Jump to content

Fuji XT-2 Raw : worm effect when photographing small leaves and flowers


Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi all,

Spring came out of nowhere 3 weeks ago, bringing with it small and tender leaves and flowers. I got photography fever… Then I got worms when editing my Fuji X-T2 raw files with Lightroom...

 

Here is my journey.

 

https://blog.laurencebichon.com/en/fuji-xt2-raw-artifacts-and-worms

 

Please let me know your own journey. What do you think ?

 

Enjoy spring shooting !

Laurence

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all,

Spring came out of nowhere 3 weeks ago, bringing with it small and tender leaves and flowers. I got photography fever… Then I got worms when editing my Fuji X-T2 raw files with Lightroom...

 

Here is my journey.

 

https://blog.laurencebichon.com/en/fuji-xt2-raw-artifacts-and-worms

 

Please let me know your own journey. What do you think ?

I settled down with Irident X-transformer with these settings:

RAW process : more detailed

sharpening:none

Luminance noise reduction: Low

Color noise reduction : medium

Dng baseline : adobe default

Apply all corrections to the image. (all checked)

All the turn off lightroom checkboxes checked.

 

as for sharpening and further noise reduction I use NeatImage ( a Photoshop add-on)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all,

Spring came out of nowhere 3 weeks ago, bringing with it small and tender leaves and flowers. I got photography fever… Then I got worms when editing my Fuji X-T2 raw files with Lightroom...

 

Here is my journey.

 

https://blog.laurencebichon.com/en/fuji-xt2-raw-artifacts-and-worms

 

Please let me know your own journey. What do you think ?

 

Enjoy spring shooting !

Laurence

 

Capture One is the best overall solution. Seems you're figuring that out. Dump Adobe.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

your post intrigued me because of the use of the word "worms" in that it described exactly what I saw when I took some images of some archways at a local mosque. The archways are white plaster, nothing more. But when I got the images home, at 100% in LR the images seemed to consist of, well, little worms. I tried to clear it up and submit an image to a stock agency and it was rejected for artifacts. That never happens to me. Ever. So, am I suffering from the Fuji v Adobe issue. 

 

I wish I could upload an image to show you but I'm not at home right now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...
  • 1 year later...
  • 3 months later...

Hi,

I have used several X-trans cameras. I have at present the XT-2. Regarding the worms effect on foliage etc have you compared the out of camera Jpeg to your raw file?. I have always found some sort of worming effect on small leaves and foliage is present with my out of camera jpegs ( using default settings ). I find that the Acros simulation shows this up really well. I am beginning to think that it is a quirk of the Fujifilm Xtrans sensor perhaps. The "worms" are also present with my little X30 too. 

Cheer ian.

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 1/28/2020 at 10:17 AM, dennisfriesen.me said:

I know this is an old topic. But i wanted to tell you guys how to avoid wormy artifacts in Lightroom. 

Under sharpening leave the "detail" slider at 0. Thats it. No wormy artifacts. No need to change your whole workflow...

 

On 7/19/2018 at 1:33 PM, Rap Fotografie said:

Dumping Adobe for Capture One? Such nonsense. Learn to use the tools right and Adobe LR and PS produce stunning results.

Bottom line learn what it is you are working with - that is an Xtrans sensor vs a Bayer sensor.  Fuji files are created with an Xtrans sensor which is quite sharper than a file created with a Bayer sensor.  Therefore default settings in Lightroom tend to over-sharpen when translating from the RAW format; thus creating worms.  This can be proven by simply over-sharpening any image - you will get the same effect.

I use a preset while importing to my Lightroom Catalog that sets all sharpening to 0, then as Capture One does, I increase the Noise Reduction to 50.  This provides an imported image to work with no different than if it came from a Bayer sensor or if I was in Capture One. 

Lately the "Go To" solution has been to use Capture One, but if you look at the default import settings it simply decreases sharpening and adds Noise Reduction to remove the worms.  Truth is both Lightroom and Capture One are both great software solutions, they simply handle Bayer & Xtrans sensors files a bit differently so you need to adjust accordingly.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

The discussion on this topic is as old as the X-Trans sensor itself. It is now a well-established fact that Capture One and Silkypix Developer Studio offer the best approach to read out the correct sensor data, unless you only use Fujifilm X RAW Studio. You can certainly get good results in Adobe LR too, but the handling of the X-Trans sensor is different than in the three converters mentioned.

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.

Loading...
 Share

  • Posts

    • I must have activated the wrong setting because now when I switch to the OVF the white windows stays for a second and then completely disappears. Any idea how to get it back? Thank you all so much. 🙂
    • No thunder stolen. If you read to the end of my article you'll see (in the section "Resources") I have a link for Simon Weir's site. I also have two other links on there with various IR tests. My article is only Fuji-centric because that is my system of choice though I've done a ton of IR work with Sony FF as well. I consider the sites for which I provide links to be complementary and I wish there were more sites out there evaluating for infrared. Although I test for infrared quite thoroughly I can only afford so many lenses. The eight Fuji mount lenses shown in my article I bought myself. In fact, same with the Sony and Micro 4/3 with the exception of the two Sony APS-C zooms that were rented. Also when I get new lenses, I'll update the article on my blog. I can't update the PetaPixel one as they just republished what was on my blog at the time. I have recently shot with the Voigtlander Nokton 35mm f1.2 Fuji-X and 7Artisans 35mm f0.95 Fuji-X. After trying 2 samples of the Voigtlander I returned them both but mainly for their strange and unacceptable (for my work) performance with resolution. Regarding IR, the Voiglander is free of hotspots from 1.2 through about f3.5. I'm impressed with the 7Artisans overall but it only works for IR at wider apertures (f0.95 through about f2.8.) Then again that's why you buy an f/0.95 lens. Thanks for the feedback. Happy shooting! Joel
    • Yes I don’t blame you. I’ll always have some Fujifilm gear. But if they don’t upgrade their gear in the next 3 months I’m going to go back to Canon for a lot of my work. I really love Fujifilm for all the right reasons but it’s faults are getting in the way of my work at this point.
    • You're welcome. I still use my X-Pro2 for personal work every now and then, but I replaced the X-H1 (and the rest of the Fuji-kit) with a Z7II-based kit and I'm very satisfied with that move.
    • That’s a lot of great info. I’m gonna explore those options. I don’t really wanna get an XT4 at this point. (Come on X-H2!) Thanks!
×
×
  • Create New...