Clicky

Jump to content


Photo

Lightroom for x-trans... seriously?


  • Please log in to reply
34 replies to this topic

#1 akphoto

akphoto

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 13 posts
  • LocationNetherlands

Posted 01 May 2017 - 01:09 PM

Advertisement (Gone after free registration)

I just bought an X-T2 after using an X-E2 for some years. When editing my RAF files from my X-e2 I used Capture One because in Lightroom I always see the "watercolor" effect when an image contains foliage.

 

Now I hoped that the new sensor from the X-T2 was a better combination with Lightroom and foliage. But after importing one RAF file (with foliage in the picture) from my X-T2 in Lightroom and in Capture One I know this is not the case.

 

See my screenshot comparing Lightroom (left) versus capture One (right):

 

https://www.dropbox..../lr-c1.jpg?dl=0

 

I really don't understand how people can choose Lightroom to edit their RAF files. This watercolor effect is not only in foliage but it can be visible in other structures too.

 

It can't be that this is only happening on my computer, in my Lightroom, with files from my camera... right?!

 

 

 


  • Alexander Mosquera likes this

#2 Chucktin

Chucktin

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 123 posts

Posted 01 May 2017 - 02:02 PM

Apparently some posters are complaining about this "watercolor" effect while others are not.
It might help all of us if the OS and the version of PS or LR and Capture One being employed in the conversion.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk

#3 akphoto

akphoto

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 13 posts
  • LocationNetherlands

Posted 01 May 2017 - 02:08 PM

Latest version of LR and latest version of C!. On Windows 10.



#4 Adam Woodhouse

Adam Woodhouse

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 349 posts
  • LocationOntario, Canada

Posted 01 May 2017 - 03:50 PM

Would different sharpening settings in LR result in LR looking closer to Capture One?


  • cweath likes this

TWO Fujifilm X-T2's
16mm/1.4 | 35mm/1.4 | 10-24mm/4 | 16-55mm/2.8 | 50-140/2.8

Rokinon 8mm/2.8

Flashes: Fujifilm EF-X500, iNissin i40 and two Yongnou 565's

Classic Lens Adapters: M42, Canon FD, Nikon and Minolta MD

 

Adam Woodhouse, Wedding Photographer
Ontario, Canada
http://www.adamwoodhouse.info
Twitter: @woodhousephoto


#5 Larry Bolch

Larry Bolch

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 177 posts
  • LocationEdmonton, Alberta Canada

Posted 01 May 2017 - 04:55 PM

Sigh...

 

The ever recurring thread. It will go on endlessly between those who view images on a pixel level vs those who view images normally. The pixel peepers will become personal and abusive and the photographers will respond in kind. Pixel peepers will fight among themselves over alternate software, each promoting their favourite, with contempt for the others who don't see the difference.

 

As the thread finally winds down, someone else will blame Lightwave for waxy skin and it will begin all over again.

 

<sigh>"Sigh"</sigh>


  • Adam Woodhouse, jlmphotos, PoulWerner and 4 others like this

#6 akphoto

akphoto

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 13 posts
  • LocationNetherlands

Posted 01 May 2017 - 05:32 PM

I don't consider myself a pixel peeper at all... I am a professional photographer, working with Canon 5D camera's, and also using a Fuji X-T2 recently.

 

I have used Fuji camera's before, but only for my vacations and free work projects. For that purpose I was happy with the results I get out of LR. But now I want to use Fuji also for some professional work, and then I am going to look more critical at the raw processing and the results.

 

Now last week I have sent some images to a client of mine, taken with the T2 and edited in LR. Pictures from a building in a green park (so with a lot of foliage surrounding the building). And then my client complained about the strange way the foliage looked to him... And I can only say that his complaint was right!

 

The way LR renders the RAF files is just not good enough for professional use.

 

So this is not about pixel peeping but about making money with photography and keeping clients happy, take them seriously by providing them with pictures with the highest possible IQ!


  • RadBadTad, wojconner, CHAPS and 1 other like this

#7 sebas1430

sebas1430

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 77 posts
  • LocationBoucherville, Quebec, Canada

Posted 02 May 2017 - 04:27 AM

There are many threads for this. I will resume the easiest solution (I personally use it). Buy X-Transformer for Windows from Iridient, it's really cheap and it doesn't change the workflow that much.

1) convert your RAF with this tool
2) import the DNG results into Lightroom
3) work with Lightroom as usual (apply film simulation if you want)

Some subject/pattern are less affected by this pattern so I don't use the tool for all images.

The tool can be also used as a Lightroom external editor. In that case, you import your RAF, and you convert from Lightroom, it's even easier but requires minor configuration.
  • PoulWerner, goiko5551, Randy Pollock and 3 others like this

X-T2 | 18-55 | 55-200 | 35 f2 | Rokinon 12 f2

Vintages lenses: Canon FDn 50 f1.4 | Canon FD 300 f4

flickr.com/photos/sgirard | sgirard.net


#8 XMike

XMike

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 3 posts

Posted 02 May 2017 - 02:46 PM

Hi to all. I've resolved my problems with these settings. Maybe this can be helpful for you (the screenshot is from Adobe Camera Raw and italian but it's easy to go in LR with it).

 

http://www.michelebe...arpen-an-image/

 

Let me know and thanks again for your time.


  • Hemingway and Paddy1 like this

#9 Adam Woodhouse

Adam Woodhouse

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 349 posts
  • LocationOntario, Canada

Posted 03 May 2017 - 03:30 PM

I don't consider myself a pixel peeper at all... I am a professional photographer, working with Canon 5D camera's, and also using a Fuji X-T2 recently.

 

I have used Fuji camera's before, but only for my vacations and free work projects. For that purpose I was happy with the results I get out of LR. But now I want to use Fuji also for some professional work, and then I am going to look more critical at the raw processing and the results.

 

Now last week I have sent some images to a client of mine, taken with the T2 and edited in LR. Pictures from a building in a green park (so with a lot of foliage surrounding the building). And then my client complained about the strange way the foliage looked to him... And I can only say that his complaint was right!

 

The way LR renders the RAF files is just not good enough for professional use.

 

So this is not about pixel peeping but about making money with photography and keeping clients happy, take them seriously by providing them with pictures with the highest possible IQ!

 

Can you share RAF file for some of us to test with different sharpening setting in LR to see if what you experienced can be resolved or if LR simply cannot render the green details properly?  I would give it a shot and compare it to X-Transformer to see what happens.


Edited by Adam Woodhouse, 03 May 2017 - 03:31 PM.

TWO Fujifilm X-T2's
16mm/1.4 | 35mm/1.4 | 10-24mm/4 | 16-55mm/2.8 | 50-140/2.8

Rokinon 8mm/2.8

Flashes: Fujifilm EF-X500, iNissin i40 and two Yongnou 565's

Classic Lens Adapters: M42, Canon FD, Nikon and Minolta MD

 

Adam Woodhouse, Wedding Photographer
Ontario, Canada
http://www.adamwoodhouse.info
Twitter: @woodhousephoto


#10 Alan7140

Alan7140

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10 posts

Posted 06 May 2017 - 03:29 AM

Taking this right back to the beginning perhaps explains the problem best.

 

I got my X-Pro1 in late June 2012, probably from the second or third batch into Australia. Adobe came out with their ACR support for RAF soon afterwards, but my first few weeks were spent shooting OOC jpeg while familiarising myself with the camera. Once I started to process raw files with ACR I noticed that things weren't the best, but compared to SilkyPix (I use Windows, they were the only two RAF processors available at the time) there was not much difference, although SP seemed a bit softer and ACR more contrasty.

 

Then Corel got on the RAF train (September 2012) with their process in PaintShop Pro X5, and while worse overall, it probably best reveals why both early SilkyPix and ACR acted like they did. Below are two 100% sections  of a photo I took at the time deliberately to highlight with vegetation and high contrast edge rendition I'd been noticing with ACR (and to a lesser degree with SilkyPix), and which many later called the "zipper effect".

 

The first is ACR, the second is Corel PSP X5. (Again, these are the first 2012 versions of RAF processing, not the current versions):

 

dgc04WW.jpg

 

rSOgKLl.jpg

 

The Corel version perhaps shows the problem that Adobe etc with Fuji files, and the original dcraw showed a similar result to the PSP X5 version - spurious coloured pixels appearing along high contrast edges (note the lines between grille and white paint on the car and around the number plate, and the choppy edges of the geometric grille pattern against white plain detail; in fact anywhere there is a high contrast edge. If you compare the top edge of the door mirror you can just see the slight waviness in the edge of the Adobe version corresponding to where the rows of spurious pixels occur in the X5 version, again probably confirming default filter application designed to smooth edges.

 

My guess was (and still is) that both SilkyPix and Adobe tackled this with a default addition of noise reduction (more heavily so in Adobe's case), and compensated for the NR's softening of detail and loss of colour by adding a hefty dose of saturation and sharpening. The spreading of colour in the two sticks embedded in the ground further attests to the likelihood of NR having been applied - the green/yellow colour of the grass spreading has nearly killed the brown in the highlights.

 

As mentioned, I tried dcraw in command line form when Mac forums started mentioning it as being the basis for RPP & Iridient, and it gave a similar result to Corel's demosaic, but Dave Coffin then responded quickly to criticism and changed his demosaic algorithm to give the clean, sharp rendition that is with us today as the basis of programs such as Photo Ninja, Iridient, RPP, LightZone, Photivo, Helicon Filter, etc etc. Corel took a lot longer to respond, and still hasn't quite got there with Aftershot Pro.

 

Adobe (and probably SilkyPix) on the other hand, seem to have stuck with their original algorithm and simply refined the degree of default NR, saturation and sharpening applied to reduce the outline and spreading effect of the original. This would probably also explain why Adobe ACR/LR/DNG files in particular can react so nervously to post sharpening, sharpening apparently already having been applied by default during the demosaic.

 

Until someone from any of the companies mentioned actually comes out and publicly states that this is not the case (and they haven't in five years), then I'm inclined to stick with the above explanation.

 

As such ACR/LR/DNG is basically flawed in my book, and while many might think their results are good enough, my personal quality standards (and those of many others) won't permit me to use ACR for any commercial job. One never knows how the final image may be used, at what size and with what enhancements, and as such it is the professional's duty to provide the best possible image to the client, not one that may - or may not - be "good enough". Iridient's X-Transformer is definitely a viable demosaic alternative to those who feel welded to Adobe and the ease of ACR/LR, just be sure to properly tune the base settings (to their credit Iridient do listen and have already changed the defaults at least once).


  • justandyphoto, tsims10s, David Eagle and 1 other like this

#11 kyoleung

kyoleung

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 31 posts

Posted 06 May 2017 - 07:26 AM

Thanks for the in-depth explanation of the root cause.  Alan, you are really a PRO !

 

Op, could you share the RAF, and let us experiment ?


Edited by kyoleung, 06 May 2017 - 07:34 AM.


#12 akphoto

akphoto

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 13 posts
  • LocationNetherlands

Posted 06 May 2017 - 10:33 AM

Thank you Alan7140 for your great in-depth story!

 

I myself have done some experiments with X-transformer and Capture One. I will share my settings here (RAF files from the X-T2).

 

 

X-Transformer:

 

RAW Process: Smoother
Sharpening: Medium

Everything else on Default

 

I think when RAW Process is set at More Detailed the files from the X-T2 are a little bit over-sharped.

 

The same for the Sharpening settings: I think the Default setting is in between the Medium and the High settings. The Default and the High settings are also a little bit over-sharped for my taste. So I choose the Medium setting here.

 

 

Capture One (10.1):

 

After I import the DNG files created by the X-Transformer I change the Sharpening settings a little bit: the Amount is 140 by default which is to much for my taste and I change it in something between 50 and 100.

 

That's all I do when I edit a DNG/X-Transformer file in Capture One (regarding sharpening of course).

 

 

But... I also looked if I can achieve the same look with the original RAF files in Capture One (let them look the same as the DNG/X-Transformer files). I discovered that with the following settings I almost get the exact same result as with the DNG/X-Transformer files:

 

- Structure at 10

- Sharpening Amount around 250

 

With just these 2 settings applied the RAF files shows pretty much the same amount of details (and of course no watercolor effects) as the DNG files that came out of the X-Transformer.

 

But this is of course just a preliminary conclusion. I can image that some kind of pictures look better when using the X-Transformer so I have to test a lot more. What I am going to do in the next weeks: I will import all Fuji files twice in Capture One: one RAF and one DNG(X-Transformer) file and then compare them and learn about the differences. I will use the above settings for both of them as a starting point. When I have more news about my experiment I will let you guys now!



#13 jabecker85

jabecker85

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 5 posts

Posted 19 May 2017 - 08:53 AM

I have tested the X-Transformer today and was really happy with the results because the image sharpness was much better compared to my usual standard LR conversion. After sharpening the standard LR converted file with my sharpening workflow in LR, though, both files nearly looked the same. 

I am using the newest version of LR CC. I sharpened the file with 30 (Amount) /1,1 (Radius) /86 (Details) in LR. The pictures were made with the X-T2 and the 100-400 with 1,4x teleconverter

 

I have attached three files. 1. The one with standard LR import and without sharpening; 2. The one with standard LR import and sharpening; 3. The X-Transformer file

 

Did you make similar experiences with sharpened LR files in comparison to X-Transformer files? I am asking myself which advantages I get from X-Transformer, if the sharpened files in LR look the same like the X-Transformer files. Or is my example just a coincidence or a bad example for the advantages of X-Transformer? And am I getting it right, that the X-Transformer files should not be sharpened in LR? I tried it, but the file looked over-sharpened nearly immediately after increasing the amount.

 

Attached Files


  • lisa likes this

#14 adamcornwell

adamcornwell

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 4 posts

Posted 06 June 2017 - 10:05 PM

I have to agree with the OP. I've been using LR forever and finally grew frustrated with the terrible rendering of RAF files. I was delighted when Iridient X Transformer came out and I can see a definite improvement.

 

It wasn't until I decided to try a demo of C1 and On1 that I discovered what I was missing out on. I've only edited a half dozen images ranging from low to high ISO and most with detailed elements like foliage. C1 was night and day better, no question about it. The interface is a little intimidating, but I found myself flying through it making adjustments in quick order. On1 took a little more work, but was also notably better than LR.

 

I really want LR to work, because it's what I'm familiar with and I don't want to pay for another software (or ditch LR/PS altogether). At the end of the day though, I need and want sharp images, not a mushy mess. 



#15 Tom G Scotland

Tom G Scotland

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 7 posts

Posted 26 June 2017 - 04:17 PM

hi all I have been using the latest version 17.5 of on1PhotoRaw  and it only gets better and better every month with the updates,

my Fujifilm X-T2 Raw files are fine   see this short video if you have time using the detail slider in on1  I find a big difference with my raw files and the next upgrade at end of month will only make things better  in my opinion 

 

 

https://www.youtube....1UJ-XWsXU&t=24s

 

 

 

Tom G Scotland



#16 jlmphotos

jlmphotos

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 481 posts
  • LocationTime Split between New Jersey and Maine

Posted 26 June 2017 - 09:09 PM

I process and submit quite a number of images to stock agencies.  I have yet had one be rejected for the "watercolor" effect.  Now I've had rejections due to my stupidity and/or negligence in not checking certain things in the frame, but never, ever due to that effect. So, even though I own Silkypix and Iridient, I use LR for 99.00% of my image processing.  

 

Honestly, it's not that big of a deal "when" it occurs (to me) and my way of shooting.


  • PoulWerner likes 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  | 


#17 David Eagle

David Eagle

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 2 posts

Posted 30 June 2017 - 10:49 PM

Hi all, the post from Alan1740 above echoes the problem I have with the Fuji compressed RAF files.

 

Call it waxy detail/worms or whatever, its a definite problem.

 

I am getting to the point where I am about to turn in my Fuji gear.

 

I have had work kicked back because of the waxy look from my XT1 and X100F when shooting against grass/foliage, and had to go re-shoot on Nikon (which was accepted).

 

I have tried Lightroom and On1, but neither seems to be able to cope well with compressed RAF files. Next step is to try uncompressed RAF files, and see where that takes me. 


  • RickUrb likes this

#18 Taala78

Taala78

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 2 posts

Posted 02 July 2017 - 11:59 AM

P

Edited by Taala78, 02 July 2017 - 12:47 PM.


#19 Taala78

Taala78

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 2 posts

Posted 02 July 2017 - 11:59 AM

Hi

Have been also looking for satisfying solution once and for all for quite long time, but finally comparing fuji X-T2 own jpeg IQ with LR results I see pretty same results in sharpness and color render. Maybe x-trans sensor does not give out the real life view by human eye? There is certainly problem with fuji own jpeg engine as well then, because green leaves don't give out quite any brown color. Irident x transformer certainly makes things more natural and sharp, but it seems to make even sharp by deafult bokeh 😀. I'm not happy with situation and quite often think about selling fuji gear, but I still hope something will be solved soon.

Edited by Taala78, 02 July 2017 - 12:49 PM.

  • Morne likes this

#20 Leonard_O

Leonard_O

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 2 posts

Posted 02 July 2017 - 03:22 PM

I have an LR CC+PS CC workflow, and I have never been satisfied with RAF sharpening with LR or ACR. With both my X-E2 (v.4.0) and X-T2 (v2.01)  the "wormy" artifacts are ever present. I have tried many of the suggested/recommended options, but I find that my LR+PS habit is hard to break. However, I have found a solution which works quite well for me. 

 

I use Alienskin ExposureX2 and On1 Photo RAW 2017 as LR/PS plugins and external editors. On importing RAF files to LR I have LR Sharpening set to 0 rather than the LR default.

I make all other LR adjustments including crop/straightening, excluding any sharpening.

Then depending on what I plan to do with the image I will edit in either Exposure X2, or On1 Photo RAW 2017, either of which I use to apply sharpening if needed. The finalized rendition of those edited files are saved back to Lightroom, and there is no evidence of the "LR RAF worms" or foliage waxiness.

 

Occasionally I will bypass LR and use either Exposure X2, or On1 Photo RAW as a standalone with results I am happy with. My big hope for this year is that Adobe will get their act together and fix this RAF rendering issue especially with regard to sharpening.


  • RickUrb likes this


 
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