I don't know that I would describe the Lightroom output as 'worms' though, but certainly the XT processed rafs look better. The 35 detail example had to have the amount set to 48 to get a result, which of course is far too high. In each case I have tried to get an image that looks as detailed as the XT versions, one with detail set to 80 and one set to 35. If you look at the grass and the top of the hedge you will see that XT makes a better job of demosaicing than Lightroom. I did not use any noise reduction or sharpening in XT and I did not apply any noise reduction or clarity in Lightroom. Each filename describes the detail panel settings used e.g XT smoother after LR_A30_R1_D80_M0_crop is a crop of a RAF that was demosaiced in XT-transformer using the smoother option and then sharpened in Lightroom with amount 30, radius 1, detail 80 and no masking.
The conditions were not good so I used 400iso and then I lightened them by about a stop - so really 800iso - not ideal but real world at least. 'More detailed' certainly gives more detail but is too sharp for general use with the 24mp sensor in my opinion. There are two different demosaicing types in X-transformer. However, as far as the poorer detail performance of Lightroom is concerned, it cannot be fixed with low or high detail settings. John, I agree with what you say regarding the detail setting. Also, usually the 'smoother' option is the one to use. I find that the best way of using it is to not use the sharpening or noise reduction in X-Transformer but instead to do those in Lightroom once the file is converted to the DNG. There is a free trial available that puts a red line across the image but it will give you an idea of whether you think you might need it or not. I bought X-transformer and I have got to know which images will benefit from it by experience. I make prints that are usually around A3,and provided I have not cropped heavily, the effect is rarely if ever seen. If you pixel peep at 100% you will see it immediately and no, you can't get rid of it with the sliders. Also it is not noticeable unless you make big prints or crop heavily. It only affects foliage and grass (basically anything green and detailed) and occasionally some other kinds of fine detail. I joined so that I could reply! I have Lightroom Classic CC and Iridient X-transformer.The problem is definitely a real one, applies only to Adobe Camera Raw and is seen with the later sensors (I have an X-T2). I was idly looking at the forum when I noticed this post. I don't see it so much with the newer bodies, or with LR since they improved Fuji handling, and it's more of a pixel peeping thing - not something that I see in prints. Doing more Detail work isn't a big problem for me because I have already saved time in the Basic panel because the viewfinder is WYSIWYG and my exposure is often much closer to the final result than it is with a DSLR where I tend to be shooting more "correctly" (as in exposing to the right).Ī lot of the talk about a wormy look and advice about LR sharpening applies more to the earlier XTrans models like the XT1. I sense it's partly ISO-related, but also content (greens).
I still don't feel I have nailed the settings, and I have 3 or 4 presets that I'll apply before I decide which way to go. What I mean is that with Nikon I pretty well have a standard setting, essentially quite high sharpening and also high masking, but I don't really have such a standard with Fuji. But by comparison with NEFs in LR, I do feel the RAFs need more individual Detail panel settings. I get excellent results using an all LR workflow.īecause I wanted to see "the issue" for myself, I have experimented with the raw files in CaptureOne and Iridient X-Transformer (which produces demosaiced DNGs, so keep your raws) and I feel that in LR I can always match their results. I bought an XT2 a little over a year ago as a second camera, it was my first Fuji and first mirrorless, and it quickly became the camera I use most often.
I don't think there is a consensus, Cletus, more like an assumption that there is a problem.
0 kommentar(er)
