Foliage issues still?

Started Sep 8, 2012 | Discussions
travelinbri_74
OP travelinbri_74 Senior Member • Posts: 2,993
Re: It's a non-issue for me

I started another threat, I would love some X-Pro1 shooters to go out and take photos with foliage and post here... just so we can take a look at how bad or often the problem does or does not occur. I sold my FF camera with the idea I could move to a smaller system and I have been leaning towards heavily investing in Fuji, but I need something that works with all types of landscape, as I am at least 50% a landscape shooter, which means if Fuji X-series is the wrong horse for this course, I should look elsewhere, no matter how good high ISO and rendition is... so I would like to see real experiences with or without the issue... Is it like banding with the 5DII where it happens, but not so often?
Best,
TBri

baobob
baobob Forum Pro • Posts: 10,557
Re: It's a non-issue for me

All that has already been posted!
Just search the foliage issue and tree


--
Good judgment comes from experience
Experience comes from bad judgment

 baobob's gear list:baobob's gear list
Sony RX100 Olympus Tough TG-4 Fujifilm X-H1 Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R Fujifilm XF 60mm F2.4 R Macro +8 more
framus Contributing Member • Posts: 847
Re: Let's look at actual images - NOT FAIR

Chris,

Not only are you are a heretic but you also cheat.

We are supposed to come here to prognosticate and pontificate about what we know and/or imagine from things we've read on the internet.

Then you show up and try to ruin the party with actual pictures that you've made that support your 'claim' that you are getting good results using the terrible Adobe raw converter.

I'm now looking forward to the 'smearing' aficionados' counter examples.

More seriously, thanks for taking the time to provide examples that show it is possible to get good results with the Adobe tools regardless about what we might read on the internet from web 'experts'.

-Framus

...must seek the 'truth' on the web.

Chris Dodkin wrote:

Oh I'm sorry - I'm supposed to ignore my own eyes and believe Nikon Guy's pitch about color smearing....

If I read his BLOG correctly, it's supposed to be there with blocks of color, and transitions on an edge - People often describe lettering or logos as showing the 'issue'

So here are four X-Pro1 RAW files of lettering & logos - converted using ACR into CS6

For each file, I provide the full frame image, and a close up 100% section.

Where's the problem?

So, am I supposed to believe the hype, or trust my own direct experience?

-- hide signature --

http://www.dodkin.com
Chris@1D-Images.com
Mac Pro/MacBook Pro/iPods/iPhones/iPad

 framus's gear list:framus's gear list
Fujifilm X100S Fujifilm X-T1
Chris Dodkin
Chris Dodkin Veteran Member • Posts: 8,369
Re: Let's look at actual images

rattymouse wrote:

You proved either supreme ignorance or supreme bias. Either one is enough for me to discard your opinion as worthless and a complete waste of time.

Ahhh, if you can't face the facts, ignore them...

Good strategy!

LMAO

-- hide signature --

http://www.dodkin.com
Chris@1D-Images.com
Mac Pro/MacBook Pro/iPods/iPhones/iPad

 Chris Dodkin's gear list:Chris Dodkin's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix X100 Fujifilm X100F Canon EOS-1D Canon EOS-1D Mark II Fujifilm X-Pro1 +38 more
Jeff Seltzer Senior Member • Posts: 1,791
My standard of quality is very high, thank you + images

First of all, any review, by definition, is subjective. Period. Likewise, it is my opinion that my images are of high quality and my standards are high. I also believe I have credibility on the issue - my images hang in galleries and of the walls of private and corporate collectors. I've printed as large as 40x30 for solo shows in Los Angeles. So, I think I have a pretty good eye.

I'm not saying the "problem" doesn't exist, I'm just saying it's a non-issue that I haven't seen or noticed. Anyway, here are a couple of recent images of bushes, trees, foliage with the XP1 - all RAW processed in LR. To my eye, they are fine. And the files are at least as good as my 5DII. If you want to see the high-resolution versions, email me and maybe we can work something out.

rattymouse wrote:

Jeff Seltzer wrote:

I'm with Chris on this one. I'm not going to purposely go out and try to re-create a problem that I wouldn't have known about if not but a few hysterical posters.

Thom Hogan is not a "hysterical poster". His review of the X-Pro 1 was roundly praised as being on the mark, and completely unbiased. Few people could point to a review that reached his level of expertise, much less exceed it.

But, I have taken images of trees and bushes, and to my eye, all is fine.

It is to your benefit that your standards of quality are low enough to allow the smearing to be a cause for concern.

Chris Dodkin wrote:

rattymouse wrote:

LOL...No one is harder on Nikon than Thom Hogan. NO ONE. You show supreme ignorance with that comment above.

Clearly you have not read a word of his since the Nikon D800 launch. Very transparent of you.

Ignorance - that would be believing his FUD on image smearing, rather than trusting the thousands of images i have in front of me.

You know - like the samples I kindly provided for you, and which you then carefully ignored.

-- hide signature --

http://www.dodkin.com
Chris@1D-Images.com
Mac Pro/MacBook Pro/iPods/iPhones/iPad

-- hide signature --

DISCLAIMER: The text written herein is meant to provide the opinion/s and/or suggestion/s of the author. No statement herein is meant to be considered law of the land, representative of any party or group, and or a quote from any party or group. Neither is any statement in the contained text meant to be taken as scripture, doctrine, or all encompassing of an entire populous or any groups or individuals therein.

baobob
baobob Forum Pro • Posts: 10,557
Re: Let's look at actual images

The hard fact is just that there is some smearing and color bleeding in some circumstances

Wether it bothers you or not is definitly a personal point of view that should be respected both side

But sustematically negating evidence leads to extreme and un pleasnt, arrogant positions...

"Il n'y a que la vérité qui fache ..."
--
Good judgment comes from experience
Experience comes from bad judgment

 baobob's gear list:baobob's gear list
Sony RX100 Olympus Tough TG-4 Fujifilm X-H1 Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R Fujifilm XF 60mm F2.4 R Macro +8 more
miniTO Regular Member • Posts: 239
Re: It's a non-issue for me

travelinbri_74 wrote:

I started another threat, I would love some X-Pro1 shooters to go out and take photos with foliage and post here... just so we can take a look at how bad or often the problem does or does not occur. I sold my FF camera with the idea I could move to a smaller system and I have been leaning towards heavily investing in Fuji, but I need something that works with all types of landscape, as I am at least 50% a landscape shooter, which means if Fuji X-series is the wrong horse for this course, I should look elsewhere, no matter how good high ISO and rendition is... so I would like to see real experiences with or without the issue... Is it like banding with the 5DII where it happens, but not so often?
Best,
TBri

Look the answer to this is really simple... I have no clue how this went on for 3 pages of posts...

the problem is with Adobe Camera Raw converter period.

If you process RAWs in Silkypics or RPP you will not see the issue. In addition the issue does not present itself with JPEG but for Landscape Raws always going to be preferred.

I personally use a combination of Lightroom and the RPP Lightroom plugin but that is only applicable if you use OSX. In the end my X-Pro 1 files using this method are superior in my opinion to my previous full frame Canon.

borgein Contributing Member • Posts: 680
Re: It's a non-issue for me

For landscape shots with lot's of foliage (I mean lots, not just a tree or something, that's not nature - come visit Norway and I'll show you nature and foliage - it's right outside your door - everywhere) I have to process the raw files with Silkypix. ACR (even at 7.2) does not cut it. You don't have to zoom in at 100% to see the differences either, it is very easy to spot even on my crappy monitor.

However, I only use Silkypix for shots that I know I will be displaying in a large format or printing big. For regular computer use I usually cope with LR. I know the quality will be less, and I know that ACR cannot extract all the details that Silkypix can. Not only on foliage and landscape shots but on everything (rocks, heavily textured surfaces, etc). And I'm OK with that for most shots because I will downscale them to max 2 MP and display them via sRGB anyway, so it doesn't really matter.

But for professional work I would not use LR/ACR with the X-Trans sensor as of today. It is just not good enough for large prints and photographs that you actually sell (maybe potential clients would be satisfied - but I wouldn't be satisfied with selling a lesser quality product because of convenience).

There are many examples available. I have two examples available, but, I do not want to upload them to this gallery as the differences won't be that visible after the jpeg's are crunched after upload here...

But you can download these two files and compare them. It is the same capture (raw), one is processed with Lightroom 4.1/ACR7.1 and one is processed with Silkypix 5.0.20:

Lightroom 4.1: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/3886105/lr4.1.zip
Silkypix 5.0.20: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/3886105/sp5.0.20.zip

For info on all the settings and more details about these pictures please read my thread here where you can find all the information you need: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1020&message=42373724

And yes I know you can use the Clarity slider for a sharpening effect in LR instead of regular sharpening to make the demosaicing flaws less apparent. But that introduces other issues as well, the image just looks awkwardly digital and too contrasty with that much clarity on. I just don't like the "Clarity-look". It looks fake.

 borgein's gear list:borgein's gear list
Fujifilm X100F Leica M10 Sony Alpha a7R III Leica Elmar-M 24mm f/3.8 ASPH Leica Summilux-M 35mm f/1.4 ASPH +10 more
baobob
baobob Forum Pro • Posts: 10,557
Re: It's a non-issue for me

I compltely agree
Unfortunately I run a Win machine

I either use at furst step Sylkipix or Helicon then record Tiff and open it in ACR
Long but worth

I posted a comparison between the X Pro1 and the EOS 5d3 using the DPR raw studio file, leading to an equal quality a very good result for an APSC sensor
--
Good judgment comes from experience
Experience comes from bad judgment

 baobob's gear list:baobob's gear list
Sony RX100 Olympus Tough TG-4 Fujifilm X-H1 Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R Fujifilm XF 60mm F2.4 R Macro +8 more
Randy Benter
Randy Benter Veteran Member • Posts: 3,196
Re: Let's look at actual images - NOT FAIR

framus wrote:

Chris,

Not only are you are a heretic but you also cheat.

We are supposed to come here to prognosticate and pontificate about what we know and/or imagine from things we've read on the internet.

Then you show up and try to ruin the party with actual pictures that you've made that support your 'claim' that you are getting good results using the terrible Adobe raw converter.

I'm now looking forward to the 'smearing' aficionados' counter examples.

More seriously, thanks for taking the time to provide examples that show it is possible to get good results with the Adobe tools regardless about what we might read on the internet from web 'experts'.

-Framus

...must seek the 'truth' on the web.

Framus, I don't understand why you are taking such a defensive and aggressive position in this thread.

In another thread ( http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1020&message=42441506 ) you thanked MikeS2012 for his explanation of the difficulties of demosaicing the Xpro1 files, but in this thread you don't seem to want anyone to talk about the problems ACR has with demosaicing/sharpening the raw files.

I did not just read about this problem on the internet. I first encountered the issue when I opened XPro1 files in Lightroom and used my usual workflow and sharpening. I always zoom in to 100% when sharpening so I can clearly see the effect. The results looked very bad to me. Since that time, I have learned that it is possible to get good results from the XPro1 in LR or SP by avoiding or limiting the use of Adobe sharpening. I appreciate the fact that Chris and others can acknowledge the Adobe demosaicing issue and also be helpful to others by recommending ways to work-around the issue.

I never said this is a major issue. I never said that one should avoid buying the XPro1 or LR. Even if everyone agreed that it is a minor issue, that doesn't mean we should stop talking about it. I would like to hear how others are processing their raws for best results. I would like to hear if a new update to an app improves demosaicing. But apparently, these discussions are hitting a sore spot for some.

Unfortunately, your replies have not been helpful at all. If you have not experienced this problem, then I don't understand why you can't just say that and move on. Just because it is not a problem for you, does not mean it is not a problem for me and others. Why does a problem others are having bother you so much?

 Randy Benter's gear list:Randy Benter's gear list
Apple Aperture Fujifilm X100F Fujifilm X-Pro2 Fujifilm XF 14mm F2.8 R Fujifilm XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS +16 more
GeoffreyH Regular Member • Posts: 326
Re: Foliage issues still?

I posted RAW images from DPR between an Olympus OMD EM-5 and XPro1 asking the question as to why the resolution from the smaller sensor seemed to resolve better than the APS C on the Fuji to which I found out (more than I ever cared to) about the issue with ACR/LR and Fuji sensor. Until LR/ACR is X-Trans CMOS sensor compatible — and as of Lightroom release candidate 4.2, it isn't still — I can't buy an Xpro/X-E1.

Jeff Seltzer Senior Member • Posts: 1,791
???

If there's one thing for which the XP1 has been universally praised, it's the imagine quality. There maybe legit reasons not to buy the XP1, but image quality hardly seems like one.

GeoffreyH wrote:

I posted RAW images from DPR between an Olympus OMD EM-5 and XPro1 asking the question as to why the resolution from the smaller sensor seemed to resolve better than the APS C on the Fuji to which I found out (more than I ever cared to) about the issue with ACR/LR and Fuji sensor. Until LR/ACR is X-Trans CMOS sensor compatible — and as of Lightroom release candidate 4.2, it isn't still — I can't buy an Xpro/X-E1.

Chris Dodkin
Chris Dodkin Veteran Member • Posts: 8,369
Re: Let's look at actual images

The hard fact is that I have seen zero 'smearing' in any of my images - zero.

So I'm really not interested in someone telling me I must be wrong, or that I'm blind, or a 'fanboy'.

You just can't beat real experience.

-- hide signature --

http://www.dodkin.com
Chris@1D-Images.com
Mac Pro/MacBook Pro/iPods/iPhones/iPad

 Chris Dodkin's gear list:Chris Dodkin's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix X100 Fujifilm X100F Canon EOS-1D Canon EOS-1D Mark II Fujifilm X-Pro1 +38 more
borgein Contributing Member • Posts: 680
Re: Let's look at actual images

Chris Dodkin wrote:

The hard fact is that I have seen zero 'smearing' in any of my images - zero.

So I'm really not interested in someone telling me I must be wrong, or that I'm blind, or a 'fanboy'.

You just can't beat real experience.

-- hide signature --

http://www.dodkin.com
Chris@1D-Images.com
Mac Pro/MacBook Pro/iPods/iPhones/iPad

I wouldn't call it smearing. I would call it loss of detail / resolving power.

Due to the X-Trans's CFA and amount of green pixels it is able to resolve more detail than the typical Bayer sensor. But the demosaic routines are very complex compared to on Bayer sensors, and the only software do date that can really resolve all the details from this sensor array is Silkypix.

ACR is basically resolving the X-Trans raw's as if they were generated by a Bayer sensor. That results on OK decodings but with less detail than what Silkypix can extract from the same raw file.

It requires a lot of R&D by software companies to write an entirely new decoder routine for the X-Trans specifically, so it will probably take some time until raw decoders (except Silkypix) can show the full capabilities of the X-Trans sensor design.

LR does a decent job especially for regular internet use. But for large prints or work that needs the absolute highest amount of resolving power Silkypix does a better job.

I personally use LR mostly myself because of convenience (I have used LR since version 1.0), and I have a lot of plugins for LR as well (Silver Efex Pro 2, Exposure 4, VSCO Film 01 and 02 and a bunch of my own presets). But for specific landscape shots (some can be very problematic, and some won't be, the behavior seems sort of random) I have had to use Silkypix to generate a tiff or jpeg.

 borgein's gear list:borgein's gear list
Fujifilm X100F Leica M10 Sony Alpha a7R III Leica Elmar-M 24mm f/3.8 ASPH Leica Summilux-M 35mm f/1.4 ASPH +10 more
Asylum Photo
Asylum Photo Senior Member • Posts: 1,277
Too many extreme positions here...

Lots of extreme positions.

ACR/LR doesn't pull details as well as it does from other cameras, or as well as a couple other RAW converters do from the XP1.

That being said, you can, with proper settings, get plenty of good things from ACR/LR. If foliage is your main concern, you'll likely want to convert in another program and then adjust further in ACR/LR.

If your photography is more varied, and you don't need 300% detail, then it's likely ACR/LR will be just fine. Though, it's pretty aggressive in regards to contrast.

As far as JPEGs. if you turn NR to -2 in camera, I find things are much better as far as details/smearing. I've been using mostly JPEGs for "life" street photography. I adjust the RAW files on only certain images.
--
http://asylum-photo.com

 Asylum Photo's gear list:Asylum Photo's gear list
Fujifilm X-E2 Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R Fujifilm XF 60mm F2.4 R Macro Fujifilm XF 14mm F2.8 R Fujifilm XF 23mm F1.4 R +2 more
Chris Dodkin
Chris Dodkin Veteran Member • Posts: 8,369
Re: Let's look at actual images

"ACR is basically resolving the X-Trans raw's as if they were generated by a Bayer sensor"

That's the sort of speculation that gets pointless threads like this started, and scares people away from the Camera system.

It's FUD

-- hide signature --

http://www.dodkin.com
Chris@1D-Images.com
Mac Pro/MacBook Pro/iPods/iPhones/iPad

 Chris Dodkin's gear list:Chris Dodkin's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix X100 Fujifilm X100F Canon EOS-1D Canon EOS-1D Mark II Fujifilm X-Pro1 +38 more
57even Forum Pro • Posts: 12,021
Re: Too many extreme positions here...

Good advice on all counts.

Asylum Photo wrote:

Lots of extreme positions.

ACR/LR doesn't pull details as well as it does from other cameras, or as well as a couple other RAW converters do from the XP1.

That being said, you can, with proper settings, get plenty of good things from ACR/LR. If foliage is your main concern, you'll likely want to convert in another program and then adjust further in ACR/LR.

If your photography is more varied, and you don't need 300% detail, then it's likely ACR/LR will be just fine. Though, it's pretty aggressive in regards to contrast.

As far as JPEGs. if you turn NR to -2 in camera, I find things are much better as far as details/smearing. I've been using mostly JPEGs for "life" street photography. I adjust the RAW files on only certain images.
--
http://asylum-photo.com

 57even's gear list:57even's gear list
Fujifilm X-Pro2
GeoffreyH Regular Member • Posts: 326
Re: Foliage issues still?

From the Lightroom Journal: http://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal/

NOTE: The Lightroom and Camera Raw team is well aware of the new X-Pro1 camera from FUJIFILM. We are currently developing raw support for the X-Pro1 and look forward to providing it as soon as support is complete. Thanks for your patience on this topic.

borgein Contributing Member • Posts: 680
Re: Let's look at actual images

Well it is purely my own speculation of course, but based on some very technical posts about this over at fujix-forum it seems it could be the cause.

Anyway, it is easy to achieve a higher resolution from Silkypix versus ACR at this stage. Yes, the quality from ACR is decent but Silkypix beats it in regards of resolution on every single image.

But then again, that doesn't matter for regular use (posting pictures to the web and printing in regular sizes). But that doesn't mean that there isn't a difference, and that ACR is not optimal as of today.

This is not FUD. There are evidence all over the web from well known and unknown photographers, software developers, reviewers and so on.

Chris Dodkin wrote:

"ACR is basically resolving the X-Trans raw's as if they were generated by a Bayer sensor"

That's the sort of speculation that gets pointless threads like this started, and scares people away from the Camera system.

It's FUD

-- hide signature --

http://www.dodkin.com
Chris@1D-Images.com
Mac Pro/MacBook Pro/iPods/iPhones/iPad

 borgein's gear list:borgein's gear list
Fujifilm X100F Leica M10 Sony Alpha a7R III Leica Elmar-M 24mm f/3.8 ASPH Leica Summilux-M 35mm f/1.4 ASPH +10 more
Randy Benter
Randy Benter Veteran Member • Posts: 3,196
Re: Let's look at actual images
1

borgein wrote:

But then again, that doesn't matter for regular use (posting pictures to the web and printing in regular sizes). But that doesn't mean that there isn't a difference, and that ACR is not optimal as of today.

This is not FUD. There are evidence all over the web from well known and unknown photographers, software developers, reviewers and so on.

I agree.

These crops show the same raw file processed in LR and SP. Both applications are set for zero noise reduction and a fairly high amount of sharpening. You can see that SP sharpening enhances detail and looks grainy. The LR sharpening smears detail and looks waxy.

I no longer try to use LR sharpening on XPro1 files and I am getting good raw results using work-around methods. There will continue to be threads about this because LR/ACR is the most popular raw processor and when new Fuji owners try to use their usual workflow (which likely includes Adobe sharpening), then they are not going to like the results.

Most of the threads on this topic are useless arguing between those who encounter the problem and those who claim the problem doesn't exist. It would be much better if we could just have a thread where users share PP workflows that achieve good results from the XPro1. I realize that might be expecting too much from the DPR Fuji forums, where civility seems to be in very short supply.

 Randy Benter's gear list:Randy Benter's gear list
Apple Aperture Fujifilm X100F Fujifilm X-Pro2 Fujifilm XF 14mm F2.8 R Fujifilm XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS +16 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads