Clicky

Jump to content


Photo

Sharpening in LR5 vs LR6


  • Please log in to reply
19 replies to this topic

#1 Saibot

Saibot

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 26 posts

Posted 16 February 2017 - 04:21 AM

Advertisement (Gone after free registration)

I recently upgraded my LR version from 5 to 6 (6.8 and CR 9.8) and noticed that my sharpening looks awful. I added presets from here that drive the detail slider to 100%:

https://www.lightwit...x-trans-sensor/

 

Has anyone noticed this as well? Still using my X-E2 and shooting RAW like always, but just about any sharpening starts to look like a mosaic at 100% zoom.

 

Any tips?



#2 Torturro

Torturro

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 51 posts

Posted 16 February 2017 - 09:29 PM

My tip would be - stop using Adobe... Thay cannot provide good tools for Fuji users.



#3 berryp

berryp

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 3 posts

Posted 17 February 2017 - 03:34 PM

My tip would be - stop using Adobe... Thay cannot provide good tools for Fuji users.

Torturro, what good alternatives would you suggest, or have had good experiences with?

Edited by berryp, 17 February 2017 - 03:38 PM.


#4 jlmphotos

jlmphotos

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 347 posts
  • LocationNew Jersey

Posted 17 February 2017 - 03:49 PM

My tip would be - stop using Adobe... Thay cannot provide good tools for Fuji users.

 

You guys really need to stop saying sh*t like that. It's not useful or helpful to ANYONE. At all.   LR works just fine.  It's a matter of what sharpening to use.  I've been a LR user since BETA 1.0.  And have been using it with my Fuji files since 2013.  Also, I've used LR going back to 2007 on my Fujifilm S1, and S2 Pro dSLR bodies shooting RAF files as well.

 

Please provide some constructive help.  Like:  Hey fella, go check out Pete Bridgewoods blog.  He has an outstanding post on sharpening raf files there that took my stock images from an abysmal acceptance rate of around 86% when I stopped using my Nikons, and switched to Fuji,  up to 98% of images submitted--All Fuji.  As a matter of fact, here are TWO links from his website on sharpening raw files:  Go here, for X-T2 and X-Pro2 files.    And go to this blog post for the X-T1 and X-Pro1 raw files.

 

Hope this helps. 


Edited by jlmphotos, 17 February 2017 - 03:57 PM.

  • Bazza G, Mike G, DirkB17 and 1 other like this

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 60 2.4 Macro | Fuji 55-200  |

My websitexshooters blog  |  Flickr Feed  | 


#5 jlmphotos

jlmphotos

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 347 posts
  • LocationNew Jersey

Posted 17 February 2017 - 03:50 PM

Torturro, what good alternatives would you suggest, or have had good experiences with?

See my other post here regarding this topic.


Edited by jlmphotos, 17 February 2017 - 03:58 PM.

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 60 2.4 Macro | Fuji 55-200  |

My websitexshooters blog  |  Flickr Feed  | 


#6 berryp

berryp

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 3 posts

Posted 17 February 2017 - 04:47 PM

See my other post here regarding this topic.

Thanks for the information and links.

 

I've been asking myself these questions a lot recently but in all the research I have done I have to conclude that this topic is entirely subjective and there is no one definitive answer. Whilst one tool may produce sharper images, another may produce better colours. The best tool isn't the one that creates the sharpest images or best colour depth, it's the one that helps you produce the best, or most pleasing, images and makes you the most productive. Each tool can compensate for it's deficiencies through some (minor?) manual control.


Edited by berryp, 17 February 2017 - 05:11 PM.


#7 Torturro

Torturro

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 51 posts

Posted 17 February 2017 - 07:48 PM

Torturro, what good alternatives would you suggest, or have had good experiences with?

 

I just experimented with Irident And ON1, jus because I was terrified of some results that Adobe CRaw gave me. Im in the middle of raw developing of 4k pictures. Im so tired of looking at worms and watercolours....

For Mac users - Id reccomend taking a close look at ON1 and for Windows - ad Irident x transformer (producing dng files) + using LR/PS as usuall.

 

Also - both those platforms are not problems free - I must say - I find PShop Built in CameraRaw workflow very easy and efficient. 

Also - still no Fuji Colour Profiles in ON1 - but i hear some rumours they will add some in 2017.



#8 Torturro

Torturro

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 51 posts

Posted 17 February 2017 - 07:58 PM

You guys really need to stop saying sh*t like that. It's not useful or helpful to ANYONE. At all.   

I cant agree. I was so addicted to Adobe CRaw - tahat I didnt see other options. In fact I stopped looking for them long time ago - at the time I was xt1 user.

Now - very, very dissappointed with xt2 results I've seen at SOME of my pictures - I decided - No Adobe! Lets look at other options now.

 

Im saying - that just by stating something like: one tool is not satisfactory for me: was very usefull for myself.

Also - I heve not spoke about Lightroom raw developing tools if there are some(?). I always refere to CameraRaw - latest version. 


Edited by Torturro, 17 February 2017 - 08:04 PM.


#9 jlmphotos

jlmphotos

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 347 posts
  • LocationNew Jersey

Posted 17 February 2017 - 08:00 PM

Thanks for the information and links.

 

I've been asking myself these questions a lot recently but in all the research I have done I have to conclude that this topic is entirely subjective and there is no one definitive answer. Whilst one tool may produce sharper images, another may produce better colours. The best tool isn't the one that creates the sharpest images or best colour depth, it's the one that helps you produce the best, or most pleasing, images and makes you the most productive. Each tool can compensate for it's deficiencies through some (minor?) manual control.

 

For productivity:  Lightroom.  Sorry.  Hate to beat a dead horse as the saying goes, but LR is, iMHO one of the better tools for image management, and processing.  When I go on the road, I could come back with 3-5,000 images.   My southwest stop trip which took a long time I came back with almost 11,000 raw and jpeg images.  And LR, if you know how to cull effectively, is one of the better tools out there.  If ultimate speed is your thing, the photo mechanic would be the way to go.  Except, it's not a management/catalog/library program -- If I used it, I would still catalog, keyword, etc in LR anyway.


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 60 2.4 Macro | Fuji 55-200  |

My websitexshooters blog  |  Flickr Feed  | 


#10 berryp

berryp

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 3 posts

Posted 17 February 2017 - 08:18 PM

I've been mostly happy with lightroom for those exact reasons, and development is very intuitive to me. My main complaint has been performance. But, I guess that's just a trade-off. It's good talking to others to help settle your questions. I'll personally be sticking with Lightroom.

#11 Saibot

Saibot

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 26 posts

Posted 18 February 2017 - 11:54 PM

Thanks, all for the feedback! I have to agree, LR does allow me to get a ton done quickly, but since I'm not shooting Canon/Nikon, the quality just isn't there, and it seems that it's getting worse if my sharpening issues are an indicator. 

I pulled down a trial of Capture One and it has promise. The image quality is noticeably better, but I'm not sure the workflow is as efficient as LR. It's probably too soon to say, I'm still learning it.

 

Appreciate the help!



#12 EddieX

EddieX

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 75 posts

Posted 19 February 2017 - 06:08 AM

Have you tried Iridient X-Transformer for Windows? It's like night and day. You really don't need to do anymore sharpening and you can use LR for everything else.
  • tsims10s likes this

2x X-T2/VPB | X-T1 | 16 ƒ1.4 | 35 ƒ1.4 | 90 ƒ2 | 18-55 ƒ2.8-4 | XF 16-55mm ƒ2.8 | XF 50-140 ƒ2.8 | RRS |

want:  56mm ƒ1.2


#13 Saibot

Saibot

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 26 posts

Posted 01 March 2017 - 01:11 AM

Just thought I'd pass along one other thing I've noticed. I opened LR5 up since it was still on my computer and has (had) the same catalog and viewed the same photos in LR5 and LR6 at the same time. LR6's sharpening (at least for Fuji RAW files) is much, much worse than LR5. So it looks as if Adobe made some change along the way that is horrific. 

 

Do I call Adobe? Or is that wasted effort?

Sigh...



#14 jlmphotos

jlmphotos

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 347 posts
  • LocationNew Jersey

Posted 01 March 2017 - 03:23 PM

Thanks for the information and links.

 

I've been asking myself these questions a lot recently but in all the research I have done I have to conclude that this topic is entirely subjective and there is no one definitive answer. Whilst one tool may produce sharper images, another may produce better colours. The best tool isn't the one that creates the sharpest images or best colour depth, it's the one that helps you produce the best, or most pleasing, images and makes you the most productive. Each tool can compensate for it's deficiencies through some (minor?) manual control.

 

Subjective:  Yes.  But also objective as my images are stock images and are being sold worldwide.   I can't afford to be subjective.


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 60 2.4 Macro | Fuji 55-200  |

My websitexshooters blog  |  Flickr Feed  | 


#15 tsims10s

tsims10s

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 3 posts

Posted 02 March 2017 - 09:12 PM

The petebridgwood articles on sharpening are out of date at this point. I'm convinced that updates to LR have rendered the recommendations to crank the detail slider to be poor advice. It might have been relevant and helpful a year or two ago, but it doesn't work that way now. I wasted two months following those guidelines after I bought my X-T2 because that was all that I could find as far as recommendations on sharpening in LR, his page shows up in many threads. Like I said, it might have been a great solution before, but LR updates have changed that.

 

I'm favoring the Iridient X-Transformer solution using recommendations found here http://www.lightofis...January-31-2017. I actually have adjusted those recommendations where I use "smoother" instead of "more detailed" in Iridient X-Transformer, and I use a lower amount of sharpening and detail once I'm in Lightroom.


  • Saibot and BlueVespa like this

#16 throwfirewoodatfuji

throwfirewoodatfuji

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 3 posts
  • LocationJohannesburg, South Africa

Posted 12 March 2017 - 01:36 PM

Iridient X Transformer with a Watched Folder workflow in LR. Very best of both worlds.



#17 adzman808

adzman808

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 296 posts

Posted 12 March 2017 - 04:30 PM

My €0.02:

Any advice that amounts too "set your sharpening to xyz for all of your images" is just plain wrong

Sharpening is about what's in the shot, and even what lens you used, none of the Fuji glass is blunt, but (for example) the 18mm can take more sharpening than some of the other lenses, because it's a bit softer as standard

Cheers, Adam
My Website, home of the largest X-Pro series opinion piece on the 'net:
http://adambonn.com/


#18 jlmphotos

jlmphotos

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 347 posts
  • LocationNew Jersey

Posted 13 March 2017 - 02:53 PM

The petebridgwood articles on sharpening are out of date at this point. I'm convinced that updates to LR have rendered the recommendations to crank the detail slider to be poor advice. It might have been relevant and helpful a year or two ago, but it doesn't work that way now. I wasted two months following those guidelines after I bought my X-T2 because that was all that I could find as far as recommendations on sharpening in LR, his page shows up in many threads. Like I said, it might have been a great solution before, but LR updates have changed that.

 

I'm favoring the Iridient X-Transformer solution using recommendations found here http://www.lightofis...January-31-2017. I actually have adjusted those recommendations where I use "smoother" instead of "more detailed" in Iridient X-Transformer, and I use a lower amount of sharpening and detail once I'm in Lightroom.

 

I don't think they (PBs sharpening settings) are out of date at all.  What's out of date? How?  That's silly.  It's still the same cameras:  X-T1 and X-T2.  I'm a busy semi-pro, I don't have the time to diddle with Capture one or any thing else at this point in time.  My goal is to shoot, edit, distribute and sell images.  Period.  Not play with software.  I find C1 to be to difficult to use - but to give it it's fair shake I only gave it a week or so before I had to get back to work. 


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 60 2.4 Macro | Fuji 55-200  |

My websitexshooters blog  |  Flickr Feed  | 


#19 Saibot

Saibot

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 26 posts

Posted 13 March 2017 - 05:09 PM

I don't think they (PBs sharpening settings) are out of date at all.  What's out of date? How?  That's silly.  It's still the same cameras:  X-T1 and X-T2.  I'm a busy semi-pro, I don't have the time to diddle with Capture one or any thing else at this point in time.  My goal is to shoot, edit, distribute and sell images.  Period.  Not play with software.  I find C1 to be to difficult to use - but to give it it's fair shake I only gave it a week or so before I had to get back to work. 

Actually, not silly at all since LR is not static. That was the entire reason for this post, I've found that over time, the sharpening in LR has not only become awful, but causing otherwise good images to look worse because of the tool.

I do not consider myself a pixel peeper at all, but noticing the strange texture in my portraits has sent me down this path. 

I have noticed that if the portrait is very highly lit with a low ISO, LR's sharpening and PB's settings work well. At higher ISO's, things fall off quickly. If there is noise or grain, it squirts artifacts all over the image to the point of taking away from the image.

Moving from LR to Capture One is not a trivial task. I spent 1-2 hours a day learning the tool and verifying what it can/can't do over the last month. LR wins on a lot of fronts, but when it comes down to pure picture quality, Capture One wins by a very large margin. Enough so where I'm willing to go through the pain of switching and having a less efficient workflow. For me, the image quality takes precedence. 



#20 adzman808

adzman808

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 296 posts

Posted 13 March 2017 - 09:50 PM

The sharpening algorithm in LR is not fixed, it's based on the camera, so (for example) adding an amount of '25' will yield different results on different files from different cameras
  • tsims10s likes this

Cheers, Adam
My Website, home of the largest X-Pro series opinion piece on the 'net:
http://adambonn.com/



 
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