Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Mirrorless Cameras => Topic started by: armand on July 30, 2013, 11:56:37 am
-
I've had some issues in the past with the red spectrum processing but this seems pretty bad. It is more on the magenta/purple side than red, but I can see it for the red also.
I posted the unedited ooc jpg and the raw shot at the same time with the initial Lightroom interpretation. The jpg are far more true to what it was.
How do you even deal with this? I play with the sliders but I can't get the color quite right. If you shoot just raw you might not even realize it that easily.
Interestingly I don't see the obvious shift in all the shots.
-
I've been mostly using my X-E1's on-board RAW processing rather than any external software. This produces a JPEG, of course, but with care one that requires little additional post work.
Other software, like Iridient Developer, C1 & even Aperture seem to do a better job with the X sensors than Lightroom/ACR, but IMO no-one has yet really got it. Given the unique color filter matrix I expect it'll just take further work by the various third parties...
I've recently re-processed some of my 10-year-old Canon 10D RAWs with current software. Yow! In quite a few cases the improvements in both spatial detail and tonal gradation are significant. Sure wish I could retroactively upgrade photos shot on now fading 1970s-era E6 to the latest & greatest. :)
-Dave-
-
+1 try with latest version of c1 and post results
-
but IMO no-one has yet really got it.
I fully agree.
I have tried SilkyPix, Iridient Developer and Capture 1.
Depending on the type of image (people/landscape, high/low ISO, etc) one might have an edge over the other but none of them blows the competition away.
-
I have tried SilkyPix
the latest relevant update too ?
MAY/27/2013 Ver.5.0.39.0 (not OEM version shipped w/ camera)
- Image quality improvement of a development for photographs filmed with a
digital camera which uses X-Trans CMOS sensor. The improved image processing
algorithm reduces several undesirable effects (moire, etc.) but keeps
high resolution of a photograph.
In addition, color reproducibility of photographs filmed under specific
conditions is improved.
-
Actually Fuji just published the new updated version of Silkypix and can be downloaded from the Fuji site:
http://www.fujifilm.com/support/digital_cameras/software/myfinepix_studio/rfc/win/index.html
Alan
-
Actually Fuji just published the new updated version of Silkypix and can be downloaded from the Fuji site:
http://www.fujifilm.com/support/digital_cameras/software/myfinepix_studio/rfc/win/index.html
Alan
indeed, it probably has (or certainly shall have) the relevant enhancements, but otherwise it is still SilkyPix v3 w/ such enhancements, not SilkyPix v5 Pro , which can be obtained cheap for existing owners of Fuji cameras (special promotion) = http://www.isl.co.jp/SILKYPIX/english/f/
-
Well it may be a discounted price at around $220 us for the upgrade for Fuji camera owners, I find C1 and Lightroom to be a lot more useful. I pretty much process all my X-Pro 1 files in C1, I like the color and sharpness, and then catalog in Lightroom. I may eventually move over to C1 for everything, but so familiar with Lightroom and that is where all my existing catalogs are it makes DAM a lot easier for me.
Alan
-
Well it may be a discounted price at around $220 us for the upgrade for Fuji camera owners
strange... similar update for Panasonic users (from free OEM SP to SP v5 Pro, locked just for only Panasonic cameras raw files) is like Yen 3800 ( http://www.isl.co.jp/SILKYPIX/english/campaign/forpana/ ) = USD $40 or less... Fuji seems to be more costly ;)
-
The difference seems to be it is the full featured version that has support for many other cameras, so the discount is not much. It would not be worth it for me, I never liked the interface that much, maybe I am getting to old and set in my ways but after having to learn C1 again (used the early version with my Canon cameras) after many years of Adobe Lightroom/RAW took a lot of effort to get the results I wanted. So I don't think I would want to make the effort to squeeze out the best from Silkypix.
Alan
-
I though I put this issue to rest but alas, no such luck.
I'm noticing again issues with processing proper blue/magenta from the X-T2 shots. All but one of the simulations made the blue appear purple, the only one that got it closer to reality is the Astia (Soft). The farther away from Astia I got, the more purple it became.
I even installed the CO Express for Fuji (with Astia simulation) and it wasn't really any better.
I'm attaching also a shot from Z7, processed in LR with Camera Standard as the start; it's much closer to the real thing.
PS. I suspect it's a combo of rendering and WB but I'm not sure how to fix it, besides using Astia simulations for blue subjects.
-
SOOC or raw?
If raw, are you still using Lightroom to process them?
If raw & LR, I'd suggest comparing the Z7 & X-T2 shots using the same color profile, like Adobe Color or Adobe Standard.
When I shot Fuji I enjoyed their film simulations (well... Adobe's versions of them) but definitely had issues with blue skies at times. I eventually used a colorchecker passport + Lumariver Profile Designer to create my own color profiles and left the more "stylized" profiles behind.
-
SOOC or raw?
If raw, are you still using Lightroom to process them?
If raw & LR, I'd suggest comparing the Z7 & X-T2 shots using the same color profile, like Adobe Color or Adobe Standard.
When I shot Fuji I enjoyed their film simulations (well... Adobe's versions of them) but definitely had issues with blue skies at times. I eventually used a colorchecker passport + Lumariver Profile Designer to create my own color profiles and left the more "stylized" profiles behind.
Raw, I don't think I can apply film simulations in LR to jpegs.
I'm not interested in comparing if Adobe default color is more accurate between Fuji and Nikon, but but get a more accurate profile. The Camera Standard for Nikon works relatively well. The Adobe color for Fuji was not that good for this particular problem, that's why I didn't post it.
Overall I can get it closer if I manipulate the hue for Blue in the HSL panel; somewhere between minus 5-10 for Astia and minus 15-20 for Provia gets it close.
-
I'm not interested in comparing if Adobe default color is more accurate between Fuji and Nikon, but but get a more accurate profile.
Sadly there's the rub. "Accurate" color and "film simulation" are mostly mutually exclusive. Fuji's film simulations are all about mimicking the color response of Fuji's old films, not about general color accuracy. Of course, some are more stylized than others, but I wouldn't consider any of them an attempt to stay "true" to the scene.
Personally I'd check out Adobe Neutral as a starting point, or at least Pro Neg Std. And if you're still seeing unnatural hue shifts, consider creating custom profiles for your common light sources.
The Camera Standard for Nikon works relatively well. The Adobe color for Fuji was not that good for this particular problem, that's why I didn't post it.
Overall I can get it closer if I manipulate the hue for Blue in the HSL panel; somewhere between minus 5-10 for Astia and minus 15-20 for Provia gets it close.
Profiles are a tough nut to crack. Generally speaking, the more "accurate" a profile is, the less pleasing/interesting it is initially. Hence the existence of Fuji's film simulations. You'll just have to pick whatever suits your needs for each photo, whether it be a Fuji sim or a neutral profile. Sorry, there's no silver bullet here. :(
You might be interested in Lumariver's "Profile-making Theory" portion of their manual:
http://www.lumariver.com/lrpd-manual/#profile_theory
Especially the "Subjective color" sub-section:
http://www.lumariver.com/lrpd-manual/#subjective_color
-
Just a aside I've never found the Adobe profiles that useful. I've always made my own with a ColorChecker Passport. In the past the blues in particular on Canon files were vastly improved. The X-rite plug in for Lightroom makes it a breeze.
Now I'm using C1 for raw conversion I've stopped making my own profiles. The C1 colour is very good indeed. I suspect quite a few of their engineers are Fuji users and put a lot of work into their colour.
-
I keep hearing that CO is so much better for Fuji files yet when I test it the difference is really not that great. If you read above I did install the CO Express for Fuji and tried their profiles but they were no better than Adobe's Fuji simulation.
Personally I'd check out Adobe Neutral as a starting point, or at least Pro Neg Std. And if you're still seeing unnatural hue shifts, consider creating custom profiles for your common light sources.
They were not better, I went through all, and for this specific color range the only one that was acceptable was the Astia. In case it wasn't clear from the example pictures they were taken outside, on a cloudy day.
"Accurate" color and "film simulation" are mostly mutually exclusive. Fuji's film simulations are all about mimicking the color response of Fuji's old films, not about general color accuracy.
I don't need most accurate and overall I'm happy with the colors, I just don't like huge shifts in color, as in purple instead of mostly blue.
-
I though I put this issue to rest but alas, no such luck.
I'm noticing again issues with processing proper blue/magenta from the X-T2 shots. All but one of the simulations made the blue appear purple, the only one that got it closer to reality is the Astia (Soft). The farther away from Astia I got, the more purple it became.
I even installed the CO Express for Fuji (with Astia simulation) and it wasn't really any better.
I'm attaching also a shot from Z7, processed in LR with Camera Standard as the start; it's much closer to the real thing.
PS. I suspect it's a combo of rendering and WB but I'm not sure how to fix it, besides using Astia simulations for blue subjects.
you can use a ColorEditor in a fully functional version of C1 to tune specific range of "colors"
-
I keep hearing that CO is so much better for Fuji files
mostly demosaick
-
you can use a ColorEditor in a fully functional version of C1 to tune specific range of "colors"
So far it hasn't been so widespread to make me go the extra step. I'm a little reluctant to do it because I'm quite comfortable with LR (much less with PS though) and learning another program.
mostly demosaick
Long ago when I tried it, it did lead to slightly better results at pixel level, but not really that much different in print at normal viewing distances. With this current example it actually looked worse than my LR attempt, both colors and pixel level quality. I could try harder but I doubt it will get that much better. I'll give it more chances for the future with the trickier scenes and see where it leads. Also keep in mind that LR now has the Enhance Details which can give a slight boost in details.
-
Also keep in mind that LR now has the Enhance Details which can give a slight boost in details.
and along the way it generates a humongous linear (demosaicked) DNG file ... storage is cheap ? well I sync to couple of clouds for off-site backup and those linear DNGs it too much to deal with ... Adobe has to provide an option for people w/ decent GPUs to have that as a real "parametric" version 2020 (v6) process instead of making linear DNG side-wise
-
I was a Fuji X shooter for about 4 years. I owned a variety of Fuji X cameras as new ones were introduced. I struggled with LR processing.
After trying Capture One Pro, I switched over as I enjoyed immediate improvements in my results. Now that I have been shooting Leica for the past two years, I love the results.
Capture One Pro 20 has a free trial. So give it a try. I think that you will be very pleased.
Regards,
Bud James
Please check out my fine art and travel photography at www.budjames.photography or on Instagram at www.instagram.com/budjamesphoto.
-
So far it hasn't been so widespread to make me go the extra step. I'm a little reluctant to do it because I'm quite comfortable with LR (much less with PS though) and learning another program.
Our new Capture One Basics class might be helpful to you.
https://www.dtcommercialphoto.com/capture-one-training-capture-one-basics/
There's also an older set of tutorials on this website (luminous landscape) based on, IIRC, Capture One 10.
There's also lots of free webinars on learn.captureone.com.
I'm biased as heck, but in 10 years of teaching C1 I find it pretty rare for someone to switch back to LR after learning C1. LR is faster and more intuitive to learn at first, but C1 is better in just about every other way.
-
So far it hasn't been so widespread to make me go the extra step. I'm a little reluctant to do it because I'm quite comfortable with LR (much less with PS though) and learning another program.
Long ago when I tried it, it did lead to slightly better results at pixel level, but not really that much different in print at normal viewing distances. With this current example it actually looked worse than my LR attempt, both colors and pixel level quality. I could try harder but I doubt it will get that much better. I'll give it more chances for the future with the trickier scenes and see where it leads. Also keep in mind that LR now has the Enhance Details which can give a slight boost in details.
If you have the time and interest, it would be fascinating to see if C1's versions of the film sims exhibit the same hue shift. That will better tell you if the hue shift is by accident or by design. You could always download the free Fuji version and try it out for us. ;D ;D
-
I own C1, LR and Iridient's X-Transformer. For Fuji X-T4 files I seem to get the best results via LR + X-Transformer, though I do not need to run X-transformer every time. The good thing is that I can decide to demosaic with X-transformer at a late stage, after modifications with LR are completed and which may expose problems with LR's demosaicing.
C1 is very cool software, I am enjoying learning to use it, though it is not my primary tool.
-
The good thing is that I can decide to demosaic with X-transformer at a late stage, after modifications with LR are completed and which may expose problems with LR's demosaicing.
That's my approach, also: process the file with Lightroom until I'm satisfied with the global colors, tone curve, etc., then if (and only if) I see objectionable sharpening artifacts, demosaic with X-Transformer and redo the LR adjustments. I hold off any local adjustments until I've made a decision whether to proceed with LR or try again with X-Transformer since they are more time-consuming to replicate.
However, I'm finding less and less need to invoke X-Transformer these days. Unless the file needs aggressive sharpening―which is rare assuming I nailed the focus in-camera―X-Trans files processed with Lightroom are usually just fine.
-
That's my approach, also: process the file with Lightroom until I'm satisfied with the global colors, tone curve, etc., then if (and only if) I see objectionable sharpening artifacts, demosaic with X-Transformer and redo the LR adjustments. I hold off any local adjustments until I've made a decision whether to proceed with LR or try again with X-Transformer since they are more time-consuming to replicate.
However, I'm finding less and less need to invoke X-Transformer these days. Unless the file needs aggressive sharpening―which is rare assuming I nailed the focus in-camera―X-Trans files processed with Lightroom are usually just fine.
I agree.
For those interested to try it, you need to generate the XMP sidecar in order to propagate current changes to the X-Transformer demosaiced DNG file. I generate XMP files only if I need to run X-Transformer (LR's Save Metadata to File).
-
I own C1, LR and Iridient's X-Transformer. For Fuji X-T4 files I seem to get the best results via LR + X-Transformer, though I do not need to run X-transformer every time. The good thing is that I can decide to demosaic with X-transformer at a late stage, after modifications with LR are completed and which may expose problems with LR's demosaicing.
My approach with my X-T2 and X-T4 is similar. I have been using X-Transformer for a few years and along with Lr get results that please me. I typically use X-Transformer when I see the need for all the detail I can get.
I also use Luminar 4.2 when I think the image may benefit from the features there.
-
My approach with my X-T2 and X-T4 is similar.
I have an X-T2 and an X-T3 (same sensor and processor as the X-T4, different firmware). My experience is that the files from the X-T2 pose more of a challenge to Lightroom than those from the X-T3. Is that your impression, too?
-
I have an X-T2 and an X-T3 (same sensor and processor as the X-T4, different firmware). My experience is that the files from the X-T2 pose more of a challenge to Lightroom than those from the X-T3. Is that your impression, too?
My experience with raw image files from different camera models is no camera manufacture issues a new model camera that has no improvements. In any event Adobe will always test and develop specific profiles for the new model. It’s also not usual for Adobe to update new profiles for older models. Just my opinion.
-
I have an X-T2 and an X-T3 (same sensor and processor as the X-T4, different firmware). My experience is that the files from the X-T2 pose more of a challenge to Lightroom than those from the X-T3. Is that your impression, too?
Chris, I've not noticed the X-T2 offering any real challenges compared with the X-T4. I do keep it up to date on all firmware for the camera and all my lenses. I keep Lr and PS, etc. all up to date as well.
The last couple of days I've been working with a Hoya R72 IR filter on the X-T4 and working on getting a good custom WB.
-
I recently bought my first X Trans based camera, the X100F, and after a couple of weeks I think I have a reasonably good process:
- Shooting for output: For documentary stuff, in camera conversion can be a life saver (the camera’s histogram isn’t easy to read, so I don’t always nail exposure, highlight tone and shadow tone).
Raw: Capture One 20 (quite frankly, it demosaics far better than Fujifilm’s JPEG engine, producing sharper results with better micro contrast, and I don’t see a great deal of difference in colour).
Velvia: For images taken in tough lighting, it seems C1’s processing sometimes falls apart a bit, so I use LR’s Enhance Details and take it from there (or just accept Velvia isn’t for everything).
The biggest advantage of my X100F? X Trans. The biggest disadvantage? Erm, X Trans.
-
I have shot Fuji for a number of years, also Canon, and use LR, now current version of Classic. I have no colour issues, and my prints from a profiled printer are fine. Processing is always of RAW in LR, occasional WB, white, black, highlight and shadows, maybe a little saturation and contrast, but little else. Maybe a few images will have a little use of colour sliders. Dare I suggest that there are slight differences in not only our kit, but also our eyes and brain interpretation of colour?
Personally I do not use Irident as it gives a DNG, and then film simulations do not appear to be available.
Best wishes,
Jonathan
-
In Lr Classic you have a "Profile Browser" in the Develop Module that contains all the film simulations from Fuji.
-
Personally I do not use Irident as it gives a DNG, and then film simulations do not appear to be available.
of course they are available (just like when you use Adobe tools to convert RAF to DNG ) - just make sure no to screw camera make & model in Iridient X-Transformer settings
-
<snip>
Personally I do not use Irident as it gives a DNG, and then film simulations do not appear to be available.
<snip>
You can convert/demosaic with Iridient after you have applied all changes and film simulations in LrC. Just make sure you have saved the XMP side-car before invoking X-Transformer. The new DNG will contain all LrC changes that have been applied to the original raw file.