Lightroom Support now available!

[Sapphie]

Carl

Try reducing exposure a touch. Oh I don't know, I think it all depends on the image. we all thought the JPEGs were wonderful anyway didn't we? Maybe my high sharp/detail was a little over the top.

I also think that there will always be some images that look better out of camera and others maybe better out of converters. Sorry, not having a go at you Carl just speaking generally - there's more to all this that detail or sharpness. DR, colour, tonal capture ....

Another take on it all:

The SOUNDIMAGEPLUS blog -: FUJI X-PRO 1 and ADOBE CAMERA RAW

Lee

 

[scho]

Carl

Try reducing exposure a touch. Oh I don't know, I think it all depends on the image. we all thought the JPEGs were wonderful anyway didn't we? Maybe my high sharp/detail was a little over the top.

I also think that there will always be some images that look better out of camera and others maybe better out of converters. Sorry, not having a go at you Carl just speaking generally - there's more to all this that detail or sharpness. DR, colour, tonal capture ....

Another take on it all:

The SOUNDIMAGEPLUS blog -: FUJI X-PRO 1 and ADOBE CAMERA RAW

Lee

Lee,

You are correct that there will always be some images that will not generate pleasing output from XP1 raw files with specific conversion methods. The just released version of ACR and LR tend to produce (take your choice) mushy, smeared, plastic looking, etc. images from files with a lot of high frequency fine detail in landscape images. In almost all other cases (mid range landscape detail, macros, portraits, brick walls, etc.) LR/ACR is just fine. I don't think there is any magic bullet processing scheme currently in LR that will solve the detail mushing problem. This is something that needs to be either addressed or ignored by Adobe. If they do the latter then I would just look for other processing options (OOC jpeg [how about a tiff output option Fuji?], C1, Aperture, RPP, SP, PR, etc. - whichever works best for a given file). Despite the current raw processing issues, I am still very pleased with the XP1 and the fine images it can produce.

 

[ustein]

Carl, can you please post 200% crops to show the smearing?

 

[scho]

Carl, can you please post 200% crops to show the smearing?

Here is the same file as above at 200%. LR4.1 on the left and RPP on the right. Open in new window for full size view.

 

[ustein]

Thanks. Saw now the bleeding in DPR samples.

 

[Sapphie]

I still don't understand the problems.

Left LR, right OOC JPEG.

I don't suppose those that see the worse LR renditions are using Adobe RGB colour space? Just trying to understand why some of us say there is an issue and others don't.

Lee

 

[MPK2010]

I have had the camera for about a week and I can confirm the issue demonstrated by Braeside here and Tariq at FM. I have seen the "watercolor effect" in several photos blown up to 100%, mostly in green foliage but also occasionally a slight suggestion of the effect in minute repeating detail on a man-made structure (much less pronounced than with foliage). (Lee, the foliage you show I believe is too large to trigger the effect; it's usually well off in the distance.) I understand why those who had planned to use the camera mostly for landscape with the need for poster-sized prints would be concerned at this point.

However, I cannot imagine selling this camera. As wonderful as all the NEX, m43, NX, X1, X100 etc have been in different respects, none have ever really, in my personal view, moved me in terms of the beauty of the image quality in the way that, for example, M9 images can when viewed on a 27" screen or, say, at 13x19 and up (and as film often can). Various mirrorless cameras certainly have certainly demonstrated excellence in terms of resolution, DR, High ISO, color, etc, but this one, finally, can deliver a beautiful, non-flattened, non-digitial, walk-into-the-image feel at times. Even at ISO 3200, and to a surprising extent 6400. This is a tremendous camera for people shots in low light. I do still get duds in terms of image quality at times, but I've only had it a week. Also, when you zoom into the pixel level, it doesn't really seem so special--you really need to see the whole photo at once.

While I still on the whole prefer the output of the M9 because of the rendering style of the lenses I use (and I like the M9's ease of manual focus at night, the fact that it does not put halos around streetlights, the variety of lenses, the construction and other factors), it feels finally like there is a camera that, while for me not a replacement, at least provides another option with the potential for generating memorable IQ. Flawed, maddening, deficient, but so far, more often than I had expected, it delivers.

 

[Sapphie]

OK, I may finally be seeing something similar to you guys.

Again, LR on the left, OOC JPEG on the right. LR has sharpening turned up to 50 but the yellow and white lilly stays mushy and the sharpening is too high as there are artifacts in the water above and to the left.

Lee

 

[ustein]

Did you turn Highlights down to -100? Try with this again.

 

[Sapphie]

Did you turn Highlights down to -100? Try with this again.

Hi Uwe

I think I'm going slightly barmy with all this and need to take some time out to learn how to use these tools! This was a difficult shot, I guess, and was taken on auto-dr and was ISO 800. Highlights down to about -70. I also reduced the exposure on the JPEG version by 0.3 stop.

LR on left again!

Lee

 

[ustein]

Actually we kind of use Highlight -60 to -100 on almost all shots. Goves you a soft highlight roll-off.

Still prefer the JPEG?

 

[Sapphie]

Actually we kind of use Highlight -60 to -100 on almost all shots. Goves you a soft highlight roll-off.

Still prefer the JPEG?

Uwe

Well, I'd always felt that JPEGs from the Fuji with auto-dr were pretty much unbeatable. I tried the highlight reduction on the JPEG and it didn't do much, so ... bearing in mind that this shot was effectively 2 stops underexposed (with LR trying to render the image as the in-camera processor does) so the highlights should have been protected anyway, nonetheless a pretty good result.

And obviously this was just a highlight issue, not a smearing one ...

Thanks for the guidance and tips and to answer your question, no, the RAW through LR is better. I am also finding (I think) that the LR RAW results in generally better colour accuracy too (that is compared with the JPEGs) but I may change my mind on that.

Lee

 

[ustein]

> so the highlights should have been protected anyway, nonetheless a pretty good result.

Don't think of the Highlight slider just to be highlight recovery. This is more because it helps to render soft highlights. Bad highlights are not only clipping but also lack of smoothness.

 

[Sapphie]

Here's a comparison of the shot including the barn door with the frosted glass I mentioned in a previous post.

I have excessively sharpened both and lightened them a bit and taken the screen shot at 200% in the hope that it is clear.

Left is LR, right is JPEG.
Silkypix does something similar to LR, RPP something similar to JPEG!

You might think this is a daft game but I could tell something wasn't 'right' with the LR version even at 100%.

Lee

 

[GrahamWelland]

If I were a betting man I'd put my money on the good folks at Adobe making this just better and better.

 

[Sapphie]

If I were a betting man I'd put my money on the good folks at Adobe making this just better and better.

Absolutely and that is something we all want. Does anyone know how we can get these samples in the hands of the developers? Maybe somebody will tell me that this latest example is hard work for any raw converter but the odd thing, in this case, is that Silky isn't any better. RPP is potentially the best but suffers from too many artifacts at the moment. Here's RPP (left) compared with JPEG.

Now I need to stop this pixel peeping and go take some photos!

Lee

 

[Sapphie]

Yes, I have it too. Sorry if I doubted any of you! I will look forward to the next update to LR that will hopefully fix the issue.

LR on left with sharpening up to 50, JPEG on right, SOOC. Crops shown at 200%. Enough from me on this now ...

Lee

 

[Braeside]

Lee, glad (in a way) that you have found it too. It does depend a lot on the detail in the photo to start with as you will have noticed. Whether it really matters at sensible viewing sizes is another thing entirely. Just annoying that it is there.

In another thread here I posted a comparison shot between my Ricoh A12 Mount (12MP no AA filter) with a medium quality CV Rangefinder 35mm lens and the X-Pro 1 with the 35/1.4.

There appears to be more detail from the Ricoh, and there are odd moiré patterns in fencing on the Fuji. The noise in the shadows is a lot lower on the Fuji. The Fuji JPG is better than the Ricoh JPG, but the Raw from the Ricoh is giving better results than any Raw converter for the Fuji so far. The Ricoh does suffer from some colour aliasing in the Raw on some very fine detail, in a similar way to Leica M8 did with very sharp lenses and fine detail.

I'll hang on to the GXR for landscapes for now (as well as ultra wide angle) and hope Fuji or some other company can process their Raw files a bit better, but I am beginning to believe that it will never get as good as a conventional Bayer array sensor in terms of definition. Will be happy to be proven wrong.

 

[Sapphie]

I am beginning to believe that it will never get as good as a conventional Bayer array sensor in terms of definition. Will be happy to be proven wrong.

Well I hope you are wrong! It does seem to be affecting distant foliage more than most things but I have just pixel-peeped another shot, a brick wall actually, shot from across the road and including an A4 yellow poster and a larger sign with red lettering on a white background. The latter is well smeared by LR but OK in JPEG and SP. The lettering on the yellow poster is best in the JPEG, both LR and SP breaking the lettering up a little. Yet the bricks in the wall *appear* to have more detail in SP than in JPEG. I can, however, improve the JPEG in this regard with a little effort, for example increasing clarity and even sharpness.

So, for now, I think the JPEGs are still pretty good, as long as I don't blow the highlights!

Lee