Jump to content

X-T20 skin tone issue

vttai84

By vttai84
in Fuji X-T2 / Fuji X-T20

 Share

Recommended Posts

vttai84 Rookie

vttai84

Posted
Posted

hi everyone, 

This pic i shot with x-t20 and 56 1.2 , everything is allright, except skin when i zoom it (this is raf file), is this 'worm effect' or 'wax skin effect', anyone facing this problem and are there any solution to fix it ?

 

Thank you so much !

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
graflex Contributor

graflex

Posted
Posted

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!

 

Given the structure of the X-Trans CFA I can imagine that you're looking at demosaicing artifacts in the squarish pattern that you're seeing. X-Trans is more prone to artifacts in the demosacing process than a Bayer array, but you must understand that all demosaicing of CFAs produces artifacts -- no option exists not to do that and at 527.3% magnification no option exists not to see them. Just remember that at 527.3% magnification you may also be seeing artifacts created by the software enlarging your image to that size and/or an interaction between those artifacts and the demosaicing artifacts that you can no longer really see because of that interaction.  :)

 

Look at the photo on screen at 100% magnification. Does it look OK?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
zippo Apprentice

zippo

Posted
Posted

I was facing the same problem. The worms doesn't bother me that much because they were only visible in a huge magnification. But the skin color was awful. I bought a Colorchecker and did some test shots of different light-situations. Since then you can choose the profile which matches the situation of your photo in Lightroom.

After some months with the X-T20, I work mostly with one profile (matches the most situations).

 

Gesendet von meinem BLN-L21 mit Tapatalk

Link to post
Share on other sites
vttai84 Rookie

vttai84

Posted
  • Author
Posted

attachicon.gifmag_artifact.jpg

 

Given the structure of the X-Trans CFA I can imagine that you're looking at demosaicing artifacts in the squarish pattern that you're seeing. X-Trans is more prone to artifacts in the demosacing process than a Bayer array, but you must understand that all demosaicing of CFAs produces artifacts -- no option exists not to do that and at 527.3% magnification no option exists not to see them. Just remember that at 527.3% magnification you may also be seeing artifacts created by the software enlarging your image to that size and/or an interaction between those artifacts and the demosaicing artifacts that you can no longer really see because of that interaction. :)

 

Look at the photo on screen at 100% magnification. Does it look OK?

yah it look ok at 100% :)

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Link to post
Share on other sites
vttai84 Rookie

vttai84

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I was facing the same problem. The worms doesn't bother me that much because they were only visible in a huge magnification. But the skin color was awful. I bought a Colorchecker and did some test shots of different light-situations. Since then you can choose the profile which matches the situation of your photo in Lightroom.

After some months with the X-T20, I work mostly with one profile (matches the most situations).

 

Gesendet von meinem BLN-L21 mit Tapatalk

wow , great ! which profile in lightroom you used mostly ? :)

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
brown Newbie

brown

Posted
Posted

Switching from a bayer to an x-trans sensor got me in this situation too. I tought there was something wrong , especially with my high iso images. I found that sharpening without using the 'detail' slider too much is the key. I rarely go up 10 on it. And I still get sharpen the image pretty good. When you open a raf files in lightroom or camera raw the slider is by default at 25 so it's more noticeable. And, most important, I got myself to stopped doing extreme ''pixel peeping'' :D Now I'm pretty happy with my pictures!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Similar Content

  • Posts

    • thelostkiwi
      Looking for Full Frame lenses to adapt to GFX

      By thelostkiwi · Posted

      I also use a Nikon to GFX Fringer and it works very well.  24mm f/1.8 vignettes so best used on 35mm mode.  50mm f/1.8 covers the entire frame very well with no issues and is a superb little lens. 105mm Sigma vignettes slightly but is perfectly usable. 300 f/4 likewise the 105.  I have a 70-200 f/20+.8 incoming to test so will report back but I'm expecting a little vignetting.  Even in 35mm mode the image is still 60MP and if you're prepared to manually crop and correct you can get 80-90 MP images.  I also have a C/Y to GFX adapter.  The 24mm Sigma Superwide vignettes strongly. Ditto 28-80 Zeiss Sonnar. 80-200 f/4 Sonnar is perfectly usable. All work fine as 35mm mode lenses.  I also have an M42 adapter which I tried with the Carl Zeiss Jena 135mm f/3.5 with good results. 
    • Trevor R
      Image correction with GF20-35

      By Trevor R · Posted

      Thank you. I will research it.
    • jerryy
      Image correction with GF20-35

      By jerryy · Posted

      Ahh, the infamous brick wall photos… 😀 According to internet lore, if the dng converter does not properly apply the corrections, you can have it apply custom profiles that should work for you. How to do that is waaaaaay outside of this comment’s scope, but there are plenty of sites listed in the search engines that step you through the processes. Best wishes.
    • Trevor R
      Image correction with GF20-35

      By Trevor R · Posted

      Jerry Thank you very much. That is extremely helpful. It seems that the camera and the lens have the latest firmware update, so it appears that the corrections should be applied automatically. The lens arrived this afternoon and I took some quick test shots, in which the correct lens information appeared in the EXIF files, so that sounds good. I used Adobe DNG converter to convert the Raw (RAF) files, and then opened the DNG files and saved them in PSD format. However, with a beautiful, clear, cloudless blue sky, there were no lines near the edges to check if distortion had been corrected. Another day I plan to photograph a brick wall. Thank you for your help.
    • jerryy
      Image correction with GF20-35

      By jerryy · Posted

      Typically you need to make sure the lens is compatible with the camera, i.e. check the lens compatibility charts for your camera, then make sure the respective firmwares are updated so older issues are resolved. After that, each lens has a manufacturer’s profile which will be embedded into the raw file meta data for the images captured using that lens. From there, it is up to the raw conversion software to apply the lens correction to the image. Different converters do that differently, some automatically, some only if a setting is turned on. For in-camera jpegs, the on-board converter does the corrections automatically, assuming the camera recognizes the lens, it applies a generic profile otherwise. I do not know if that can be turned off or not.
×
×
  • Create New...