Clicky

Jump to content


Photo

Lightroom CC 2015 1.1 is still horrible bad with Xtrans files...

lightroom xtrans bad

  • Please log in to reply
36 replies to this topic

#1 akphoto

akphoto

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 3 posts

Posted 15 September 2015 - 03:43 PM

Advertisement (Gone after free registration)

I just can't image how some people claim that the newest Lightroom version CC 2015 1.1 is doing a better job with Xtrans RAF files then before. I did make some test images today, specifically looking for the "foliage watercolor problem" to see if anything has become better with this latest Lightroom update.

 

Just take a look at this 2 photos and look at the smearing and watercolor in the foliage. It is just looking very bad (in my opinion...)

 

https://www.dropbox....6nz/01.jpg?dl=0

https://www.dropbox....9yu/02.jpg?dl=0

 

Crops from these 2 pictures with watercolor/smearing:

 

https://www.dropbox....crop01.jpg?dl=0

https://www.dropbox....crop02.jpg?dl=0

 

I personally can't image anybody being happy with Xtrans RAF files being edited in Lightroom. These same images look a lot better in Capture One, where the smearing and watercoloring is gone!

 

I find the combination Xtrans/LIghtroom totally useless. I wonder if anyone that is using this combination can show me an image with foliage without this terrible smearing/watercolor effect? I believe it is not possible...

 

I really like the Fuji x cameras, I have an X100s, X-E2, 14/2.8, 35/1.4 and 60/2.4. I am a professional wedding photographer and I always work with Canon EOS 5D camera's and I still do today. I use the Fuji set as my lightweight everyday/travel set.

 

But... I am now close to the point of selling my Fuji stuff. Okay, in Capture One this smearing of foliage is gone, but there are other problems instaed. I don't like the way Capture One is rendering the skin tones from RAF files, these are much more red compared to the great skintones in the OOC jpegs and the skintones in Lightroom. I also don't like the UI from Capture One and the fact that I have to buy and learn antoher raw converter because of this Xtrans sensor problems... (althought a lot of people cal it an Adobe problem, but I am not totally convinced about that).

 

Any people here to share my thoughts? Or thinking about selling their Fuji's because of this?



#2 jlmphotos

jlmphotos

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 308 posts
  • LocationNew Jersey

Posted 15 September 2015 - 04:06 PM

I'm sorry but I must disagree.  I am still using LR 5.6 and even though I have LR CC I don't use it yet.

 

As a landscape/travel/stock photographer I found the sharpening/processing method used by Peter Bridgwood so good I created an import preset where this is applied to ALL  my images.  Once I've imported the images I'll go in and make minor tweaks here and there but I've found his sharpening to be dead-on for the X Files.

Here is the link to his blog.  Give it a try if you haven't done so yet.

And no, I haven't looked at your particular samples.

 


Jorge L. Moro   | X-T1 |  X-T2 | 18-55 |  Zeiss 12/2.8  |  Fuji 16 1.4  |   Fuji 23 1.4 | Fuji 35 1.4 | Fuji 55-200  |

For Special Projects: Nikon D800e and a Nikon 50 1.8G lens (Sold)

xshooters blog  |  Flickr Feed  |  Eye'em


#3 akphoto

akphoto

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 3 posts

Posted 15 September 2015 - 04:17 PM

I'm sorry but I must disagree.  I am still using LR 5.6 and even though I have LR CC I don't use it yet.

 

As a landscape/travel/stock photographer I found the sharpening/processing method used by Peter Bridgwood so good I created an import preset where this is applied to ALL  my images.  Once I've imported the images I'll go in and make minor tweaks here and there but I've found his sharpening to be dead-on for the X Files.

Here is the link to his blog.  Give it a try if you haven't done so yet.

And no, I haven't looked at your particular samples.

 

I already applied the Bridgwood presets to these pictures. It doesn't help a bit to avoid the ugly watercolor smearing in the foliage!

 

Please do take a look at my samples, and then tell me if you still disagree with me that it looks very bad...?!

 

I also put the original RAF files online so everyone can download my files and if someone is able to develop these files in Lightroom without this ugly smearing in the foliage (and still produce a sharp picture) I buy a good bottle of wine for him/her!

 

https://www.dropbox....SF7376.RAF?dl=0

https://www.dropbox....SF7378.RAF?dl=0

 

After hours of trying, learning, testing, reading, using presets from Bridgwood and others, I strongly believe it is not possible to edit foliage in Lightroom without a very notable smearing of details.



#4 sandrogsp

sandrogsp

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 9 posts

Posted 15 September 2015 - 11:05 PM

If you disable Noise Reduction in LR, you won't see that nasty watercolor effect.

Apparently LR confuses fine foliage with noise, and tries to fix it.

 

In my opinion LR is seriously flawed in its NR processing, because it doesn't take into account the ISO speed.

In fact, fine speckles at Iso 200 should never be considered noise, while similar speckles at Iso 6400, are noise for sure !

Check my result:

 

https://www.dropbox....SF7378.jpg?dl=0

 



#5 erwiurewurwehu

erwiurewurwehu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 150 posts

Posted 15 September 2015 - 11:08 PM

I already applied the Bridgwood presets to these pictures. It doesn't help a bit to avoid the ugly watercolor smearing in the foliage!

 

Please do take a look at my samples, and then tell me if you still disagree with me that it looks very bad...?!

 

I also put the original RAF files online so everyone can download my files and if someone is able to develop these files in Lightroom without this ugly smearing in the foliage (and still produce a sharp picture) I buy a good bottle of wine for him/her!

 

https://www.dropbox....SF7376.RAF?dl=0

https://www.dropbox....SF7378.RAF?dl=0

 

After hours of trying, learning, testing, reading, using presets from Bridgwood and others, I strongly believe it is not possible to edit foliage in Lightroom without a very notable smearing of details.

 

 

Tend to agree. LR6 together with the presets is much better but it's still worse than Iridient. I have decided that it''s good enough for me at the moment. But for a pro this is probably unacceptable.



#6 graflex

graflex

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 24 posts

Posted 17 September 2015 - 05:53 PM

I just can't image how some people claim that the newest Lightroom version CC 2015 1.1 is doing a better job with Xtrans RAF files then before. I did make some test images today, specifically looking for the "foliage watercolor problem" to see if anything has become better with this latest Lightroom update.

 

Just take a look at this 2 photos and look at the smearing and watercolor in the foliage. It is just looking very bad (in my opinion...)

 

https://www.dropbox....6nz/01.jpg?dl=0

https://www.dropbox....9yu/02.jpg?dl=0

 

Crops from these 2 pictures with watercolor/smearing:

 

https://www.dropbox....crop01.jpg?dl=0

https://www.dropbox....crop02.jpg?dl=0

 

I personally can't image anybody being happy with Xtrans RAF files being edited in Lightroom. These same images look a lot better in Capture One, where the smearing and watercoloring is gone!

 

I find the combination Xtrans/LIghtroom totally useless. I wonder if anyone that is using this combination can show me an image with foliage without this terrible smearing/watercolor effect? I believe it is not possible...

 

It is not possible. The root of the problem is Adobe's demosaicing of the X-Trans CFA. They do a poor job of rendering the finest detail compared with the competitive converters. The problem can't be "Bridgwooded" away because it's ultimately not due to sharpening (or noise processing). Various procedures like Bridgwood's or Fitzgerald's etc. are methods to avoid exacerbating the problem -- they don't correct it as it is not user correctable.

 

But... I am now close to the point of selling my Fuji stuff. Okay, in Capture One this smearing of foliage is gone, but there are other problems instaed. I don't like the way Capture One is rendering the skin tones from RAF files, these are much more red compared to the great skintones in the OOC jpegs and the skintones in Lightroom. I also don't like the UI from Capture One and the fact that I have to buy and learn antoher raw converter because of this Xtrans sensor problems... (althought a lot of people cal it an Adobe problem, but I am not totally convinced about that).

 

Any people here to share my thoughts? Or thinking about selling their Fuji's because of this?

 

It is an Adobe problem in dealing with the X-Trans CFA. Most of the other raw converters do a better job of rendering fine detail. If the problem is apparent in an LR conversion and you can't make adjustments to correct it while the problem is not apparent in 5 other conversions from 5 other raw converters simple logic points to Adobe.

 

If you're wedded to LR and not happy switching or using a supplemental raw converter then you: 1. keep waiting for Adobe to improve, 2. move on and sell the Fuji, 3. take the blue pill and convince yourself it's gotten better.

 

Personally I love my Fuji and I'm keeping it -- wonderful camera. I encountered the "Adobe" problem the very first time I used the camera. For me the solution was easy, no more Adobe.

 

grass_tree.jpg


  • Maurice, BarwickGreen and bholst like this

#7 erwiurewurwehu

erwiurewurwehu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 150 posts

Posted 17 September 2015 - 06:13 PM

 

 

Personally I love my Fuji and I'm keeping it -- wonderful camera. I encountered the "Adobe" problem the very first time I used the camera. For me the solution was easy, no more Adobe.

 

 

 

What are you using now? The Adobe Cloud subscription is pretty compelling. For $10 a month you get LR and Photoshop which covers most needs (HR, Panorama).



#8 graflex

graflex

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 24 posts

Posted 17 September 2015 - 06:49 PM

What are you using now? The Adobe Cloud subscription is pretty compelling. For $10 a month you get LR and Photoshop which covers most needs (HR, Panorama).

 

Capture One is probably my most used raw converter, but I'm not adverse to using a different converter if it has a feature that I think will serve a specific image well.



#9 flysurfer

flysurfer

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 659 posts

Posted 18 September 2015 - 12:27 AM

21310273540_d89aec6179_k.jpg

 

21506994891_2f42b2f48b_k.jpg


  • Alexander Mosquera likes this

Fuji X SecretsX-Pert Corner – Flickr SetsRico's Fujifilm X camera books (use code XPERT40 for a 40% discount)


#10 akphoto

akphoto

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 3 posts

Posted 18 September 2015 - 08:37 PM

Hello Flysurfer/Rico, thank you for joining. Let me first say that I always very much appreciate your articles on Fuji Rumours!

 

However, do you really think Lightroom is a good converter for Xtrans, especially when there is a lot of foliage in the picture? I think you have done a good job with both pictures, but I do like mine more. I have edited this example with Capture One and at this moment I am thinking of adding Capture One to my workflow to do all Xtrans editing.

 

https://www.dropbox....orum01.jpg?dl=0

 

I do have another very interesting example which gives a very clear view on the big differences between LR and C1 with Xtrans and foliage/landscapes. I will post that example tomorrow.



#11 flysurfer

flysurfer

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 659 posts

Posted 18 September 2015 - 11:48 PM

It's okay for me, about the same detail as Iridient Developer when comparing at 200%. C1 is pretty good, too, but not as versatile as LR for me. Sadly, VSCO, RNI etc. aren't available for C1.


Fuji X SecretsX-Pert Corner – Flickr SetsRico's Fujifilm X camera books (use code XPERT40 for a 40% discount)


#12 cug

cug

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 224 posts

Posted 28 September 2015 - 12:13 PM

For me: I can screw up every photo with every converter and I can get satisfying result with all of them as well. In more than 10k photos from the Fuji cams so far I found only one or two where LR resisted successfully and completely to provide useful results. Iridient worked for these. 

 

Definitely not an issue for me and certainly no reason to switch to a different DAM and raw converter for day to day use and buy into the different pain of using these.


  • flysurfer likes this

#13 andrew brown

andrew brown

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 97 posts
  • LocationIpswich, UK

Posted 01 October 2015 - 04:32 PM

Ultimately, we use image processing software to create images in a style we like and have done since the move to digital as the main medium for photography.

 

The X-Trans changed this argument in the way it creates a RAW file and in doing so created the usual he said she said type of arguments.

 

Many people love the size and price of the Fuji's compared with the behemoths produced by Canon and Nikon, but are not happy about working with X-Trans.

 

As always, the answer is as simple as it gets... Try it, if you like it, buy into it. If not, move on to something different or go back to what you last used and were fairly happy with.

 

For me, the Fuji system and LR 5 or 6 cover my needs and help me to create images in a way that pleases me. Hence, I'm happy to stay with Fuji and LR.

 

If they did not, I would probably return to Canon with its inherent sensor flaws that wouls bw easily correctable in any version of LR.


  • olli likes this

Simple photographer enjoying the 'old days' courtesty of Fuji X and Adobe Lightroom


#14 steviewonder

steviewonder

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 35 posts

Posted 27 October 2015 - 05:10 PM

I just can't image how some people claim that the newest Lightroom version CC 2015 1.1 is doing a better job with Xtrans RAF files then before. I did make some test images today, specifically looking for the "foliage watercolor problem" to see if anything has become better with this latest Lightroom update.
 
Just take a look at this 2 photos and look at the smearing and watercolor in the foliage. It is just looking very bad (in my opinion...)
 
https://www.dropbox....6nz/01.jpg?dl=0
https://www.dropbox....9yu/02.jpg?dl=0
 
Crops from these 2 pictures with watercolor/smearing:
 
https://www.dropbox....crop01.jpg?dl=0
https://www.dropbox....crop02.jpg?dl=0
 
I personally can't image anybody being happy with Xtrans RAF files being edited in Lightroom. These same images look a lot better in Capture One, where the smearing and watercoloring is gone!
 
I find the combination Xtrans/LIghtroom totally useless. I wonder if anyone that is using this combination can show me an image with foliage without this terrible smearing/watercolor effect? I believe it is not possible...
 
I really like the Fuji x cameras, I have an X100s, X-E2, 14/2.8, 35/1.4 and 60/2.4. I am a professional wedding photographer and I always work with Canon EOS 5D camera's and I still do today. I use the Fuji set as my lightweight everyday/travel set.
 
But... I am now close to the point of selling my Fuji stuff. Okay, in Capture One this smearing of foliage is gone, but there are other problems instaed. I don't like the way Capture One is rendering the skin tones from RAF files, these are much more red compared to the great skintones in the OOC jpegs and the skintones in Lightroom. I also don't like the UI from Capture One and the fact that I have to buy and learn antoher raw converter because of this Xtrans sensor problems... (althought a lot of people cal it an Adobe problem, but I am not totally convinced about that).
 
Any people here to share my thoughts? Or thinking about selling their Fuji's because of this?




Unfortunately, Iridient Developer is not available for PCs (I have an Asus) and since it's essentially a one man show at Iridient, in an email he told me he has no time to do the additional programming (at present). I was hoping LR6 would solve the problem. Anyone tried that version, as I've heard Adobe is working with Fuji to sort this out.

#15 Ektachrome

Ektachrome

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 111 posts

Posted 05 November 2015 - 03:36 PM

Totally agree about Lightroom with Fuji RAW files; it's crap, pure and simple. It's not just the way it mushes all detail in foliage and fine grasses, etc., it also washes out all the colour. Never had a problem with any other camera in LR until I had a Fuji, Adobe just don't 'get' that sensor. It was so bad when I first bought an X-T1 last year, I couldn't understand the hype, I just thought the camera was awful, and sold it. It's only when a friend encouraged me later in the year to try different RAW developers that I went back to a Fuji body as a second camera.

 

C1 does a much better job, as does Iridient. I don't personally find them easy to use, however, particularly in terms of Library management, which is why the Fuji is now a second camera. It excels on natural light portraits, and cityscapes/seascapes, etc. where this issue doesn't raise it's head as much. Personally, Fuji will never be a first camera again until they either ditch X-Trans and just use a state of the art BSI sensor with no anti-alias filter, or LR fix their handling of X-Trans RAW files very fundamentally. Such a shame.

 

(P.S. yes, I've extensively tried different sharpening methods, turning off NR in LR, etc., etc., sorry, but to my eyes, on the subjects where this rears it's head, I've never found it to eliminate the issue, as it's a demosaicing problem, not a sharpening/NR one.)


  • rwforster01 likes this

#16 Chow

Chow

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 2 posts

Posted 05 November 2015 - 09:53 PM

andrew brown, on 01 Oct 2015 - 4:32 PM, said:

As always, the answer is as simple as it gets... Try it, if you like it, buy into it. If not, move on to something different or go back to what you last used and were fairly happy with.

 

For me, the Fuji system and LR 5 or 6 cover my needs and help me to create images in a way that pleases me. Hence, I'm happy to stay with Fuji and LR.

 

If they did not, I would probably return to Canon with its inherent sensor flaws that wouls bw easily correctable in any version of LR.

 

Same here. I have no clue why people buy stuff they don't like and keep posting about it on boards.


  • olli likes this

#17 maj0rglitch

maj0rglitch

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 9 posts

Posted 07 November 2015 - 12:17 AM

Totally agree about Lightroom with Fuji RAW files; it's crap, pure and simple. It's not just the way it mushes all detail in foliage and fine grasses, etc., it also washes out all the colour.

I noticed that too, the color are washed after importing them. Then I played with the Camera Calibration and set the profile to Camera ASTIA/SOFT instead of the preselected Adobe Standard and magically the fuji colors came back.


  • FreakPhoto and greatbigd like this

X-T10 - 18mm-55mm; 14mm


#18 SpaceLab Yellow

SpaceLab Yellow

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 16 posts

Posted 08 November 2015 - 10:33 AM

I found Raw Therapee + HALD CLUT profiles + right camera ICC profiles the best combination so far, and is free software! Suits my taste and with a bit of practice it produces results almost identical with OOC JPGS in terms of color rendering with the advantage of Raw editing. The only downside is that above 2500 ISO the other coverters do a better job but I rarely go so high.

Inviato dal mio Nexus 5 utilizzando Tapatalk

#19 Burb

Burb

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 61 posts

Posted 08 November 2015 - 06:51 PM

I noticed that too, the color are washed after importing them. Then I played with the Camera Calibration and set the profile to Camera ASTIA/SOFT instead of the preselected Adobe Standard and magically the fuji colors came back.

If you expect a picture right out the camera that is looking amazing you should give the JPG's a try... ;) RAW files are e.g. not that colorful and not that sharp right from the camera therefore they called RAW. It's up to you to develop them to the image you like. By selecting one of the camera profiles in Lightroom you basically do the same as the camera will do while rendering a JPG.



#20 tarikolmez

tarikolmez

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 25 posts
  • LocationAnkara | Turkey

Posted 21 November 2015 - 10:21 AM

I'm sorry but I must disagree.  I am still using LR 5.6 and even though I have LR CC I don't use it yet.

 

As a landscape/travel/stock photographer I found the sharpening/processing method used by Peter Bridgwood so good I created an import preset where this is applied to ALL  my images.  Once I've imported the images I'll go in and make minor tweaks here and there but I've found his sharpening to be dead-on for the X Files.

Here is the link to his blog.  Give it a try if you haven't done so yet.

And no, I haven't looked at your particular samples.

I tried Peter's preset for sharpening. I doesnt help for close up object/subject. Or portrait.

For portrait work best sharpening for my taste was amount 50, radius 1, detail 0-5, masking 0-30

I shoot weddings and newborns mostly.


Fujifilm X-T1 | 23mm | 56mm | 10-24mm |YN560mk2

www.benimlemisiniskocyali.com

instagram




Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: lightroom, xtrans, bad

 
x

Registration is free

Not registered? Really?

Discover the full potential of the Fuji X Forum... register now!
Registration is free and done in a few minutes!

As registered member you can discuss, post your questions and present your images.
And get in contact with Fuji X photographers worldwide!

We are looking forward to you!

The Fuji X Forum Team

Register Close