Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Lumens last won the day on March 2

Lumens had the most liked content!

About Lumens

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Recent Profile Visitors

644 profile views
  1. I think I do that when I shut down the the Sharpening & Noise Reduction I'll have to check when I get home. If I remember correctly I move all the sliders in those categories to 0. Thanks.
  2. I first tested by importing an image (actually tested several) into C1 and Lightroom, then looked at the defaults. I did need to make corrections for the different scales, but I found two items making the big difference - sharpening & Noise Reduction. 1. Sharpening was set to roughly 18 by C1 compared to 40 in Lightroom. Although I've learned since C1 will adjust sharpening based on image ISO. It is still roughly 18-25 compared to 40 in Lightroom. As I understand it X trans sensor files will be sharper than Bayer sensor files so Lightroom defaults add too much sharpening (causing the artifacts & worms). Lightroom is geared for Bayer sensor files - not X Trans. 2. Luminance/Color (Noise Reduction) in C1 is set to 50 every time, while Lightroom is set to 0. C1 for Fuji adjusts Noise Reduction to compensate for the extra sharpness of the X Trans file. I found if I import to Lightroom with the C1 defaults - that is a preset setting Sharpening to 20 and Noise Reduction to 50 I can work with my image in Lightroom much the same as with C1 and the results are the same. I am much more comfortable in Lightroom so this is works very well for me. C1 for Fuji is geared for X Trans files - you simply need to adjust Lightroom away from the Bayer sensor and more towards the X Trans sensor. Actually what's best though, is to import into Lightroom with a preset Sharpening & Noise Reduction both set to 0. I make all the global adjustments I want being cautious with contrast, texture, & clarity as those tools do increase sharpening. Then I adjust sharpening and add masking as necessary (use ALT key). If necessary (High ISO images) then I'll add Noise Reduction feeling free to go all the way up to 50 if necessary.
  3. There is a lot of discussion on this. Bottom line XT-3 files are handled fine by Adobe if you have a current version. I have heard a large number of complaints about the subscription model, but it does work and it is what I use. I also see a large number of Fuji users moving to Capture One as it does do a nice job with Fuji RAW files. Adobe treats X Trans files as if they were Bayer sensor files causing noise and artifacts. I have found if I use C1 import defaults as a preset to import into Adobe then Lightroom works just fine. Most is a matter of personal preference. I have tried and learned how to use most software options out there, but I started in Lightroom and I am comfortable in it. So I figured out how to make it work.
  4. I prefer the existing articulating screen on the XT-3 as when I need (and I do often) all I need to do is pull it out and adjust the angle. With this flippy thingy I have to flip it over turn it around, find space for it to flip to in a tight space, figure out which way the camera is pointing to so I can move things around to see what I am doing, try to hold what has become a long horizontal monstrosity so I can still get to the shutter, etc. etc. etc. etc. The screen is likely great for video, that is fine - when I want to shoot video I'll purchase a camcorder.
  5. This I must agree. I just hope it stays that way. I have my concerns competition is going to lead Fuji in the direction of becoming one of them rather than the company they have been in the past.
  6. You take a short sentence outside of what I said to completely distort what it is I actually said. The XT-3 does have some advantages over the XT-2 and when it comes to going out to shoot moving subjects, the XT-3 is what is in my bag. But when it comes to ISO performance and a cleaner RAW file I find my XT-2 files to be a much higher quality than my XT-3 files. Granted this is just my opinion, but I know quite a few others who feel the same.
  7. Wrong, The flippy screen destroys the ease of use enjoyed with the articulating screen of the XT-3 - just for starts. I'm afraid my next upgrade won't happen until Fuji starts making cameras again instead of camcorders. Just my opinion, but I believe there are plenty others out there that agree with me.
  8. YES, YES, YES!! The direction Fuji has taken lately has been all for video and AF at the expense of ISO performance. Forget about producing good stills, I'm not so sure they care. The XT-2 was much better than the XT-3 and so far all I see is Fuji stepping back from image quality for the sake of AF and video. The "XH" series was supposed to mean "Hybrid" for both video and stills while the "XT" line was supposed to continue to be a camera, not a camcorder. Now the XT-4 is simply the XH-2 in disguise. I will be using my XT-2 & XT-3 much longer than I expected from what I am seeing lately and that's a good thing because I love those two cameras.
  9. I'll tell you what. I DO NOT LIKE THE DIRECTION OF FUJI AT THE MOMENT. If you want video, buy a camcorder, period!!
  10. The problem is in the default settings of the software. Sharpening in LR is set to 40 by default. C1 uses a 0-1000 scale and is set to 140 - this would be a 14 equivalent in the LR 0-100 scale. X-trans sensors deliver a MUCH sharper image than the Bayer sensor from Canon/Nikon. Thus LR is defaulted for Canon/Nikon, while C1 is suited better for X-trans. Note: the C1 settings I am using come from Version 20 for Fuji. Also the Luminance settings in C1 are set at 50 while LR is set to 0. Thus once again, the C1 for Fuji has defaults set for the Fuji sensor while LR is set for Canon/Nikon. I tried importing in LR with a C1 Fuji preset (14/50) and surprise LR & C1 appear pretty much equal for IQ! Also I find setting both software to "0" sharpening & "0" Luminance produces equal images. I have started importing to LR with preset setting to "0" sharpening & "0" Luminance. Once I have processed my image I then look at the image and access sharpness. I will increase it as much as possible without creating noise or worms. If I see noise or worms before I have done any sharpening, then I set the Sharpening to "1" to enable masking. I then mask most of the sharpness out. Roughly masking ends up around 70 to 80. If I still see noise or worms after masking, then I increase Luminance until the noise or worms are gone. Usually that ends up less than 50 even if the ISO was 6400 or above. I find this system solves all the worm issues. Although the truth is, good capture and correct exposure during capture will reduce noise or worms the best.
  11. Agreed, I use a Black Rapid attached to the Tripod Collar for my XT-3/100-400. Although I prefer the Peak Design - I do use it for all my other (Lighter) lenses.
  12. I own the XT-2 & 3 and have also tested with my own files. I took 3 RAW images and converted them with IRXT, Enhanced DNG, CR DNG, and Tiff using CR. Then compared all the files in Lightroom. At normal viewing and even at 100% you will not see much difference. Most people had to zoom to 300 & 400% to see the difference. However I have been using Fuji and LR for a long time, the issue asserts itself with Clarity and sharpening. So to view the issues at their worst I increased Clarity, Luminance, and Detail to 100%. The RAW and CR DNG files looked like a horror movie with alien worms about to jump out (at normal viewing on a small monitor. The IRXT & Enhanced DNG were very close to equal, with maybe an EXTREMELY small benefit going to the Enhanced. The CR Tiff showed the best appearance. These results were at all zoom levels - the worms were just not there on any of the three. I started to export to Tiff just recently as I was experimenting with alternative software and not all are compatible with XT-3 files or even DNG. I found exporting to Tiff gave me the freedom to use any software I wish and the worm effect no longer occurred. The disadvantage is the larger file size of course. My new workflow is: Use Bridge "Review Mode" to sort out which images I want to process Open them in Camera Raw and Export to new location as Tiff (Full size, 16bit, Profoto RGB) Process "Global" adjustments using Luminar 3 (My preferred processing software) After global adjustments - export as Tiff to my "Gallery" folder Import the "Gallery" into Lightroom for the excellent DAM provided and round trip to Photoshop if any local adjustments may be needed. Export from Lightroom for final destination in format as required (Internet, Printing, Web, etc.)
  13. Well. It's the end of the year and both On1 2019 and Luminar 3 have come out so I had to make my decision. All these software programs are excellent and each is best in one area or another. I have found that converting to Tiff or DNG outside of Adobe then opening in LR works quite well and Iridient Transformer does a great job of batch converting to DNG. So now I am converting to DNG and using "What Does What Best". LR has the best Libraries functionality so I keep a catalog of my completed images converted to Tiff in LR for a gallery and final touch up. But Luminar and C1 provide outstanding results so I develop in those two depending on what the image is. So far this is working quite nicely.in
  14. I own both XT-2 & 3 as well. I have come to the same conclusion. I have set the two cameras aside for special purposes. The XT-3 is my go to camera being outstanding for Sports & Wildlife. That Auto-focus is insane and just does wonders on unpredictable subjects. I also prefer the XT-3 in good light for landscape and such, but when I know the light may be questionable out comes the XT-2. At ISO 3200 or less the XT-3 does fine, but the XT-2 can easily go to 6400 and I've even had success at 12800. So it's the XT-2 for low light and the XT-3 for everything else.
  15. I picked it up a couple days ago @50% off. Interesting product, It does a good job, but a bit like shooting straight JPEG out of the camera. I prefer to do my own processing, but I suspect I will be using it when I'm feeling lazy or in a hurry. I may process then run Photolemur just to see how different the automated version appears from my own.
  • Create New...