Image Quality: “why DPReview may be sometimes wrong” + “I was a skeptic but now I’m a believer” (Iridient vs Adobe)

July 3, 2013
News, Reviews
40 Comments

The good news is, Fuji X-photographers now have various options to process their X-Trans files and get decent results out of it. The most popular options are Lightroom, Silkypix, Capture One and Aperture. But there are other software programs like Raw Photo Processor (based on DCRAW), AccuRaw… (check out this X-Pert Corner RAW-comparison post).

But in the last weeks I told you several times of Iridient Developer (Mac 0nly). This is an option which you should seriously consider to add to your workflow (try the demo version). Does the details extracted from the RAW by IRIDIENT really blow out ACR? Could this be the software that finally unlocked the full potential of the X-Trans sensor?

Now, I’d like to share with you the following articles. The first one at thevisualexperience analizes the way dpreview tests the image quality of the different cameras, while in the second post, “I’m a beliver”, Activatedfx talks of his conversion from LR4.4 to Iridient 2.1.1!

1) Why DPReview may be sometimes wrong

This is how dpreview tests the image quality of cameras (source thevisualexperience): a) Load RAW file into Adobe Camera RAW (Auto mode disabled) b) Set Sharpness to zero (all other settings default) c) Open file to Photoshop d) Apply a Unsharp mask: 100%, Radius 0.6, Threshold 0 d) Save as a TIFF (for cropping) and as a JPEG quality 11 for download

“DPReview paved the way for “scientific” comparison of camera performances, guiding passionate and professionals in understanding “what is worth to buy” and what is not. […] So ACR is the “meter” used to compare cameras for what concerns RAW. You can jump to the “Image Quality” of each review and use the tools to compare RAW performances.

But now that Iridient delivers such great results with the X-Trans files, thevisualexperience suggest to DPreview:

[…] please start taking into account different RAW processors or, at least, make some claim that the RAW results people are inspecting may be not representative of the REAL POTENTIAL a camera may have (since the meter you’re using is, somehow, not the best).”

2) I was a skeptic but now I’m a believer

And here there is another photographer that was blown away by the Iridient results and posted his comparison… at the great dpreview forum (check it here)!

“The Iridient image has more DR, richer colors, more detail in the sky, and a noticeably SHARPER image with no halos or artifacts. To my eye, it doesn’t look “sharpened” at all. In particular, look at the detail in the background of the road sign at 100%. The pattern is much more distinct in the Iridient image. And it’s not because of more contrast.”

Do you consider to swich or add Iridient to your workflow and you do not own a Mac? Apple just released the new MacBooks with an incredible battery life! [shoplink 14128]Check them here at your Amazon[/shoplink].

all the best
Patrick

Loading ...