Jump to content

graflex

Members
  • Posts

    54
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    graflex got a reaction from TheWorldCan'tWait in Is it just me or the lowish light files are too noisy?   
    OK, a person then: Shot indoors with only a ceiling light fixture holding a couple CF bulbs -- ISO 12800. For an APS class camera I think this is pretty impressive. Excellent color and noise barely an issue.
     
     

  2. Like
    graflex got a reaction from photosol in Is it just me or the lowish light files are too noisy?   
    OK, a person then: Shot indoors with only a ceiling light fixture holding a couple CF bulbs -- ISO 12800. For an APS class camera I think this is pretty impressive. Excellent color and noise barely an issue.
     
     

  3. Like
    graflex got a reaction from sgmcenroe in Is it just me or the lowish light files are too noisy?   
    OK, a person then: Shot indoors with only a ceiling light fixture holding a couple CF bulbs -- ISO 12800. For an APS class camera I think this is pretty impressive. Excellent color and noise barely an issue.
     
     

  4. Like
    graflex got a reaction from Maurice in Lightroom CC 2015 1.1 is still horrible bad with Xtrans files...   
    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.
     
     
    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.
     

  5. Like
    graflex got a reaction from bholst in Lightroom CC 2015 1.1 is still horrible bad with Xtrans files...   
    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.
     
     
    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.
     

  6. Like
    graflex got a reaction from BarwickGreen in Lightroom CC 2015 1.1 is still horrible bad with Xtrans files...   
    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.
     
     
    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.
     

  7. Like
    graflex got a reaction from jlmphotos in Iridient vs. Lightroom vs. Capture One   
    Where's the emoticon for eating popcorn and watching the show?
  8. Like
    graflex got a reaction from Patrick FR in Aftershot 2.2.1 released - X-T10, XQ1/2 and X-A2 support   
    Improved X-Trans support yes. Still not too good, but definitely improved.
  9. Like
    graflex got a reaction from olli in Iridient vs. Lightroom vs. Capture One   
    Where's the emoticon for eating popcorn and watching the show?
×
×
  • Create New...