Jump to content

Lightroom for x-trans... seriously?


Recommended Posts

I just bought an X-T2 after using an X-E2 for some years. When editing my RAF files from my X-e2 I used Capture One because in Lightroom I always see the "watercolor" effect when an image contains foliage.

 

Now I hoped that the new sensor from the X-T2 was a better combination with Lightroom and foliage. But after importing one RAF file (with foliage in the picture) from my X-T2 in Lightroom and in Capture One I know this is not the case.

 

See my screenshot comparing Lightroom (left) versus capture One (right):

 

https://www.dropbox.com/s/xalkqcwdh669z92/lr-c1.jpg?dl=0

 

I really don't understand how people can choose Lightroom to edit their RAF files. This watercolor effect is not only in foliage but it can be visible in other structures too.

 

It can't be that this is only happening on my computer, in my Lightroom, with files from my camera... right?!

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently some posters are complaining about this "watercolor" effect while others are not.

It might help all of us if the OS and the version of PS or LR and Capture One being employed in the conversion.

 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sigh...

 

The ever recurring thread. It will go on endlessly between those who view images on a pixel level vs those who view images normally. The pixel peepers will become personal and abusive and the photographers will respond in kind. Pixel peepers will fight among themselves over alternate software, each promoting their favourite, with contempt for the others who don't see the difference.

 

As the thread finally winds down, someone else will blame Lightwave for waxy skin and it will begin all over again.

 

<sigh>"Sigh"</sigh>

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't consider myself a pixel peeper at all... I am a professional photographer, working with Canon 5D camera's, and also using a Fuji X-T2 recently.

 

I have used Fuji camera's before, but only for my vacations and free work projects. For that purpose I was happy with the results I get out of LR. But now I want to use Fuji also for some professional work, and then I am going to look more critical at the raw processing and the results.

 

Now last week I have sent some images to a client of mine, taken with the T2 and edited in LR. Pictures from a building in a green park (so with a lot of foliage surrounding the building). And then my client complained about the strange way the foliage looked to him... And I can only say that his complaint was right!

 

The way LR renders the RAF files is just not good enough for professional use.

 

So this is not about pixel peeping but about making money with photography and keeping clients happy, take them seriously by providing them with pictures with the highest possible IQ!

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are many threads for this. I will resume the easiest solution (I personally use it). Buy X-Transformer for Windows from Iridient, it's really cheap and it doesn't change the workflow that much.

 

1) convert your RAF with this tool

2) import the DNG results into Lightroom

3) work with Lightroom as usual (apply film simulation if you want)

 

Some subject/pattern are less affected by this pattern so I don't use the tool for all images.

 

The tool can be also used as a Lightroom external editor. In that case, you import your RAF, and you convert from Lightroom, it's even easier but requires minor configuration.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't consider myself a pixel peeper at all... I am a professional photographer, working with Canon 5D camera's, and also using a Fuji X-T2 recently.

 

I have used Fuji camera's before, but only for my vacations and free work projects. For that purpose I was happy with the results I get out of LR. But now I want to use Fuji also for some professional work, and then I am going to look more critical at the raw processing and the results.

 

Now last week I have sent some images to a client of mine, taken with the T2 and edited in LR. Pictures from a building in a green park (so with a lot of foliage surrounding the building). And then my client complained about the strange way the foliage looked to him... And I can only say that his complaint was right!

 

The way LR renders the RAF files is just not good enough for professional use.

 

So this is not about pixel peeping but about making money with photography and keeping clients happy, take them seriously by providing them with pictures with the highest possible IQ!

 

Can you share RAF file for some of us to test with different sharpening setting in LR to see if what you experienced can be resolved or if LR simply cannot render the green details properly?  I would give it a shot and compare it to X-Transformer to see what happens.

Edited by Adam Woodhouse
Link to post
Share on other sites

Taking this right back to the beginning perhaps explains the problem best.

 

I got my X-Pro1 in late June 2012, probably from the second or third batch into Australia. Adobe came out with their ACR support for RAF soon afterwards, but my first few weeks were spent shooting OOC jpeg while familiarising myself with the camera. Once I started to process raw files with ACR I noticed that things weren't the best, but compared to SilkyPix (I use Windows, they were the only two RAF processors available at the time) there was not much difference, although SP seemed a bit softer and ACR more contrasty.

 

Then Corel got on the RAF train (September 2012) with their process in PaintShop Pro X5, and while worse overall, it probably best reveals why both early SilkyPix and ACR acted like they did. Below are two 100% sections  of a photo I took at the time deliberately to highlight with vegetation and high contrast edge rendition I'd been noticing with ACR (and to a lesser degree with SilkyPix), and which many later called the "zipper effect".

 

The first is ACR, the second is Corel PSP X5. (Again, these are the first 2012 versions of RAF processing, not the current versions):

 

dgc04WW.jpg

 

rSOgKLl.jpg

 

The Corel version perhaps shows the problem that Adobe etc with Fuji files, and the original dcraw showed a similar result to the PSP X5 version - spurious coloured pixels appearing along high contrast edges (note the lines between grille and white paint on the car and around the number plate, and the choppy edges of the geometric grille pattern against white plain detail; in fact anywhere there is a high contrast edge. If you compare the top edge of the door mirror you can just see the slight waviness in the edge of the Adobe version corresponding to where the rows of spurious pixels occur in the X5 version, again probably confirming default filter application designed to smooth edges.

 

My guess was (and still is) that both SilkyPix and Adobe tackled this with a default addition of noise reduction (more heavily so in Adobe's case), and compensated for the NR's softening of detail and loss of colour by adding a hefty dose of saturation and sharpening. The spreading of colour in the two sticks embedded in the ground further attests to the likelihood of NR having been applied - the green/yellow colour of the grass spreading has nearly killed the brown in the highlights.

 

As mentioned, I tried dcraw in command line form when Mac forums started mentioning it as being the basis for RPP & Iridient, and it gave a similar result to Corel's demosaic, but Dave Coffin then responded quickly to criticism and changed his demosaic algorithm to give the clean, sharp rendition that is with us today as the basis of programs such as Photo Ninja, Iridient, RPP, LightZone, Photivo, Helicon Filter, etc etc. Corel took a lot longer to respond, and still hasn't quite got there with Aftershot Pro.

 

Adobe (and probably SilkyPix) on the other hand, seem to have stuck with their original algorithm and simply refined the degree of default NR, saturation and sharpening applied to reduce the outline and spreading effect of the original. This would probably also explain why Adobe ACR/LR/DNG files in particular can react so nervously to post sharpening, sharpening apparently already having been applied by default during the demosaic.

 

Until someone from any of the companies mentioned actually comes out and publicly states that this is not the case (and they haven't in five years), then I'm inclined to stick with the above explanation.

 

As such ACR/LR/DNG is basically flawed in my book, and while many might think their results are good enough, my personal quality standards (and those of many others) won't permit me to use ACR for any commercial job. One never knows how the final image may be used, at what size and with what enhancements, and as such it is the professional's duty to provide the best possible image to the client, not one that may - or may not - be "good enough". Iridient's X-Transformer is definitely a viable demosaic alternative to those who feel welded to Adobe and the ease of ACR/LR, just be sure to properly tune the base settings (to their credit Iridient do listen and have already changed the defaults at least once).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you Alan7140 for your great in-depth story!

 

I myself have done some experiments with X-transformer and Capture One. I will share my settings here (RAF files from the X-T2).

 

 

X-Transformer:

 

RAW Process: Smoother
Sharpening: Medium

Everything else on Default

 

I think when RAW Process is set at More Detailed the files from the X-T2 are a little bit over-sharped.

 

The same for the Sharpening settings: I think the Default setting is in between the Medium and the High settings. The Default and the High settings are also a little bit over-sharped for my taste. So I choose the Medium setting here.

 

 

Capture One (10.1):

 

After I import the DNG files created by the X-Transformer I change the Sharpening settings a little bit: the Amount is 140 by default which is to much for my taste and I change it in something between 50 and 100.

 

That's all I do when I edit a DNG/X-Transformer file in Capture One (regarding sharpening of course).

 

 

But... I also looked if I can achieve the same look with the original RAF files in Capture One (let them look the same as the DNG/X-Transformer files). I discovered that with the following settings I almost get the exact same result as with the DNG/X-Transformer files:

 

- Structure at 10

- Sharpening Amount around 250

 

With just these 2 settings applied the RAF files shows pretty much the same amount of details (and of course no watercolor effects) as the DNG files that came out of the X-Transformer.

 

But this is of course just a preliminary conclusion. I can image that some kind of pictures look better when using the X-Transformer so I have to test a lot more. What I am going to do in the next weeks: I will import all Fuji files twice in Capture One: one RAF and one DNG(X-Transformer) file and then compare them and learn about the differences. I will use the above settings for both of them as a starting point. When I have more news about my experiment I will let you guys now!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I have tested the X-Transformer today and was really happy with the results because the image sharpness was much better compared to my usual standard LR conversion. After sharpening the standard LR converted file with my sharpening workflow in LR, though, both files nearly looked the same. 

I am using the newest version of LR CC. I sharpened the file with 30 (Amount) /1,1 (Radius) /86 (Details) in LR. The pictures were made with the X-T2 and the 100-400 with 1,4x teleconverter

 

I have attached three files. 1. The one with standard LR import and without sharpening; 2. The one with standard LR import and sharpening; 3. The X-Transformer file

 

Did you make similar experiences with sharpened LR files in comparison to X-Transformer files? I am asking myself which advantages I get from X-Transformer, if the sharpened files in LR look the same like the X-Transformer files. Or is my example just a coincidence or a bad example for the advantages of X-Transformer? And am I getting it right, that the X-Transformer files should not be sharpened in LR? I tried it, but the file looked over-sharpened nearly immediately after increasing the amount.

 

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!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

I have to agree with the OP. I've been using LR forever and finally grew frustrated with the terrible rendering of RAF files. I was delighted when Iridient X Transformer came out and I can see a definite improvement.

 

It wasn't until I decided to try a demo of C1 and On1 that I discovered what I was missing out on. I've only edited a half dozen images ranging from low to high ISO and most with detailed elements like foliage. C1 was night and day better, no question about it. The interface is a little intimidating, but I found myself flying through it making adjustments in quick order. On1 took a little more work, but was also notably better than LR.

 

I really want LR to work, because it's what I'm familiar with and I don't want to pay for another software (or ditch LR/PS altogether). At the end of the day though, I need and want sharp images, not a mushy mess. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

hi all I have been using the latest version 17.5 of on1PhotoRaw  and it only gets better and better every month with the updates,

my Fujifilm X-T2 Raw files are fine   see this short video if you have time using the detail slider in on1  I find a big difference with my raw files and the next upgrade at end of month will only make things better  in my opinion 

 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_1UJ-XWsXU&t=24s

 

 

 

Tom G Scotland

Link to post
Share on other sites

I process and submit quite a number of images to stock agencies.  I have yet had one be rejected for the "watercolor" effect.  Now I've had rejections due to my stupidity and/or negligence in not checking certain things in the frame, but never, ever due to that effect. So, even though I own Silkypix and Iridient, I use LR for 99.00% of my image processing.  

 

Honestly, it's not that big of a deal "when" it occurs (to me) and my way of shooting.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all, the post from Alan1740 above echoes the problem I have with the Fuji compressed RAF files.

 

Call it waxy detail/worms or whatever, its a definite problem.

 

I am getting to the point where I am about to turn in my Fuji gear.

 

I have had work kicked back because of the waxy look from my XT1 and X100F when shooting against grass/foliage, and had to go re-shoot on Nikon (which was accepted).

 

I have tried Lightroom and On1, but neither seems to be able to cope well with compressed RAF files. Next step is to try uncompressed RAF files, and see where that takes me. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

 

Have been also looking for satisfying solution once and for all for quite long time, but finally comparing fuji X-T2 own jpeg IQ with LR results I see pretty same results in sharpness and color render. Maybe x-trans sensor does not give out the real life view by human eye? There is certainly problem with fuji own jpeg engine as well then, because green leaves don't give out quite any brown color. Irident x transformer certainly makes things more natural and sharp, but it seems to make even sharp by deafult bokeh

Edited by Taala78
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have an LR CC+PS CC workflow, and I have never been satisfied with RAF sharpening with LR or ACR. With both my X-E2 (v.4.0) and X-T2 (v2.01)  the "wormy" artifacts are ever present. I have tried many of the suggested/recommended options, but I find that my LR+PS habit is hard to break. However, I have found a solution which works quite well for me. 

 

I use Alienskin ExposureX2 and On1 Photo RAW 2017 as LR/PS plugins and external editors. On importing RAF files to LR I have LR Sharpening set to 0 rather than the LR default.

I make all other LR adjustments including crop/straightening, excluding any sharpening.

Then depending on what I plan to do with the image I will edit in either Exposure X2, or On1 Photo RAW 2017, either of which I use to apply sharpening if needed. The finalized rendition of those edited files are saved back to Lightroom, and there is no evidence of the "LR RAF worms" or foliage waxiness.

 

Occasionally I will bypass LR and use either Exposure X2, or On1 Photo RAW as a standalone with results I am happy with. My big hope for this year is that Adobe will get their act together and fix this RAF rendering issue especially with regard to sharpening.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have now switched from Lightroom to Capture One. The image quality is much better for me, and Capture One is far quicker.

 

Not an easy decision, because I am going to lose the ability to go back and edit older photos.

 

I have been with Lightroom from the very start, but right now I can't justify staying on the Adobe platform.

 

I'm upset that Lightroom has just not moved forward substantially for many years. There's a reason that ON1, Topaz, X-Transformer, Affinity, and others now have their own raw processing pipeline, it's because Adobe have not stepped up. And make no mistake, it's not just with Fuji files.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't "get" X-Transformer. Sure, the files are more detailed than with Lightroom but the colours are often uninspiring. Also the sharpness seems exaggerated and unnatural with default settings or not sharp enough with the smooth one. Far too many people don't seem to really notice what foliage actually looks like to the naked eye -- it actually looks neither like the analytical Iridient, nor the smudged Lightroom --incidentally Lightroom is also soft with other cameras which tends to be ignored though there seems to be somewhat fewer issues boosting the sharpness of Bayer v XTrans.

 

Every RAW developer has its strengths and weaknesses. I'm actually coming round to Photo Ninja again after being frustrated for a while with the slow development. Eventually v.2 will see the light of day and I'm sure there will be interface improvements. There are no glaring weaknesses I can see in the actual development side. Highlight recovery can still a be bit funky but it at least tries to go further than LR. The slighly cartonish HRD effect which the default occasionally produces can easily be modified or just turn off smart lighting.

 

To the OP, I actually prefer the LR to the oversharpened C1 version though C1 is a good package. Its very individual colours for Fuji are a matter of taste.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This old chesnut AGAIN.

 

Just get Capture one and be done with it :) Works for me, few hints for people worried about tranisitioning to C1

 

1) This is for Mike Photo's - note you can import your old LR catelogue into C1 and it will do its best to recreate and translate the settings and processing you had performed in LR, its not 100% and its can't do all settings but it gets damn close and is a great place to start from if you are revisiting an old shoot.

 

2) Use Workspaces, you can customize your workspace to be as you want it, I use this a lot and have a workspace with all my most used tools in one place, hugely powerful.

 

3) If you are unsure where to start with workspaces, look in the menu and you will find that there are some legacy workspaces, including a Lightroom one, load this and it configures Capture One to be as much like LR as possible to help you transition your workflow.

 

4) Use the excellent series of C1 videos on their website, I watched them all and was up and running with about 90% of what I wanted to do in a couple of days.

 

G

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 


If someone is interested in sharpening and denoising X-Trans Fujifilm Raw files in Adobe software... I've just updated my post on blog. Let me know what you think about these settings please.

 



Maybe we can find a new way to post produce these really high quality files.



 


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...