Foliage issues still?

Started Sep 8, 2012 | Discussions
framus Contributing Member • Posts: 847
Re: Let's look at actual images

Randy,
With your normal distortion you continue to maintain that this 'problem',
perceptible to you, is a general situation.
When you say

" 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."

If some us don't discern the 'problem' you might consider, that for us, the
'problem doesn't exist'.

I'll grant you that I may not have your powers of discernment. For me the problem doesn't exist. Gild that lilly anyway you wish but your sense of truth about the problem is not one that I nor many others share.

-Framus

....with truth and justice for all, pay attention people, we're talking camera truthiness here.

Randy Benter wrote:

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.

 framus's gear list:framus's gear list
Fujifilm X100S Fujifilm X-T1
baobob
baobob Forum Pro • Posts: 11,276
Re: Let's look at actual images

Yes!
You can also see the red white color bleeding in both with less extent in SP
helicon avoids bleeding (but might create minute artifacts....)
--
Good judgment comes from experience
Experience comes from bad judgment

 baobob's gear list:baobob's gear list
Sony RX100 Olympus Tough TG-4 Panasonic ZS200 Fujifilm X-H1 Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R +9 more
baobob
baobob Forum Pro • Posts: 11,276
Re: Let's look at actual images

I agree that in Chris photos we saw over here, the foliage issue is probably not relevant for him.

But this is not a reason again for him to systematically negate the problem acknowledge by so many photographers including reid reviews and DPR

Hope this attitude is not linked to Adobe.
--
Good judgment comes from experience
Experience comes from bad judgment

 baobob's gear list:baobob's gear list
Sony RX100 Olympus Tough TG-4 Panasonic ZS200 Fujifilm X-H1 Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R +9 more
Randy Benter
Randy Benter Veteran Member • Posts: 3,196
Re: Let's look at actual images
1

framus wrote:

Randy,
With your normal distortion you continue to maintain that this 'problem',
perceptible to you, is a general situation.
When you say

" 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."

Obviously, it is only a problem for those who consider it to be a problem. Those of us who consider it to be a problem would like to work on resolving our issue without you telling us that we don't have a problem. I would love to process my files in LR and get results that look good to me .

You completely missed the point of my last paragraph...and at the same time you proved the point of my last paragraph.

 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
(unknown member) Contributing Member • Posts: 710
Re: Let's look at actual images

I wouldn't call this a "foliage issue".

The issue is basically that ACR does not resolve as many details as for example Silkypix or Helicon does. This is especially visible on foliage.

I would say that by using ACR on the raw files you are basically getting the same detail level as if the images was at 8-10mp, whereas with Silkypix you get a real 16mp image with lots of natural details.

8-10mp is fine for desktop/computer/regular printing use however. But saying that there is no problem is just retarded when the issues are proven by MANY people, including reviewers, software developers (even raw decoder developers), photographers, and many more. There are so many articles and so many examples on this that the fact is pretty damn clear.

Not everyone will be affected by it though. For regular use most people won't be affected at all.

But still, when I purchase a 2.5GHz CPU I would actually like to be able to use those 2.5GHz's even though I might not always need it. I don't want to purchase a 2.5GHz cpu which is downclocked and limited to 1.7GHz. It's sort of the same thing.

Hopefully the future CaptureOne support will put Adobe to shame, just like Silkypix does today.

I will still continue to use LR4 though. But Adobe absolutely needs to put some more effort into the X-Trans decoding algorithms.

goldpopper Junior Member • Posts: 46
Re: Let's look at actual images

I have the x100 , and am about to get the x-pro. So what is the best way to process RAW files ?

I have lightroom 3, not updating to 4. So would I be processing in silkypix first, then lightroom where I can also use my Silver Efex...

I dont print massive images, but I do print things up to 10x14 or so....will the so called smearing etc thats been discussed above really be visible?

Chris Dodkin
Chris Dodkin Veteran Member • Posts: 9,043
Re: Let's look at actual images

baobob wrote:

I agree that in Chris photos we saw over here, the foliage issue is probably not relevant for him.

But this is not a reason again for him to systematically negate the problem acknowledge by so many photographers including reid reviews and DPR

Hope this attitude is not linked to Adobe.

Riiiight, I must be working for Adobe...

Seriously, is that where we're going with this?

I continue to negate the 'problem' because I do not see the problem in my images.

Therefore when I see people being dissuaded from buying a superb camera system like the X Series, I post a factual description to counter the FUD that there's a pervasive issue.

Which clearly there isn't.

Many of the people moaning on this and other forums don't even own the X-Pro1!

So, just to get some persecutive, no I don't work for Adobe, or Fuji.

No I don't have issue with my ACR processed images - a quick check of my FLICKR account will confirm this.

Yes I do think it's a tragedy that people are put off buying into these cameras, based on negative internet hype.

-- 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
Chris Dodkin
Chris Dodkin Veteran Member • Posts: 9,043
Re: Let's look at actual images

borgein wrote:

Not everyone will be affected by it though. For regular use most people won't be affected at all.

I am glad to hear someone admit this - unfortunately the hype around the descriptions of the 'problem', and consistent posting on blogs and this forum, by people who don't even own the camera - do not help potential Fuji owners to get a perspective

Props for stepping up and saying it.

-- 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: 12,645
Re: Let's look at actual images

Chris Dodkin wrote:

baobob wrote:

I agree that in Chris photos we saw over here, the foliage issue is probably not relevant for him.

But this is not a reason again for him to systematically negate the problem acknowledge by so many photographers including reid reviews and DPR

Hope this attitude is not linked to Adobe.

Riiiight, I must be working for Adobe...

Seriously, is that where we're going with this?

I continue to negate the 'problem' because I do not see the problem in my images.

Therefore when I see people being dissuaded from buying a superb camera system like the X Series, I post a factual description to counter the FUD that there's a pervasive issue.

Which clearly there isn't.

Many of the people moaning on this and other forums don't even own the X-Pro1!

So, just to get some persecutive, no I don't work for Adobe, or Fuji.

No I don't have issue with my ACR processed images - a quick check of my FLICKR account will confirm this.

Yes I do think it's a tragedy that people are put off buying into these cameras, based on negative internet hype.

It's just a matter of perspective. Unfortunately "rational discussion" and "internet forum" no longer seems to happen, at least here.

-- hide signature --

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

 57even's gear list:57even's gear list
Fujifilm X-Pro2
D200_4me
D200_4me Veteran Member • Posts: 4,236
FYI...

Based on what I've seen (all the various samples floating around out there and the description of the 'problem')...I'm still very interested in the X-E1. I assume Adobe will improve the conversion over time and for right now, what I've seen isn't enough to discourage me from buying a X-E1. Sure, I want the best quality as possible and I hope Adobe continues to improve their raw conversion....and I'm sure they won't ignore this. Anyway, I still would love to have one Sometimes it's hard to figure out what it truly a problem for me or not, based on all the chatter on forums like this. I mean, before buying a camera. I like to be as informed as possible, but I do honestly believe people looking at these types of discussions can get OVER-informed. I think this particular issue is one I never would have noticed myself if no one had pointed it out. Sort of reminds me of the various 'banding' discussions going way back to the Nikon D200 and other cameras. I'm not discounting the issue, I'm just saying I believe any flaws Adobe has in converting Fuji raw files from the X-Pro1 and X-E1 will be resolved in the near future. I can't believe they'd just not make any improvements at all, given Fuji keeps releasing more cameras with this new type of sensor. It's not in their best interest.

-- hide signature --
 D200_4me's gear list:D200_4me's gear list
Fujifilm X-E3 Nikon Z7 Fujifilm XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS Nikon Z 24-70mm F4
(unknown member) Contributing Member • Posts: 710
Re: Let's look at actual images

Chris Dodkin wrote:

borgein wrote:

Not everyone will be affected by it though. For regular use most people won't be affected at all.

I am glad to hear someone admit this - unfortunately the hype around the descriptions of the 'problem', and consistent posting on blogs and this forum, by people who don't even own the camera - do not help potential Fuji owners to get a perspective

Props for stepping up and saying it.

Well the 'problem' isn't really a 'problem'. The Adobe conversions could be better, but for regular use there isn't a 'problem' at all.

That doesn't mean - however - that I am satisfied with how the current version of ACR performs on the X-Trans raw files, compared to Silkypix - in regards to natural looking details and pure resolution.

I am confident that Adobe will improve the support for the X-Trans sensors though, and I am not doing any critical work today anyway. So while the ACR conversions aren't that good today (but good enough for regular use - just not perfect and optimal) - I am sure that in the not too distant future that newer versions of ACR will improve the conversions. And when that happens, my developments and settings will still remain intact in LR and I can just re-export JPEG's or TIFF's and them 'problem' will be gone.

There is absolutely NO REASON not to purchase a camera with the X-Trans sensor however. You have to do some pretty damn big prints which sells for alot of $$ if you're being that critical. And if you're doing that type of work the X-Pro1 or X-E1 probably won't be your first choice anyway, and if you still get one of them - You should have no problems using Silkypix for raw conversions and continue working in LR on the Silkypix tiff's anyway.

Well, that's my opinion.

57even Forum Pro • Posts: 12,645
Re: Let's look at actual images

borgein wrote:

I wouldn't call this a "foliage issue".

The issue is basically that ACR does not resolve as many details as for example Silkypix or Helicon does. This is especially visible on foliage.

I would say that by using ACR on the raw files you are basically getting the same detail level as if the images was at 8-10mp, whereas with Silkypix you get a real 16mp image with lots of natural details.

Sorry but this is not quite so. ACR can resolve high contrast details just as well as Silkypix and with less noise and moire.

The "issue" is large areas of similar colour, or very fine light details superimposed on a darker background. ACR seems to do some local messing about with edges which results in the watercolour effect. It is especially bad in green as Adobe seems to choose a particularly "luminous" green hue, but is affects blues as well (choppy water looks like the trees).

But I have checked B&W detail at the limit and there is no real difference.

Not everyone will be affected by it though. For regular use most people won't be affected at all.

I think its fairer to say that its not really noticeable in most subjects, unless you shoot a lot of trees or signeage.

I just wish people would accurately call it an ADOBE issue rather than an Xpro1 issue.

Hopefully the future CaptureOne support will put Adobe to shame, just like Silkypix does today.

Interesting, do you have any news on when this is likely?

I will still continue to use LR4 though. But Adobe absolutely needs to put some more effort into the X-Trans decoding algorithms.

No disagreement there. It IS a real issue and means I have to resort to "other means" to process some images. However it certainly doesn't require more column inches.

 57even's gear list:57even's gear list
Fujifilm X-Pro2
57even Forum Pro • Posts: 12,645
Re: FYI...

D200_4me wrote:

Based on what I've seen (all the various samples floating around out there and the description of the 'problem')...I'm still very interested in the X-E1. I assume Adobe will improve the conversion over time and for right now, what I've seen isn't enough to discourage me from buying a X-E1. Sure, I want the best quality as possible and I hope Adobe continues to improve their raw conversion....and I'm sure they won't ignore this. Anyway, I still would love to have one Sometimes it's hard to figure out what it truly a problem for me or not, based on all the chatter on forums like this. I mean, before buying a camera. I like to be as informed as possible, but I do honestly believe people looking at these types of discussions can get OVER-informed. I think this particular issue is one I never would have noticed myself if no one had pointed it out. Sort of reminds me of the various 'banding' discussions going way back to the Nikon D200 and other cameras. I'm not discounting the issue, I'm just saying I believe any flaws Adobe has in converting Fuji raw files from the X-Pro1 and X-E1 will be resolved in the near future. I can't believe they'd just not make any improvements at all, given Fuji keeps releasing more cameras with this new type of sensor. It's not in their best interest.

Well said.

 57even's gear list:57even's gear list
Fujifilm X-Pro2
baobob
baobob Forum Pro • Posts: 11,276
Re: FYI...

Very well said indeed

It's interesting to reportthat I started to be concerned by the foliage issue since I got a complete series of smeared background of bushes and trees in JPEG
Then I realised that I could not improve in RAW

Without that series of shots I would probably have continued to accept the shots like they were...
--
Good judgment comes from experience
Experience comes from bad judgment

 baobob's gear list:baobob's gear list
Sony RX100 Olympus Tough TG-4 Panasonic ZS200 Fujifilm X-H1 Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R +9 more
Timein Forum Member • Posts: 70
Re: FYI...

To quote Mark Twain : people who don't read newspapers are uninformed, people who do are misinformed.
--
He's not only dull himself, he's the cause of dullness in others.

57even Forum Pro • Posts: 12,645
Re: FYI...

baobob wrote:

Very well said indeed

It's interesting to reportthat I started to be concerned by the foliage issue since I got a complete series of smeared background of bushes and trees in JPEG
Then I realised that I could not improve in RAW

Without that series of shots I would probably have continued to accept the shots like they were...
--

Which implies none of us have had to chance to compare directly with other cameras and come to different conclusions? I don't see any issues at all with JPEGs, or with Silkypix apart from the need to set up a custom colour preference to match something close to the camera.

 57even's gear list:57even's gear list
Fujifilm X-Pro2
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads