A couple of Fuji x-trans raw conversion questions

[Paul2660]

As much as I love the Fuji Files, I really have an issue with just how poorly LR converts these files, especially in situations where you have solid objects against a lighter background, examples winter shot with bare tree limbs against a blue sky. Plus I just don't see the detail in the LR images without getting haloing in the finer detail parts of my shots.

I realize that Iriedent does a great job, probably the best, however it has very lacking toolkit, and it's MAC only.  I can run MAC, but I just find that the tools in LR  or C1 offer much more to me.  In a compromise I have been using Photo Ninja and it to my eyes, pulls much more detail from the x-trans raws and does not have the haloing issues of LR.   I am using Photo Ninja as the editor only, while in LR, but I have run into a few issues that I can't seem to figure out.

1. When you select "edit in" and pick Photo Ninja, the next box that opens, asks if you want to edit a copy with LR adjustments.  To me this means that all the current WB, color etc adjustments I have made should be kept then the raw is opened in Photo Ninja, but instead you basically get new copy of the raw file, which has not had any LR adjustments applied.  All I do in Photo N, is add some sharpening and maybe a base WB adjustment then do the quick render back to LR.  When you do this Photo N, writes over the tif that was created in LR as it should.  However all the LR adjustments are now gone, so you basically start over, but now you are working on a tiff, which IMO is not as good.  I would rather still be on a raw file.  Is this the way the workflow should be? or should I be able to get Photo N to open the copy sent from LR with all my other adjustments.  The only LR adjustment I am leaving off is capture sharpening as I want to do that in Photo N. 

2.  LR sees the exif info from the Fuji files and makes the necessary lens profile adjustments automatically, mainly fixing barrel distortion and vignetting.  When you select to edit in Photo N and send the tif back these lens adjustments are scrubbed off and the file comes back with issues that were there prior to the editing in LR.  LR will not fix the issues now as the file is a tif.  This becomes very problematic when you are working with multiple files for panos and using ptgui or kolor as they get confused by the output. 

From my experience, both C1 and LR can't get the finer details right, albeit C1 does a slightly better job on the details and won't have as much issue with the haloing (dark against light) that LR does.  But neither can begin to pull the same details that Photo N can get from the files. 

I would appreciate anyone's ideas on the best use of Photo N in a LR workflow. 

Thanks
Paul

[David Sutton]

Can't help you with what you want to do for (1), but you may be able to adapt my workflow.
If I'm going to work in LR entirely I set the detail slider to 100 and adjust the amount. That takes care of a lot of my files. If I'm not happy with the sharpening I turn the detail panel off in LR and do my capture sharpening in Photoshop on the tif using Topaz Detail 3. My usual settings are: Small Details .15 Medium Details .01 Large Details .03 Highlights -.04 Boost sliders 0 to .08 to taste Deblur size .15 Suppress artefacts .2 To my eyes this fairly well matches what I get from PhotoNinja.
If I need any highlight recovery I skip LR completely and go straight to PN using Open Directly. It will send a raw file straight to an external editor without creating a copy in LR. It's free for single use but make a donation. I have some presets in PN for Xtrans files and I get pretty close to what I want apart from lens corrections (LR is not that good either- my version only has corrections for the FinePix X 100). I must build my own.
You can enable profile corrections on a tif. Just tick the checkbox under lens corrections. That unfortunately may not do any good as weirdly Fujifilm is not listed as an available make. You could try a similar make/lens model or create your own profile.
David

[AFairley]

  It sounds like you are using the PN setting that has PN open the original RAW instead of the export TIFF LR creates, and overwriting the LR TIFF upon export, so that's good.  But as you have found out, the LR adjustments are irrelevant to PN since LR is a different developer using different algorithms.  The solution is to do as much of your original adjustments in PN as possible and then make final refinement to the TIFF PN sends to LR.  This should include lens corrections and perspective corrections so they are done on the initial demosaic and not later on th demosaiced TIFF.  There is a way to create a lens correction preset in PN that's pretty simple -- it only requires an image of something with straight lines.  There's a tutorial on the PN website and I'm sure others have posts tutorials.  I can send you a link to the profile for the 18-55 if you want.  But this correction does not include vignetting or CA corrections.  That said, I have not found that lack to be a problem with my X-E2 files using the 18-55 and 27mm lenses.

This workflow is pretty easy once you get used to how PN's adjustments work and PN's redraw lag -- though I really wish Adobe would improve XTrans file processing so I could just stay in LR.

[leuallen]

However all the LR adjustments are now gone,

If I want to open a PSD or Tiff from LR so that the original layers are present and the file has LR adjustments made after processing in PS, I use a preset called "Temp ALL". This preset has every box checked. I update it to the files current state before I send to "Edit In". I then export with "Edit Original" which will have the layers, masks, etc which "Edit Copy" will not.. I do my thing in PS and when back in LR I apply the preset.

I do this when I have masked something and the mask needs more work or when I have retouched something and it needs more work. This way I do not loose any work I have done in LR after the initial return from PS. I often do a major work in PS and final tweeks in LR such as final exposure adj, cropping, clarity, etc.

Larry

[Paul2660]

Can't help you with what you want to do for (1), but you may be able to adapt my workflow.
If I'm going to work in LR entirely I set the detail slider to 100 and adjust the amount. That takes care of a lot of my files. If I'm not happy with the sharpening I turn the detail panel off in LR and do my capture sharpening in Photoshop on the tif using Topaz Detail 3. My usual settings are: Small Details .15 Medium Details .01 Large Details .03 Highlights -.04 Boost sliders 0 to .08 to taste Deblur size .15 Suppress artefacts .2 To my eyes this fairly well matches what I get from PhotoNinja.
If I need any highlight recovery I skip LR completely and go straight to PN using Open Directly. It will send a raw file straight to an external editor without creating a copy in LR. It's free for single use but make a donation. I have some presets in PN for Xtrans files and I get pretty close to what I want apart from lens corrections (LR is not that good either- my version only has corrections for the FinePix X 100). I must build my own.
You can enable profile corrections on a tif. Just tick the checkbox under lens corrections. That unfortunately may not do any good as weirdly Fujifilm is not listed as an available make. You could try a similar make/lens model or create your own profile.
David

David,

Thanks for the information.  I assume that if you use "open directly", then the workflow has to stay in Photo Ninja?  I find that I really am a heavy user of the LR toolset, mainly the local adjustments and ND filter, less so the local color adjustments as I don't like the implementation of it in LR vs the way C1 does it.  I have tried the sharpening settings, with the detail pushed all the way to 100, then moving the top sharpening slider back, as you point out this works sometimes, but for some reason I still will see some haloing, on objects against a lighter background.    The lens profile adjustments won't work on a tif in LR since LR doesn't have the Fuji listed, instead it's picking up all the info from the raw file on import.  This does a good job, as long as you stay in LR.  I have found that with panos, 4 and 3 parts even, when I try to manually fix the lens it throws ptgui and Kolor way off. 

C1 really can't pull the finer details out any better, but it does seem to have less haloing than LR. 

I need to post some examples, and will try to get around to it today or tomorrow. 

I have a good comparison showing C1 on a raw file, and then one of the Photo Ninja edited tifs, also in C1, the difference in the fine tree limbs is amazing. 

Personally I apply Capture sharping to all my raws, I know others don't.  But I feel if you don't apply something in the raw conversion, you lose too much later on, I realize that's totally a personal pref. 

Sad that such a great system, Fuji and the X lenses, can't get a better conversion in LR.  C1 is kinda of expect it as they mainly focus on their backs and then everything else.  Plus I believe they are a lot smaller company than Adobe.  I had hoped Adobe would address the Fuji files a bit better.

Paul

[armand]

I posted some examples here: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=94681.0 and elsewhere in this forum.

Initially I was very impressed with PN and their highlight recovery remains the best, however that extra "sharpness" is mostly false detail. I would be ok with it if it knew where to apply it but it does so all over the place, including places where it's obvious that "detail" didn't exist to start with and it also increases noise in the process; plus their color is way off compared to the others.

[soboyle]

I looked at armand's sample photos, and the Capture One images look much cleaner than what Lightroom is putting out. I do a lot of landscape work where detail rendering is critical and have not been happy with Fuji for this type of work when using lightroom.
I wonder how CO and LR coexist, seems like 2 complete solutions to raw processing, so using CO just for X-Trans files seems like it could be a workflow pain. Any thoughts from those who use both?
Other question - do I need the full version of Capture one? I see that they offer it for $10 an month subscription rate.

[deejjjaaaa]

Initially I was very impressed with PN and their highlight recovery remains the best, however that extra "sharpness" is mostly false detail.

very true - this is a trademark of PhotoNinja's approach - it is good to have a lot of artefacts to create a visual illusion of extra resolution... but it works, just read the fanbase  ... just like Fuji itself with x-trans 

[Paul2660]

In regards to Photo Ninja, I agree that if you take the sharpening too far in Photo Ninja, you start to see areas where the detail can appear excessive, not however with the base levels pushed to 70%.  At least for my view. 

On the other hand, LR, can't begin to resolve areas in a shot where you have finer details against a blue sky.  Just take a shot with bare branches, against a blue sky (note a white sky the problem will not be as bad, but still there).  LR will not be able to pull the finer branches out of the sky and if you add sharpening, will will see haloing pretty quickly.  If you attempt to pull the sky down, (via a luminance adjustment)  in LR, the effect gets worse and you will start to see a reddish blob in the areas with the greatest amount of finer details.  At least I do. 

C1 does better here, but again it can't really resolve the finer details.  However adjustment of the blue luminance is much easier, mainly due to how C1 handles this in a adjustment layer. 

Photo Ninja or Iridient both do a much better job, Iridient the best, but it's so limited elsewhere (say for example highlights or exposure).  But either application will spoil you when you see much how much of the finer details are being lost in either LR or C1. 

Paul

[AFairley]

In regards to Photo Ninja, I agree that if you take the sharpening too far in Photo Ninja, you start to see areas where the detail can appear excessive, not however with the base levels pushed to 70%.  At least for my view. 

I personally find setting sharpening over 50 to be pushing it (I'm typically in the 40s). But for me the real culprit is the detail slider, going over 10 is asking for trouble which come on fast, and for me the sweet spot is around 8.  These settings are for printing to 17x22 paper in LR plus I don't have nearly the experience in PN I have in LR, so YMMV.

[Paul2660]

I personally find setting sharpening over 50 to be pushing it (I'm typically in the 40s). But for me the real culprit is the detail slider, going over 10 is asking for trouble which come on fast, and for me the sweet spot is around 8.  These settings are for printing to 17x22 paper in LR plus I don't have nearly the experience in PN I have in LR, so YMMV.

From what I have read, by pushing the details slider to 100% kicks in the full deconvolution, which is what the Fuji files like.  I tend to agree with what you have found, i.e. the detail slider pushed to 100% starts to create a lot of haloing. 

But LR is IMO leaving a ton of fine detail on the table with the Fuji files. 

Paul 

[AFairley]

From what I have read, by pushing the details slider to 100% kicks in the full deconvolution, which is what the Fuji files like.  I tend to agree with what you have found, i.e. the detail slider pushed to 100% starts to create a lot of haloing. 

But LR is IMO leaving a ton of fine detail on the table with the Fuji files. 

Paul 

Paul, I was talking about PhotoNinja settings, not Lightroom (in PN, detail is a slider in the exposure panel, it functions a little like clarity in LR, but different).  Apologies for not being clearer.  Though with LR 50 is around my max for Fuji files too, whether I have detail at 25-35 or all the way to 100.  I never push clarity past 20 for the style of stuff I do.

[Paul2660]

Paul, I was talking about PhotoNinja settings, not Lightroom (in PN, detail is a slider in the exposure panel, it functions a little like clarity in LR, but different).  Apologies for not being clearer.  Though with LR 50 is around my max for Fuji files too, whether I have detail at 25-35 or all the way to 100.  I never push clarity past 20 for the style of stuff I do.

Thanks, that makes sense for sure.  I agree the detail slider in PN can get out of control fast. 

Paul

[phl0wtography]

(...)but you may be able to adapt my workflow.
If I'm going to work in LR entirely I set the detail slider to 100 and adjust the amount. That takes care of a lot of my files. If I'm not happy with the sharpening I turn the detail panel off in LR and do my capture sharpening in Photoshop on the tif using Topaz Detail 3. My usual settings are: Small Details .15 Medium Details .01 Large Details .03 Highlights -.04 Boost sliders 0 to .08 to taste Deblur size .15 Suppress artefacts .2 To my eyes this fairly well matches what I get from PhotoNinja.(...)David

Thank you so much for those Topaz settings. I got it, when it was a free giveaway but couldn't really find the time grasping all those different sliders, and I'm not one to resort to presets without knowing what they do.
Your settings produced great results on the last few portraits I shot with my X100s.
Do you have any experience with capture sharpening in Photoshop for X-Trans? Are there special techniques, that work especially well with Fuji's sensor? From what I know, or what's general consensus by now, is, that X-Trans files are approached best with deconvolution passes, instead of methods based on traditional USM. I have no idea though, how one goes about that in PS.

Cheers

[Martin Ranger]

Do you have any experience with capture sharpening in Photoshop for X-Trans? Are there special techniques, that work especially well with Fuji's sensor? From what I know, or what's general consensus by now, is, that X-Trans files are approached best with deconvolution passes, instead of methods based on traditional USM. I have no idea though, how one goes about that in PS.

Cheers

I am very happy with Focus Magic. A blur radius of 2 works most of the time for me. Strength varies between 100% and 50% depending on  the subject. Creative sharpening is then done with Topaz Detail, at somewhat lower settings than David's (since I have already done one round of capture sharpening).

Topaz InFocus is also very good. Both work as plug-ins with Photoshop and do deconvlution.