Studio Shot Comparison Tool Fujifilm X-H2S

Kaoticphoto wrote:

Morris0 wrote:

Kaoticphoto wrote:

Send me the raw i will process it.

Otherwise i am sorry but i don't shoot birds.

You can see something from me here www.kaotic.it

I've sent you a PM with the link to the RAW file. It will be fun to see what you can get not only in detail, also doing the same crop and getting the color correct.

Have fun,

Morris

can i post the result here or you prefer in PM?

As you sent me your processed Jpeg, I'll post it and my full resolution version. I usually post a low res jpeg.

Morris - ACR + Photoshop + Topaz Labs AI Sharpen

Kaoticphoto - DXO + Lightroom

To those observing, I recommend you use "Open Original" to avoid compression issues.

Morris

If folks want to show off their image processing skills, let's take the game to a neutral site. Here's a link to a page with the Fujifilm X-H2S sample images available for download: https://www.photographyblog.com/previews/fujifilm_x_h2_photos

The top group are JPEGs. Scroll past those to get to the raw (NEF) files.

As for Kaotic's "offer," it's an insult packaged as an offer. That's plain as day.

Kaoticphoto wrote:

this one is processed closer to your as color and wb

https://www.kaotic.it/trash/101622DSCF5197-RAF_DxO_DeepPRIME.jpg

anyway my point is that LR (and ACR) doesn't produce great sharpness with X-trans, specially with fine details.

and adding Topaz AI to sharpen as you did, seem a confirmation

anyway choice is good, but LR Alone it not enough to extract the best from RAF

You did a real nice job.

I don't feel the results show much of a difference.  I use AI Sharpen as it's a time saver as I don't have to experiment to find the best settings using USM.  I can get the same results on a good image which this is.

There used to be a big penalty using ACR.  That was addressed about 3 years ago and about 2 months after I started using Fuji cameras.

Morris

I would encourage folks to view these on full-sized monitors. The aliasing in Kaotic's versions is extreme.

Nirurin wrote:

Bill Ferris wrote:

If folks want to show off their image processing skills, let's take the game to a neutral site. Here's a link to a page with the Fujifilm X-H2S sample images available for download: https://www.photographyblog.com/previews/fujifilm_x_h2_photos

The top group are JPEGs. Scroll past those to get to the raw (NEF) files.

As for Kaotic's "offer," it's an insult packaged as an offer. That's plain as day.

You may want to edit or remove the last part. Kaotic's offer seems to have been both genuine and a reasonable request to further actual knowledge into the subject matter. At no point did it come across as insulting or argumentative. The only person being insulting here is you.

OK, that's quite enough.  This is getting personal.  Feel free to share examples to prove the points that are being made and which concern this chestnut of an issue that has been hashed over here endlessly since I joined this forum eons ago.  Compare to your heart's content... just bag the personal comments and stick with this issues, please, so I don't have to play "bad Mod" again and lock an otherwise useful thread.

Thank you.

Morris0 wrote:

Kaoticphoto wrote:

Send me the raw i will process it.

Otherwise i am sorry but i don't shoot birds.

You can see something from me here www.kaotic.it

I've sent you a PM with the link to the RAW file. It will be fun to see what you can get not only in detail, also doing the same crop and getting the color correct.

Have fun,

Morris

HI Morris, thanks for sending me your RAW file as well. My idea was to do it purely with LR only, but I had to use IXT as my old Windows 7 computer (yes, I'm working on that), can't open the X-H2s files (though I don't think the end result would be much different). No A.I. anywhere here, only plain old LR sharpening and NR. I don't think it looks any better than yours or Kaoticphoto's versions, but it isn't too far off. Frankly, while Topaz's A.I. sharpening certainly "organizes" the soft detail into something sharper looking, to my my eye, it does sometimes look a bit homogeneous when you look closely - not quite natural to have sharpness where there ought to be out of focus softness. I think Kaoticphoto's DxO PureRaW version does a good job of producing clean, natural looking detail without looking obviously "A.I.ed". If PureRaw3 offers the same fine-tuning capability you get with PL5/6, I may go that route in the future if Adobe doesn't come up with some good A.I. processing of their own by then.

Not sure where you got the extra headroom for your crop, but I cropped mine to present the bird at around the same scale.

Lightroom/IXT

Erik Baumgartner wrote:

Morris0 wrote:

Kaoticphoto wrote:

Send me the raw i will process it.

Otherwise i am sorry but i don't shoot birds.

You can see something from me here www.kaotic.it

I've sent you a PM with the link to the RAW file. It will be fun to see what you can get not only in detail, also doing the same crop and getting the color correct.

Have fun,

Morris

HI Morris, thanks for sending me your RAW file as well. My idea was to do it purely with LR only, but I had to use IXT as my old Windows 7 computer (yes, I'm working on that), can't open the X-H2s files (though I don't think the end result would be much different). No A.I. anywhere here, only plain old LR sharpening and NR. I don't think it looks any better than yours or Kaoticphoto's versions, but it isn't too far off. Frankly, while Topaz's A.I. sharpening certainly "organizes" the soft detail into something sharper looking, to my my eye, it does sometimes look a bit homogeneous when you look closely - not quite natural to have sharpness where there ought to be out of focus softness. I think Kaoticphoto's DxO PureRaW version does a good job of producing clean, natural looking detail without looking obviously "A.I.ed". If PureRaw3 offers the same fine-tuning capability you get with PL5/6, I may go that route in the future if Adobe doesn't come up with some good A.I. processing of their own by then.

Not sure where you got the extra headroom for your crop, but I cropped mine to present the bird at around the same scale.

Lightroom/IXT

Hi Erik,

Looks good and now we have three approach's with similar results for feather detail.  You did a great job of recovering the red crown yet it's a little orange and you probably don't know what the kinglet should look like.  The space on the top was created using canvas expansion.  I agree, sometimes Topaz AI creates artifacts and it can sharpen what should be out of focus.  I use it in layers to sharpen the areas I want to reveal sharpness in.  I also leave it's sharpening a bit light and do a final pass with high value USM.

I feel we have shown that people should use the software that they are formula with as it will do the job.  Will it stop the long threads?  Probably not.

Morris

Kaoticphoto wrote:

I do agree that the AI look (valid for both topaz and dxo pureraw2) sometime is disturbing, having details and NR here and there and missing uniformity.

That's why often i still use X transformer like you did (even with the added artifacts it can generate).

Using “Smoother” with all Iridient sharpening and especially NR off (set to none),  I don’t see any artifacts that I don’t get with any other demosaicing methods

Anyway the starting discussion was about plain LR vs others solutions, and about showing that X-trans can generate much sharper pictures that ones in DPR database, being competitive with other system, and at the end of the day even Morris is using ACR+topaz.

The raw from Morris isn't the best to show the differences imho, subject is big in the frame and details are quite large (in pixel terms) and defined (contrasted). With my kind of subjects (humans being, in studio, framed half body) differences are striking in fine detail and skin sharpness, i find the DPR test scene a much better example to show differences between process.

There are a lot if processing workflows today, just find the best for you.

Thank you everyone for all the input, it is greatly appreciated.  As I stated on a previous post in the thread, my situation is a specific one as I am trying to keep my equipment as light as possible while still getting the best image quality and focal range possible.

Currently I am using a Canon EOS R6 with a 24-105mm f/4 and an OM System OM-1 with a Panasonic 50-200mm f/2.8-4 for longer range, which allows me to cover 24-400mm full frame equivalent carrying 2 cameras and not having to change lenses at all.  With my back having issues I want to keep my setup as light as possible while maintaining a similar ability in focal reach which is why I have been looking at APS-C since I am looking to move away from OM Systems.  The Fuji 70-300mm f/4-5.6 lens is actually lighter than the Panasonic (being 1.3lbs vs 1.44lbs) and is less than half the weight of the Canon 100-500mm f/4.5-7.1 (closest weather sealed RF lens available right now) which comes in at 3lbs.

My goal with this thread was to find out why the Fuji X-H2S looked so "soft" in the DPreview Studio Scene Comparison Tool, if it was the camera or something else (like post processing) which is what it turned out to be.  This is very helpful as I use Lightroom as my primary editing tool and know that I will have to run the RAW files through a process before doing my post processing in LR with them to get the best detail from it.  As I generally take between 500-1500 pictures (per camera) in a day walking around this does leave a question on how much time the extra steps will add to my post processing time, but it has alleviated the concern about it being an actual issue with the camera.  Clears up one concern but has added a new one, just more to think about!  Again, thank you everyone that has provided input, it has been very helpful.

Dragonmatrix88 wrote:

Thank you everyone for all the input, it is greatly appreciated. As I stated on a previous post in the thread, my situation is a specific one as I am trying to keep my equipment as light as possible while still getting the best image quality and focal range possible.

What kind of photography do you do? Which focal lengths are your staples?

Currently I am using a Canon EOS R6 with a 24-105mm f/4 and an OM System OM-1 with a Panasonic 50-200mm f/2.8-4 for longer range, which allows me to cover 24-400mm full frame equivalent carrying 2 cameras and not having to change lenses at all. With my back having issues I want to keep my setup as light as possible while maintaining a similar ability in focal reach which is why I have been looking at APS-C since I am looking to move away from OM Systems.

Why are you moving away from the OM system?

The Fuji 70-300mm f/4-5.6 lens is actually lighter than the Panasonic (being 1.3lbs vs 1.44lbs) and is less than half the weight of the Canon 100-500mm f/4.5-7.1 (closest weather sealed RF lens available right now) which comes in at 3lbs.

My goal with this thread was to find out why the Fuji X-H2S looked so "soft" in the DPreview Studio Scene Comparison Tool, if it was the camera or something else (like post processing) which is what it turned out to be.

DP Review limits the processing of images in the Studio shot comparison tool so the dynamic range, noise visibility and color fidelity on display in a sample photo are more directly tied to the camera system used to make the photo. It is not a demonstration of Adobe Camera Raw's (ACR) capability as a demosaicing tool nor is it intended to be. You can explore this to your own satisfaction by downloading a raw file from any camera in the Studio shot comparison tool and processing it to your taste in whichever photo processing and editing app you prefer.

As for the opinions expressed in this thread about ACR, Lightroom, and other apps, that's all they are...opinions. If you're pleased with the results you get working with Fuji RAFs in Lightroom, that's all that matters. If you're displeased, that's all that matters. Find the tools and resources that meet your needs.

This is very helpful as I use Lightroom as my primary editing tool and know that I will have to run the RAW files through a process before doing my post processing in LR with them to get the best detail from it.

Or you may not. There are many photographers who use Fuji gear, process photos only in Lightroom, and get great results. Don't give undue weight to the critics who are loudest about their dislike of one product over another. Try it for yourself and decide based on your experience.

As I generally take between 500-1500 pictures (per camera) in a day walking around this does leave a question on how much time the extra steps will add to my post processing time, but it has alleviated the concern about it being an actual issue with the camera.

If you end up adding X-Transformer or other third party apps to your workflow, one of the best ways to limit the impact on how much time you spend processing and editing photos is to only use those apps on the 1 in 10 to 1 in 100 photos that are your "best of the best". If you've made 10 photos of the same view, each with slightly different composition or quality of light, select the one photo from the group that's your favorite and apply your full workflow just to that image.

Clears up one concern but has added a new one, just more to think about! Again, thank you everyone that has provided input, it has been very helpful.

Bill Ferris wrote:

Dragonmatrix88 wrote:

Thank you everyone for all the input, it is greatly appreciated. As I stated on a previous post in the thread, my situation is a specific one as I am trying to keep my equipment as light as possible while still getting the best image quality and focal range possible.

What kind of photography do you do? Which focal lengths are your staples?

I do a bit of everything, generally macro and landscape when hiking but if I am traveling it is stuff like architecture and landscape to things on display in museums.  I haven't really done a lot of portrait photography but have an interest and also have an interest in trying astrophotography as well.  Of course I am just an amateur and do photography as a hobby.  I have recently created a smugmug site, I would be happy to share it if anyone would like to see, just keep in mind this is just a hobby for me.

Currently I am using a Canon EOS R6 with a 24-105mm f/4 and an OM System OM-1 with a Panasonic 50-200mm f/2.8-4 for longer range, which allows me to cover 24-400mm full frame equivalent carrying 2 cameras and not having to change lenses at all. With my back having issues I want to keep my setup as light as possible while maintaining a similar ability in focal reach which is why I have been looking at APS-C since I am looking to move away from OM Systems.

Why are you moving away from the OM system?

Olympus sold their Imaging business to JIP, inc. in like 2020 and I had some concerns about the continuation of innovation in their products when that happened as the same investment company bought VAIO from Sony and while you can still buy a VAIO laptop, it is a very standard mid-tier system what small refreshes now and then.  The OM-1 is a great camera but I have a suspicion that Olympus developed it before the sale as since the sale not much innovation has happened.  This is very evident in the newly announced OM-5, which is basically a OM-D E-M5 MkIII, they didn't even bother to do something as simple as upgrade to a USB C port, they left it a micro-usb.  The benefits that I got into the Olympus systems for such as IBIS are now becoming standard in every other system.

The Fuji 70-300mm f/4-5.6 lens is actually lighter than the Panasonic (being 1.3lbs vs 1.44lbs) and is less than half the weight of the Canon 100-500mm f/4.5-7.1 (closest weather sealed RF lens available right now) which comes in at 3lbs.

My goal with this thread was to find out why the Fuji X-H2S looked so "soft" in the DPreview Studio Scene Comparison Tool, if it was the camera or something else (like post processing) which is what it turned out to be.

DP Review limits the processing of images in the Studio shot comparison tool so the dynamic range, noise visibility and color fidelity on display in a sample photo are more directly tied to the camera system used to make the photo. It is not a demonstration of Adobe Camera Raw's (ACR) capability as a demosaicing tool nor is it intended to be. You can explore this to your own satisfaction by downloading a raw file from any camera in the Studio shot comparison tool and processing it to your taste in whichever photo processing and editing app you prefer.

As for the opinions expressed in this thread about ACR, Lightroom, and other apps, that's all they are...opinions. If you're pleased with the results you get working with Fuji RAFs in Lightroom, that's all that matters. If you're displeased, that's all that matters. Find the tools and resources that meet your needs.

I agree that what really matters is the person using the camera and if they are happy with the results they get.  It is just nice to know that there may be limitations on software or that I may want to use other software than what I currently use to get the best results.  My main concern was if the quality of the image I was seeing in the DPReview studio comparison tool was a hardware or software issue and it is a software issue.

This is very helpful as I use Lightroom as my primary editing tool and know that I will have to run the RAW files through a process before doing my post processing in LR with them to get the best detail from it.

Or you may not. There are many photographers who use Fuji gear, process photos only in Lightroom, and get great results. Don't give undue weight to the critics who are loudest about their dislike of one product over another. Try it for yourself and decide based on your experience.

Again, this would really depend on the results I would personally be able to get with LR using Fuji RAW files, it is more just nice to know that I may want to process them with another piece of software first if I am not satisfied with the results of just LR alone.

As I generally take between 500-1500 pictures (per camera) in a day walking around this does leave a question on how much time the extra steps will add to my post processing time, but it has alleviated the concern about it being an actual issue with the camera.

If you end up adding X-Transformer or other third party apps to your workflow, one of the best ways to limit the impact on how much time you spend processing and editing photos is to only use those apps on the 1 in 10 to 1 in 100 photos that are your "best of the best". If you've made 10 photos of the same view, each with slightly different composition or quality of light, select the one photo from the group that's your favorite and apply your full workflow just to that image.

This is a great suggestion to cut down on workflow time, I will keep it in mind if I do transition to Fuji.

Clears up one concern but has added a new one, just more to think about! Again, thank you everyone that has provided input, it has been very helpful.

Kaoticphoto wrote:

i tried with smoother and NR off, but i see artifacts and advantage in sharpness (compared to LR alone) is minimal.

hare a comparison IXT (with your setting) and PureRaw2, look at the text, that's what i call artifacts (the same are present with standard LR conversion)

X-H2S file

The artifacts I was referring to are chunky noise artifacts that I sometimes get at higher ISOs with the X-Trans 4 sensor with "More Detailed" that I don't get with "Smoother" . Using Smoother will require more sharpening in LR (which is fine as my default import settings look good for both the original RAF and the DNG), but as I see absolutely no detail advantage whatsoever when using More Detailed, I now go with Smoother for both my X-Trans III and IV cameras (and will probably with X-Trans V too).

X-Transformer does an inferior job with tiny text compared to DxO with DeepPrime no matter what (good I thing I don't often shoot tiny text), but to my eye it does as well (and sometimes a tad better) with other detail and often with less visible aliasing. I'm in between computers at the moment, but will likely take a closer look into DxO in the near future. In any case, viewed at any reasonable size, they really look very close overall...

X-H2s, my version with Lightroom/IXT (yes, I touched up the moire)

X-H2s, your version with Lightroom/DxO/DeepPrime2