Disappointed with X-T30 images in Lightroom

Messages
540
Edit My Images
Yes
#1
I recently purchased a Fuji xt30 and 27mm lens and I have to say I’m mighty disappointed with the images I’m getting so far.
I use Lightroom and I’m getting really odd watercolour effects in foliage with the raw files and the jpegs need work too. They just look bland and I need to work on the black levels and contrast.

Is it just me?

I wanted something smaller and lighter than my d750 but still with decent image quality. I was getting better images with my old rx100.
 
Messages
13,783
Name
Keith
Edit My Images
No
#2
Can you post some examples? And maybe what your LR settings re for the images. Probably best to post in the Fuji threads where you might get better advice
 
Messages
998
Name
Jason
Edit My Images
Yes
#4
You can try the ’enhance details’ function on your raws in LR. Right-click the image and select ED. It’ll produce a DNG file next to your raw. It’s worth reducing the default sharpening as well. I switched to an XT2 from a D750 and found the enhanced details function helped with the Fuji Raws in LR. I use Capture One now though - tried the free Fuji version, it’s streets ahead imho.
 
Last edited:
Messages
15,938
Edit My Images
No
#5
I recently purchased a Fuji xt30 and 27mm lens and I have to say I’m mighty disappointed with the images I’m getting so far.
I use Lightroom and I’m getting really odd watercolour effects in foliage with the raw files and the jpegs need work too. They just look bland and I need to work on the black levels and contrast.

Is it just me?

I wanted something smaller and lighter than my d750 but still with decent image quality. I was getting better images with my old rx100.
Not just you, it’s well known. That being said not everyone sees it for some reason. When I posted with the same findings that you mention I had several people post their photos to show that it wasn’t there in their photos and it must be me doing something wrong, but it was clearly evident and in a few situations worse.

People will advise you that it’s not the software but the way you process it, or will recommend this software and that software but I tried just about every software out there and then some and you can still see artefacts. I can even see it in the SOOC JPEG’s too so clearly it’s not just down to the raw conversion. Lightroom has got a lot better than it was though, in the past their raw conversion of the Fuji files was awful, now it’s ‘passable’ a lot of the time imo.

I wish I wasn’t one of the ones who can see it tbh as I really like the Fuji cameras and lenses.
 
Last edited:
Messages
13,783
Name
Keith
Edit My Images
No
#6
People will claim they tried this and that software and still found same, those people didn't try hard enough. I've used Fuji for years on and off, never experienced these issues. That's why I suggested to drop your worries into the Fuji thread, otherwise you'll get these dance in and out users who really need to back off, since they don't actually use the system anymore

First off, you need to drop the default LR sharpening to 0, and only add where necssary - go very light on any noise reduction, an use sharpen mask if you do want to sharpen [Alt + masking]

Try that at least before listening to the nay sayers
 
Messages
15,938
Edit My Images
No
#7
People will claim they tried this and that software and still found same, those people didn't try hard enough. I've used Fuji for years on and off, never experienced these issues. That's why I suggested to drop your worries into the Fuji thread, otherwise you'll get these dance in and out users who really need to back off, since they don't actually use the system anymore

First off, you need to drop the default LR sharpening to 0, and only add where necssary - go very light on any noise reduction, an use sharpen mask if you do want to sharpen [Alt + masking]

Try that at least before listening to the nay sayers
Not always true, I tried all the recommended settings on all the different softwares, LR, irident, DXO etc etc (y)

Edit: For what it's worth, I'm not trying to put anyone off Fuji (they're great) but for some once they see the artefacts they can't see past them and the OP has clearly seen them. As I said there are some that don't see it, and some that see it and don't care as they like the overall rendering and colours.
 
Last edited:
Messages
12,171
Name
Rich
Edit My Images
Yes
#8
Personally never seen the watercolour or artefact problem, but prepared to accept others have.
I had Fuji cameras right from the early X-E1 times and as things progressed different solutions were proposed.
The different X-Trans sensors i.e. V1, 2 and 3 require different sharpening settings to be applied on LR for maximium effect
For example on V2 the detail slider was pushed right over to 100%, this advice changed for your V3 model

Best thing is have a Google, see what others recommend and give it a try, quite few presets available for Fuji in LR
My view was they were great for most subjects, but never that impressed with foliage heavy landscapes.
 
Messages
12,649
Name
Hi Ho Silver away !
Edit My Images
No
#10
I have heard some folk talk about it, but for me I have never seen it in any of my past or now new Fuji cameras. When I got the X-T3 LR would not open the Raf files so dumped it and got C1.
 
Messages
1,810
Name
David
Edit My Images
Yes
#11
I recently purchased a Fuji xt30 and 27mm lens and I have to say I’m mighty disappointed with the images I’m getting so far.
I use Lightroom and I’m getting really odd watercolour effects in foliage with the raw files and the jpegs need work too. They just look bland and I need to work on the black levels and contrast.

Is it just me?

I wanted something smaller and lighter than my d750 but still with decent image quality. I was getting better images with my old rx100.
The 'watercolor' artifacts are well known, but they only occur under certain types of processing in Lightroom - it's a while since I had my Fujis, but I recall if if you push details more in sharpening and reduce the overall level of sharpness instead, they tended to go away. You have to process X-TRANS images differently to your Nikon ones, it's a simple as that at the end of the day. Get it right and you can get some of the 'Fuji Magic' people rave about.
 
Messages
460
Name
Kyle
Edit My Images
Yes
#12
I also dumped adobe for processing RAF files and went to C1 as the issue could not be removed. I now use the free version of C1 express and export a 16 bit tiff which I process through adobe for final polish.

This is what I was dealing with. Adobe processed raw using minimal sharpening and zero NR, increasing the sharpening, especially the detail converts the watercolour effect into the worms:
FujiX-E3-ACR911
by Kyle, on Flickr

C1 Processed raw. This is almost comparable to my D810.
FujiX-E3-C1
by Kyle, on Flickr
 
Messages
881
Name
Chris
Edit My Images
Yes
#13
A few years ago I had an X-T1 and had the same problem, no matter what I did in LR or Photoshop the artifacts were there. I loved the camera and the lenses are superb but I just couldn't stand the way the files rendered so i sold it.
Recently I was offered a X-T20 at a hard to refuse price so I jumped in again, albeit warily. This time I used the free C1 express for Fuji and happily the files are now fine even in Photoshop (by converting the RAW to DNG).
I have just pulled the trigger on another X-T1 so I'm hoping it's down to the software.
I am also now wondering if the artifacts affect certain cameras or even batches of the same model? On my previous X-T1 I could also see the artifacts on the SOOC jpegs but not on the X-T20 jpegs.
 
Last edited:
Messages
3,052
Name
Tom
Edit My Images
Yes
#14
I also dumped adobe for processing RAF files and went to C1 as the issue could not be removed. I now use the free version of C1 express and export a 16 bit tiff which I process through adobe for final polish.

This is what I was dealing with. Adobe processed raw using minimal sharpening and zero NR, increasing the sharpening, especially the detail converts the watercolour effect into the worms:
FujiX-E3-ACR911
by Kyle, on Flickr

C1 Processed raw. This is almost comparable to my D810.
FujiX-E3-C1
by Kyle, on Flickr
That's a huge difference, still a slight painterly look in the leaves on the C1 though. Problem is, a lot of people want to stay with LR.

The fact they haven't worked this out by now is ridiculous.
 

TCR4x4

Wishes he had a couple more Inches
Messages
8,184
Name
Tom
Edit My Images
Yes
#15
I’ve had a lot of Fuji cameras over the years but only experienced it recently with my XT1 when shooting in the Forest. It’s not a processing issue as the raw files exhibit it upon import in LR. Import the same raw into C1 and the artefacts greatly reduce to a point of almost being invisible.
 
Messages
15,938
Edit My Images
No
#16
Well known issue with the xtrans sensor. Some will say it isn’t there, it is I’m afraid.

Personally I only use Fuji for street stuff now, don’t think I’d consider them for landscape because editing landscape images was not an experience I enjoyed with that sensor.
Fuji for street is a great combo, Fuji do render things like that very well. On the whole I love Fuji for portraits too, although for some reason you do get the odd shot with waxy skin, even at low ISO. One of the worst examples I've seen was one of diamonddec's photos (shot with the XT2), neither of use could figure out why it had happened. For me though the rarity of this wouldn't stop me, but it did for landscapes.
The 'watercolor' artifacts are well known, but they only occur under certain types of processing in Lightroom - it's a while since I had my Fujis, but I recall if if you push details more in sharpening and reduce the overall level of sharpness instead, they tended to go away. You have to process X-TRANS images differently to your Nikon ones, it's a simple as that at the end of the day. Get it right and you can get some of the 'Fuji Magic' people rave about.
As I've said before this is not true. With no processing in LR it's there, with no processing in irident it's there, I've even seen it with SOOC jpeg. I've tried and tried to figure out what causes it and why it's not there all the time, but rocks and foliage seem to suffer the worst.
A few years ago I had an X-T1 and had the same problem, no matter what I did in LR or Photoshop the artifacts were there. I loved the camera and the lenses are superb but I just couldn't stand the way the files rendered so i sold it.
Recently I was offered a X-T20 at a hard to refuse price so I jumped in again, albeit warily. This time I used the free C1 express for Fuji and happily the files are now fine even in Photoshop (by converting the RAW to DNG).
I have just pulled the trigger on another X-T1 so I'm hoping it's down to the software.
I am also now wondering if the artifacts affect certain cameras or even batches of the same model? On my previous X-T1 I could also see the artifacts on the SOOC jpegs but not on the X-T20 jpegs.
That's interesting what you say about C1 and also the XT1 vs XT-20 as it was the XT1 that I could see artefacts with the XT1. Maybe I should try the XT-20. Obviously the XT-20 has the newer X-trans 3 sensor when compared to the XT1, but it's the same sensor as the XT2 which I've also seen artefacts with, although I've only seen raws with the XT2. Which software is C1?
That's a huge difference, still a slight painterly look in the leaves on the C1 though. Problem is, a lot of people want to stay with LR.

The fact they haven't worked this out by now is ridiculous.
TBH it does seem silly to change your workflow simply for a camera. That being said LR is much better and from my extensive testing I could get as good images from that as I could irident, dxo and all the others. As mentioned before the key to reducing the watercolour effect (as well as worms) is not to use any sharpening and just use detail instead.
I’ve had a lot of Fuji cameras over the years but only experienced it recently with my XT1 when shooting in the Forest. It’s not a processing issue as the raw files exhibit it upon import in LR. Import the same raw into C1 and the artefacts greatly reduce to a point of almost being invisible.
Any file imported into LR (or most other softwares) has already been processed to an extent as soon as it's imported. LR used to have a shocking demosaic algorithm for Fuji raw, but it's much better now.
 
Messages
1,810
Name
David
Edit My Images
Yes
#17
As I've said before this is not true. With no processing in LR it's there, with no processing in irident it's there, I've even seen it with SOOC jpeg. I've tried and tried to figure out what causes it and why it's not there all the time, but rocks and foliage seem to suffer the worst.
That differs from my experience, I shot exclusively Fuji from 2016 - 2019 and didn't have any issues that could not be *adequately* corrected by either changing the approach to sharpening, using Irident Developer, or indeed switching to Capture One (which I did in the end). I'm not saying categorically the issue is down to lightroom alone, but certainly in my real world usage, the raw files were recoverable.
 
Messages
15,938
Edit My Images
No
#18
That differs from my experience, I shot exclusively Fuji from 2016 - 2019 and didn't have any issues that could not be *adequately* corrected by either changing the approach to sharpening, using Irident Developer, or indeed switching to Capture One (which I did in the end). I'm not saying categorically the issue is down to lightroom alone, but certainly in my real world usage, the raw files were recoverable.
That’s great, glad you’re happy with it (y)
 
Messages
13,992
Name
Toni
Edit My Images
No
#19
We do seem to see images differently, as Toby and I have discussed in relation to mft and FX. My one brush with xtrans sensors gave the painting effects described (using digital and irfanview) though at the time I assumed it was a problem with lens quality, not knowing any better.

The solution seems to be either Capture 1 or another camera brand.
 
Messages
881
Name
Chris
Edit My Images
Yes
#20
Fuji for street is a great combo, Fuji do render things like that very well. On the whole I love Fuji for portraits too, although for some reason you do get the odd shot with waxy skin, even at low ISO. One of the worst examples I've seen was one of diamonddec's photos (shot with the XT2), neither of use could figure out why it had happened. For me though the rarity of this wouldn't stop me, but it did for landscapes.
As I've said before this is not true. With no processing in LR it's there, with no processing in irident it's there, I've even seen it with SOOC jpeg. I've tried and tried to figure out what causes it and why it's not there all the time, but rocks and foliage seem to suffer the worst.
That's interesting what you say about C1 and also the XT1 vs XT-20 as it was the XT1 that I could see artefacts with the XT1. Maybe I should try the XT-20. Obviously the XT-20 has the newer X-trans 3 sensor when compared to the XT1, but it's the same sensor as the XT2 which I've also seen artefacts with, although I've only seen raws with the XT2. Which software is C1?
TBH it does seem silly to change your workflow simply for a camera. That being said LR is much better and from my extensive testing I could get as good images from that as I could irident, dxo and all the others. As mentioned before the key to reducing the watercolour effect (as well as worms) is not to use any sharpening and just use detail instead.
Any file imported into LR (or most other softwares) has already been processed to an extent as soon as it's imported. LR used to have a shocking demosaic algorithm for Fuji raw, but it's much better now.
C1 = Capture one (capture one express for Fuji actually) it's a free download and free to use.
 
Messages
881
Name
Chris
Edit My Images
Yes
#21
I do agree though, I originally bought photoshop which is not cheap and then spent hour upon hour learning it and watching tutorial videos on youtube etc only to find that I now have to use a different software just for the Fuji files, I still have Nikon and Olympus cameras so photoshop will still be used and it's not a total loss.
 
Messages
13,783
Name
Keith
Edit My Images
No
#22
Not always true, I tried all the recommended settings on all the different softwares, LR, irident, DXO etc etc (y)

Edit: For what it's worth, I'm not trying to put anyone off Fuji (they're great) but for some once they see the artefacts they can't see past them and the OP has clearly seen them. As I said there are some that don't see it, and some that see it and don't care as they like the overall rendering and colours.
I only ever use LR and would have to try hard to produce the effect discussed here. I have seen it, I've seen people post images that had that smudged look about them, but it was almost always down to how they processed. Kei's example above, I took his file when he posted before and processed in LR and had better results, it was ignored.

C1 express for Fuji is free either way, for those who can't work the files in LR.
 
Messages
7,295
Name
Jon
Edit My Images
Yes
#23
I wonder if the phenomenon affected the older cameras, such as the Fuji X10? Some of my photos had strange thread like stringy things, mainly when I was photographing stone/brickwork. Or at times some images had watercolour effects, usually when taking photos of gardens etc. I seem to recall it effecting both shooting Jpegs and in RAW. Still loved that little camera though, even though it caused me a lot of grief.
 
Messages
460
Name
Kyle
Edit My Images
Yes
#24
I only ever use LR and would have to try hard to produce the effect discussed here. I have seen it, I've seen people post images that had that smudged look about them, but it was almost always down to how they processed. Kei's example above, I took his file when he posted before and processed in LR and had better results, it was ignored.

C1 express for Fuji is free either way, for those who can't work the files in LR.
Sorry Cagey, I didn’t ignore your conversion results. I couldn’t replicate them which is more than likely down to me using ACR 9 (camera raw) which is the highest version I can run with CS6. (I’m not willing to go subscription with CC) I think adobe made some improvements in the processing engine in newer versions of ACR that come with CC. If you can find your edit of the image, you can put it side by side with mine above to show the improvement. I briefly tried to find them in the Fuji thread before I first posted as it had all the processing parameters but I gave up looking as it was going to take a while.
 
Messages
13,783
Name
Keith
Edit My Images
No
#25
I didn't save it, but I was able to get decent results on the foliage, I'm on the latest version of LR and I find sharpening and masking better than it's ever been with Adobe products. I know other programs can seem to do the job better but I think there's some auto masking at play
 
Messages
881
Name
Chris
Edit My Images
Yes
#26
Quick update:- I just bought another X-T1 because I loved the one I had in the past. It's just as I remembered it. SOOC jpegs have worms in foliage and grass etc and plastic looking faces. Seems it was the X-T1 files after all to a large extent, and not just solely down to the software that is used. The X-T20 is way better.
 
Last edited:
Messages
7,295
Name
Jon
Edit My Images
Yes
#27
Quick update:- I just bought another X-T1 because I loved the one I had in the past. It's just as I remembered it. SOOC jpegs have worms in foliage and grass etc and plastic looking faces. Seems it was the X-T1 files after all to a large extent, and not just solely down to the software that is used. The X-T20 is way better.
I wonder if the old X-E1 and X-E2 are affected?
 
Messages
12,171
Name
Rich
Edit My Images
Yes
#28
I wonder if the old X-E1 and X-E2 are affected?
Had both and never noticed it, but there again never saw it from my X-T1 either.
Can sort of see the watercolour effect people speak of, but no idea about the wiggly worms thing.
 
Messages
7,295
Name
Jon
Edit My Images
Yes
#29
Had both and never noticed it, but there again never saw it from my X-T1 either.
Can sort of see the watercolour effect people speak of, but no idea about the wiggly worms thing.
I saw worm effect in my old Fuji X10, this was evident in foliage, so I simply stopped including such outdoor scenes in my images. The plastic skin effect was present, when shooting indoors at high ISO with artificial light.

I no longer have to worry about such effects now, as my X10 refuses to work.

If it is not there in the older X-E1 and X-E2, I will still keep my eyes peeled for either of them. I keep a look out, in pre owned shops near me.
 
Last edited:
Messages
7,295
Name
Jon
Edit My Images
Yes
#33
XE1 is X trans so will have worms. Need to look at the original X100 which was Bayer.
I thought Bayer was not considered to produce genuine Fuji colours? :thinking:

I was watching a few youtube clips, Fuji owners were giving sample clips of their Bayer sensor fujis, and saying while the colours are OK, they are not the lovely SOOC Fuji colours everyone raves over.
 
Messages
7,295
Name
Jon
Edit My Images
Yes
#34
If the weird effect is not present in Fuji cameras with the Bayer sensor, why don't people jump on the cheapo X-T100 which is Bayer? Brand new at only £349 with kit lens
 
Messages
16,410
Edit My Images
No
#35
I thought Bayer was not considered to produce genuine Fuji colours? :thinking:

I was watching a few youtube clips, Fuji owners were giving sample clips of their Bayer sensor fujis, and saying while the colours are OK, they are not the lovely SOOC Fuji colours everyone raves over.
SOOC Fuji colours a mixed bag ime, skintones are nice, otherwise just okay, colour of blue skies can sometimes look a bit strange.

The XT100 is no X/H/T1/2/3, its a base model, missing a lot of the better features and better AF.

I dont like the non standard ISO and worms in Fuji, lots of people dont mind it. Thats why we all buy different cameras.
 
Last edited:
Messages
4,218
Name
Terry
Edit My Images
Yes
#36
Precisely why I got shot of my brand new XT-2 when it was first released.

Be buggered if I was going to pay top money for sub standard results.

I saw the artefacts in the RAW files and couldn't get rid of them no matter what software I used.

Waxy skin was also a problem.

You still see examples of waxy skin posted in the Fuji threads but people still give them the thumbs up.
 
Last edited:
Messages
12,649
Name
Hi Ho Silver away !
Edit My Images
No
#39
Cameras are a tool and everyone of mine I loved, Canon Nikon and now Fuji. Most of my images on Flickr are of buskers/singers and jazz, I use C1 to edit all my Fuji X shots and for me and me only I have never seen waxy skin on my shots. As I don`t make a living from my photography which is good for me one thing I never do is blow the image up to silly % to look for anything as if the shot is sharp then I`m happy, but like I said that`s for me only.
 
Top