Clicky

Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Watercolour??


  • Please log in to reply
54 replies to this topic

#1 Torturro

Torturro

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 51 posts

Posted 03 January 2017 - 11:33 PM

Advertisement (Gone after free registration)

How do you like it? I dont.... :(

1.jpg is a JPG from RAW with a little bit of clarity filter - CameraRaw Adobe.

2JPG is a sooc jpg with zero in camera sharpening.

Attached Files

  • Attached File  1.jpg   229.48KB   69 downloads
  • Attached File  2JPG.jpg   186.28KB   70 downloads


#2 karinatwork

karinatwork

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 13 posts
  • LocationBritish Columbia, Canada

Posted 05 January 2017 - 06:24 PM

That's better than before, but still pretty bad. Disappointing. 



#3 voodooless

voodooless

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 68 posts
  • LocationNetherlands

Posted 05 January 2017 - 06:48 PM

What were all the settings? Could you share the RAW so we can all have a go?


Do diamonds shine on the dark side of the moon?


#4 Patrick FR

Patrick FR

    Advanced Member

  • Administrators
  • 792 posts
  • LocationTOP SECRET

Posted 06 January 2017 - 04:19 AM

Try Irdient, now also for PC: http://www.aevanspho...ansformer-beta/



#5 Torturro

Torturro

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 51 posts

Posted 06 January 2017 - 05:00 PM

What were all the settings? Could you share the RAW so we can all have a go?

 

As I said - 1st one is JPG from RAW with clarity added - which makes things worse - because - the pattern - instead of leaves - is already there - as you can see from no 2 - which is JPG sooc with no in camera sharpening (minus max setting). Dont know how to post full raw. All these pics are at 100%. Very disappointing - as the C.RAW is new, the latest, also - as I see it - using different raw processor wouldnt help - because these awfull patterns are there - as you can see on sooc JPG, or hopefully Im wrong. The thing is - I bought this camera for travel - now Im going through thousends of files to process... will I have to do this again? To me - it looks horrible. Ok - skin tones, overall camera handling etc etc - but these examples would be a dealbreaker for me - if I knew.


Edited by Torturro, 06 January 2017 - 05:03 PM.


#6 karinatwork

karinatwork

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 13 posts
  • LocationBritish Columbia, Canada

Posted 06 January 2017 - 06:05 PM

Try the Iridient. I downloaded it yesterday afternoon just for kicks, and gave it a whirl. It's not much fuss, because you can edit the image from LR via the external editor, and then just overwrite your TIF file inside LR. The difference is quite astonishing. I'd be curious to see how the image would look processed through Iridient. 



#7 voodooless

voodooless

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 68 posts
  • LocationNetherlands

Posted 06 January 2017 - 06:08 PM

So you did not tweak the noise and sharpening settings? The defaults are not very optimal and have a huge influence on these kinds of images. Yes Iridient will do better, but Lightroom can do better as well.

There are a number of free file uploading services.. try one and give us the link.

Edited by voodooless, 06 January 2017 - 06:10 PM.

Do diamonds shine on the dark side of the moon?


#8 Torturro

Torturro

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 51 posts

Posted 06 January 2017 - 06:17 PM

Now - the worsc case I came across: again - jpg sooc and Raw processed with C.RAW + clarity + 3 and sharpness + 5 (so not too high!)

Attached Files



#9 rafikiphoto

rafikiphoto

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 30 posts

Posted 06 January 2017 - 06:44 PM

Try Irdient, now also for PC: http://www.aevanspho...ansformer-beta/

 

Wow this is a huge advance for Windows users! I just processed some X-T1 'watercolour' files with the Iridient X demo conversion within Capture One 10 and Iridient is amazing! So much more definition in the tree canopy.



#10 Jake Hall

Jake Hall

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 22 posts

Posted 06 January 2017 - 06:49 PM

Disappointing, it looks awful. I have (and love) the x-t1 and use it mainly for landscape/wildlife shots- not for its technical prowess- but for how fun it is to use. Its biggest downside for me was the watercolour effect. After seeing this i'm not sure I want to move from x-t1 to t2, especially when a used d810 is comparable in price. I really dislike the watercolour effect and its such a shame that it shows up in (and ruins) so many shots :( 



#11 mdm

mdm

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 343 posts

Posted 06 January 2017 - 07:56 PM

Have never seen this effect on any of my images. Below is a handheld shot I made in a rather gloomy day. Don't know whether it's good or bad but it definitely free of "watercolour".

 

Attached File  DSCF2303_s.JPG   405.76KB   25 downloads

 

untouched sooc jpeg is here - https://drive.google...TGtZUGRsbExyMHM

 

Have a brief look through this type of my shots and they are more or less the same.

 



#12 Immanuel

Immanuel

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 39 posts

Posted 06 January 2017 - 08:07 PM

Isn't watercolour vegetation mostly related to vegetation being out of focus and/or motion blur from a low shutter speed and/or wind? I don't shoot much green vegetation, but I don't recall having been bothered by the "phenomena" after a total of 30,000+ pictures with my X-100T, X-E2 and X-Pro1 (the later has not seen much use).



#13 Torturro

Torturro

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 51 posts

Posted 06 January 2017 - 11:48 PM

Isn't watercolour vegetation mostly related to vegetation being out of focus and/or motion blur from a low shutter speed and/or wind? I don't shoot much green vegetation, but I don't recall having been bothered by the "phenomena" after a total of 30,000+ pictures with my X-100T, X-E2 and X-Pro1 (the later has not seen much use).

 

Obviously not - as you can see it happening beside parts of picture that are rendered differently - and being in focus. It happenes mostly to some green patterns = but not only green).

Also - it might be obvious to people doing lots of postprocessing - meaning close attention to details and results.



#14 Torturro

Torturro

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 51 posts

Posted 06 January 2017 - 11:49 PM

Have never seen this effect on any of my images. Below is a handheld shot I made in a rather gloomy day. Don't know whether it's good or bad but it definitely free of "watercolour".

 

attachicon.gifDSCF2303_s.JPG

 

untouched sooc jpeg is here - https://drive.google...TGtZUGRsbExyMHM

 

Have a brief look through this type of my shots and they are more or less the same.

Look: not very obvious and not dissappointing - but its there:

Attached Files



#15 Torturro

Torturro

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 51 posts

Posted 06 January 2017 - 11:50 PM

to above cropped picture - try to compare the green part - which is pointed with arrow - with some leaves that are in the same plane - bit to right and bit to left - those two are ok - the one im pointing to - is not.



#16 Dmstraton

Dmstraton

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 1 posts

Posted 07 January 2017 - 01:20 AM

In the past, I've gotten this with all my X cameras. For Lightroom CC it is now basically fixed but still not as good as Iridient, PhotoNinja or Capture One. However, if I the raw into Photoshop/Camera Raw with no sharpening and use Smart Sharpen I can get really good results. Still not as clear as Iridient, etc. at a pixel level, but close.

Lightroom sharpening doesn't agree well with Fuji - but the unsharpened raws are now much much better in general and can be manipulated very well.

#17 graflex

graflex

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 27 posts

Posted 07 January 2017 - 04:59 AM

This problem is rooted in demosaicing the X-Trans color filter array. It is not a sharpening problem -- sharpening exposes and exacerbates the problem. Adobe has improved their handling of the X-Trans CFA but alternative raw converters do a better job of extracting fine detail from X-Trans raw files and avoiding the "watercolor effect." Iridient, Photo Ninja, SilkyPix, Capture One, Raw Therapee, ACDSee all do a better job demosaicing X-Trans. However that doesn't mean they do a better job processing X-Trans overall. There is no clearly best choice. You can get reasonable results from Adobe with careful handling. If maximum fine detail with no "watercolor appearance" is most important to you, you will avoid Adobe for the demosiacing task.

 

If you want to make a raw file available for others to see and work with use Dropbox (free account). Here for example is a link to an X-Trans II RAF file that exhibits the problem: https://www.dropbox....CF3971.RAF?dl=0


Edited by graflex, 07 January 2017 - 05:21 AM.

  • Antonius likes this

#18 mdm

mdm

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 343 posts

Posted 07 January 2017 - 08:44 AM

to above cropped picture - try to compare the green part - which is pointed with arrow - with some leaves that are in the same plane - bit to right and bit to left - those two are ok - the one im pointing to - is not.

 

Ok, I see what you mean. But your should know what to search for to find that small non uniform area I'd never payed attention to. You could be doing really big prints to suffer from the issue.



#19 Torturro

Torturro

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 51 posts

Posted 07 January 2017 - 06:28 PM

Ok, I see what you mean. But your should know what to search for to find that small non uniform area I'd never payed attention to. You could be doing really big prints to suffer from the issue.

 

unless - you come across - randomly - a case like mine from my post no 8: in this case No single program - even the one from fuji - was better than sooc jpg :(



#20 graflex

graflex

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 27 posts

Posted 07 January 2017 - 06:52 PM

unless - you come across - randomly - a case like mine from my post no 8: in this case No single program - even the one from fuji - was better than sooc jpg :(

 

Put the raw file from post #8 on Dropbox and post the link here.


Edited by graflex, 07 January 2017 - 06:52 PM.