C&C - Getting started with X-E2, Raw and Capture One

Started Feb 12, 2014 | Photos
bowportes Veteran Member • Posts: 3,245
Re: Put the raw file up with a link? (n/t)

VKPhoto, it's great for you to take the time to provide that level of feedback to the OP.  He framed his question very clearly, and your feedback was just as clear.

 bowportes's gear list:bowportes's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-G5 Fujifilm X-M1 Fujifilm X-T1 Fujifilm X-Pro2 Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH +13 more
deednets Veteran Member • Posts: 7,009
Re: Why don't you show him what you can do with RPP?

Carsten Pauer 2 wrote:

What do you say??

You are already on my Ignore List.

You are not on mine, I think you truly enrich this forum with your one-liners! Fabulous!

Deed

georgehudetz Veteran Member • Posts: 3,183
Re: Put the raw file up with a link? (n/t)

notgoodwithpowertools wrote:

George,

This is great!! I really appreciate that you have explained your thinking and the mods you've applied.

Thanks to everyone for their thoughts and comments so far.

A

You are welcome.  It's cool capture, by the way.  And it was interesting to see how easy it was to recover the highlights.  A typical criticism of that shot is that a proper exposure would not have blown the highlights, but then we would have been pushing the shadows more, and since the subject (the birds) are entirely in the shadows the net result might have been worse had you done a true ETTR.

 georgehudetz's gear list:georgehudetz's gear list
Fujifilm X-T1 Fujifilm X-T2 Fujifilm XF 18mm F2 R Fujifilm XF 60mm F2.4 R Macro Fujifilm XF 14mm F2.8 R +8 more
teddoman
teddoman Senior Member • Posts: 2,263
Capture One and Lightroom

I'm an about to be new Fuji owner. I recall Adobe was not supporting raw conversions of Fuji files particularly well for a while. Is that still the case? Is Lightroom an processing option at this point for Fuji files, or do I need to get Capture One? What about using Capture One to convert raw to a TIFF and then working with the file in Lightroom?

 teddoman's gear list:teddoman's gear list
Sony a6300 Sony a6500 Sony E 30mm F3.5 Macro Sony Carl Zeiss Sonnar T* E 24mm F1.8 ZA Sony E 50mm F1.8 OSS +5 more
57even Forum Pro • Posts: 11,188
Lightroom is perfectly fine.

tedandtricia wrote:

I'm an about to be new Fuji owner. I recall Adobe was not supporting raw conversions of Fuji files particularly well for a while. Is that still the case? Is Lightroom an processing option at this point for Fuji files, or do I need to get Capture One? What about using Capture One to convert raw to a TIFF and then working with the file in Lightroom?

Lightroom works fine. It has decent (if neutral) colour by default by it's easy to change. It has excellent highlight recovery, little colour bleed and the least moire of all options.

C1 and all the rest produce weird colours and other artifacts that people seem blind to but don't work for me at all.

It's main issue is sharpening of Fuji RAWs. It works fine on hard edges but the base threshold does not work as well on low contrast areas such as foliage. The simple solution is NOT to sharpen in LR but to buy a decent plug-in that uses deconvolution sharpening instead of USM, especially if it can be applied by brush or masking instead of universally.

Focal Blade and OnOne's Perfect Suite work as LR post editors (do your LR conversion first then open in either to finish off).

 57even's gear list:57even's gear list
Fujifilm X-Pro2
deednets Veteran Member • Posts: 7,009
Here is mine ...

notgoodwithpowertools wrote:

Hello,

I've finally made a start with raw files and am testing Capture One with the trial period. I'm not really sure how to get the most out of raw so wondering if anyone has any pointers, particularly when compared to the OOC jpg from the X-E2.

This shot is of a Tawny Frogmouth and her chick in the backyard tree. I captured jpg and raw formats using the 55-200. The jpg looks OK to me and could do with some better framing/cropping as the shot was taken at some distance contending with branches, foliage and wind.

X-E2 with 55-200 - f4.5, 1/640, ISO 1600

There are probably some highlights that have blown out so have tried bumping up the HIGH DYNAMIC RANGE setting as well as some contrast and clarity. The C1 settings are in this grab

This is the resulting image with crop

For some reason the images don't look so sharp when viewed in the post/upload but I am happy with the sharpness around the eyes when viewed natively on the system.

Anyway, my query is how would you go about getting more out of such a shot using the raw file and information. Any suggestions for what you might have applied to such a shot? I'm new to this photo editing and Capture One in particular so any suggestions would be most appreciated. Thanks.

A

Here is mine, have applied local adjustments to darken the sky and then shadow recovery and a tad sharpening (soft sharpening 1) Applied a very shallow s-curve, tricky file because of the harsh contrast between the blown out sky, the blue rendering around the branches on top of the image and to the right of the birds ...

Then cropped the image. Spent a couple of minutes on the file, with more time I would have addressed the over-sharpening of the feathers, but maybe you get the gist?

sinbad Regular Member • Posts: 366
Re: C&C - Getting started with X-E2, Raw and Capture One

Phase One has a number of video tutorials that may be of benefit in obtaining the best results with Capture One software.

http://www.phaseone.com/En/Imaging-Software/Capture-One-Pro-7/Tutorials.aspx

deednets Veteran Member • Posts: 7,009
Re: Lightroom is perfectly fine.

57even wrote:

tedandtricia wrote:

I'm an about to be new Fuji owner. I recall Adobe was not supporting raw conversions of Fuji files particularly well for a while. Is that still the case? Is Lightroom an processing option at this point for Fuji files, or do I need to get Capture One? What about using Capture One to convert raw to a TIFF and then working with the file in Lightroom?

Lightroom works fine. It has decent (if neutral) colour by default by it's easy to change. It has excellent highlight recovery, little colour bleed and the least moire of all options.

C1 and all the rest produce weird colours and other artifacts that people seem blind to but don't work for me at all.

It's main issue is sharpening of Fuji RAWs. It works fine on hard edges but the base threshold does not work as well on low contrast areas such as foliage. The simple solution is NOT to sharpen in LR but to buy a decent plug-in that uses deconvolution sharpening instead of USM, especially if it can be applied by brush or masking instead of universally.

Focal Blade and OnOne's Perfect Suite work as LR post editors (do your LR conversion first then open in either to finish off).

I am a LR user from the days when the Danish version was called Rawshooter Essentials and have been using LR alongside Capture One for the last 5 years. Have used Photo Ninja and Silky Pix, found the results totally acceptable, but didn't like the interface. But weird colours?? Couldn't say that I noticed in neitehr PN or Silky - or C1 for that matter.

I would be interested as to where you get this "C1 and the rest produce weird colours and other artifacts" from?? Can you supply some examples?

Here are a couple of rather neutral images, taken for some silly online ads, rather than biffing the thing. Where would LR in your opinion be 1. better and 2. have less weird colours and other artifacts?

Regarding the sharpening, I am at a loss as to what you are talking about.

Happy to provide the RAM files to show me - and maybe others - the difference you get using LR!

Deed

Charles2 Veteran Member • Posts: 4,663
Re: Lightroom is perfectly fine.

57even wrote:

It's main issue is sharpening of Fuji RAWs. It works fine on hard edges but the base threshold does not work as well on low contrast areas such as foliage. The simple solution is NOT to sharpen in LR but to buy a decent plug-in that uses deconvolution sharpening instead of USM, especially if it can be applied by brush or masking instead of universally.

Yes, foliage is often soft out of a Fuji X camera. RL deconvolution may be a solution, in which case you can use the donation-only Raw Therapee program. However, USM works too. The important thing is to use a small radius, about 0.3. If you want ro render hard edges really starkly, do another round of USM, radius 1.- 2. at a very small percentage strength.

57even Forum Pro • Posts: 11,188
Re: Lightroom is perfectly fine.

deednets wrote:

57even wrote:

tedandtricia wrote:

I'm an about to be new Fuji owner. I recall Adobe was not supporting raw conversions of Fuji files particularly well for a while. Is that still the case? Is Lightroom an processing option at this point for Fuji files, or do I need to get Capture One? What about using Capture One to convert raw to a TIFF and then working with the file in Lightroom?

Lightroom works fine. It has decent (if neutral) colour by default by it's easy to change. It has excellent highlight recovery, little colour bleed and the least moire of all options.

C1 and all the rest produce weird colours and other artifacts that people seem blind to but don't work for me at all.

It's main issue is sharpening of Fuji RAWs. It works fine on hard edges but the base threshold does not work as well on low contrast areas such as foliage. The simple solution is NOT to sharpen in LR but to buy a decent plug-in that uses deconvolution sharpening instead of USM, especially if it can be applied by brush or masking instead of universally.

Focal Blade and OnOne's Perfect Suite work as LR post editors (do your LR conversion first then open in either to finish off).

I am a LR user from the days when the Danish version was called Rawshooter Essentials and have been using LR alongside Capture One for the last 5 years. Have used Photo Ninja and Silky Pix, found the results totally acceptable, but didn't like the interface. But weird colours?? Couldn't say that I noticed in neitehr PN or Silky - or C1 for that matter.

I would be interested as to where you get this "C1 and the rest produce weird colours and other artifacts" from?? Can you supply some examples?

Here are a couple of rather neutral images, taken for some silly online ads, rather than biffing the thing. Where would LR in your opinion be 1. better and 2. have less weird colours and other artifacts?

Regarding the sharpening, I am at a loss as to what you are talking about.

Happy to provide the RAM files to show me - and maybe others - the difference you get using LR!

Deed

I tested C1 for the whole of the trial period on several hunded Xpro1 files. I used C1 exclusively a few years ago, so I know the interface fine, it worked very well for my Pentax files.

It produced a lot of nice looking images, but the default colours it produced, while superficially pleasing, were not accurate. I compared them directly with test scenes and a colour chart and LR was closer. You can do the same yourself.

Colour bleed issues (which were cured in the second version of LR) were also present, and moire was an issue as well. I gave up on it.

But hey, if you are happy with it, fine. It works great but it just isn't that much better and I have no intention of recataloguing all my RAW files.

 57even's gear list:57even's gear list
Fujifilm X-Pro2
57even Forum Pro • Posts: 11,188
Re: Lightroom is perfectly fine.

Charles2 wrote:

57even wrote:

It's main issue is sharpening of Fuji RAWs. It works fine on hard edges but the base threshold does not work as well on low contrast areas such as foliage. The simple solution is NOT to sharpen in LR but to buy a decent plug-in that uses deconvolution sharpening instead of USM, especially if it can be applied by brush or masking instead of universally.

Yes, foliage is often soft out of a Fuji X camera. RL deconvolution may be a solution, in which case you can use the donation-only Raw Therapee program. However, USM works too. The important thing is to use a small radius, about 0.3. If you want ro render hard edges really starkly, do another round of USM, radius 1.- 2. at a very small percentage strength.

I tried that, not as effective though. Deconvolution does a good job of enhancing local micro-contrast without producing other artefacts but you have to be sparing.

 57even's gear list:57even's gear list
Fujifilm X-Pro2
deednets Veteran Member • Posts: 7,009
Are you happy to show your conversions?

57even wrote:

deednets wrote:

57even wrote:

tedandtricia wrote:

I'm an about to be new Fuji owner. I recall Adobe was not supporting raw conversions of Fuji files particularly well for a while. Is that still the case? Is Lightroom an processing option at this point for Fuji files, or do I need to get Capture One? What about using Capture One to convert raw to a TIFF and then working with the file in Lightroom?

Lightroom works fine. It has decent (if neutral) colour by default by it's easy to change. It has excellent highlight recovery, little colour bleed and the least moire of all options.

C1 and all the rest produce weird colours and other artifacts that people seem blind to but don't work for me at all.

It's main issue is sharpening of Fuji RAWs. It works fine on hard edges but the base threshold does not work as well on low contrast areas such as foliage. The simple solution is NOT to sharpen in LR but to buy a decent plug-in that uses deconvolution sharpening instead of USM, especially if it can be applied by brush or masking instead of universally.

Focal Blade and OnOne's Perfect Suite work as LR post editors (do your LR conversion first then open in either to finish off).

I am a LR user from the days when the Danish version was called Rawshooter Essentials and have been using LR alongside Capture One for the last 5 years. Have used Photo Ninja and Silky Pix, found the results totally acceptable, but didn't like the interface. But weird colours?? Couldn't say that I noticed in neitehr PN or Silky - or C1 for that matter.

I would be interested as to where you get this "C1 and the rest produce weird colours and other artifacts" from?? Can you supply some examples?

Here are a couple of rather neutral images, taken for some silly online ads, rather than biffing the thing. Where would LR in your opinion be 1. better and 2. have less weird colours and other artifacts?

Regarding the sharpening, I am at a loss as to what you are talking about.

Happy to provide the RAM files to show me - and maybe others - the difference you get using LR!

Deed

I tested C1 for the whole of the trial period on several hunded Xpro1 files. I used C1 exclusively a few years ago, so I know the interface fine, it worked very well for my Pentax files.

It produced a lot of nice looking images, but the default colours it produced, while superficially pleasing, were not accurate. I compared them directly with test scenes and a colour chart and LR was closer. You can do the same yourself.

Colour bleed issues (which were cured in the second version of LR) were also present, and moire was an issue as well. I gave up on it.

But hey, if you are happy with it, fine. It works great but it just isn't that much better and I have no intention of recataloguing all my RAW files.

I guess there si always something bigger and better, so whats wrong with the colours of the images above, wanna give it a try in LR and show how much better by picture would look in LR?

I am not trying to be silly here but genuinely interested. I have been using Capture One since version 3.0 in I believe 2004 and Lightroom since it still was called Rawshooter Essentials (I actually had the Pro version as well, but just saying if you only know it by the name Rawshooter Essentials).

Where can I send the RAW files for you to show me the difference it makes? After your last post I am very keen to see this, since it is quite possible that I am using Capture One wrongly and should in fact use Lightroom only. Since the above images were near enough to default so no colur shifts done, no colour correction etc.

Since you mentioned that sharpening is an issue in Capture One, I will post 2 images, one reduced to 1800px the other one a 100% crop. I would be very interested if you wanted a play with the eye as well, ok?

ISO 200 35/1.4 F5.6 1/180

100% crop

Let me know ok? It's not that I am not happy with the results, but always keen to find out where the next step goes. Here is the file!

https://www.dropbox.com/s/20xe0cf2smtqx5y/_DSF8800.RAF

Deed

OP notgoodwithpowertools New Member • Posts: 20
Re: Here is mine ...

Thanks Deed,

I like what you've done with recovering some of the highlights. Been messing with the curve as you suggested but haven't got quite the result you have with the area around the highlighted feathers but will keep trying. Thanks.

A

 notgoodwithpowertools's gear list:notgoodwithpowertools's gear list
Sony SLT-A77 Fujifilm X-E2 Sony 70-300mm F4.5-5.6 G SSM Fujifilm XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS Fujifilm XF 55-200mm F3.5-4.8 R LM OIS +1 more
57even Forum Pro • Posts: 11,188
Re: Are you happy to show your conversions?

deednets wrote:

57even wrote:

deednets wrote:

57even wrote:

tedandtricia wrote:

I'm an about to be new Fuji owner. I recall Adobe was not supporting raw conversions of Fuji files particularly well for a while. Is that still the case? Is Lightroom an processing option at this point for Fuji files, or do I need to get Capture One? What about using Capture One to convert raw to a TIFF and then working with the file in Lightroom?

Lightroom works fine. It has decent (if neutral) colour by default by it's easy to change. It has excellent highlight recovery, little colour bleed and the least moire of all options.

C1 and all the rest produce weird colours and other artifacts that people seem blind to but don't work for me at all.

It's main issue is sharpening of Fuji RAWs. It works fine on hard edges but the base threshold does not work as well on low contrast areas such as foliage. The simple solution is NOT to sharpen in LR but to buy a decent plug-in that uses deconvolution sharpening instead of USM, especially if it can be applied by brush or masking instead of universally.

Focal Blade and OnOne's Perfect Suite work as LR post editors (do your LR conversion first then open in either to finish off).

I am a LR user from the days when the Danish version was called Rawshooter Essentials and have been using LR alongside Capture One for the last 5 years. Have used Photo Ninja and Silky Pix, found the results totally acceptable, but didn't like the interface. But weird colours?? Couldn't say that I noticed in neitehr PN or Silky - or C1 for that matter.

I would be interested as to where you get this "C1 and the rest produce weird colours and other artifacts" from?? Can you supply some examples?

Here are a couple of rather neutral images, taken for some silly online ads, rather than biffing the thing. Where would LR in your opinion be 1. better and 2. have less weird colours and other artifacts?

Regarding the sharpening, I am at a loss as to what you are talking about.

Happy to provide the RAM files to show me - and maybe others - the difference you get using LR!

Deed

I tested C1 for the whole of the trial period on several hunded Xpro1 files. I used C1 exclusively a few years ago, so I know the interface fine, it worked very well for my Pentax files.

It produced a lot of nice looking images, but the default colours it produced, while superficially pleasing, were not accurate. I compared them directly with test scenes and a colour chart and LR was closer. You can do the same yourself.

Colour bleed issues (which were cured in the second version of LR) were also present, and moire was an issue as well. I gave up on it.

But hey, if you are happy with it, fine. It works great but it just isn't that much better and I have no intention of recataloguing all my RAW files.

I guess there si always something bigger and better, so whats wrong with the colours of the images above, wanna give it a try in LR and show how much better by picture would look in LR?

I am not trying to be silly here but genuinely interested. I have been using Capture One since version 3.0 in I believe 2004 and Lightroom since it still was called Rawshooter Essentials (I actually had the Pro version as well, but just saying if you only know it by the name Rawshooter Essentials).

Where can I send the RAW files for you to show me the difference it makes? After your last post I am very keen to see this, since it is quite possible that I am using Capture One wrongly and should in fact use Lightroom only. Since the above images were near enough to default so no colur shifts done, no colour correction etc.

Since you mentioned that sharpening is an issue in Capture One, I will post 2 images, one reduced to 1800px the other one a 100% crop. I would be very interested if you wanted a play with the eye as well, ok?

ISO 200 35/1.4 F5.6 1/180

100% crop

Let me know ok? It's not that I am not happy with the results, but always keen to find out where the next step goes. Here is the file!

https://www.dropbox.com/s/20xe0cf2smtqx5y/_DSF8800.RAF

Deed

It looks fine to me, I never said there was a problem with sharpening, I said there was a problem with moire and colour bleed, which would not occur in this shot. The colour however looks too magenta.

But unless you shoot a colour chart how can you tell? I can't see the original scene, and I don't keep thousands of test photos cluttering up my hard drive. Just shoot a colour chart and compare the JPEGs, real life and C1.

 57even's gear list:57even's gear list
Fujifilm X-Pro2
deednets Veteran Member • Posts: 7,009
Re: Are you happy to show your conversions?

57even wrote:

It looks fine to me, I never said there was a problem with sharpening, I said there was a problem with moire and colour bleed, which would not occur in this shot. The colour however looks too magenta.

"C1 and all the rest produce weird colours and other artifacts that people seem blind to but don't work for me at all.

It's main issue is sharpening of Fuji RAWs."

I was referring to this rather harsh comment of yours!

You are right about the magenta, I didn't change the white balance, the image was taken rather casually at a studio, the guy in the photo is another photgrapher, whose lens I tried. As shot the kelvin value is 5088 whereas it should be around 5500 ... mixed light with a couple of flashes the camera set to AUTO.

Cheers

Deed

(unknown member) Veteran Member • Posts: 3,441
Re: Are you happy to show your conversions?

Here is the file!

Embedded JPEG in the RAF File.

dcraw -r 1.55 0.7 1.1 0.7 -M -H 3 -o 1 -j -q 3 -6 -T -k 1100 -b 5

Sharping with GraphicConverter 11% Diagonal, Saturation 21.

deednets Veteran Member • Posts: 7,009
100% crops dcraw/capture one

Carsten Pauer 2 wrote:

Here is the file!

Sharping with GraphicConverter 11% Diagonal, Saturation 21.

Thanks for that! Very nice rendering, in particular of the veins in the eye, not sure what makes your veins look slightly more delicate, but I like it a lot!

crop dcraw

crop capture one

Regarding the sharpening, I guess the sky is the limit, the above crop done carefully at radius 0.7 and threshold 0.4. Amount 305 (1000 scale) in C1, but not transferable, as I am sure you know?

I changed the white balance in C1 as well to mimick your settings but now find I made it a tad too cool ...

The embedded jpg I didn't like at all ...

Thanks again!

Deed

(unknown member) Veteran Member • Posts: 3,441
Re: 100% crops dcraw/capture one

the above crop done carefully at radius 0.7 and threshold 0.4. Amount 305 (1000 scale) in C1, but not transferable, as I am sure you know?

RAF to 16-Bit TIFF without sharping or Saturating.

deednets Veteran Member • Posts: 7,009
Re: 100% crops dcraw/capture one

Carsten Pauer 2 wrote:

the above crop done carefully at radius 0.7 and threshold 0.4. Amount 305 (1000 scale) in C1, but not transferable, as I am sure you know?

RAF to 16-Bit TIFF without sharping or Saturating.

Mhhh .. I meant the 305 value not transferable as in 35% of other software packages etc.

93MB?? Good Lord!

Deed

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads