Anyone used Affinity Photo with Fuji RAWs? How does it perform

>>2993772
Nobody buys Fuji to shoot in RAW

>>2993772
affinity is quite basic for a raw editor, whatever gear you use, be it fuji or sony.

>>2993772
The only software that works correctly with rafs is fujis own and iridient. Everything else looks like shit.

If you wanted to use professional software, sell the fuji, buy a sony.

>>2994929
>>2993778


What...
I wish someone had told me this before i bought it :'(

What's a good alternative to the xpro 2 and what's the best way of making my money back as i can no longer return it.

>>2994932

Canon EOS 5D Mark IV

>>2994932
Don't be a baby. You can get good results out of RAF with lots of things. Rawtherapee and Fuji's own Silkypix-based RFC both do quite niceley for the low, LOW PRICE OF FREE.

Don't listen to the trollposters, mang.

>>2994965
But rawtherapee and silkypix really aren't comparable to a proper solution like lightroom, capture 1 or dxo.

Look at it like this, all 3 of the major software packages don't support fuji and have refused to listen to their users pleas for over 5 years now, because fuji aren't going to be around much longer.

You've invested in dead technology and are now frustrated that no one wants to support it.

>>2994967
I'm not frustrated, I just don't see the point in listening to someone tell me that the tools I've been using aren't good enough.

Since I don't have to start from bullshit like flat Sony raws or fucked-up color casts with Nikon I find I don't NEED to PP stuff within centimeters of its life to be happy with it. I hate the plastic instagram massive photoshop fake bullshit, and the egregious offenses like cloning and digitally inserting/removing elements that PS is so good at are really disgusting to my delicate sensibilities.


Besides, you're trying to make it about brandfaggotry and little else. I've got an X100 with a Bayer so I'm not even subject to the issues you claim.

>>2994974
...and this is where I stop helping your entitled sorry ass

>>2995301
Sorry, not OP.

>>2994967
Lightroom is fine nowadays. Not the best, but fine.
//Long time Fuji user.

>>2995735
sure it is, especially if you like wormy details.

>>2995735
I definitely bought my camera because i wanted my pictures to be needlessly soft if i use popular software.

File: xt-1.jpg (133KB, 597x487px) Image search: [Google]

133KB, 597x487px

i find capture1 to be just the tool for fuji.
too bad its most expensive of the bunch too.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	FUJIFILM
Camera Model	X-T1
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2017 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.4
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	3264
Image Height	4896
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2017:01:05 12:15:25
Image Created	2015:07:22 18:52:19
Exposure Time	1/125 sec
F-Number	f/2.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	200
Lens Aperture	f/2.0
Brightness	2.9 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	35.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	597
Image Height	487
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Sharpness	Hard
Subject Distance Range	Unknown
Unique Image ID	b70395043b5d03b10000000000000000

>>2995759
are you from 2012? Lightroom's x-trans handling been fine even for pixel peepers for a year.

File: 1461361591870.jpg (487KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

487KB, 1024x768px

>>2995772
I don't mind paying a few shekels more if the software really does improve image quality and/or workflow in general.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	OLYMPUS IMAGING CORP.
Camera Model	E-M5
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.0 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.7
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	40 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2013:11:05 17:28:47
Exposure Time	1 sec
F-Number	f/16.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	200
Lens Aperture	f/16.0
Exposure Bias	1 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Auto
Focal Length	20.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1024
Image Height	768
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	None
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	High
Sharpness	Hard

File: DSCF8172.jpg (688KB, 800x1000px) Image search: [Google]

688KB, 800x1000px

>>2995759

>wormy details.

Not him.

Top fucking kek m80. Come at me. Epic memes abound around here.

Full res.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/x1qgbkdn27txit8/DSCF8172.jpg?dl=0

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	FUJIFILM
Camera Model	X-T2
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.7 (Macintosh)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.4
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	35 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2017:01:05 21:30:12
Exposure Time	1/550 sec
F-Number	f/5.6
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	200
Lens Aperture	f/5.6
Brightness	8.9 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	23.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Sharpness	Hard
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>2995778
Why's it so soft?

>>2995778
> Full res.
That does look pretty weak, but I couldn't tell if it's the lens or the RAW processor.

>>2995785

That's processed. Colour and all. Not raw + sharpening.

>>2995777
theres a... crack for c1p if youre a poorfag :^)

>>2995778
for starters - try shooting grass, and not concrete blocks of street. Then zoom in the lightroom and tell me you dont see any wormy shit.

>>2995788
Wut

Yet again fuji show off their non existent technical knowledge.

>>2995791
>shooting grass
What are you m8, a farmer? Why would I want to shoot grass? I'm not a product photographer for some darknet drug dealer.

>>2995788
>That's processed. Colour and all. Not raw + sharpening.
So it looked even weaker before processing, or what do you mean?