Jump to content

New Lightroom


Recommended Posts

Lightroom has been ok with raf files for some time now. The only time you might see "worms" is if you over sharpen and look at the image at 100 percent. I regularly make 30 x 40 cm prints and I have never been bothered by it. Is there someone local to you that has lightroom classic cc so that you could judge for your self? I could do it for you if you could get a raf file to me via Dropbox or something.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lightroom has been ok with raf files for some time now. The only time you might see "worms" is if you over sharpen and look at the image at 100 percent. I regularly make 30 x 40 cm prints and I have never been bothered by it. Is there someone local to you that has lightroom classic cc so that you could judge for your self? I could do it for you if you could get a raf file to me via Dropbox or something.

 

I'd love to see how OK LR is with RAF files now. Below is an RAF file from an X-T2. Don't let the WB throw you -- it was set to unity when the photo was taken. Just WB of the side of the barn. You can post a link to a full-res JPEG result here. Thanks.

 

X-T2 RAF file

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Graflex. I am back home and with my computer now. However I just get a blank when I use your link. Can you post the file again please?

 

Hi Graflex. I am back home and with my computer now. However I just get a blank when I use your link. Can you post the file again please?

 

It's a Dropbox link -- working for me: https://www.dropbox.com/s/3beseqfwlz91gb2/_DSF0648.RAF?dl=0

 

Thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

BobJ sent me an LR processed version of the RAF file I posted. Here's the link he sent me: https://www.dropbox.com/s/o5juwj1mcbptuba/_DSF0648.tif?dl=0

 

I'm seeing the same old LR and the same old poor fine detail rendition with Fuji RAF files. This RAF file is from an X-T2. Below is a side by side of a section of the image at 100% -- the file BobJ did and a version run through PhotoNinja.

 

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

BobJ sent me an LR processed version of the RAF file I posted. Here's the link he sent me: https://www.dropbox.com/s/o5juwj1mcbptuba/_DSF0648.tif?dl=0

 

I'm seeing the same old LR and the same old poor fine detail rendition with Fuji RAF files. This RAF file is from an X-T2. Below is a side by side of a section of the image at 100% -- the file BobJ did and a version run through PhotoNinja.

 

attachicon.giflr_pn_comp.jpg

I just uploaded a comparison between latest LR and Silkypix 7 Pro. SP wins on noise, detail and definition. Noticed this in a number of situations recently. See www.fujix-forum.com/threads/lightoom-and-lack-of-fuji-support.74489/page-2#post-733054

 

Sent from my SM-A310F using Tapatalk

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree and disagree. I don't have PhotoNinja but I do have X-transformer. The X-Transformer conversion (I used the 'smoother' option) gives a result that is very similar to the PhotoNinja and does indeed show less 'worming' at 100%. The question is, does this matter at real sizes? I cropped a section from the two conversions that equated to a 42x28cm print at 360 ppi and printed them on glossy paper on my Epson P800. You will have to take my word for it that there is no visible difference when viewed from 12 inches. When I viewed the prints through a 2x magnifying glass I could just detect a difference. So personally I will only be using X-Transformer when I have to crop the image by a significant amount.

 

Anyway, many thanks for the file Graflex. The comparison will be useful for all to see if they need to make a decision about which raw converter to go for.

 

P.S. I will of course delete your file from my system now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting about Silkypix. I used to use that but it was a few years ago. At that time it gave great colour but was inferior in every other way. Have they improved the awful UI too? Can I also just mention that to compare raw converters you can't just use their defaults as they are usually (certainly in the case of Adobe) made to give a flat, conservative look for a starting point. For example you have to know how to use their sharpening and noise reduction tools in each case. I expect that you are aware of that, so sorry if I sound a bit patronising.

It was just the same in the old days - constant comparisons between films, developers and enlarging lenses.

 

Wishing you good exposures. Let's all get out and take some pictures.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is a comparison between 3 RAF files, with 3 different sharpening settings (the rest is SOOC):

 

Sharpening = 35

 

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!

 

Sharpening = 67

 

 

Sharpening = 100

 

 

All in all, I agree with what BobJ said: as long as you don't go crazy on sharpening (I'd say you should stay below 50), you shouldn't see any worm. I haven't seen any difference between LR 2018 and the previous version (I just made the update on my Windows computer and compared 2 files processed with these 2 versions).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting about Silkypix. I used to use that but it was a few years ago. At that time it gave great colour but was inferior in every other way. Have they improved the awful UI too? Can I also just mention that to compare raw converters you can't just use their defaults as they are usually (certainly in the case of Adobe) made to give a flat, conservative look for a starting point. For example you have to know how to use their sharpening and noise reduction tools in each case. I expect that you are aware of that, so sorry if I sound a bit patronising.

It was just the same in the old days - constant comparisons between films, developers and enlarging lenses.

 

Wishing you good exposures. Let's all get out and take some pictures.

I think that Silkypix is a little complex, once you get past the standard sliders, while the help files are also dense. For a newbie, as I was, it was all a little too much. But I have just come back to SP after a year with LR and after having researched more about underlying first principles of image editing. With that knowledge I am liking SP more, and its results are better than I am achieving with LR. And since I read much about LR/RAF issues, I am not alone in thinking LR has issues. I am seriously considering going for SP 8 Pro upgrade from 7 Pro.

 

Sent from my SM-A310F using Tapatalk

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree and disagree. I don't have PhotoNinja but I do have X-transformer. The X-Transformer conversion (I used the 'smoother' option) gives a result that is very similar to the PhotoNinja and does indeed show less 'worming' at 100%. The question is, does this matter at real sizes? I cropped a section from the two conversions that equated to a 42x28cm print at 360 ppi and printed them on glossy paper on my Epson P800. You will have to take my word for it that there is no visible difference when viewed from 12 inches.

 

Depending on use I agree the difference can be minor. I used PhotoNinja in the above post but basically almost any alternative raw converter does a better job than LR rendering fine detail from RAF files. Iridient is a popular choice, but Capture One is also excellent -- SilkyPix is very good as are some of the free raw converters like Raw Therapee.

 

I also make large prints and, you'll have to take my word for it, when I run a print with my Epson 9880 or Canon PF5100 I can see the fine detail weakness if the image is demosaiced in LR as opposed to one of the alternative converters.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am putting together a new computer setup. Maxed the RAM, Turbo this, SSD that, etc. So I'll be needing to move my CC subscription over and maybe add a Raw converter.

I shoot Raw+Jpegs and when I last tried a CC/Camera Raw conversion I looked for and found the worms. I was using the defaults.

Previously I had tried SilkyPics (who chose that name and why?) and Capture 1. Was not impressed with either.

Once I get rolling with new setup I'll try Luminar, ON1, Irident, whatever. See what seems smoothest to me.

I am not brand loyal, to Adobe, just only one I've used going on 10 years.

 

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m going to be looking for an alternative to LightRoom at some point. I use the standalone version, which you pay once for and then use for as long as you like without ever paying more. I can’t for the life of me see why I’d want to keep on paying for software month after month once I’ve installed it. But if, as is likely, Adobe discontinue the standalone version, and if my existing version stops being compatible with files from future Fuji cameras, then I’d look for a different raw converter.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Iridient offerings seem ok. Iridient X-Transformer works well with Lightroom now that it has a plug-in. I have also heard good things about PhotoNinja. SilkyPix has a strange name because it is Japanese. I would imagine that being Japanese it will always work with Fuji files. I used it many moons ago when i had a Minolta. At that time it gave great colour but was lousy at noise reduction and had a truly awful UI. In fairness it may have been improved since then.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

BobJ sent me an LR processed version of the RAF file I posted. Here's the link he sent me: https://www.dropbox.com/s/o5juwj1mcbptuba/_DSF0648.tif?dl=0

 

I'm seeing the same old LR and the same old poor fine detail rendition with Fuji RAF files. This RAF file is from an X-T2. Below is a side by side of a section of the image at 100% -- the file BobJ did and a version run through PhotoNinja.

 

attachicon.giflr_pn_comp.jpg

Hi!

Quite late to answer to this tread, but I tried own LR (6.14) processing for this photo... in my opinion it is not bad at all comparing with PhotoNinja...

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

Hi!

Quite late to answer to this tread, but I tried own LR (6.14) processing for this photo... in my opinion it is not bad at all comparing with PhotoNinja...

attachicon.gif_DSF0648-2.jpg

 

Should look pretty good at a reduced size, but you're over-compensating for Adobe's poor detail rendering with increased contrast and sharpening. You've created a halo in the sky around the tree and some pretty noticeable sharpening artifacts. Back down from the halo and see how it looks. Your option is a viable one but you've been forced into a choice of creating harm to get results that look close to what more capable converters produce without doing as much damage.

 

lr_rt_compare.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes! you're right! Thanks for your comparisson job!

+40 sharp, 1,7 radius and 100 on details. + 50 on clarity also... no contrast added... I tried Capture One, McPhun, Dark Table, Iridient, Silky... Most of them do a great job on details but not so good on noise reduction or the work flow is not comparable with LR. The most acceptable solution for me was Iridient + LR but the extra added step it was no real benefit for final results, at least for 1:1 view on a 100 cm 4K monitor... More than that I observed a loose of dinamic range and slight color shifts of dng files after Iridient process comparing with direct import in LR and this was the most important point for final decision to use only LR. Speaking about prints, maybe on A4 with a high definition printer and magnifing glass to find some differences...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes! you're right! Thanks for your comparisson job!

+40 sharp, 1,7 radius and 100 on details. + 50 on clarity also... no contrast added... I tried Capture One, McPhun, Dark Table, Iridient, Silky... Most of them do a great job on details but not so good on noise reduction or the work flow is not comparable with LR. The most acceptable solution for me was Iridient + LR but the extra added step it was no real benefit for final results, at least for 1:1 view on a 100 cm 4K monitor... More than that I observed a loose of dinamic range and slight color shifts of dng files after Iridient process comparing with direct import in LR and this was the most important point for final decision to use only LR. Speaking about prints, maybe on A4 with a high definition printer and magnifing glass to find some differences...

 

The DNG that IR-X outputs is a linear DNG -- a demosaiced RGB file in a DNG wrapper. You're no longer working with your original data then.

 

No raw converter is a "best solution" so we all have to make a compromise choice. One is better with "A" and weaker with "B" and vice versa. I think LR is a very good compromise choice and it works well for a lot of people. The issue with LR's RAF demosaicing/fine detail is pretty minor. It's certainly capable of rendering an excellent image. Just make sure you keep the original RAF file and if you find one that you're not happy with in LR then you always have to option to re-process it with different software.

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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...