The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Lightroom Support now available!

archiM44

Member
The strange thing is that a lens correction has clearly been applied by default to RAF files.
One of my RAF files taken with the 18mm has strong barrel distortion when processed in RPP.
In out of camera JPG, Silkypix and now in LR4.1 (and of course ACR) it has been corrected.
In Sean Reid's latest review, he believes that the XPRO-1 also applies some sophisticated noise reduction to the RAW files.
My DNG raw files from my Leica M9 of the same building I mentioned above do not show any lens correction in LR by default, only when I deliberately choose to do so.
As far as I'm concerned this is as it should be
 

Braeside

New member
Apparently ACR & LR4 (and Silkypix) automatically apply lens correction to the X-Pro raw files, as they also apparently do with micro 4/3 files. I agree it would be nice to have the choice. (Well we do, use RPP). Aperture will likely also ignore the lens correction if and when it supports the Fuji.
 

Terry

New member
Micro 4/3 lens corrections are built into the RAW and will be made in RAW processors that support lens corrections. So, with m4/3 you would see the same thing. LR, Aperture, ACR all give you the corrected view. RPP would not. Micro 4/3 system the lens corrections are an integral part of the system and how they were able to reduce size and weight of the lenses. You buy the system accepting that fact.

archiM44 - Not clear if you think lens corrections should only be done when you want them?
 

scho

Well-known member
Here is a raw conversion from LR4.1 and the same file converted earlier with RPP. This was shot with the Fujinon 60mm and apparently the image was cropped slightly in LR4.1 when lens corrections were applied automatically.

LR4.1



RPP

 
Last edited:

tom in mpls

Active member
Carl, I find it difficult to see critical differences due to the limitations of a resized image I assume. Can you tell us what you are seeing with LR4 vs RPP? Is one superior to the other? The concern here seems to be over fine detail.
 

tom in mpls

Active member
Tom can you see the differences in my 100% crops a few posts above?
David, I should first say that the differences in color is distracting for me; it's hard to try to ignore color variation when that is not the issue. Anyway, I do see some difference between them. Silkypix seems most indistinct, in need of sharpening perhaps. jpg does seem to show more detail than LR. These examples do not make it clear yet to me which I prefer.
 

scho

Well-known member
Here is a screen grab at 100% of the LR4.1 (left) and RPP (right) processed files in LR. I think you can see some difference in fine detail resolution in the grass. I originally posted a cropped RPP image above and corrected that, but cache has not cleared yet.



edit: open image in a new window for pixel peeping
 
Last edited:

Braeside

New member
David, I should first say that the differences in color is distracting for me; it's hard to try to ignore color variation when that is not the issue. Anyway, I do see some difference between them. Silkypix seems most indistinct, in need of sharpening perhaps. jpg does seem to show more detail than LR. These examples do not make it clear yet to me which I prefer.
Tom, remember we are pixel peeping here, but to my eyes (in terms of detail) the Silkypix is the best, the camera jpg 2nd best, RPP shows details but has horrid artefacts and LR4.1, shock horror, is smeary. Ignore the colour differences they can be adjusted to taste, but nothing brings back the details from the smears in the green foliage. Sharpening never adds detail, quite the opposite, an unsharpened image always has more detail, sharpening is an optical illusion (though a necessary one for digital files, but a last step).
 

Sapphie

Member
I think that default sharpening on the JPEGs is quite high, so to match it you need to increase LR to about 40-50. May be worth playing with the Point Curve contrast.

Lee
 

tom in mpls

Active member
I shot an MF system about 2 years ago. It had no AA filter, and files really needed no sharpening. I was hoping that the same might be true for the XP1.

Is sharpening needed when using Silkypix? So far I've shot jpg only, while sitting on the sidlines and observing the gnashing of teeth regarding RAW.
 
Here is a screen grab at 100% of the LR4.1 (left) and RPP (right) processed files in LR. I think you can see some difference in fine detail resolution in the grass. I originally posted a cropped RPP image above and corrected that, but cache has not cleared yet.



edit: open image in a new window for pixel peeping
My goodness. This is quite a difference in details. Thanks for sharing these Carl.
 

Sapphie

Member
I know this doesn't help but this started off looking worse in RAW than the JPEG but I fiddled a bit and it now looks better. In LR 4.1 we must not be afraid of pushing those sliders! I went to 40 sharpening, 65 detail for this one. It does not look over or artificially sharpened. Who knows what Fuji are doing to get to their JPEGs?



Lee
 

Braeside

New member
Tom I think the best thing is to do your own tests, as everyone has their own threshold for sharpness. For non pixel peepers the files look great on my 27" iMac when they fill the screen. My big printer is out of ink, so I have not tried any printing yet.

I am very happy with the JPGs for most things. As I mentioned earlier, the only time I would need a raw file would be if I blew the highlights badly and needed to recover them in raw, which I can do as I shoot raw+jpg fine all the time.

It is purely an academic exercise for me to see which raw processor works best, personally I would like to use Aperture. I remember a few years ago there was a big discussion about how badly the Sony sensors performed, with 'watercolour' effects showing up in ACR. In the end ACR was improved and the files looked really good, so there is some hope that they can develop a better raw developer for Fuji as well, though Sandy the author of PhotoRaw thinks that Fuji made a mistake with this sensor. See his latest blog at ChromaSoft: Lightroom 4.1 and the Fuji X-Pro1 - oh dear.....
 

Terry

New member
I know this doesn't help but this started off looking worse in RAW than the JPEG but I fiddled a bit and it now looks better. In LR 4.1 we must not be afraid of pushing those sliders! I went to 40 sharpening, 65 detail for this one. It does not look over or artificially sharpened. Who knows what Fuji are doing to get to their JPEGs?

Lee
Recently I read something else that their S# dslr files took huge amounts of sharpening. So, this doesn't surprise me. I think I will see if I can get more details.
 

ustein

Contributing Editor
LR41 vs JPEG out of camera:



As I understand you can view full size if you open the image above itself.
 
Last edited:
Top