Moose,
As a potential X-T2 purchaser, I appreciate your taking time to present
these results. I had downloaded and examined the images in my own
clumsy way, and had come to the same conclusions. I am not at all happy
with the orange peel affect that can come from LRCC sharpening. I
usually minimize sharpening in LR and end up using Focus Magic, and, in
extreme cases, a touch of Neat Image. LR does a lot of things well, but
sharpening does not appear to be its strong suit.
Jim Nichols
Tullahoma, TN USA
On 1/23/2017 6:30 PM, Moose wrote:
On 1/22/2017 10:31 PM, SwissPace wrote:
Hi List, but mainly directed at any Fuji X-T2, X-Pro2 or X100F owners.
Am I the only one who is having difficulty getting good results from
the raw X-T2 files in LR 6.8, I am not seeing the sharpness and they
seem to be very grainy when compared to the X-T1.
Color me befuddelated. I just looked at the IQ page of dpreview's test
of the X-T2. <https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilm-x-t2/6>
Their comparison tool continues to improve, and provides an excellent
way to compare things like resolution, DR,etc. between cameras,
without relying on different subjects, lighting and other
circumstances, memory, etc.
At 800 ISO, no matter what Lighting or Image size options I choose,
JPEG or Raw, on any part of the target with detail, the X-T2 image is
sharper, clearer, more detailed and at least no noisier than the X-T1
image. At a couple of other high-ish ISOs, the same thing holds. At
200, neither has much noise, but the sharpness/detail advantage holds
for the X-T2.
They do say "Raw files are manually corrected.", without any detail,
but the differences are still quite clear in the JPEGs.
I have found following this advice gave improvements
<http://petebridgwood.com/wp/2016/02/x-pro2-render-my-raw/>
I then tried getting rid of the noise/grain with dfine2 which does
clear it up but reduces the sharpness slightly, Ok I admit that may
be down to technique or software how are the rest of you dealing with
these new generation Fuji raw files in LR
Mr Bridgwood is leading you astray.
<http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/tech/Fuji_X-T2/X-T2_proc2.htm>
I didn't do the NR and sharpening in LR, although I'm sure very
similar results are possible with LR's tools, and identical ones with
the same plug-ins that I used. I'm more adept in PS and it's WAY
easier to set up roll-overs with layers.
One could argue that these portraits are interesting with the effect
of his settings, but I don't think it's what you are looking for.
On to something more subtle.
<http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/tech/Fuji_X-T2/X-T2_proc1.htm>
I don't know if it's sensor limitations, lens (probably not) or
imperfect X-Trans sensor demosaicing, but there's a point in the
finest feathery parts where details just sort of mush away. It's not
nearly as obvious, troublesome in the hard edged, B&W test parts of
the image, but also very obvious in the breast feathers of your
woodpecker. It is, in any case, there in both JPEG and Raw files.
Bridgwood's post is about printed results, and it's possible that such
artificially crunchy files give him prints that he likes. It might,
for example, use entirely artificial texture to give a sense of detail
in the mushy feathers.
here is an example of the grain that I am seeing at iso 800, it has
only been processed using the advice above and cropped - the Woodpecker
As you can see above, that grain is entirely artificial. all you have
to do to get rid of it is not to create it in the first place.
<https://thattimeoflife.smugmug.com/Other/OMlist/i-wLmq587/L> you may
need to view it at original size
Yup, has the Bridgwood grit look, all right.
Subtlety Moose
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|