Watercolour??

[Isaac Hilman]

Interesting. Would you consider posting your most problematic RAF file and a 16-bit TIFF export of what you think is the best processing from Iridient? That way we can try to match it it with other tools.

I can definitely try that this evening. I use Iridient X-transformer (PC only?) for the first phase (mostly to demosaic the image), and then add slight sharpening / NR in Lightroom (default settings, aside from some masking on the sharpening and a very small bit of noise reduction). The results, even with the luminance noise reduction, are sharper images with zero visible watercolor artifacts.

 

I'll go out later this afternoon and try to snap a grassy / foliage photo that shows the watercolor paint look and upload the plain RAF, plus a copy after I've used Iridient + Lightroom to set the base sharpening / nr.

 

[Edit]: Couldn't make it home quick enough after work, and so I lost the daylight. Some of OP's files look like perfect candidates for the watercolor effect, those would be great to test things on.

Edited February 1, 2017 by Isaac Hilman

[Isaac Hilman]

This problem is rooted in demosaicing the X-Trans color filter array. It is not a sharpening problem -- sharpening exposes and exacerbates the problem. Adobe has improved their handling of the X-Trans CFA but alternative raw converters do a better job of extracting fine detail from X-Trans raw files and avoiding the "watercolor effect." Iridient, Photo Ninja, SilkyPix, Capture One, Raw Therapee, ACDSee all do a better job demosaicing X-Trans. However that doesn't mean they do a better job processing X-Trans overall. There is no clearly best choice. You can get reasonable results from Adobe with careful handling. If maximum fine detail with no "watercolor appearance" is most important to you, you will avoid Adobe for the demosiacing task.

 

If you want to make a raw file available for others to see and work with use Dropbox (free account). Here for example is a link to an X-Trans II RAF file that exhibits the problem: https://www.dropbox.com/s/ewzhgah2bqjutqw/DSCF3971.RAF?dl=0

Alright. I took the RAF file posted here by Graflex, and ran it through the Iridient + LR process I do to all of my images before working on them (the settings mentioned in the post I listed earlier).

 

Here is a Google Drive link to the full 16bit TIFF export. (mind you it's very large, 92mb!)

 

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BzSuTVfzBjhQc3BIWGRLOTFCeVE

 

The watercolor problem is completely gone!

 

Here's a JPG of the side by side comparison. Left is the imported but otherwise unaltered RAF in lightroom, the right side is after the iridient + lr steps.

 

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BzSuTVfzBjhQTEl4eDRmcjFnN2M

 

The left side is muddy / watercolor, the right side is sharp and clear.

Edited February 1, 2017 by Isaac Hilman

[16thEarl]

One of the first photos I took with my camera had very strange, smearing of the out-of-focus blades of grass in the image.

 

This topic has been very interesting to read, thanks, because I didn't understand what was going on, but now I reckon it's the same issue. I've included a small crop of my image here:

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

To me, this looks bad in a way I haven't seen since using an Apple QuickTake 100 in the 1990s.

 

In other respects, the image quality from the X-T2 is excellent. I'll just need to get some more experience with it, and work out how to minimise this smearing effect.

[Isaac Hilman]

One of the first photos I took with my camera had very strange, smearing of the out-of-focus blades of grass in the image.

 

This topic has been very interesting to read, thanks, because I didn't understand what was going on, but now I reckon it's the same issue. I've included a small crop of my image here:

 

DSCF1206crop.JPG

 

To me, this looks bad in a way I haven't seen since using an Apple QuickTake 100 in the 1990s.

 

In other respects, the image quality from the X-T2 is excellent. I'll just need to get some more experience with it, and work out how to minimise this smearing effect.

Yep, that's a great image to show what the effect looks like. The exact thing that Iridient seems to remove so well.

 

The big issue is how most software demosaics the X-Trans sensor pixel layout. 

 

"A demosaicing (also de-mosaicing, demosaicking or debayering) algorithm is a digital image process used to reconstruct a full color image from the incomplete color samples output from an image sensor overlaid with a color filter array (CFA). It is also known as CFA interpolation or color reconstruction."

 

Fuji's X-Trans has a non-bayer type sensor, instead they've created a new RGB Pixel layout that they say is inspired by traditional film (Which is why they can emulate their classic Fuji film looks so well!). They are in a more randomized order, instead of the traditional ordered structure of the bayer sensor. Most software programs are used to the bayer type sensor, and demosaic an image using that algorithm method.

 

For some reason it produces oil-paint-like textures when they attempt to demosaic Fuji X files. 

 

But, every file that I've ran through the Iridient program have had the muddy paint effect completely removed, leaving sharp images behind. It seems like they've figured out a good algorithm to decode the Fuji X-Trans sensors. I've only had it for a few days, but I now process 100% of my images through it. It just does an excellent job!

Edited February 1, 2017 by Isaac Hilman

[kimcarsons]

[Deleted]

Edited February 3, 2017 by kimcarsons

[Isaac Hilman]

Thanks. That was easy enough. Do you agree this is a good result?

 

I would have to agree! But could you provide any details for everyone, please (software, process, computer)? I think a lot of people in here are hoping to find usable solutions to the muddy / paint-like effect of the X-Trans, and different processes may offer better solutions for some. (the Iridient X-Transformer is in PC beta at the moment, so not everyone can work with it).

[kimcarsons]

I would have to agree! But could you provide any details for everyone, please (software, process, computer)? I think a lot of people in here are hoping to find usable solutions to the muddy / paint-like effect of the X-Trans, and different processes may offer better solutions for some. (the Iridient X-Transformer is in PC beta at the moment, so not everyone can work with it).

 

I'll just say that it took me less than a minute to do, wasn't difficult (i.e. didn't deviate much from the defaults) and it wasn't in Iridient, and that you too could achieve the same result without having to pay for anything, and that the tool I used has been available in functioning condition for years.

[graflex]

Thanks. That was easy enough. Do you agree this is a good result?

 

 

That's not bad. I'd say Isaac Himan's Iridient version has an edge. How about this:

 

Edited February 3, 2017 by graflex

[kimcarsons]

That's not bad. I'd say Isaac Himan's Iridient version has an edge. How about this:

 

 

You're getting warmer with that middle one. What's better about Isaac's BTW? They look pretty close to me. The colors are a bit different (richer greens in mine). Otherwise I think they're pretty darn close.

 

P.S. Did you even try to match it in RawTherapee though, or was that just the defaults?

Edited February 3, 2017 by kimcarsons

[graflex]

You're getting warmer with that middle one. What's better about Isaac's BTW? They look pretty close to me. The colors are a bit different (richer greens in mine). Otherwise I think they're pretty darn close.

 

P.S. Did you even try to match it in RawTherapee though, or was that just the defaults?

 

No attempt at all to match yours or match color and tone -- just concerned with fine detail rendition. Fine detail looks a little smoother in the Iridient rendition but I agree yours is close.

[kimcarsons]

No attempt at all to match yours or match color and tone -- just concerned with fine detail rendition. Fine detail looks a little smoother in the Iridient rendition but I agree yours is close.

 

I may have overdone the sharpening on mine. I think you did the same in RT, but it in such a way that it brought out more artifacts---looks a bit crusty. I think if you'll find that you could match it in RT if you tried.

[graflex]

I may have overdone the sharpening on mine. I think you did the same in RT, but it in such a way that it brought out more artifacts---looks a bit crusty. I think if you'll find that you could match it in RT if you tried.

 

I don't want to match what you did. I pulled more detail from the file and prefer my color and tone rendition.

[kimcarsons]

I don't want to match what you did. I pulled more detail from the file and prefer my color and tone rendition.

 

Ha. OK. I guess we're playing a different game then. As long as you're happy with the result that's fine (and you still saved $99.) I'm just not sure those are real details you're pulling out and not artifacts.

[sebas1430]

I also prefer the results from Iridient and kimcarsons. I purchased Irident x-transformer on day 1 and I'm more than happy with the results, and it doesn't affect too much my workflow with LR. Before Iridient comes out, I have tried Raw Therapee. The amount of details was better than LR but I found too many artifacts and chromatic aberration....but I have to admit that I haven't played enough with all options.

[tom3q]

I'll just say that it took me less than a minute to do, wasn't difficult (i.e. didn't deviate much from the defaults) and it wasn't in Iridient, and that you too could achieve the same result without having to pay for anything, and that the tool I used has been available in functioning condition for years.

 

Would you mind being a bit more informative, please? I'm sorry but everyone in this post provided a lot of useful information (especially Isaac Hilman@) and you seem to be "playing a game" here (especially since you even used this exact wording in your other post). I don't really want to be rude, just I believe people want to use this forum to share and/or find information, not have some pointless arguments.

Edited February 3, 2017 by tom3q

[Hermelin]

So you're basically screwed if you only shot JPEG?

[Isaac Hilman]

So you're basically screwed if you only shot JPEG?

Not entirely. I love the look of lot's of the SOOC Jpegs I see coming out of Fuji Cameras. I would suggest turning your Noise Reduction in Camera down though, at least -1, and maybe even your sharpness down to -1. (I usually have mine set at -2 LR, and -1 Sharpness). 

 

A Good test for you might be;

 

Find a scene that you can easily mimic the watercolor paint-like effect when photographed. (Thick trees, foliage, bushes, and grass can do this). Then set your camera on a tripod. Take photos with your settings Defaulted, then + and - your Sharpness / Noise Reduction one point each photo between each shot, and review on your LCD each time. You'll probably come across a setting that reduces the look of the wormy artifacts eventually, and then keep it there.

 

First Photo: NR: 0, SH: 0,

Second photo: NR: -1, SH: 0

Third photo: NR: -2, SH: 0

 

Then try the NR 0, and SH -1, or -2, or -2 NR and +1 or 2 sharpening.

 

I'm thinking that you'll find a setting that reduces the appearance of the artifacts.

 

I think one thing that would help this, is if Fuji also added a menu option for "Film Grain" that could be set just like the other +/- variables. I would love to see that, especially for JPEG shooters.

Edited February 3, 2017 by Isaac Hilman

[kimcarsons]

Not entirely. I love the look of lot's of the SOOC Jpegs I see coming out of Fuji Cameras. I would suggest turning your Noise Reduction in Camera down though, at least -1, and maybe even your sharpness down to -1. (I usually have mine set at -2 LR, and -1 Sharpness). 

 

A Good test for you might be;

 

Find a scene that you can easily mimic the watercolor paint-like effect when photographed. (Thick trees, foliage, bushes, and grass can do this). Then set your camera on a tripod. Take photos with your settings Defaulted, then + and - your Sharpness / Noise Reduction one point each photo between each shot, and review on your LCD each time. You'll probably come across a setting that reduces the look of the wormy artifacts eventually, and then keep it there.

 

First Photo: NR: 0, SH: 0,

Second photo: NR: -1, SH: 0

Third photo: NR: -2, SH: 0

 

Then try the NR 0, and SH -1, or -2, or -2 NR and +1 or 2 sharpening.

 

I'm thinking that you'll find a setting that reduces the appearance of the artifacts.

 

I think one thing that would help this, is if Fuji also added a menu option for "Film Grain" that could be set just like the other +/- variables. I would love to see that, especially for JPEG shooters.

 

The X-Pro2/X-T2 do have a grain option (called "Grain Effect") with three levels, Off, Weak and Strong. I've found that with high ISO images, NR +4 and Grain Effect Strong sometimes looks better than just NR -4. You don't have to take multiple shots, BTW, you can just shoot one image and develop it into multiple JPEGs using the in-camera RAW developer (if you shoot RAW or RAW+JPEG.)

[DerKnipser]

@kimcarsons: What software you are talking about?

 

Gesendet von meinem SM-P600 mit Tapatalk

[Isaac Hilman]

The X-Pro2/X-T2 do have a grain option (called "Grain Effect") with three levels, Off, Weak and Strong. I've found that with high ISO images, NR +4 and Grain Effect Strong sometimes looks better than just NR -4. You don't have to take multiple shots, BTW, you can just shoot one image and develop it into multiple JPEGs using the in-camera RAW developer (if you shoot RAW or RAW+JPEG.)

Ahh, that's awesome! With every new model or update, Fuji steps up their game. I've only got the XT-1 right now, so I didn't know this had been implemented. Still waiting on my XT-2 to arrive in the mail, should be here next week!

Edited February 3, 2017 by Isaac Hilman

[kimcarsons]

Ahh, that's awesome! With ever new model, Fuji steps up their game. I've only got the XT-1 right now, so I didn't know this had been implemented. Still waiting on my XT-2 to arrive in the mail, should be here next week!

 

I think you're going to like it :-)

[Torturro]

Any suggestions for Mac users?

Im totally dissappointed with the results from Adobe Camera Raw latest version...

[Torturro]

I tried Irident - ant its great on results. But the work flow is terrible - and Im really missing those incredibile Adobe Camera Raw - spot tools - that can add/remove noise/exposure stc at chosen spots - like painting over the image instead of applying to whole image.

[Torturro]

Just installed free trial of ON1 - it does a good job, not as good as Irident. 

No camera profiles after I left Adobe.

Will have to learn - and look for my own profiles. 

Downside - although I have 8gb ram - the program works slowish.

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[Adam Woodhouse]

I think your comparison between LR and ON1 is quite obvious and striking.  

 

Between ON1 and Iridient ... they look like they are so close that only those interested in over-the-top pixel peeping would probably care.

Edited February 16, 2017 by Adam Woodhouse