Reading mode: Light Dark

LR 6 X-Trans RAW Processing

Go to last post
stingx

stingx

Active member
Messages
67
Reaction score
60
Location
Weird, NJ, US
I've been reading various threads about RAW processing of X-Trans in Lightroom and thought I'd just mention that I have been having great success shooting RAW with my X-T1 and processing them in Lightroom 6. All I do is apply my sharpening a little differently than when I am working on other system's RAW output.

For X-Trans I will generally set "sharpening" as so:

Amount: to taste but, unless getting wacky, around mid 30s
Radius: usual 1.0
Detail: between 79-99
Masking: 9-11

I'm not a pro and I do not profess to be a X-Trans guru but I've been having no issues since LR 5 using the above sharpening settings.

Here's a shot of an image I took using the X-T1 with the XF 18-135. No filter or addons. Just the RAW file manipulated with the aforementioned sharpening settings.

20821413045_d5cf0879ce_h.jpg


URL:
https://flic.kr/p/xHVbG6

--
Calling me a photographer is like calling Jeffrey Dahmer a chef.
 
Last edited:
I'm generally happy with LR 6 too and my settings aren't too far off yours - amount around default 25-30, detail is usually 35 - 45, radius around 1.0 and masking at 10 - 15 but I save some sharpening for output from PS at whatever image size and resolution I decide on and whether for print or screen.

It should be said that the type of image you show here is not likely to show the problems that were previously (and still sometimes) complained about which was fine detail in foliage and fine distant detail so you can see where landscapers would have a problem with small distant leaves appearing as a massed blur in some cases.

Luckily I was not an LR user back then but instead used Silkypix and CS5.
 
Hi,

So far I have been mainly Sony shooter (Sony A6000, A5000, A65), but I had the chance to acquire Fuji X-M1 for a very affordable price, so I bought it. However not only because the price, but I wanted to try how much praised Fuji's X-Trans sensor perform - especially when shooting RAW. Sony's lossy compressed RAW format has not inspired me a lot, I think that it ruin some color tones and and causing some artifacts, maybe even posterization when shooting - for example long exposures.

Anyway, I am well aware that also Fuji's X-Trans RAW can be challenging to be processed...So I made this modest RAW converter comparison:

(click "original" to see full size pic)

- Adobe Camera Raw v. 9.1.1 (same engine than witt Lightroom)

- Raw Therapee

- Fuji's SilkyPix

ac34b5dfc07640c7b50ee533001d3150.jpg

Note that these are 150% crops!

With Adobe Camera Raw I used quite modest sharpening, with Raw Therapee just default sharpening and with Silkypix there is two different sharpening conversion (less & more).

Don't care about color/WB differences in this comparison.

As you can see, differences are not huge. Perhaps Raw Therapee did best work here, but not with a large margin. And note that these are 150% crops!

...Well, if I have to make a very critical photographic work, I maybe use Raw Therapee (mainly for landscapes), but mostly I will continue using Adobe products (ACR & Photoshop), because of easier workflow.

regards,

Ari

BTW - Yep, I really like colour tones and noise performance what this tiny Fuji camera gives, also dynamic range is pretty good, even when compare to Sony results with its excellent 24mp sony sensor.

Indeed, I'm going to keep this Fuji camera. I love characterful / natural IQ ;-)

--
- Ari Aikomus -
'Why should I feel lonely ? is not our planet in the Milky way?'
 
Last edited:
Wow, we've not had an X-Trans / LR thread for a long time :-D :-D

But playing with Silkypix today was a good reminder of the importance of the correct approach to demosaic sharpening and then output sharpening. SP is one of the worst converters for default image appearance I've come across, but understand how to adjust the variables (inc. sharpening) and I'm becoming quite impressed with this program and its suggested develop protocol. The importance of correcting exposure first, getting the correct tonal balance, when and how to do NR, and then finally the two stages of sharpening (and the relationship with NR). Some of the results I had were counter-intuitive - like less detail emphasis (around 40) gave a sharper image than more!! Lots more work to do on my part to understand all this...

But...back to this thread - how to best sharpen X-Trans in LR. It would be nice if we could have a thread that focuses purely on this one element, but including how other variables such as NR, overall exposure and contrast / clarity interact and add-to / subtract from the perceived quality of the final output.

Any chance I wonder...
 
Vic Chapman said:
I'm generally happy with LR 6 too and my settings aren't too far off yours - amount around default 25-30, detail is usually 35 - 45, radius around 1.0 and masking at 10 - 15 but I save some sharpening for output from PS at whatever image size and resolution I decide on and whether for print or screen.
Click to expand...
This is much more effective - IMO the USM sharpening in PS operates differently to the combination of detail and edge sharpening in LR. I generally use high detail in LR with default edge sharpening, then do all the fine edge sharpening in PS, like you, depending on what I plan to do with it.
Vic Chapman said:
It should be said that the type of image you show here is not likely to show the problems that were previously (and still sometimes) complained about which was fine detail in foliage and fine distant detail so you can see where landscapers would have a problem with small distant leaves appearing as a massed blur in some cases.
Click to expand...
I think this issue is largely overcome now - using the above technique. I can more or less emulate any other RAW converter, once noise, contrast etc. is equalised. LR still provides impressively low noise for the detail available.
Vic Chapman said:
Luckily I was not an LR user back then but instead used Silkypix and CS5.
Click to expand...
I've used Silkypix since Pentax days (10 years now). Even bought the pro license which has a useful HDR feature. But the LR colours still seem more faithful to Fuji's intent - the simulation modes are very good.
 
Elyharbour said:
Wow, we've not had an X-Trans / LR thread for a long time :-D :-D

But playing with Silkypix today was a good reminder of the importance of the correct approach to demosaic sharpening and then output sharpening. SP is one of the worst converters for default image appearance I've come across, but understand how to adjust the variables (inc. sharpening) and I'm becoming quite impressed with this program and its suggested develop protocol. The importance of correcting exposure first, getting the correct tonal balance, when and how to do NR, and then finally the two stages of sharpening (and the relationship with NR). Some of the results I had were counter-intuitive - like less detail emphasis (around 40) gave a sharper image than more!! Lots more work to do on my part to understand all this...
Click to expand...
Just to be nit-picky here: you're not 'correcting exposure'; you're adjusting the brightness.
 
Nit-picked...thank you! :-)

I've noticed that images such as cityscapes where for example the whites / highlights on buildings / structures are close to blowing out, often look less sharp no matter what I do. Adjusting these down or even simply applying -0.3 to-0.5EV or so in LR or SP can make quite a difference in apparent detail in some shots. So it's not just a matter of sharpening algorithms. Many variables interact I feel.
 
Elyharbour said:
Nit-picked...thank you! :-)

I've noticed that images such as cityscapes where for example the whites / highlights on buildings / structures are close to blowing out, often look less sharp no matter what I do. Adjusting these down or even simply applying -0.3 to-0.5EV or so in LR or SP can make quite a difference in apparent detail in some shots. So it's not just a matter of sharpening algorithms. Many variables interact I feel.
Click to expand...
Sharpness is linked entirely to contrast at the pixel level, and contrast is related to the relative brightness of pixels. Because we perceive more contrast in darker tones*, reducing the global brightness can increase apparent contrast in lighter parts of a linear signal.

*18% grey is in fact 'middle grey' so we see 50% of the tones in the darkest 18% of the signal. The top 50% of the signal is only 1 stop.
 
It's worth noting one of the things the deceptively simple sounding "Detail" slider in the LR sharpening panel does. If you push it far to the right (to 100), it switches the type of sharpening that LR does from conventional Unsharp Masking (USM) to deconvolution. Deconvolution is an attempt to mathematically correct the factors that blur an image by applying the blur factor in reverse (or a standardised point spread function). The two methods give very different results.

When set to a low value (to the left) you will see mainly traditional USM with some kind of anti - haloing applied. I don't really know for sure what happens at medium settings but we can guess it will be some kind of mixture.

The source of this info is Adobe insider Jeff Schewe's book "The digital negative: raw image processing in lightroom".








stingx said:
I've been reading various threads about RAW processing of X-Trans in Lightroom and thought I'd just mention that I have been having great success shooting RAW with my X-T1 and processing them in Lightroom 6. All I do is apply my sharpening a little differently than when I am working on other system's RAW output.

For X-Trans I will generally set "sharpening" as so:

Amount: to taste but, unless getting wacky, around mid 30s
Radius: usual 1.0
Detail: between 79-99
Masking: 9-11

I'm not a pro and I do not profess to be a X-Trans guru but I've been having no issues since LR 5 using the above sharpening settings.

Here's a shot of an image I took using the X-T1 with the XF 18-135. No filter or addons. Just the RAW file manipulated with the aforementioned sharpening settings.

20821413045_d5cf0879ce_h.jpg


URL:
https://flic.kr/p/xHVbG6

--
Calling me a photographer is like calling Jeffrey Dahmer a chef.
Click to expand...


--
"...while I am tempted to bludgeon you, I would rather have you come away with an improved understanding of how these sensors work" ---- Eric Fossum
Galleries and website: http://www.whisperingcat.co.uk/
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidmillier/
 
57even said:
Vic Chapman said:
I'm generally happy with LR 6 too and my settings aren't too far off yours - amount around default 25-30, detail is usually 35 - 45, radius around 1.0 and masking at 10 - 15 but I save some sharpening for output from PS at whatever image size and resolution I decide on and whether for print or screen.
Click to expand...
This is much more effective - IMO the USM sharpening in PS operates differently to the combination of detail and edge sharpening in LR. I generally use high detail in LR with default edge sharpening, then do all the fine edge sharpening in PS, like you, depending on what I plan to do with it.
Member said:
It should be said that the type of image you show here is not likely to show the problems that were previously (and still sometimes) complained about which was fine detail in foliage and fine distant detail so you can see where landscapers would have a problem with small distant leaves appearing as a massed blur in some cases.
Click to expand...
I think this issue is largely overcome now - using the above technique. I can more or less emulate any other RAW converter, once noise, contrast etc. is equalised. LR still provides impressively low noise for the detail available.
Member said:
Luckily I was not an LR user back then but instead used Silkypix and CS5.
Click to expand...
I've used Silkypix since Pentax days (10 years now). Even bought the pro license which has a useful HDR feature. But the LR colours still seem more faithful to Fuji's intent - the simulation modes are very good.
Click to expand...
 
Elyharbour said:
Nit-picked...thank you! :-)

I've noticed that images such as cityscapes where for example the whites / highlights on buildings / structures are close to blowing out, often look less sharp no matter what I do. Adjusting these down or even simply applying -0.3 to-0.5EV or so in LR or SP can make quite a difference in apparent detail in some shots. So it's not just a matter of sharpening algorithms. Many variables interact I feel.
Click to expand...
Having shot and processed mainly canon and m43 until this point, I have been very impressed at all the color and tonality that can be recovered from highlights with x-trans.
--
Family Man/Amateur Photographer
 
Vic Chapman said:
57even said:
Vic Chapman said:
I'm generally happy with LR 6 too and my settings aren't too far off yours - amount around default 25-30, detail is usually 35 - 45, radius around 1.0 and masking at 10 - 15 but I save some sharpening for output from PS at whatever image size and resolution I decide on and whether for print or screen.
Click to expand...
This is much more effective - IMO the USM sharpening in PS operates differently to the combination of detail and edge sharpening in LR. I generally use high detail in LR with default edge sharpening, then do all the fine edge sharpening in PS, like you, depending on what I plan to do with it.
Vic Chapman said:
It should be said that the type of image you show here is not likely to show the problems that were previously (and still sometimes) complained about which was fine detail in foliage and fine distant detail so you can see where landscapers would have a problem with small distant leaves appearing as a massed blur in some cases.
Click to expand...
I think this issue is largely overcome now - using the above technique. I can more or less emulate any other RAW converter, once noise, contrast etc. is equalised. LR still provides impressively low noise for the detail available.
Vic Chapman said:
Luckily I was not an LR user back then but instead used Silkypix and CS5.
Click to expand...
I've used Silkypix since Pentax days (10 years now). Even bought the pro license which has a useful HDR feature. But the LR colours still seem more faithful to Fuji's intent - the simulation modes are very good.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
thanks for sharing, this is great
 
I have been using LR since 2.0, now 6.1.1. LR 5 seemed to bring about an advancement in raw sharpening and I think I notice additional benefits in 6.1.1. Recently back from 3 weeks in Europe with the XT-1, 18-55, 35 and 55-200 and use Sharpness +55, Radius 1.6, Detail 40, Masking 35 with Clarity set to +10 as an import default along with some color adjustments.

Loading…

www.martindareff.com

Judge for yourself but note there may be a handful of P&S shots mixed in.
 
...is that they're all subjective and no two techniques can have the same effect on the viewer(s).

For example - for me - on my monitor - these images you showcased look artificially over sharpened, and to me this sharpening technique seems to detract from the overall image (almost like using inexpensive glass). Now it's not a knock against the images - by no means was I trying to get that across. Again, this is just me speaking.

It's just that for many folks, oversharpening (using a variety of suggested methods) can become overkill in that these techniques can actually detract from the image. Oversharpening can contribute to images looking noisy (even at low ISO's), grainy, and an unwanted side effect is that these techniques can rob an image(s) of a richness incolor in most scenarios.

In the end, if one can look into a well-taken image, yet not be inclined to feel part of that (those) scene(s), then oversharpening could (and often is) be the culprit.
 
Now, you see, I'd say the level of sharpening is spot-on, and does draw me into the scene (especially that one of the supermarket!). So you are right...it depends. I'm using a 22" IPS LED monitor at full HD resolution (1920x1080). There are a few that look to be on the limit of what looks right, but the detail at fit-to-screen resolution works for me for the majority.

To the OP: did you output sharpen for screen, or does SmugMug do that in its re-sampling from full size?
 
Last edited:
Really interesting question. I went back at looked at sample images in develop mode (LR6.1.1) after conversion to jpeg and compared them with what I see on screen at SM. It does appear that SM adds a bit of screen sharpening to my already processed images. Not much, but it does seem to be a bit sharper than my developed jpegs show in LR on 27" monitor, also set at full HD resolution.

Sharpening results will always be a bit subjective with what's right for all being elusive. What's good for me may be overly done for some others, or not crisp enough for others. I'm happy with the results I get in LR6 as it seems they have gotten the green/blue leaves to sky bleed handled.

Every camera and processing method has +/- to them. I like Fuji colors the best and don't have any issues processing them. My mental take notes from this trip were I find the 18-55 not wide enough at times and shot about 50% of all images at 18. Next time I'll take the 10-24 and see how that goes for a walk around, and crop when necessary in PP and pay more attention to EC hoping to make less use of highlight recovery in PP.
 
I notice the same in Flickr. The images seem sharper at screen resolution. The file at 100% seems the same as uploaded, so I think it's USM or something when down-sampling.

I've just got the 10-24mm and it seems a very useful range for city- and street shots.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top