Watercolour??

[Torturro]

How do you like it? I dont....

1.jpg is a JPG from RAW with a little bit of clarity filter - CameraRaw Adobe.

2JPG is a sooc jpg with zero in camera sharpening.

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!

[karinatwork]

That's better than before, but still pretty bad. Disappointing. 

[voodooless]

What were all the settings? Could you share the RAW so we can all have a go?

[Patrick FR]

Try Irdient, now also for PC: http://www.aevansphoto.com/quick-review-iridient-x-transformer-beta/

[Torturro]

What were all the settings? Could you share the RAW so we can all have a go?

 

As I said - 1st one is JPG from RAW with clarity added - which makes things worse - because - the pattern - instead of leaves - is already there - as you can see from no 2 - which is JPG sooc with no in camera sharpening (minus max setting). Dont know how to post full raw. All these pics are at 100%. Very disappointing - as the C.RAW is new, the latest, also - as I see it - using different raw processor wouldnt help - because these awfull patterns are there - as you can see on sooc JPG, or hopefully Im wrong. The thing is - I bought this camera for travel - now Im going through thousends of files to process... will I have to do this again? To me - it looks horrible. Ok - skin tones, overall camera handling etc etc - but these examples would be a dealbreaker for me - if I knew.

Edited January 6, 2017 by Torturro

[karinatwork]

Try the Iridient. I downloaded it yesterday afternoon just for kicks, and gave it a whirl. It's not much fuss, because you can edit the image from LR via the external editor, and then just overwrite your TIF file inside LR. The difference is quite astonishing. I'd be curious to see how the image would look processed through Iridient. 

[voodooless]

So you did not tweak the noise and sharpening settings? The defaults are not very optimal and have a huge influence on these kinds of images. Yes Iridient will do better, but Lightroom can do better as well.

 

There are a number of free file uploading services.. try one and give us the link.

Edited January 6, 2017 by voodooless

[Torturro]

Now - the worsc case I came across: again - jpg sooc and Raw processed with C.RAW + clarity + 3 and sharpness + 5 (so not too high!)

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!

[rafikiphoto]

Try Irdient, now also for PC: http://www.aevansphoto.com/quick-review-iridient-x-transformer-beta/

 

Wow this is a huge advance for Windows users! I just processed some X-T1 'watercolour' files with the Iridient X demo conversion within Capture One 10 and Iridient is amazing! So much more definition in the tree canopy.

[Jake Hall]

Disappointing, it looks awful. I have (and love) the x-t1 and use it mainly for landscape/wildlife shots- not for its technical prowess- but for how fun it is to use. Its biggest downside for me was the watercolour effect. After seeing this i'm not sure I want to move from x-t1 to t2, especially when a used d810 is comparable in price. I really dislike the watercolour effect and its such a shame that it shows up in (and ruins) so many shots  

[mdm]

Have never seen this effect on any of my images. Below is a handheld shot I made in a rather gloomy day. Don't know whether it's good or bad but it definitely free of "watercolour".

 

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!

 

untouched sooc jpeg is here - https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B0b2sNAslo3vTGtZUGRsbExyMHM

 

Have a brief look through this type of my shots and they are more or less the same.

 

[Immanuel]

Isn't watercolour vegetation mostly related to vegetation being out of focus and/or motion blur from a low shutter speed and/or wind? I don't shoot much green vegetation, but I don't recall having been bothered by the "phenomena" after a total of 30,000+ pictures with my X-100T, X-E2 and X-Pro1 (the later has not seen much use).

[Torturro]

Isn't watercolour vegetation mostly related to vegetation being out of focus and/or motion blur from a low shutter speed and/or wind? I don't shoot much green vegetation, but I don't recall having been bothered by the "phenomena" after a total of 30,000+ pictures with my X-100T, X-E2 and X-Pro1 (the later has not seen much use).

 

Obviously not - as you can see it happening beside parts of picture that are rendered differently - and being in focus. It happenes mostly to some green patterns = but not only green).

Also - it might be obvious to people doing lots of postprocessing - meaning close attention to details and results.

[Torturro]

Have never seen this effect on any of my images. Below is a handheld shot I made in a rather gloomy day. Don't know whether it's good or bad but it definitely free of "watercolour".

 

DSCF2303_s.JPG

 

untouched sooc jpeg is here - https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B0b2sNAslo3vTGtZUGRsbExyMHM

 

Have a brief look through this type of my shots and they are more or less the same.

Look: not very obvious and not dissappointing - but its there:

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!

[Torturro]

to above cropped picture - try to compare the green part - which is pointed with arrow - with some leaves that are in the same plane - bit to right and bit to left - those two are ok - the one im pointing to - is not.

[Dmstraton]

In the past, I've gotten this with all my X cameras. For Lightroom CC it is now basically fixed but still not as good as Iridient, PhotoNinja or Capture One. However, if I the raw into Photoshop/Camera Raw with no sharpening and use Smart Sharpen I can get really good results. Still not as clear as Iridient, etc. at a pixel level, but close.

 

Lightroom sharpening doesn't agree well with Fuji - but the unsharpened raws are now much much better in general and can be manipulated very well.

[graflex]

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

Edited January 7, 2017 by graflex

[mdm]

to above cropped picture - try to compare the green part - which is pointed with arrow - with some leaves that are in the same plane - bit to right and bit to left - those two are ok - the one im pointing to - is not.

 

Ok, I see what you mean. But your should know what to search for to find that small non uniform area I'd never payed attention to. You could be doing really big prints to suffer from the issue.

[Torturro]

Ok, I see what you mean. But your should know what to search for to find that small non uniform area I'd never payed attention to. You could be doing really big prints to suffer from the issue.

 

unless - you come across - randomly - a case like mine from my post no 8: in this case No single program - even the one from fuji - was better than sooc jpg

[graflex]

unless - you come across - randomly - a case like mine from my post no 8: in this case No single program - even the one from fuji - was better than sooc jpg

 

Put the raw file from post #8 on Dropbox and post the link here.

Edited January 7, 2017 by graflex

[emilx3]

The first picture I ever took when I had the X-T1 was of a pony standing on grass field. I absolutely panicked when I pulled that picture up on my computer later that day. It was awfull, the detail was like from a 4 or 6 mpx camera. Sometimes the X-trans sensor was just not that good rendering certain patterns like grass in the distance or fur on animals. I've tried Irrident dev, but it kept crashing on my mac and was really slow and confusing to use. It eventually led to a decision to sell the camera. If they would just release a Bayer version of the X-T2... 

[libertalia70]

Yep!  Look at the leaf in the front...

 

X-Pro2 + 23 F2@ F2 (SOOC)

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!

Edited January 28, 2017 by libertalia70

[powderhound2]

I have had that problem, a lot especially with shorter focal lengths.  Experienced it greens all the time on my x100s, especially in photos from Hawaii, with so much green vegetation.  I have grown used to it, i guess am aware of situations that may have the effect.  I also experienced it on the x-t1, I bought it three different times hoping that it was something that would be fixed with Adobe LR processing, and I couldn't get over it.  I think the wider angle lenses for me produced the effect at a much higher level, i just don't think 16mp sensor was able to do a very good job of rendering those wide views.  That's not scientific, just my view.  I didn't notice it as much when i tried an X-pro1 for some reason, but x-pro1 files to me looked better for some reason, not sure if it was because of the first generation x-trans sensor or what.  As i have used the fuji system though, I have pretty much stopped sharpening raw files altogether.  I recently got the x-t2 and have noticed the watercolor effect less when using the 10-24mm lens, but not nearly as bad as the same lens on the x-t1.  The other place I've experienced watercolor effect is in rock/mountains.  on wide shots, detail of rocks shows the watercolor effect, especially when you're looking at it at 100%.  

 

With too much time on my hands, I tend to really pixel peep, and  has that lead to disappointment on almost every digital camera I've owned. When printing images, or posting them online, they look fantastic.  More than anything I have started to ignore it, or maybe it's that I no longer focus on it.  I have really enjoyed using the fuji system, and the watercolor effect is just about the only thing that I've had a problem with so far.  I've have iridient developer on my mac, and it does seem to produce better detail, and less watercolor effect, but it feels clunky compared to LR CC, and so I end up not using it often.  Good luck to you in your search.

[Isaac Hilman]

Hey everyone!

 

I just wrote up a new blog post this morning outlining the settings I use for Iridient X-Transformer (Windows PC version) + Lightroom, which completely removes this muddy / watercolor texture problem - leaving with a perfect looking image file to work with. It's pretty easy if you batch import with Iridient - using the settings i outline, and then import into Lightroom with a quick Preset I developed.

 

Everything is in the post, please check it out! I think you'll be very happy with the final result.

 

Cheers!

 

Note: I was shooting with a Fuji XT-1, and have yet to try it on one of the new 24.3mp sensors. Please try it and let me know what you find out!

Edited January 31, 2017 by Isaac Hilman

[kimcarsons]

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.