interested if Lemondixon had any more comments on the processing of X Trans files.
It sounds like you were getting good result, did you find the holy grail settings in lightroom?
Apologies for the delay, but (as you will see) this is not a quick or easy explanation to give, nor something you're likely to easily accept (at least until you've done the Pepsi-challenge on some of your own images and seen the difference).
Basically, there IS a Holy-grail of extracting detail from all your images (not only the Fuji X files) and, in part, this comes down to better sharpening technique and tools (as well as other techniques), however what I have learnt is that (as much as I would like it to be so) you ain't gonna get this from ANY of the RAW converters out there at the moment (though there ARE differences between them, even WITH these other techniques I will point out for you).
I guess, right now (like I did) you're groaning as this isn't what you want to hear and at the thought of having to buy more software, or not being able to do everything all in the one place. Let me make it clear - I LOVE Lightroom, and so wished this wasn't the case, but don't fret; It's not all bad news. Let me first set out some important points (before you shoot me down or dismiss this all):
1. You can STILL use LR (or your preferred RAW converter) and have a slick workflow that won't be time consuming;
2. You're likely to already have all the software you’ll need, assuming you have any version of Photoshop from CS1 or upwards (it may still work on older versions, but I'm not 100% sure);
3. You can download all the comparison images here:
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/175lh66sfkeplvx/AABhdyUZejJO0pUY3aBHn9DGa?dl=04. Yes, I KNOW the foreground in the image I used is out of focus (so please don't criticise), nor is it an aesthetically pleasing image - However, it was used purely as it demonstrates the cursed LR "painterly" effect with large groups of trees / foliage / repeating detail;
5. I have tried these same techniques on lots of other images and the results were the same, including improvements in skin tones/details in portraits and landscape shots with fine detail in gravel etc in the foreground;
6. You also MUST, MUST, MUST remember that images can only truly be compared in the context in which they are finally intended for (print, web etc) and that, if some images
seem over sharpened when zoomed in to 200-300% this is NOT how they look printed at 240-300dpi from normal viewing distances (they look fantastic), but more importantly they still do NOT contain any extra visible noise or generated artefacts if you use the best techniques (i.e. not a RAW converter);
7. The author of these techniques (Guy Gowan - see his website
www.guygowan.com) has persuaded me to abandon the whole input and output sharpening route - Just do it once, but do it really well;
8. No, I'm not doing this as publicity for GG, nor am I paid or induced to promote his stuff - I simply became a member of his site last November (2014) and it has COMPLETELY changed my attitude to what is achievable with sharpening, contrast, colour correction etc. In fact, it was only as a result of searching for clues on how to extract the best detail from Fuji X files that I came across his site;
9. Finally, remember that you WON'T NEED to do these techniques on EVERY image - just the ones that are your final, best picks for display etc - So you can still make brilliant use of LR (or whatever) for managing your library, editing a shoot, output to print (or other media), and even some final tweaks to the image (if you really want/need to). The workflow using LR and GG's techniques if particularly slick I must say.
Let me first explain what can be seen on the various images in the above link - Aside from the full, original RAW / .RAF file for the image used, in the subfolder there are Jpegs made carefully (with like for like settings where possible) for direct comparison:
a) Original Out of Camera Fuji X-E2 produced Jpeg (+1 Sharpening, -1 Highlights/Shaddows)
b) The RAF Raw file processed with LR Default settings (sharpening / noise reduction etc), then converted to Jpeg.
c) The same file converted to DNG in LR , same settings (to check no difference to (b) above
d) The DNG file at my optimum LR settings (as per previous posts) and the RAF file with same settings (again for comparison of DNG conversion process effects, if any), then to Jpeg.
e) The RAF file output (with LR settings for sharpening and noise etc at ZERO) sent to Photoshop from LR, and then “processed” using Guy Gowan’s techniques, then converted to Jpeg
f) The RAF file output as above to PS but from Iridient Developer (ZERO sharpening etc), “processed” GG style as above, then to Jpeg
g) RAF file processed in ID only, but at optimum settings (per previous posts), output to Jpeg from there
h) RAF file output same as (e) but from Capture One to PS, “processed” GG style as above, then output to Jpeg; and (finally!)
i) RAF file processed in Capture only but at optimum settings (per previous posts), output to Jpeg from there
Given the length of this post already (and the limits of your patience), I won’t go into great detail on how GG’s processing works (though I will in another post if requested) but the basics are:
You can push files far, far further in terms of sharpening, contrast and dynamic range expansion without ANY banding, halos or introducing artefacts IF you use properly constructed masks (appropriate to the subject matter - e.g. protecting skin tones). You can get true HDR without it looking like some weird caricature of reality, as in Sin City movie posters! Buy hey, if that’s your thing then no problem. His objective is to give you what your camera is
capable of producing, instead of the heavily compressed narrow dynamic range all manufacturers assume we want as “consumers”.
These masks (unfortunately) cannot be created in ANY RAW converter, and are based on knowledge of colour theory and many traditional techniques used in film darkrooms (which I used to do, and can easily relate to) and lithographic printing. Their beauty is that they are calculated or generated automatically, not by manually drawing selections, and so there are no harsh transitions. They can also be cleverly targeted to focus the processing effects in specific areas only and restrict/prevent other areas being influenced (such as shadows, highlights, skin tones, skies, etc). The learning curve can be pretty steep at first, but it is well worth the time invested.
Better still, these “processing” techniques can be applied in an automated batch method and still give consistent results without having to manually adjust sliders (“wanging” as GG calls it!) for every individual image. This will save you hours, and hours of time, leaving you free to concentrate on final re-touching and adjustments which you will find much more satisfying.
In terms of detail and producing realistic looking shape, contrast and texture in your images, these techniques far, far exceed what any of the RAW converters can achieve in terms of highlight and shadow recovery - a big claim I know, but I have seen it proven and done the same comparisons myself. You can also put on more contrast than you ever thought imaginable (without colour shifts) and an incredible amount of sharpening (his standard is 500%). In retrospect, the example image I have used maybe isn't the best but I'll happily demonstrate this on an image of your choosing.
GG does produce the “Process Action” that does all of the above and allows you to modify the results both image by image, as well as setting up batch processing tailored to suit a particular set of images and your own tastes. This is updated regularly (weekly/monthly) with ongoing improvements. However, if you’re just after a ‘quick fix’ solution without truly understanding the mechanics of what is going on, this may not be for you and you won’t get the best out of it. GG does not sell these Actions as a ‘product’ - he only teaches the techniques to members, who pay an annual subscription, so that they can also do this for themselves as well as make the best use of the Actions he creates and gives out to members (without charge).
If you’re a member over at Fuji-X Forums, he does a 25% subscription discount. Personally, having paid for lots of professional tuition, what I paid was less than most half day courses and about 500 times more informative and useful. I’d got my money’s worth by end of week one. Be warned however, Guy’s style is sometimes a little abrasive and he’s not everyone’s ‘cup of tea’. If you get passed that, you won’t care at all even though he does have great contempt for a lot of what software producers have sold to us as being the only or best way to do things since the digital age took over!
Anyhow, this is not meant to be a GG promo. Look at the images (even if it’s not the best example I could have used). As you will see, ALL of the ones run through his “processing” method are massively more detailed and sharper (and I could have got a lot more out of the shadow detail if needed). All the Jpegs from the camera and other 3 RAW converters (even at optimum settings) look like they’ve had a diffusion / blur filter on by comparison. What you will note is that there is still
some difference between each of the RAW converters’ images even after GG processing, so clearly there
are differences still in the demosaicing algorithms and you may argue that ID is still best? At the end of the day, there are limits on my needs and, all in all, I am content with the LR results once all sharpening and noise reduction has been switched off and then processed properly using GG’s Action.
Finally, if you would like, I would be happy to produce and publish versions of any of your own images for comparison if you contact me and supply the RAW file. Sorry for such a long post, but hopefully you will find it useful.
