Sharing experience with GFX100S files

[Ed Hurst]

I am beginning to get some reasonable experience under my belt with the new toy and the files are, in many ways, mightily impressive. As you may know, one of my main use cases is star trail photography in which a very large number of files are stacked. I've noticed something interesting... When I process the RAW files in ACR, they individually look fine. But when I stack the resultant files in PS layers, with the blending mode set to Lighten, they combine to show clear horizontal banding throughout the files. It's really quite a problem. However, when I use CaptureOne to produce the RAWs, the files stack fine in PS without this problem. I have absolutely no idea why this would be, but there it is...

I've never used CaptureOne before and have a lot to learn about how to use it. In fact, I've never used an application that creates libraries (e.g. Lightroom), doing all my file management manually and launching ACR from Bridge. So this is a big thing to get used to. To be honest, I wish I could use CaptureOne that way, but haven't found a way to do so; therefore I will be investing in learning it from the ground up.

In the meantime, at least I have a solution to getting nice, clean files for the star trails. Wish I could to it in ACR, but at this stage, that doesn't seem to be possible.

In case it matters, the files in question are 14-bit RAWs taken using lossless compression.

Any tips, advice or experiences very welcome, be it in the best ways to learn CaptureOne or to make ACR do what I am seeking instead ;-)

 

[rdeloe]

There are people on DPReview medium format forum who can give you insights and might even be willing to examine some files. I'm thinking of Jim Kasson in particular.

Consider posting this same question there to see what comes up?

 

[Ray Harrison]

I'm coming at this from the C1 perspective so take that as you may . On the raw conversion side, my understanding is that Fuji+Capture One worked closely together to build the integration of the two ecosystems so at the very least, they've put a lot of time into getting the best out of the conversions. Capture One has often been seen to be better at XTrans conversions on Fuji's APS-C cameras as well, so there's some history with Fuji (albeit different sensors) too.

The closest that Capture One gets to the concept of manually managing files is through a concept it has called "Sessions" - you can structure your file system however you want and then tell C1 to overlay itself onto that structure with a session. Sessions are in general meant to be smaller units of work - like a night of star trails. I find sessions to be a straightforward way to roundtrip to PS as well since you're just putting another file into the session folder.

The idea is that completed work would then go into C1's concept of a catalog (similar to LR). The most flexible is probably your system of Bridge+ACR+PS, but I also find that C1's ecosystem can be flexible too, plus I prefer its out-of-the-gate raw conversions on the systems I use (that's a personal thing, of course). There are many other things I prefer as well, but we're blessed with a diversity of excellent image processing software these days!

For learning C1, if you wish to go down that route, there's https://learn.captureone.com and their YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/c/CaptureOneProDK. Another good resource is Paul Reiffer (one of their ambassadors): https://www.youtube.com/c/Paulreiffer

All that said, it's an investment in time, for sure. If your favored approach is your current one, I second Rob's suggestion of putting your ACR issue in front of Jim Kasson to see what he has to say.

 

[Abstraction]

I am beginning to get some reasonable experience under my belt with the new toy and the files are, in many ways, mightily impressive. As you may know, one of my main use cases is star trail photography in which a very large number of files are stacked. I've noticed something interesting... When I process the RAW files in ACR, they individually look fine. But when I stack the resultant files in PS layers, with the blending mode set to Lighten, they combine to show clear horizontal banding throughout the files. It's really quite a problem. However, when I use CaptureOne to produce the RAWs, the files stack fine in PS without this problem. I have absolutely no idea why this would be, but there it is...

I've never used CaptureOne before and have a lot to learn about how to use it. In fact, I've never used an application that creates libraries (e.g. Lightroom), doing all my file management manually and launching ACR from Bridge. So this is a big thing to get used to. To be honest, I wish I could use CaptureOne that way, but haven't found a way to do so; therefore I will be investing in learning it from the ground up.

In the meantime, at least I have a solution to getting nice, clean files for the star trails. Wish I could to it in ACR, but at this stage, that doesn't seem to be possible.

In case it matters, the files in question are 14-bit RAWs taken using lossless compression.

Any tips, advice or experiences very welcome, be it in the best ways to learn CaptureOne or to make ACR do what I am seeking instead ;-)

Hi Ed,

I am not a big fan of Adobe and whereas Capture One is very powerful software, it's a bloated beast and it's not easy to learn. Ordinarily, I would say that most lokely C1 is your best bet, however, given that you do most of your post processing with layers in Photoshop, you would probably be better off with Silky Pix. It's a very simple RAW processor that's available for free from the Fuji site and it does a really good job processing the Fuji files. It may be all that you need.

 

[Steve Hendrix]

Ed - you can create a similar workflow to your ACR experience by changing the file preferences in Capture One. Go to C1 Prefrences, then choose the Image Tab. Check both boxes for Pack as EIP .... That encapsulates any file change instructions in a zipped file with the actual image file itself, which negates the need for fully managing a Sessions eco system. You do have to have a created Session for the imported files to initially go into, but they can be moved anywhere from there, if desired. You don't technically have to import files to Capture One, but for this workflow, you do need to do so, since otherwise, it won't automatically pack the files as EIP. Once imported, you can then simply move any imported files to any folder you like, navigate to that folder with the Library Tool in Capture One and work away. Sessions still adds some nice organization and structural benefits, so I do remain a fan of the Sessions workflow.

If you'd like to bypass the Sessions eco system entirely and just be in the mode of creating a folder, and dropping files into it with no starting organizational aspects (naming, starting attributes, metadata, etc, you can do this). You can simply create a folder, drop files into it, and then just point to it in the Library Tool and bypass the import process entirely, but then you would have to manually pack the files as EIP once viewing them in Capture One (which isn't difficult, just command A, which selects all files, then control click on any single thumbnail and choose "pack as EIP". But it's nice to have this step automatically accomplished with the import/sessions workflow.


Steve Hendrix/CI

 

[Ed Hurst]

Thank you so much, my friends - you are all so generous and helpful. I'll try some of these ideas out and report back.

 

[Ray Harrison]

There’s always a way through! Now, just please keep your wonderful images coming regardless of the tool.

 

[Ed Hurst]

There’s always a way through! Now, just please keep your wonderful images coming regardless of the tool.

Ahhh! That's so kind - thank you. I will definitely get this solved. Now I know that the files can be processed so that the banding doesn't occur when the files are stacked, there will be a way to do it. I am just hoping to find a workflow that suits me and doesn't involve having to fully learn CaptureOne or to catalogue all my files in a way I don't choose to do it. Steve's advice above seems to point to a way I could do that. SilkyPix might also work, though something tells me C1 will make the files look better. I am doing a trial at the moment in C1 in a cumbersome way (teaching myself Steve's method using the Library Tool will have to wait until I have done that), so we'll see; not as soon as I'd like though - the file processing queue seems to be taking a heap longer than ACR to eat through the files...

Watch this space and thanks again!

Ed

 

[Paul2660]

Ed, interesting observation on the files. The effect you are seeing, I,e, the horizontal banding has been documented before, and appears to be due in part or all to the PDAF AF setup on the sensor. This was documented for the original GFX100 also. Fuji supposedly did look into the issue and added a firmware update to the 100 to hopefully correct it, and the 100s was shipped with a firmware level to address this. The issue seems to be most noticeable when a file is pushed, mainly in exposure stops, in darker areas, which would correlate to your night skies, (al least from my experience with star trail work). With normal exposure levels push, I have never noticed the issue, however I am very familiar with the "lighten" been mode for star trails work, so I can see it pulling the effect up.

It's also most interesting to note that you are not seeing the issue from C1 raw conversions, and that is good to note. Not sure if the other reviewers which pointed out the horizontal banding (some of of them so bothered they had to return the camera), tried C1 to see if the effect was lessened as you have.

Thanks for posting.
Paul

 

[gurtch]

Hi Ed, I love your star trails images. I, too, always used Bridge to pick out what I wanted to process, then used Photoshop (ACR) to convert, and Photoshop to do my retouching etc. However when I got my Fuji GFX, my version of ACR would not process the Fuji files, and I refused to change from my version of Photoshop to a subscription version. I also have a manual file system which I track on a 15 year old spread sheet (Excel has a "search function"). I also just switched from the GFX 50R to the 100S. With the Fuji purchase came a free version of Capture 1. I tried it and disliked it. I could not figure how to open an image and how and where to file it. I gave up. My work flow: view the day's take on a $5 or $10 program called
"FastRawViewer". (It shows previews almost instantly). Convert in DXO Photolab. It supports the GFX100s with outstanding lens corrections. Then I finish off on my old version of Photoshop. I very highly recommend DXO Photolab. Attached is an image from my first outing with the GFX 100S, processed as noted above.
Good luck, your images are first rate,
Dave in NJ

 

[Ed Hurst]

Thanks again so much for the kindness, the compliments, the practical help and the generosity of spirit. When I get time to sort them out, I will post some examples of what I have been seeing in ACR, C1 and DXO. For now, the short comment is this: when working on star trail images, ACR shows terrible banding; C1 files eliminate the banding issue but showed some tiling (where it appeared that the sensor is made up of distinct sections) and DXO where both problems seem to be eliminated. It's beginning to look like DXO is the answer for this specific type of shot.

 

[Ed Hurst]

I guess C1 with an LCC might get rid of the tiling but if DXO doesn't have the issue then that may just be easier

 

[jeffreybehr]

For various reasons I won't bore you with, I finally have succumbed to the HIGH-rez call of miniMF; my (used, from B&H) GFX 100S was delivered on Oct. 18.. I've since wandered thru a few lenses inlcuding some Pentax 645s but have decided that life is difficult enough and am sticking with Fuji stuff.. Currently I'm VERY happy with Fujis in 23, 32-64, 45-100, and 100-200; a 1.4X is on the way.. Next year I hope the 20-35 will be succesful and if so, I'll replace my 23 and 32-64 with it.. At almost 78 years of age and being somewhat chubby and with a REreplaced right shoulder joint, system weight is an equal third of my priorities, and I use a Think Tank Airport Advantage Roller to roll all this stuff.


I am THRILLED with the rez and overall look of these huge files.. I had years ago upgraded my 8-year-old Dell PC with two SSDs and a 34" LG 5K monitor, and it works these files quickly enough(1).. I'm shooting 16-bit uncompressed raws and continuing to use PSCC, viewing files in Bridge and using ACR for conversions.. I'll soon post some pics of a carshow I attended last WE...

[IMG alt="olafphoto"]https://getdpi-attach.nyc3.digitaloceanspaces.com/data/avatars/s/24/24493.jpg?1599434163[/IMG]

• Sticky

Fun with MF images 2021
...and I hope you enjoy them.
.
(1) Probably I'll be buying an iMac within a year, but I require a screen at least 27"-diagonal, so my options are limited.

 

[stephen.s1]

1) Probably I'll be buying an iMac within a year, but I require a screen at least 27"-diagonal, so my options are limited.

It's my understanding that the new iMac 27 has a smaller bezel.. Good news to me.

 

[Ed Hurst]

OK, so I wanted to share some of what I have found out from the experience of creating an urban star trail shot based on GFX100s files, using different RAW converters. This is a particularly revealing and demanding activity, as it involves combining large numbers of files using Photoshop's 'Lighten' layer blending mode. Issues with banding, tiling, etc. are very likely to get shown up in a way that they may not be when viewing files singly.

A few other points - I have made no attempt to match these files in terms of the exact crops or indeed how I used the different RAW converters to edit the files. I used the options available in each converter to make the files look as I wanted them to, based on the options and look available in each converter. So they are definitely different renderings of the files. Please forgive this - I have produced these results as part of my existing work on the files rather than as an exact or scientific test review.

These files used the first 50 files in the stack only, not the full set of files I produced for the image...

Firstly, the file based on the ACR conversions. If you look closely, you will see a pattern of consistent, horizontal bands going through the scene... This isn't very apparent when viewing the whole image and normal size, but it's there and annoying.
ACR File by Ed Hurst, on Flickr

Secondly, the file based on CaptureOne conversions. The bands are pretty much gone. However, if you look towards the upper right of the image, you can see a line representing a clear shift in tone - which I guess is tiling from the sensor sections. I didn't try shooting with an LCC, which may have helped, but certainly the issue is apparent enough to be a problem for me.
CaptureOne File by Ed Hurst, on Flickr

Finally, the file based on DxO conversions. This exhibits neither banding nor tiling. For me, this is clearly the best version.
DxO File by Ed Hurst, on Flickr

Now, these results are relevant purely to my specific use case - layering many files together in Lighten mode. I am not saying DxO is the best for other, more mainstream uses. All the RAW converters have their benefits. And the CaptureOne file might have been fine too had I used an LCC. But DxO's results, produced without an LCC, seem to me to be the best and I will be going down that path in future - especially as it doesn't require me to adopt the file management system of CaptureOne or adopt fiddly work-arounds to avoid this. I also like the files produced in a variety of other ways, though the conversions are certainly slower to produce than the other two converters.

Hope this of help to someone other than myself!

Finally, here's the whole scene based on the DxO conversions. GFX100S with Pentax 28-45mm lens (@28mm) using Fotodiox adaptor.
The controversial Crown Sydney in Barangaroo - a major new development in the city by Ed Hurst, on Flickr

 

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

The 'banding' you see probably comes from the PDAF pixels. The GFX 100S is said to have solved it.

Can you share a 'raw' file?

Best regards
Erik

 

[Ed Hurst]

I can indeed - but the issue is that you won't see it on a single file. It's only visible when you stack multiple layers, so to illustrate anything meaningful, I'd have to share a lot of RAW files.