X-Pro2 RAW vs JPG

[3dgor]

Last Saturday, I took part in a marketing event jointly hosted by a local camera shop and Fujifilm Hong Kong.  I had chance to try out X-Pro2 with XF100-400.  It seems that RAW offers much more detail than JPG (NR-4).

X-Pro2, XF100-400 @ISO 3200, f/5.6, 1/80, 400mm
Provia, AWB, NR-4, Sharp+1, Shadow-1
LR 2015.4: Exposure + 1.0, Highlights - 20, Shadows + 20, Whites + 20

No further sharpening in LR.

 

As I'm a newbie here, I'm not allowed to post photos.  Comparison shots are available here:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/fujimike/albums/72157661789327693

 

Before trying out X-Pro2, I compared RAW vs JPG of X-T1 before. Using default sharpening settings (Amount = 25, Radius = 1.0, Detail = 25, Masking = 0), RAW conversion of X-T1 RAF file by LR gives a softer JPG.

 

Many ppl are saying that LR is not good at RAF processing, and fails to extract details from X-T1 RAF files.

 

Someone shared that the optimal settings for LR: [Detail section] Amount = 35->45, Radium = 1.0, Detail = 35->45, Masking >= 10). It really extracts more detail from RAF.

 

I think Adobe has tweaked X-Pro2 RAW conversion, giving much more detail even using default settings.

 

[Adam Woodhouse]

Definitely some hard core pixel peeping there.  

 

It makes sense that editing the sharpening of the RAW file in LR can produced a bit more detail versus the camera sharpening algorithms.  I think it is normal to get a bit more detail out of a RAW file, regardless of manufacturer.

 

I think many would be curious to see the same image shot at the different sharpening settings on the XPro2 JPG illustrated as you did (100% crop side by side) to see how the sharpening changes the image and then compare that to a base/default value both LR and Capture One show of the same image in RAW.

 

Thanks for sharing.

[EyesUnclouded]

 

Someone shared that the optimal settings for LR: [Detail section] Amount = 35->45, Radium = 1.0, Detail = 35->45, Masking >= 10). It really extracts more detail from RAF.

 

I think Adobe has tweaked X-Pro2 RAW conversion, giving much more detail even using default settings.

 

 

I don't have the latest ACR version, but in older LR versions (pre 6.4) best results were achieved by setting 100 on the detail slider. I have found this to be the case repeatedly, on a variety of photos. It's supposed that LR switches into a different algorithm when set at detail=100

 

On the subject of RAW conversion, I did a test today: I downloaded the test scene shots from dpreview and converted X-Pro2 files using the latest PhotoNinja update (which supports X-Pro2 RAW, but only non-compressed ones).

 

I used what, in my eyes, were optimal settings for sharpening and noise reduction, and I'm happy to say results are pretty good. For example, in a comparison with the same shot from the Nikon D750, also optimally processed in LR, the Fuji was absolutely comparable in noise performance while showing an advantage in color accuracy and gradations. The Nikon still held a small advantage in DR, I think, and also retained detail better in some parts of the image (while the Fuji was better at others).

 

I know this is not a scientific approach, but it's a valid one from an end-user perspective: most Nikon users I know use LR/ACR as their standard RAW converter and it indeed gives good results with Nikon. Fuji, on the other hand, certainly benefits from using other software options.

 

Also keep in mind that, when comparing such results, we are talking about heavy pixel peeping. I don't believe anyone can see real differences in the real world between these cameras, at least up to ISO 6400 (which, at least for me, is about the absolute maximum I use for 98% of my shots).