raw 5.5 (unless you want to use Photoshop CS4), you want the DNG Converter 5.5 which can convert the D300 raws into DNGs that are compatible with Lightroom 2.4. The next version of Lightroom (presumable 2.5) will have the support built in without needing the DNG Conversion...

  • Why is my .psd file not rendering correctly in ae

    Some layers of the .psd document are not rendered correctly. However they are imported.
    The strange thing is that when I first move from Photoshop to Illustrator, save it as an .ai file it is rendered properly (in Ae).
    I am kind of clueless as to what is causing this issue.
    Kind regards,
    Jelle

    Okay if more information is needed, i'll provide. However you may disregard my initial comment about illustrator. It flattens the photoshop layers so I do not have any flexibility in After Effects. In other words, my main question remains: why is my psd file not rendering correctly in ae?
    Further details:
    -photoshop cc and after effects cc.
    -macbook pro retina
    If still not clear enough, please tell me what details you are looking for furthermore

  • Why is Lightroom taking so long to download?  I have been trying for 2 and a half hours with no change.

    Why does Lightroom take so bloody long to download?

    HI,
    I am facing the same problem. I jsut purchase LR 5 upgrade, and am trying to download it. However, it says it takes 8 hours to download?? I have sufficient disk space, so why is this taking so long? It also says there is approx 504 MB for LR 5...
    Please assist.
    I previously downloaded LR 3 years ago, and it was very fast. Kindly help!!
    thanks.

  • ACR 8.7 has been released with support for the Nkon D750.  Why no Lightroom support yet?

    ACR 8.7 has been released with support for the Nkon D750.  Why no Lightroom support yet? Am I wrong or was support for the D810 available far more quickly?

    ACR 8.7 has not yet been released. The ACR 8.7RC has been released. It is a Release Candidate - and as such, is not a final version.  I wouldn't be concerned about a lack of Lightroom support until a final version is released.
    Adobe Photoshop Camera Raw 8.7 Release Candidate | digital camera raw file support - Adobe Labs

  • After installing, why is lightroom asking for a serial number, when I am a CC subscriber

    after installing, why is lightroom asking for a serial number, when I am a CC subscriber - I am logged in to my CC account

    I have the same issue. I downloaded for my 30 day trial. My time was up, I started my CC subscription and I'm still prompted for a serial number.

  • Why won't Canon Raw images in IPad air photoroll NOT load into LightRoom Mobile ?

    Why won't Canon Raw images in IPad air photoroll NOT load into LightRoom Mobile ?
    I can import Canon Raw images from my s120 into the iPad Air's photo roll but then the import from photoroll into LightRoom Mobile collections fails.
    Any ideas on how to get this working ?
    Thanks,

    Raw import is not yet supported by Lr Mobile. You can vote for this feature request Lightroom mobile: Ability to import raw files

  • Why does lightroom 2.7 keep making me import a folder?

    Every time I sync my Nikon Transfer folder to import my new pictures that I just loaded from my camera, a folder that I have already imported is included in the import. This folder and its contents are already in there. And lightroom agrees by telling me that it didn't import that folder because it already exsists. Why does lightroom try to import that folder in the first place?

    Beat,
    I'm not sure what you mean by that. I thought the folders viewed in Explorer and in Lightroom were one and the same. I think I see what you are getting at though. Perhaps if you were to change the name via Lightroom, the metadata gets changed in a way that causes Lightroom to think it needs to re-import. I don't change the names from the auto-generated sub folder that Nikon Transfer creates - which is the date and time using all numerals.
    I think I am just going to copy this sub folder to somewhere else, delete the original, re-import it and see what happens.  I will might lose all my raw edits in the process, but I have already delivered the finished jpegs to my client.

  • Why Are Frames So Bad?

    This is one of those 'big picture' questions. Sorry for the length. The actual question is at the end.
    I don't claim to be much of a 'designer'. I'm a musician.
    I have a web site I am trying to update to make 'accessible'. And it uses frames.
    http://www.jchmusic.com
    I have read the various arguments for not using frames and most of the technical arguments seem a bit spurious (accessibility and search engines both seem to work fine in my tests.) The only one that really makes sense -today- is the inability to bookmark within the site. I have not figured a way around -that-.
    But -every- web design article I have read totally disdains the use of frames. It seems far beyond the technical arguments. So I'm hoping to get some input as to -why- this is the case.
    I use frames for two main reasons:
    1. Manageability. I used to program and the idea of including the same menu code on each page seems ridiculous. Frames seem a lot easier to manage and far less error-prone.
    2. I like having the menu stay in one place as the user scrolls. Like a 'real' application. I -hate- how the menu or page title just scrolls off to nowhere on most sites. It just looks ----so---- ugly to me.
    Anyhoo, sorry for banging on. Other than the bookmark thing, I wonder why almost no designers use frames. I just don't get it. If I ditch frames, it will be a lot of work so I'm hoping someone who knows what they're doing (unlike me) will help talk me out of my delusions.
    TIA,
    ---JC

    1) hard to print pages.
    2) hard to bookmark pages.
    3) hard to navigate framed sites with keyboard (accessibility WAI)
    4) frames complicate your site.
    5) mobile devices don't support frames.
    7) web assistive technologies don't like frames.
    6) W3C dropped frame support from  HTML 5.0
    More on why frames are a bad idea
    http://apptools.com/rants/framesevil.php
    DW Templates Make your life easier
    http://forums.adobe.com/message/2328300#2328300
    Guidance   on when to use DW Templates, Library Items and SSIs -
    http://www.adobe.com/devnet/dreamweaver/articles/ssi_lbi_template.html
    More  on DW Templates and SSIs:
    http://www.smartwebby.com/web_site_design/dreamweaver_template.asp
    http://www.smartwebby.com/web_site_design/server_side_includes.asp
    Good luck,
    Nancy O.
    Alt-Web Design & Publishing
    Web | Graphics | Print | Media  Specialists
    www.alt-web.com/
    www.twitter.com/altweb
    www.alt-web.blogspot.com

  • Why can't I see the Lightroom Presets in the Develp Module without having an image open?

    Why can't I see the Lightroom Presets in the Develp Module without having an image open?

    If it's in the Spam mailbox, then Spam Mailbox would show there.
    In my example above, I'm looking in the Sent Mailbox as a whole (main mailbox, not the subfolder account) and it's showing the account I sent from. If I had sent messages from my other accounts, it would show those also. The only purpose of showing the mailbox in the message list is to know which of your accounts it's to or from when you have multiple accounts. If you only have one mail account, then it provides no use to have Mailbox shown in the message list.
    When you are looking at the Sent Mail, then the message list shows the person who it was sent to.
    All other mailboxes show the person who the message was sent from in the list.
    Unless you're moving recieved mail and sent mail to a common mailbox, then it's not a big deal.
    Maybe Apple will change it in the future to show the actual Fields in the message list.

Maybe you are looking for