Lightroom 6 improvements?

[Maurice]

What are you on about? I am saying none of that with such intent, and never did i say it was of the world importance. I simply remark on the fact that they have implemented something that does not achieve anything worthwhile beneficial. I can work with it fine and so can anybody else, what's puzzeling is why we are not allowed to say anything bad about it or you are on the defense. I agree completely that you should defend the fact that we can get perfectly fine results from it and beyond. But so can a car with 5 wheels drive perfectly fine, that doesn't mean it was a good idea!

 

It is just the fine detail we are discussing here, literally the tiniest aspect of what makes photography interesting to do or look at. That doesn't mean we should pretend that xtrans doesn't have a negative effect on it, because it does, but we go on with our lives and photography. But when we're here, should we not talk about the topic at hand? Most people should be smart enough value its importance for themselves, without a disclaimer to every post.

[flysurfer]

What are you on about? I am saying none of that with such intent. I simply remark on the fact that they have implemented something that does not achieve anything worthwhile. I can work with it fine and so can anybody else, what's puzzeling is why we are not allowed to say anything bad about it or you are on the defense. I agree completely that you should defend the fact that we can get perfectly fine results from it and beyond. But so can a car with 5 wheels drive perfectly fine, that doesn't mean it was a good idea!

 

How can something be a perfectly fine result that is the result of something that doesn't achieve anything worthwhile?

 

Sorry, I don't get it. The results are either good or bad. Mine are good (in my opinion), so I stick with X-Trans. If they weren't (in my opinion), I'd have moved on at least two years ago. My effort with X-Trans isn't higher than with Bayer. I'm using Lightroom and at least 7 other RAW converters for X-Trans and Bayer, so I'm not stuck with one particular software or a fanboy of a particular workflow that I need to justify to me or others. This is the fourth year of X-Trans. By now, we know its strengths and weaknesses. I also know that X-Trans isn't going away anytime soon.

[Maurice]

How can something be a perfectly fine result that is the result of something that doesn't achieve anything worthwhile?

 

I'm sorry i meant anything beneficial. As in it doesn't ADD anything worthwhile to what would 'normally' be the same 16MP sensor with bayer pattern.

 

I direct you to the fifth wheel analogy.

[flysurfer]

I'm sorry i meant anything beneficial. As in it doesn't ADD anything worthwhile to what would 'normally' be the same 16MP sensor with bayer pattern.

 

 

But of course it does. Less color noise, for example. And less moiré than other AA-less 16 MP APS-C sensors. Are there actually (m)any 16 MP APS-C Bayer cameras w/o AA filter? Even the bokeh looks softer, as we remember Fuji's X-A1 vs. X-M1 presentation that I personally found a bit esoteric. But hey, everybody is entitled to some voodoo. Loudspeaker cables, anyone?

 

The X-Trans "look" is different, though: somewhat cleaner. Some like that, some don't. Can't argue about taste, but if I didn't like it, I'd move on. I also have 3 Foveon cameras (and also several regular Bayer cameras, not to mention exotic SuperCCD and EXR sensor cameras), and they all have their unique sensor qualities and issues. Plenty of choices, even in my personal camera cupboard.

 

Sure, the AA filter / moiré thing will become less important at 24 MP. But Fuji will keep X-Trans even then. A Fujirumors poll for us hardcore forum freaks showed that a clear majority of X users prefers X-Trans over Bayer. I reckon that the "less educated" crowd likes X-Trans even better, as they are more likely to believe the marketing speech in the brochures and on Fuji's website. 

[jlmphotos]

Thank you for some common sense on this most wearisome of topics.

AGREED +1000

I use LR 5.7, I also use Iridient 3.x, Silkypix, and I've used Aperture, C1P.  All in all I like the LR 5.7 processing of Fuji raw files.  So do the stock agencies I sell through, as well as my enlargements made from Fuji files up to 24 x 18"  which is the largest I've made as of recent.  I do plan on going larger soon.

 

Quite frankly, using the LR is so much simpler.  I've got a develop preset setup at import that does all the work for me.  Really simplifies my workflow.  All the raw files get the same exact treatment.  Does this mean I don't adjust the raw?  No by any means.  On some occasions I have to go back and modify my develop settings applied under certain circumstances but overall they just work.

[Maurice]

..

 

Well let's see. Less moire is traded by less true detail and more other artifacts, and less color noise is also traded by less color accuracy and color detail in general. Both of these things i would rather do with my own processing if i wanted to. And the bokeh looking softer, if that is actually a real thing, it would be because the 'random' pixel layout renders less noise with a softer initial result, and since there is no fine detail in bokeh, it stays that way even after extreme sharpening on the rest of the image.

 

Whatever 'look' you feel that xtrans has, i don't think anything about it makes it worthwhile to implement on a hardware level. These things could be achieved with the same effort that it takes to get good results out of xtrans in the first place (none at all in my case and yours), but at least you'd have the choice not to have these effects.

 

I don't know why you keep saying to move on from Fuji. I have said a 100 times now it is a tiny factor, even for the final IQ, and there are much more important things to a camera system.

How difficult is it to understand that i am simply saying that 'i would prefer' the traditional bayer, for reasons as previously mentioned.

Nothing is perfect, especially no camera system, but the Fuji's are as close as it gets for me.

[flysurfer]

Well let's see. Less moire is traded by less detail and more other artifacts, and less color noise is also traded by less color accuracy and color detail in general. 

 

Well, that may be your personal opinion based on your experience and how you perceive reality and the world around you. Fuji, test labs and my eyes usually tell me the opposite, at least concerning the first part of your claim. As for color accuracy and detail, I haven't encountered practical situations where X-Trans would have been a problem. For me. 

 

Here's the point: Your experience may be different than mine, and by all means: if it IS different (and it obviously is, why would you make it up?), why not move on and use one of the countless offerings with more detail, less artifacts, better color accuracy and more color detail?

 

I mean: Isn't IQ the most important aspect of a camera system? Especially for someone who demands more than "usable" and more than "most people" in the IQ department? How can it now be a tiny factor? And if it's just a tiny factor, why are you (and many others, these threads pop up every week for years) complaning about it so passionately? So I guess it isn't that tiny after all.

[flysurfer]

Btw, habe a look at this multitarget comparison I put together: https://www.flickr.com/gp/25805910@N05/R7XtW8

 

It shows the same RAW file processed with 8 different converters with their respective standard settings. As you can see, nothing matches: colors, brightness, tonality, sharpness, noise, dynamic range, moiré, artifacts. It's all different. It's like 8 different cameras.

 

Different converters show different kinds of moiré depending on the color of the Siemens star. So each demosaicing method seems to have problems with a different part of this image. If you want Capture One to win, just process a Siemens star in the color that C1 likes, then tell the world that C1 is great and LR sucks. Rinse and repeat if you favor a different converter.

 

Nothing is standardized, even the brightness of the results varies. So much for ISO. They can't even agree on image size and the number of sensor pixels to process. Some use 16.3 MP, some 16.0. One uses even less.

[Maurice]

I mean: Isn't IQ the most important aspect of a camera system?

 

It's important, provided that system lets you achieve it in a way that you are comfortable with and possibly even inspires to keep going. Hence the choice for Fuji's.

Probably even the other way around since IQ is more like a given on cameras these days, you start to see the value in the actual activity more, or notice tiny details that don't really matter in the final result.

 

As again (101 times now), only referring to pixel level fine detail, the "IQ" in general is not a problem in the slightest with Fuji, its lenses are a huge part of the appeal obviously, and everything else IQ wise such as the dynamic range etc. are great. I have nothing but praise for fuji apart from this one thing, but you can't see it through the rage against somebody that simply doesn't like xtrans. That is all it is, i don't like it. It doesn't mean anyone's pictures will all be bad, it doesn't mean the system is shit, it doesn't mean i don't respect your opinion or anyone else that likes it, and it doesn't make anything into a disaster, it simply means that i would prefer it all without xtrans. I have no other ways to say it.

 

Nevertheless, an admirable attempt at something different. Bayer wasn't all that either in the beginning, who knows what this will turn in to eventually.

 

 

Different converters show different kinds of

 

No, You're kidding !

[Guest kbures]

I agree with Rico that one can get good RAW conversion results with Lightroom, and one can do that quite quickly and easily. The question was asked, "How do you actually do that?", and Rico responded with the right answer: "I depends on the image". But I'll give you my approach as a starter to think about. First let me say that when I compare a Fuji JPEG, and the corresponding RAW images in Lightroom CC and Iridient Developer (the latest trial version), I generally get the results that a lot of others have seen; namely, the JPEG is the best, followed by Iridient and then by LR. The LR image is less clear in the details, to summarize the problem in  a few words. 

 

My procedure for getting good final images in LR is to begin by slightly pre-sharpening the image right after importing, but before I do any other manipulation. That was what I was taught  almost from the beginning of my digital photography.  I think LR gives somewhat soft RAW conversions because it has not yet done any (or at least not much) pre-sharpening. I suspect that the Fuji RAW-to-JPEG in-camera converter and Iridient Developer do more sharpening right at the get-go.

 

I usually start my LR work flow by going to Nik Software's Sharpener Pro 3 (RAW Presharpener). This is part of a collection of Nik image manipulation applications, and is accessible from within LR as a plug-in. More often than not I just use the Nik default values and get an image that is virtually indistinguishable from the JPEG. Sometimes a little LR manipulation is necessary too. The most common is a little vibrance to match the JPEG. After that, one is free to make any "improvements" that might be desired, especially slight changes in  exposure, contrast and color balance. This is probably what Rico meant when he said there was no fixed formula. But, as I said, just the pre-sharpening and a bit of vibrance seems to get me to the quality seen in the JPEG image. The use of slight changes in contrast, color balance and exposure might depend on what style of JPEG you are trying to match (i.e. Velvia, Provia, etc). I haven't experimented with that.

 

I'm not trying to sell Nik software or any other software for that matter. But I am trying to "sell" pre-sharpening. It is entirely possible that the pre-sharpening can be done using LR or Photoshop without extra plug-ins or applications. I remember reading about two years ago that Photoshop's sharpening was now as good as any of the specialist applications. It's just that Nik is what I have and so it has become part of my procedure. If you are going to buy some extra software, you might want to think about what would be the best use of your money. The Nik Software collection comes with a lot of other useful applications, like color-to-B&W conversion, noise reduction, color effects, and also a very good final-step output sharpener. You have to trade that off against the purchase of software that just does RAW conversion, albeit more automatically than LR. You also have to ask how important it is to have a RAW image that looks like a specific Fuji film simulation, as compared to an equally sharp image with pleasing colors that may not be an exact match, but will be an excellent starting-off point for your usual LR work flow. 

[olli]

I agree with Rico that one can get good RAW conversion results with Lightroom...

 

Thank you for this constructive and helpful post!

[hrk]

 

 

I usually start my LR work flow by going to Nik Software's Sharpener Pro 3

Surely by doing that you are converting all your RAWs to TIFF and losing a lot of the benefits or using RAW in the first place?

[flysurfer]

Surely by doing that you are converting all your RAWs to TIFF and losing a lot of the benefits or using RAW in the first place?

 

Yep, that's why I don't use it (I do own Nik of course, and I used it in the early Silkypix days). I could just as well send all my RAWs to Iridient from LR (very simple to do so, as there is a direct 2-way-interface), but this method also returns a TIFF (almost 100 MB, well be even larger with 24 MP).

[marcelo_valente]

I`m no expert in image processing and honestly sometimes I have a really hard time, when looking at comparisons, to see the difference.  Well, we do see the differences  when they are shown to us, but as Rico said before, on a blind test, would there be really that big of a difference?

 

Also, I`m guessing that 99% of the people that will look at our images will not really see the differences we are discussing here. They will most likely evaluate other characteristics of the image.  So, why does it matter so much? I would really like to understand.  Does it matter when you print an add campaign for an outdoor?

 

As for me, I love the jpgs out of the Fuji and even though I shoot jpg+raw, most of the time I do a little fixing on the jpeg in LR and I`m happy about it.  When I do use the raw it`s because I want to try the different film simulations and become happier with another option.  

 

As I said, I`m no expert, and I`m not even so sure my images are that great (would love some feedback).  I would just really like to understand if in the end this is one of those religion type discussions where there will never be a better option, just the one that works best for you.

[x-tc]

 but as Rico said before, on a blind test, would there be really that big of a difference?

 

Hard to tell you what I would see if I was blind folded.     Probably something better than the photo I actually took.

 

But seriously, I am thinking if someone cares enough to spend hundreds of dollars more on premium glass to get just that extra bit of sharpness compared to a less expensive model, then spending a little more money on SW which gives better out of the box results with all of your premium glass may sound like a deal. 

 

 I have tried quite a few suggestions that I have found on the internet. I have yet to produce results in LR after tweaking controls which are as good as with most other convertors produce straight out of the box.  

 

Thus, I am asking for an example to see what I may be doing wrong. It shouldn't have to be this hard, right?   As Rico has said before, he has heard this over and over again. millions of times. So I'm thinking there most be something to this and I am not alone.  Surely worth publishing an e-book...  

translation: common problem --->e-book solution--> $$$$. 

  Looking for side by side example or reference to a RAF file and resulting JPEGs from LR.  I have been looking for a while now online, but no one seems to care enough to provide one and compare the result to other raw convertors.

let me know if you know of a reference or link which gives you as good result out-of the-box as other RAW convertors. Like Irident Developer, Capture One, etc.   

 

Rico did suggest attending his workshop, but attending a $900 workshop (+ expensives) just to see Rico show me his LR technique, seems a bit expensive and time consuming. I'd rather buy an e-book from him focusing on this subject specifically.  Unfortunately, I have not been successful in convince him to write one thus far.      Maybe a video recording from his workshop would suffice, along with reference RAW file and JPEG outputs in comparison to the other RAW convertors.

 

Does this sound like something you would be interested in doing Rico? 

[marcelo_valente]

Hard to tell you what I would see if I was blind folded.     Probably something better than the photo I actually took.

 

 

Hehe, you understood what I meant right?  

 

I don't really care about all this discussion to be honest.  Before, I really was interested in knowing if there was some other software out there that would produce something different or much better.  Then,  I tried one or another, but the workflow was not as easy for me as using LR which I've been using for a while.  And since I really like the jpeg results on my shots and they look good enough for me.  I don't really care anymore.  This is one of those discussions that will go on forever.  I'd rather spend my time shooting and trying to get the best results out of the camera by understanding how it works better than spending hours post production it.  I guess I'm kind of lazy for that.

[x-tc]

I agree. As little tweaking in post would be best.

[pluton]

 I'd rather spend my time shooting and trying to get the best results out of the camera by understanding how it works better than spending hours post production it.  I guess I'm kind of lazy for that.

Many, maybe most, of the famous, big-name documentary photographers of the 20th century arranged for someone else to do the darkroom work as soon as they could, career-wise.   You are not alone.

[flysurfer]

My workshops cost 199 EUR for 2 days with an exclusive 4 delegates. Probably a bit too cheap, but that way usually sell out quickly. You can of course give me 900 dollars, though. A generous tip is always appreciated!  

[flysurfer]

 

 

Does this sound like something you would be interested in doing Rico? 

 

I have actually been doing it for free in other forums and in blogs. Too much charity, I know. There is no special technique, either. LR has 4 sliders, so find a combination that gives you the sharpness/detail you want. We usually find combos that match the detail from the built-in converter or Iridient (with Iridient Reveal). Which are pretty different, btw, as the camera appears to use a pretty large radius with most film simulations.

 

I don't know what continent you are from, but you probably know that I'm doing a one-time weekend workshop in Santa Barbara in July? The date is in my XPC blog articles. Usually, day 2 is open to process some problematic RAWs provided by the delegates, so we can experience how different converters are dealing with the issues. It's like Forrest Gump, you never know what you are gonna get. I can also offer 1:1 training, just did that with a very well-prepared X30 user, so it was quite enjoyable for both of us (and the model, too). This person actually also expressed interest in a 1:1 Lightroom workshop after I'm back from the U.S., so maybe there's a way to put something together for 2 or more delegates her in Nuremberg.

 

Sadly, I'm a bit swamped these days, I shot 2k images on a wedding with an X-T10 yesterday, burning through 3.5 batteries. Tomorrow, there's a Fuji X Forum meet in Berlin, where I'm showing the X-T10 and the XF90mm, after that the new AF brochure for firmware 4, then a regular weekend workshop and right after that another special workshop that isn't listed on my webpage.

[x-tc]

My workshops cost 199 EUR for 2 days with an exclusive 4 delegates. Probably a bit too cheap, but that way usually sell out quickly. You can of course give me 900 dollars, though. A generous tip is always appreciated!

 

Well you got to make enough to feed your family. So every extra bit helps.

 

Not sure where I saw the $900 figure. Maybe Istanbul ? Don't know. Sorry I goofed up the price.

 

Can't convince you to post a link or pm me to places on the internet you have helped on blogs as stated above? Would appreciate it.

[flysurfer]

Well you got to make enough to feed your family.

 

That would be nice, but impossible in this case. My only chance is to die before I run out of money. Maybe if Fuji sold 10 times as many cameras, it would work out, but that's long stretch. In reality, the camera market is shrinking, so let's not kid ourselves. It's a small niche, but it's fun as long as it lasts. So let's enjoy the ride.

[flysurfer]

Can't convince you to post a link or pm me to places on the internet you have helped on blogs as stated above? Would appreciate it.

 

There are 4 English and one German Fuji X forums, also the German DSLR forum with a large Fuji community. That's where I remember seeing and sometimes participating in posts about how terrible Lightroom is with X-Trans, so there's a good chance someone posted samples that were processed, maybe even by me. We already mentioned my shootout in XPC last year (or was it 2013?). Time runs fast in the X universe.

[marcelo_valente]

 LR has 4 sliders, so find a combination that gives you the sharpness/detail you want. We usually find combos that match the detail from the built-in converter or Iridient (with Iridient Reveal). 

 

Rico, I have a quick question.  Are all the presets that work in Lightroom a combination of the slider setting, meaning that if I mess around long enough, I'd be able to replicate one of those vsco presets that cost (for me) a fortune?

 

Also, any change you might come to Brazil for a workshop?  I'd go, hehe.

[flysurfer]

Of course, what else can presets do other than change the sliders and use the tools? It's not magical, as there aren't hidden/secret functions that only preset makers can access. Presets are just a way to move or use sliders / curves / tools more quickly. They are time savers. They can also be good teachers.

 

No Brazil, but there may be a 1 week workshop in Bangkok in November 2016. A German one and one for English-speaking delegates.