- Messages
- 3,399
- Name
- Tom
- Edit My Images
- Yes
How is this processed? What level of sharpening?
Was this a straight RAF file or did it go through X-transformer first?
The Fabulous Fuji X owners thread
- Thread starter mart77
- Start date
How is this processed? What level of sharpening?
Was this a straight RAF file or did it go through X-transformer first?
- Messages
- 18,233
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- Yes
- Messages
- 9,372
- Edit My Images
- Yes
We're missing you.I’m still around. I just have no camera now and three bikes.
Honest.
You can trust me. I used to work for a doctor.
- Messages
- 4,647
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I had a short trip to Wales and inspired by George's recent video (NegativeFeedback on YouTube:
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XLEQlfTMOVk&t=632s
) I persuaded a friend to drive me up Mountain Road for my version of his shot of the steelworks in Port Talbot. Unfortunately, her satnav found Mountain Road, Swansea rather than Mountain Road, Port Talbot so the view was rather more distant than I expected. Who would have guessed that Wales has more than one mountain??? Still, I was pleased with the outcome (XT1+50-230mm):
Port Talbot by Ian, on Flickr
) I persuaded a friend to drive me up Mountain Road for my version of his shot of the steelworks in Port Talbot. Unfortunately, her satnav found Mountain Road, Swansea rather than Mountain Road, Port Talbot so the view was rather more distant than I expected. Who would have guessed that Wales has more than one mountain??? Still, I was pleased with the outcome (XT1+50-230mm):
Port Talbot by Ian, on Flickr
- Messages
- 23,661
- Name
- Toby
- Edit My Images
- No
Fair enough, I only saw them if I increased sharpening but then I didn't keep it for long so maybe I might have come across it more if I'd taken enough shotsI don't think that I have gone way over the top with the sharpening, yet the worms are horrendous. I'm not saying that most people cannot live with them for their own purposes and workflow, but I can't understand why there are only 2 or 3 of us that know that they are there... or admit to them being there. Surely if it was not a side effect from the X-Trans 2 (in my case) then Lightroom would have identified and eradicated the problem by now...
... just saying!
. I agree about the X-trans, even Fuji's own silkypix can't eradicate it let alone adobe.I don't understand people who don't zoom in when editing tbh. 'Correct' sharpening should be done at 1:1.
I
I spat my dummy 86922
Guest
My lens hood on the 55-200mm has got scratched. Don’t know how but it looks terrible. Rather than buying a replacement if the same, would it affect image quality if I got one that wasn’t so deep as that’s always annoyed me since I’ve had it.
Matt
Matt
Stephen L
I asked a Stupid Question Once...
- Messages
- 6,649
- Name
- Stephen
- Edit My Images
- No
100% is fine and desirable. 200% is pointless and counterproductive.
Nod
Tootles
- Messages
- 45,614
- Name
- Nod (UK)
- Edit My Images
- Yes
While this is quite true, surely it also means that "correct" sharpening done at 1:1 should be reduced to a level that doesn't introduce (or at least exacerbate) artefaction such as worminess and/or painterly effects? If I do any PP (such as cloning out unwanted elements like litter that I missed when "gardening" a shot), I'll zoom in as close as necessary and sharpen with the important element of the image showing at 1:1 so should any haloes or other nasties appear, I can fiddle with the sliders to eliminate the problem.
Fuji Dave
I'm in Clover
- Messages
- 22,088
- Name
- Dave
- Edit My Images
- No
- Messages
- 23,661
- Name
- Toby
- Edit My Images
- No
I never go beyond 1:1/100%
- Messages
- 8,025
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- Yes
@Tom Green you've bought the camera, just get on processing in LR, go easy on sharpness slider (X-Trans3 is already much sharper than previous X-Trans). If you get problems try the various plugins/other converters to solve it!!
You won't know until you try!!
Personally I hardly touch the sharperness slider, but may meddle with Detail and give Clarity a nudge
You won't know until you try!!
Personally I hardly touch the sharperness slider, but may meddle with Detail and give Clarity a nudge
Last edited:
Stephen L
I asked a Stupid Question Once...
- Messages
- 6,649
- Name
- Stephen
- Edit My Images
- No
I too am learning that this is the way with the Trans 3 processor.
D
Deleted member 41401
Guest
Not true.... Our usual competitions are 40cm x 30cm including mount, so I usually print 12.5 x 8.5 inches. However, we also have 3 competitions where entries are 50cm x 40cm including mount, so I usually print 16.5 x 12.5 inches, which in actual fact is slightly bigger than A3.
All that said, there's no point in arguing the toss, particularly as I don't want to be labelled as a heretic alongside Snerkler and burned at the stake.
I just wanted to show and confirm that the worm effect is obvious when aggressive sharpening is applied, despite what most people seem to say. And, with Lightroom being my editor of choice, it is a limitation that I have to consider in my workflow that I haven't had to before.I love my little X-T1, but personally, it couldn't be my main/only camera.
- Messages
- 9,420
- Name
- Jonathan
- Edit My Images
- No
I'm still lost. is this just a issue with landscape shooting? i shoot people mainly and have found the fuji files to be really pleasing on the eye. never had an issue with worms that i know of
i do find the fuji primes to be sharper than most lenses and therefore never go crazy with sharpening.
only issue i think I've ever had was a long exposure shot i took at the The River Thames and the photo had a bit of a water colour painting look to it.
i do find the fuji primes to be sharper than most lenses and therefore never go crazy with sharpening.
only issue i think I've ever had was a long exposure shot i took at the The River Thames and the photo had a bit of a water colour painting look to it.
D
Deleted member 41401
Guest
I'm still lost. is this just a issue with landscape shooting? i shoot people mainly and have found the fuji files to be really pleasing on the eye. never had an issue with worms that i know of
.
I did a studio session earlier this year and took some images with the X-T1 to try it out. Not all, but a few exhibited the "waxy skin" syndrome. I remember showing a shot to Snerkler at the time. Unfortunately I deleted those pictures ages ago, so cannot put one up on here as an example.
If you haven't seen any issues, then don't go looking for them. Just continue to enjoy your camera.
Nod
Tootles
- Messages
- 45,614
- Name
- Nod (UK)
- Edit My Images
- Yes
- Messages
- 1,685
- Name
- Julian
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I don't do wide either, not sure where I have made that impression?
I wouldn't call 35mm FF wide? That's as wide as I go in the main, but I prefer 50mm FF for most shooting. However I do like a 35mm / 85mm kit as well.
- Messages
- 8,025
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- Yes
X-Trans3 is very different to X-Trans2, we just have to be careful here and say that much of the issues are not with the latest X-Trans sensors, or at least are less exhibited!
- Messages
- 6,739
- Name
- Peter
- Edit My Images
- No
Three bikes..........motorcycles I hope....?I’m still around. I just have no camera now and three bikes.
Regards;
Pete
- Messages
- 16,755
- Name
- Keith
- Edit My Images
- No
I don't do wide either, not sure where I have made that impression?
Exactly, it isn't wide
That's when I know wide isn't really my thing. I remember doing a wedding with the 35/85/300 and the 35 only got used for large group shots. And even at that I was cropping in post. That was on the D800E, which allowed for that generously.
- Messages
- 7,932
- Name
- Terry
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I pixel peep my images at 1:1 when in Lightroom and I see plenty of worms after sharpening there. I have sharpened this shot a bit more than I would normally, to illustrate this more clearly:
I pixel peep my images at 1:1 when in Lightroom and I see plenty of worms after sharpening there. I have sharpened this shot a bit more than I would normally, to illustrate this more clearly:
[URL='https://flic.kr/p/YJDNEJ']worm
worm[/URL] by CFC Photo, on Flickr
1:1 crop of above image ...
worm1 by CFC Photo, on Flickr
That is most clearly and grossly over sharpened.
However if you must sharpen to that extent do it in two stages. Stop before worms as you call them appear at 100%in lightroom.
Then you can output sharpen in photoshop, almost as much as you like, but stop short before halos appear.. sharpening to the extent that you have done shows no more detail at all, there is none to show. It simply produces artifacts and halos.
- Messages
- 1,361
- Name
- Dave
- Edit My Images
- Yes
+1 to this. If LR is what you know, start there. Be cautious with the sharpening and don't push it too far. I think @Diamonddec is going too far for screen, as I can see halos around the rocks as well as the infamous worms. Having said that, you can sharpen a bit more for print than for screen and only he knows what his printer does with such files. My experience is that if you find detail lacking in X-Trans files (less likely with a 24MP X-Trans 3 file than with a 16MP X-Trans 2), the X-Transformer plugin will allow to get more detail for a given level of sharpening while still sticking in LR, and should be your next port of call. But try first and see how you get on. Many great pictures have been made with absolutely no need of superfine details...
I
I spat my dummy 86922
Guest
I have just spent the last hour downloading some Nikon D7100, D500, D5 raw files at iso200. I compared them to my XT10 images at iso200
Things I noticed..
Fuji images are naturally sharper than all the Nikon images I put in which means they need less sharpening anyway
Nikon images, when pushed with sharpening to full or close to full show some "worm" effect , although they do recover quicker when I start to bring up the threshold slider
Fuji images are sharper at the sharpening slider set at 300 (out of 1000) than the Nikon are at full 1000 sharpening.
Im not going to worry about it , it isn't like I'm a class leading photographer anyway and if I ever got to that level then I am sure I could afford to move if needed.
Matt
Things I noticed..
Fuji images are naturally sharper than all the Nikon images I put in which means they need less sharpening anyway
Nikon images, when pushed with sharpening to full or close to full show some "worm" effect , although they do recover quicker when I start to bring up the threshold slider
Fuji images are sharper at the sharpening slider set at 300 (out of 1000) than the Nikon are at full 1000 sharpening.
Im not going to worry about it , it isn't like I'm a class leading photographer anyway and if I ever got to that level then I am sure I could afford to move if needed.
Matt
- Messages
- 7,932
- Name
- Terry
- Edit My Images
- Yes
The so called worms are not a fault. If you sharpen at 100% and stop short of creating them you have extracted all the detail that it is possible to extract.. Any further sharpening produces halos and artifacts. Think of those things as a warning that you are going too far.
Shots that are over sharpened look unnatural with details strangely delineated. There are numerous of examples like that to be seen on this forum.
Sharpening does not make up for poor focus or bad technique. It is used to correct for the inevitable demosaicing needed to create the colour image.
Fuji x filter produces an image ver similar to that produced by a high quality stochastic screen used in litho printing.
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=s...d=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8#imgrc=2wpNdMGgddojBM:
You can see from that that the stochastic image is much finer and more random than the bayer like dot image.
But both should be viewed at enlargements at which they can not bee seen.
In the same way a FujiX images will show more detail than a bayer one , all else being equal.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 23,661
- Name
- Toby
- Edit My Images
- No
I'm pretty sure sharpness will be down to the lenses rather than the sensor, most Fuji lenses are pretty damn sharp.
I can't say I've ever seen worms on my Nikon files tbh. I don't think I've ever ramped sharpening up that high though, rarely go above 50. 50 sharpening on Fuji files can start to look pretty awful which is why I never touched sharpening and just used detail.
It's not a great trait either to be fair.
I
I spat my dummy 86922
Guest
Ok here are some tests I've just done , first three are Fuji XT10 and second the Nikon D7100. These are all 100% view. Obviously the Nikon are bigger as they are more resolution so in the next post after this will put them in at similar size to the Fuji so you can see what they would look like if printed at similar size.
Fuji XT10 Sharpening 300 - Threshold 1
Fuji XT10 Sharpening 1000(max) - Threshold 0 - clearly showing worm
Fuji XT10 Sharpening 1000(max) - Threshold 1
Nikon D7100 Sharpening 300 - Threshold 1
Nikon D7100 Sharpening 1000(max) - Threshold 0 - clearly showing worm
Nikon D710 Sharpening 1000(max) - Threshold 1
Fuji XT10 Sharpening 300 - Threshold 1
Fuji XT10 Sharpening 1000(max) - Threshold 0 - clearly showing worm
Fuji XT10 Sharpening 1000(max) - Threshold 1
Nikon D7100 Sharpening 300 - Threshold 1
Nikon D7100 Sharpening 1000(max) - Threshold 0 - clearly showing worm
Nikon D710 Sharpening 1000(max) - Threshold 1
Last edited by a moderator:
- Messages
- 23,661
- Name
- Toby
- Edit My Images
- No
That software does introduce some ugly artefacts doesn't it. But 1000 sharpeningOk here are some tests I've just done , first three are Fuji XT10 and second the Nikon D7100.
Fuji XT10 Sharpening 300 - Threshold 1
Fuji XT10 Sharpening 1000(max) - Threshold 0 - clearly showing worm
Fuji XT10 Sharpening 1000(max) - Threshold 1
Nikon D7100 Sharpening 300 - Threshold 1
Nikon D7100 Sharpening 1000(max) - Threshold 0 - clearly showing worm
Nikon D710 Sharpening 1000(max) - Threshold 1
You do realise that you've got different radius on the sharpening?
I
I spat my dummy 86922
Guest
Nikon D7100 Sharpening 300 - Threshold 1
Nikon D7100 Sharpening 1000(max) - Threshold 0 - clearly showing worm
Nikon D710 Sharpening 1000(max) - Threshold 1
Nikon D7100 Sharpening 1000(max) - Threshold 0 - clearly showing worm
Nikon D710 Sharpening 1000(max) - Threshold 1
- Messages
- 1,361
- Name
- Dave
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Yes...for a given demosaicing process, and for a given sharpening method. It may be be that more detail can be extracted with alternate approaches to either of those two things, if it really matters.
The issue, insofar as there is an issue, is not with X-Trans files, but how LR demosiacs them, especially X-Trans 2 files.
I
I spat my dummy 86922
Guest
Ah didn't notice that. Ok will put one up now at 300 sharpening and 1 threshold of both. I have just pulled down the radius to 0.5 on the Nikon and it made no difference at all
I
I spat my dummy 86922
Guest
Fuji
Nikon
Nikon
I
I spat my dummy 86922
Guest
That software does introduce some ugly artefacts doesn't it. But 1000 sharpening
You do realise that you've got different radius on the sharpening?
If you think CaptureOne introduces ugly artefacts then when I tried Lightroom they were much worse for the same files.
- Messages
- 23,661
- Name
- Toby
- Edit My Images
- No
I'm always happy to be proven wrong but I disagree, all software I've tried (which is A LOT including fujis own) can demonstrate the artefacts from my experience. I've even seen undesirable effects in jpegs.
- Messages
- 7,932
- Name
- Terry
- Edit My Images
- Yes
DId you look at the stochasutic link..... you only see these patterns in fuji files if you over sharpen. In the same way you only see them in stochastic print if you over enlarge.
- Messages
- 23,661
- Name
- Toby
- Edit My Images
- No
Lightroom's sharpening is not great tbh. I tend to use PS high pass filter more these days.