I'm afraid you're applying a technique meant for RAW to JPEGs, or am I mistaken?
Amities
Philippe
2017-01-24 1:30 UTC+01:00, Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx>:
> 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
>
> --
> What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
> --
> _________________________________________________________________
> Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
> Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
> Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
>
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|