Reading mode: Light Dark

Is this the definitive explanation for “worm“ artifacts and LR?

Go to last post
J

jonikon

Veteran Member
Messages
8,223
Solutions
7
Reaction score
3,366
Location
CA
https://blog.thomasfitzgeraldphotography.com/blog/2018/8/about-those-worm-artifacts-and-fuji-x-trans

Sorry to bring this sore topic up again and to be clear it’s not that it is a problem for me with my current work flow which involves creating TIFFs with Iridient X-transformer and importing them into Lightroom 4. In fact, I have not seen the so-called “worm” artifacts in my images as of yet.

What I really want to know is should I leave Lightroom for good going forward? Iridient works, but I would prefer to avoid the extra TIFF step (and memory usage) ,involved. I also don’t like Lightroom’s perpetual “pay to play” business model if I update to LR CC, and if it doesn’t do X-Trans right then I want to go with someone else for direct RAW to JPEG conversions in the future anyway. After reading the referenced article I think it may be time to leave leave LR altogether. I have been looking at On1, Silkypix, Capture One, etc. and am bewildered by all the choices, but for now I just want to know if I should be looking to ditch LR and move on to something else for an all-in-one RAF to JPEG imaging software.

Any words of wisdom would be appreciated.
 
I can't much fault the article. Yet. . .

If you don't like the subscription plan, that's one thing.

I'm using LR because it's an extension of me at this point. I don't see a need to go outside of LR frequently, but if I do I have PS, Nik Apps, and Xtransformer (aside from stacking apps). I don't care to produce extra assets from a single exposure, though I don't develop many exposures external to LR so it's not a big deal. I like the challenge of a challenging worthwhile exposure too - developing is the other half of the enjoyment of photography, afaic.

I do find that Fuji/LR developing takes a bit more effort at times, when exposures are challenging, than I had with most Bayer sensors (with regard to enhancing detail). And maybe others find it quicker with another app. But I am most gratified with what I can produce from Fuji with Adobe. I have given C1 a good run, more than once, and others. Just different means to similar ends, is all they all are afaic. One will click with one's sensibility more immediately than another - so give the trials a good try.

If you're not DEEP into Adobe, now would be the time to change. If you are and aren't happy - now would be the time to change [g]. You want a workflow that doesn't make you tend to avoid it. If a different app does that, go for it.

--
...Bob, NYC
.
"Well, sometimes the magic works. . . Sometimes, it doesn't." - Chief Dan George, Little Big Man
.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bobtullis/
http://www.bobtullis.com
.
 
Last edited:
jonikon said:
https://blog.thomasfitzgeraldphotography.com/blog/2018/8/about-those-worm-artifacts-and-fuji-x-trans

Sorry to bring this sore topic up again and to be clear it’s not that it is a problem for me with my current work flow which involves creating TIFFs with Iridient X-transformer and importing them into Lightroom 4. In fact, I have not seen the so-called “worm” artifacts in my images as of yet.

What I really want to know is should I leave Lightroom for good going forward? Iridient works, but I would prefer to avoid the extra TIFF step (and memory usage) ,involved. I also don’t like Lightroom’s perpetual “pay to play” business model if I update to LR CC, and if it doesn’t do X-Trans right then I want to go with someone else for direct RAW to JPEG conversions in the future anyway. After reading the referenced article I think it may be time to leave leave LR altogether. I have been looking at On1, Silkypix, Capture One, etc. and am bewildered by all the choices, but for now I just want to know if I should be looking to ditch LR and move on to something else for an all-in-one RAF to JPEG imaging software.

Any words of wisdom would be appreciated.
Click to expand...
I think Fitzgerald's article is spot on. I use Lr exclusively but maintain the option to use X-Transformer for specific files but only when needed. For me, Lr is the most comprehensive photographic cataloging and editing software available and I use it in conjunction many times with PS for certain tasks. I have no interest in adopting and learning a new program and frankly the subscription model at $9.95/month is IMHO a steal for all you get.

I think the question you need to ask yourself is what is your typical output and how much of a factor is this? Do you routinely print really large (20"x30" or greater) where when viewing the occasional problem file from 8 inches away some detail may be smeared or a wormy artifact noticed? If so then maybe a Lr workflow isn't the best choice.

If you don't routinely print large and your only concern for this is when pixel peeping at 100% then you might be missing "the big picture" (pun intended). Yeah it's there but it's buried where no one ever sees it under the circumstances of your typical output. For the few files where it may possibly be an issue you can use X-Transformer which is precisely what I do as I don't want to fill up my drives with redundant Tiff's or DNG's.

I think it comes down to being realistic about what's important.

That's my $0.02.

Bob
 
jonikon said:
https://blog.thomasfitzgeraldphotography.com/blog/2018/8/about-those-worm-artifacts-and-fuji-x-trans

Sorry to bring this sore topic up again and to be clear it’s not that it is a problem for me with my current work flow which involves creating TIFFs with Iridient X-transformer and importing them into Lightroom 4. In fact, I have not seen the so-called “worm” artifacts in my images as of yet.

What I really want to know is should I leave Lightroom for good going forward? Iridient works, but I would prefer to avoid the extra TIFF step (and memory usage) ,involved. I also don’t like Lightroom’s perpetual “pay to play” business model if I update to LR CC, and if it doesn’t do X-Trans right then I want to go with someone else for direct RAW to JPEG conversions in the future anyway. After reading the referenced article I think it may be time to leave leave LR altogether. I have been looking at On1, Silkypix, Capture One, etc. and am bewildered by all the choices, but for now I just want to know if I should be looking to ditch LR and move on to something else for an all-in-one RAF to JPEG imaging software.

Any words of wisdom would be appreciated.
Click to expand...
I have found that RawTherapee gives me what I need and I have a good workflow going on with it. I don't need to post process after I convert the image to a jpg much nowadays. It is quite a steep learning curve, but after that, it is smooth sailing if you ask me. And 100% free to use as it is Open Source. And I always want to back that!

My biggest issue with Adobe is not their products, they are very good. My biggest issue is that they don't pass on some of their ever rising revenues on to their customers.
 
For what it is worth, here's my file/backup workflow. (I am using Photoshop CS6, I have it, it does everything I want, and I see no reason to add another monthly bill)

1) Copy the photos from SD Card to P:\new_photos

2) Do initial galling, deleting the ones I absolutely do not want.

3) Convert RAF-> DNG in Iridient X-Transformer.

4) Move the original RAFs (and copy original JPGs)to an external drive I call PhotoDump

(The reasoning: I want to back up the out-of-camera originals, just in case I sometimes will want to come back to it. And also, I want to keep a backup of the photos that are not keepers -- If ever I should need a photo of a slightly out of focus duck, I know where I will find one)

5) I delete everything except the keepers on P:\New_Photos. I can go hard handed, since everything is backed up if I should change my mind later. I just hate to keep bumping on the crappy shots when I am editing/browsing.

Not trying to troll the raw-nazis, but I also shoot a lot of JPG. Travel, dog-walk with camera, hanging out with friends and family... The OOC JPGs are simply so close to what I want, that I see no reason for the extra work and bother. I really only shoot raw (+JPG) when:

- The light is such I know I will have to tweak with colors/white balance a lot.

- If it is a photo that I have actually seen some trouble to set up. If I drive around hours to scout the location, get up in the middle of the night to be in time to catch the light, and drag my sorry ass to cold and dark to wait for the whatever I am after to show up at sunrise... I don't want to go home and find the JPG was not enough..

- I also often set the film simulation on monochrome, and Image quality to JPF+RAW, so that I get a monochrome EVF as I shoot. Makes it easier to compose by shapes and lines, when there no color information. If I save the RAW file, I can get the color back if I choose to.

... So this is what I have found works for me.
 
Last edited:
Except IXT doesn't really solve the worms issue - they're still there if slightly less obvious - to my eyes at least. LR7.5 (left) vs. IXT sharpened to the same level in LR (right). Much the same if sharpened in IXT. It might help for fine detail, but not worms IMO. Same conclusions for RT and C1 - see the other thread I linked to above.

But, this is 200% on a 22" HD monitor. At normal viewing size I can't see the worms or any difference...

eaaf0a29048e4942ab364007cbf10ad5.jpg.png
 
Last edited:
Elyharbour said:
Except IXT doesn't really solve the worms issue - they're still there if slightly less obvious - to my eyes at least. LR7.5 (left) vs. IXT sharpened to the same level in LR (right). Much the same if sharpened in IXT. It might help for fine detail, but not worms IMO. Same conclusions for RT and C1 - see the other thread I linked to above.

But, this is 200% on a 22" HD monitor. At normal viewing size I can't see the worms or any difference...

eaaf0a29048e4942ab364007cbf10ad5.jpg.png
Click to expand...
I never "view" at 200%. I might work on a file for tricky bits at over 100% but I see no reason to expect a larger size to look anything else but wormy. My Nikon files looked c**p at more than 100% too.

Vic

--
The sky is full of holes that let the rain get in, the holes are very small - that's why the rain is thin.
Spike Milligan. Writer, comedian, poet, Goon. 1918 - 2002
 
I agree with you Vic...200% is meaningless to me as well, but the only way to show the worms clearly on DPR is to boost the magnification. I can just about make them out at 100% or at least see something doesn't look right. But it doesn't affect me in any real-life situation. Some people claim it does. What I'm responding to is the never-ending statements on DPR that XYZ converter doesn't have worms, which are purely an Adobe invention - well not in my experience. I'm looking at old Sony and Canon files to see if the myth extends to it's "only Fuji" and only "X-trans". Now I've got a good wormy tree nearby, I'm going to take my Canon 1" compact along and let's see. Otherwise I only have Fuji X-Trans gear now.
 
Last edited:
MrTapi said:
For what it is worth, here's my file/backup workflow. (I am using Photoshop CS6, I have it, it does everything I want, and I see no reason to add another monthly bill)

1) Copy the photos from SD Card to P:\new_photos

2) Do initial galling, deleting the ones I absolutely do not want.

3) Convert RAF-> DNG in Iridient X-Transformer.

4) Move the original RAFs (and copy original JPGs)to an external drive I call PhotoDump

(The reasoning: I want to back up the out-of-camera originals, just in case I sometimes will want to come back to it. And also, I want to keep a backup of the photos that are not keepers -- If ever I should need a photo of a slightly out of focus duck, I know where I will find one)

5) I delete everything except the keepers on P:\New_Photos. I can go hard handed, since everything is backed up if I should change my mind later. I just hate to keep bumping on the crappy shots when I am editing/browsing.

Not trying to troll the raw-nazis, but I also shoot a lot of JPG. Travel, dog-walk with camera, hanging out with friends and family... The OOC JPGs are simply so close to what I want, that I see no reason for the extra work and bother. I really only shoot raw (+JPG) when:

- The light is such I know I will have to tweak with colors/white balance a lot.

- If it is a photo that I have actually seen some trouble to set up. If I drive around hours to scout the location, get up in the middle of the night to be in time to catch the light, and drag my sorry ass to cold and dark to wait for the whatever I am after to show up at sunrise... I don't want to go home and find the JPG was not enough..

- I also often set the film simulation on monochrome, and Image quality to JPF+RAW, so that I get a monochrome EVF as I shoot. Makes it easier to compose by shapes and lines, when there no color information. If I save the RAW file, I can get the color back if I choose to.

... So this is what I have found works for me.
Click to expand...
Thank you for sharing your workflow. Like you, I typically use the camera’s JPEGs for family and social photography with very good results with maybe some sharpening added. JPEGs saves me a lot of time and my wife no longer asks me, “Are you done with those photos yet?” :-)

Unfortunately I had to always shoot RAW with Nikon because their AWB and JPEG engines are unreliable, (to say the least). Now with Fujifilm, I mainly use RAW for landscape photography where I want a certain look or mood and not a photojournalist type image. This is where the creativity and fun is that makes photography enjoyable for me.
 
jonikon said:
https://blog.thomasfitzgeraldphotography.com/blog/2018/8/about-those-worm-artifacts-and-fuji-x-trans

Sorry to bring this sore topic up again and to be clear it’s not that it is a problem for me with my current work flow which involves creating TIFFs with Iridient X-transformer and importing them into Lightroom 4. In fact, I have not seen the so-called “worm” artifacts in my images as of yet.

What I really want to know is should I leave Lightroom for good going forward? Iridient works, but I would prefer to avoid the extra TIFF step (and memory usage) ,involved. I also don’t like Lightroom’s perpetual “pay to play” business model if I update to LR CC, and if it doesn’t do X-Trans right then I want to go with someone else for direct RAW to JPEG conversions in the future anyway. After reading the referenced article I think it may be time to leave leave LR altogether. I have been looking at On1, Silkypix, Capture One, etc. and am bewildered by all the choices, but for now I just want to know if I should be looking to ditch LR and move on to something else for an all-in-one RAF to JPEG imaging software.

Any words of wisdom would be appreciated.
Click to expand...
 
Elyharbour said:
Except IXT doesn't really solve the worms issue - they're still there if slightly less obvious - to my eyes at least. LR7.5 (left) vs. IXT sharpened to the same level in LR (right). Much the same if sharpened in IXT. It might help for fine detail, but not worms IMO. Same conclusions for RT and C1 - see the other thread I linked to above.

But, this is 200% on a 22" HD monitor. At normal viewing size I can't see the worms or any difference...

eaaf0a29048e4942ab364007cbf10ad5.jpg.png
Click to expand...
I've spent a ton of time on this, and your comment exactly matches my experience. If you tweak the Lightroom-only image (less sharpening, more masking), you can get it closer to the IXT image. The issue is very minor color and contrast bleed with LR vs IXT.

These two images show the real world difference I've seen between the two perfectly. Simply put, foliage and large areas of fine texture (stone) are slightly better at 200% with IXT, at the cost of either deleting RAFs in favor of DNGs or doubling the disk space used.

I'm opting to just stick with Lightroom. The disk space and workflow cost isn't worth the marginal benefit to me.
 
Last edited:
The problem with using X-Transformer is you eat disk space at quite a rate, as you almost certainly want to keep the original Raw file (which probably didn't have all its data transferred into the DNG plus you might find you need to change the X-Transformer options and run it again). I had a quick look at the X-Transformer DNGs I have lying around and they go from 65MB to 82MB. Add in a c. 50MB .RAF file and maybe a JPEG too and you're maybe looking at about 130MB per image plus the final processed JPEG. So maybe 7 shots a GB.
 
We're really on the road to ever diminishing returns here on DPR, and using IXT as you say sucks up storage. People say "storage is cheap" well not if you're running SSDs it isn't! I'm unloading historical files to HDDs but then all my work isn't in one place. Just spent hours developing travel shots from Italy in LR then compared to the OOC JPEGs...was it REALLY worth the effort? Well for me it was, but for friends and family they'll never notice the difference...and as for worms!!! Well they'd think I was completely nuts if I told them how many hoops I'd have to jump through minimise something that even for me are practically invisible. Good to have a reality check every now and again... :-) But these damn worms keep drawing me in...
 
Depends on the image. Sometimes the difference is clear at less than 100%. Just my observation/opinion.
 
Your experience is as as valid as mine. Which is why I always say don't take my word for it (or anybody else's). We all see / experience different things. The problem is this topic often comes over as "fact" on this forum when in many cases it really isn't (or is in your case).
 
Last edited:
I used to think the "worms" and "watercolor effects" were invented by pathological pixel-peepers. Then I bought an X-Pro1 and took a walk at a local Junior University and processed the RAFs in Lightroom CC.

It turned out the artifacts were common and obvious.

Iridient X-Transformer Crop
Iridient X-Transformer Crop

Lightroom Crop
Lightroom Crop
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

BeatX
C1, LR, DXO, IXT - which program handles best with developing RAW from Fujifilm X-Trans sensor
2 3
Replies
41
Views
1K
Truman Prevatt
Truman Prevatt
BeatX
LR vs PureRAW 3 noise reduction test
2
Replies
21
Views
190
photolando
P
a1020
Processing .raf without losing grain and color
Replies
8
Views
179
tbcass
tbcass
J
Capture One to LR workflow questions
Replies
3
Views
28
RetiringGuy
R
A
Observations (and a few questions) on Processing X-trans Files in 2021 (LR, C1, etc)
Replies
16
Views
190
Mark B UK
M

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