This is the standard for which I would aim. It should not look too "digital" but instead should have the quality to pass an editor in a magazine or submission to a stock agency. While I believe that much of this is subjective, there are also technical standards, which I think are not, and while different people might have different standards, for me, the image should look clean, and un-processed. It also depends heavily on the type of image, how you prefer to process, and so on. I'm basing this on processing thousands of Fuji files in many different applications. Bun in this context, I'm talking purely about technical image quality. There are, of course, more things that can enter into the equation, such as workflow, ease of use, and cost. In this context, though, I'm talking about what gives you the most natural-looking, and the most artefact-free results when working with Fuji raw files. The term "best" is often quite misleading because as I said, it's often subjective. I should also note that I've written eBook guides about most of these options, and I've included links where applicable. Introductionīefore I get to the actual results, here's a bit of a preamble about the "what and why" of this, as well as a few disclaimers. But, today, I' going to break my own rule and tell you what I think are the best options, in my opinion, in order of preference. So, in the past, I've tried to present lots of different options, and let people decide for themselves. What I might find the "best" isn't necessarily what someone else might find the best for them.
I generally try and not directly answer that for a few reasons, the most obvious of which is that the answer is subjective. I've been covering how to process Fuji X-Trans files on this website for quite a few years now, and I still regularly get questions from people asking me what the best software for processing Fuji RAW files is.
0 kommentar(er)
