After processing my RAF file with DxO PureRAW 3.2.0, I have observed notable disparities in the edge rendering when compared to the out-of-camera JPEG. Regrettably, it appears that the installed profile named “Fujifilm X-T4 + FUJINON XC 35mm F2 (RAW)” has not effectively corrected the distortion in the image.
Are you sure? The out-of-camera JPEG is not the gold standard for lens corrections. DxO tends to produce a different rendering based on its own measurements of how a given lens behaves. If you see objects that are clearly distorted in the output from RAW, that’s a problem. Can you provide samples?
Since I am unable to share the original photos where I initially made this observation, I created new images to further investigate the issue. I discovered that a door frame serves as an excellent subject for testing distortion correction.
Initially, I expected the out-of-camera (OOC) JPEG to be the most accurate representation since Fuji is knowledgeable about their lenses. However, it turns out that you were right, and relying solely on the OOC JPEG is not reliable. I have become accustomed to a view that is evidently distorted.
In the sample images provided below, you can observe significant distortion with the XC 35mm F2 lens, making it challenging to work with in this regard. The OOC JPEG clearly exhibits flaws, but I still believe that PureRAW overcorrected the distortion, whereas the OOC JPEG did not correct it enough.
Upon analyzing the left line using Affinity Photo, I conclude that the correction applied by Capture One appears to be the most accurate for this particular shot.
capture_one|690x460
ooc_jpeg|690x460
pureraw|690x460
without|690x460
You can always share your original photos through services like Google drive, wetransfer and others. Original files can help to locate the issue(s) that might be caused by any link in your processing chain.
The images attached have enough resolution to see the problem.
Maybe this is just another case where PureRAW is not enough, because I saw that I can lower the intensity of the correction in PhotoLab an around 90% it looks right. Somehow this particular lens profile tends to over-correct.
If this should be the case, DxO might want to have a look at specifics.
@sgospodarenko , can you check this with @CommanderSteps and your colleagues?
@CommanderSteps Hello, Please, provide me with original files with the issues so we can fix it if needed?Upload them here - http://upload.dxo.com and let me know when ready. Thank you !
I uploaded the original files.
Compare the Capture One correction with PureRAW. Capture One looks more correct as it has a straight line.
btw - does DxO PL6 decode focusing distance from X-T4 raw files ? it does not, for example, for X-H1 raw files and as a result it can’t properly apply its own optics correction UNLESS you manually enter focusing distance in “Focusing Distance” tool
for example ( X-H1 + XF35/2.0 )
$0.02
1 Like
I downloaded a X-T4 raw from Imaging Resource ( it seems btw it is alive again ) and no DxO PL6 can’t decode focusing distance from X-T4 raw files → you need to make sure that it is not the reason for some ill effects… I am not saying it is but do check !
1 Like
Thank you for pointing that out. Yes, look like its indeed part of the problem.
I’m glad that Fuji X-Trans finally came to PhotoLab, because I wasn’t able to use it since I switched to Fuji and they hadn’t support. But it does not look like that the support is good enough right now.
My hopes are with PhotoLab 7 
then you are out of luck… it seems that nobody is capable to decode focusing distance in Fujifilm raw files and DxO does not want users to be able / to opt to use optics corrections data that is already present in Fujifilm / or any other raw files/ raw files ( if users are not happy w/ what DxO makes or DxO simply does not have a module in place and ~never will )
With some cameras the problem is fixable, but DxO dragging their bottom part, for example for Sony A7R2 it is known for a long time that focusing distance is stored in exif tag = “0x002d FocusPosition2” and formula for a full frame mode for example is ( 2 ^ ( {0x002d FocusPosition2} / 16 - 5 ) + 1 ) * {lens focal distance} / 1000 … but no, DxO still refuses to implement and as a result you MUST manually fix this for every shot in DxO UI ( or generate DOP files first and write a script to mod .DOP files based on that calculation ) or you might end up wasting their optics correction
color that STUPID !
1 Like
Wow, that’s an very interesting insight. Thank you for sharing that with me.
Return of the attaboy?
1 Like
I’m having similar issue on my XF 10-24MM. At least at some focal lengths I’m finding the lens distortion and the vignetting correction overcompensate and cause visible pincushioning (you can see straight lines bow out at the edges) or bright edges on images. Often times these are difficult to correct in post because they aren’t linear corrections, so countering the overcorrection in Lightroom or Photoshop introduces more artifacts or distortions. I’m still working on testing this before I post any images, but there are definitely some issues here.
Since separate lens correction profiles for Fuji lenses aren’t available in Lightroom like they are for other cameras, You also can’t just disable these corrections in PureRAW then apply a profile to the DNG like you could for Canon or Nikon glass. Proper full support for lens correction is essential to claim compatibility with Fujifilm cameras. These corrections either need to be adjustable in PureRAW or (preferably) PureRAW needs to add the option to support the embedded correction files. Even though that means those corrections might not always be as “good” as what DxO has measured, it will give the user the option to have what they expect and see on their camera, and bypass profiles that aren’t working properly for their particular lens.
Supporting the embedded profile would also provide another benefit, in that the image would actually align with the image generated by Lightroom/ACR or other raw processors. That means if you don’t want the full heavy noise correction of DeepPrime (many Fuji users like X-Trans specifically because it has a more appealing noise profile than most digital cameras), but want the added detail - even if DxO never adds sliders for this correction (which they should, it doesn’t need the PhotoLab feature set, but at this price point you should have control over the destructive/non recoverable aspects of the process), you could at least blend exposures to maybe find a happy midpoint.
Overall I’m really impressed with what PureRAW is doing with Fuji images, but the support for the ecosystem needs some additional love before I’d call it a full production solution. The simplest option in my mind would just be a tickbox specific to Fuji cameras to use the embedded profile instead of the downloaded one, as it would give me the control I want in most cases and the choice between DxO’s solution and Fuji’s when one is better than the other.
1 Like