Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda

New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site

New Feature: SMS Notification alert

New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist

FM Forums | Fuji Forum | Join Upload & Sell

3 4 end

NO FLAME INTENDED! anyone use just LR to process their RAF files?

molson
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #1 · p.2 #1 · NO FLAME INTENDED! anyone use just LR to process their RAF files?

gdanmitchell wrote:
The details setting absolutely can have a positive effect on the so-called worms issue.

Yes, Dan - I am aware that you can change the Detail setting to blur the entire image in order to hide the artifacts, but the result is worse than just leaving the artifacts alone.

I've tested this extensively, and seen absolutely no benefit from playing with the Details slider, and I've even posted examples to prove it. If you are seeing something affected by the Detail slider in the manner you suggest, that just tells me you are not dealing with the wormy fractal artifacts in the first place - either that, or you just post these comments in the hopes of stirring up an argument...

Jan 20, 2023 at 12:53 PM

curious80
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #2 · p.2 #2 · NO FLAME INTENDED! anyone use just LR to process their RAF files?

robfilms wrote:
I have read/watched many, many, many vids debating Lightroom vs Capture One vs some other piece of software used to process Fuji's RAF raw files.

Call me thick but Capture One (free) does not work for me.

I have tried to learn Capture One.

There is something about the UI that doesn't work for me.

(I am not blaming Capture One. I am acknowledging it is me)

But if I rely on LR to process my X-T1 and X-T2 RAF files, will I REALLY regret my decision to use just Lightroom?

(do you need to pixel peep to see the worms?)

I use my Fuji's for mostly...Show more →

I have been using lightroom with Fuji RAF files for quite some time. No problems experienced - works great.

As for the worms - i have ever encountered them in any of my shooting or processing over past several years. My advice would be to not worry about it - just use the SW and there is a 99.9% chance that you will never run into that.

Jan 20, 2023 at 12:55 PM

gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #3 · p.2 #3 · NO FLAME INTENDED! anyone use just LR to process their RAF files?

molson wrote:
Yes, Dan - I am aware that you can change the Detail setting to blur the entire image in order to hide the artifacts, but the result is worse than just leaving the artifacts alone.

I've tested this extensively, and seen absolutely no benefit from playing with the Details slider, and I've even posted examples to prove it. If you are seeing something affected by the Detail slider in the manner you suggest, that just tells me you are not dealing with the wormy fractal artifacts in the first place - either that, or you just post these comments in the...Show more →

Give it a break.

A lower metals setting doesn't "blur the whole image." The details slider has a particular kind of localized effect which in rare cases creates the worms effect. In these cases, using details doesn't "decrease blur" — it creates false details in areas of low contrast, and random fine patters, typically mostly in the green channel.

Essentially what I'm doing is choosing the right details setting for the camera/sensor I'm using... something I've done with all of my cameras from multiple brands for the past 20 years in post. I don't use the same settings for old 5D files that I use for 5DsR files. I don't use the same settings for a 16MP x-trans sensor that I use for a 40MP x-trans sensor.

I still get excellent sharpness from the image. Typically, I may use a higher "texture" setting and/or slightly different radius/amount settings for the subsequent Photoshop sharpening that is part of my workflow.

The result is better. Not worse.

The investment some folks have in "proving" (believing) that this, that, or some other product or tool is uniformly awful and that anyone who disagrees must be incompetent is quite something.

Edited on Jan 20, 2023 at 07:46 PM · View previous versions

Jan 20, 2023 at 01:51 PM

CKrueger
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #4 · p.2 #4 · NO FLAME INTENDED! anyone use just LR to process their RAF files?

LR works fine for sharpening, including using the Details slider. With any camera, turning up Details too high will emphasize noise, including any pattern noise in the file. It just so happens that Adobe's RAW processing for a lot of Fuji cameras create the infamous "worms", and the Detail slider is great at adding contrast to the worms.

The solution is... "don't do that".

Incidentally, my GFX100S doesn't do it, and I haven't found the effect on my XT5 yet, either.

Lightroom is the best DAM tool on the market, IMHO, and it has a pretty good editor attached to it. That's why I use it, and why I don't mind working with my Fuji files in it. The survey tool, the flagging/ranking/coloring, and the database features (EXIF filtering and such) are a huge feature for me; a bigger deal than some less-than-perfect editing tools, or missing features like ML resolution enhancements.

Jan 20, 2023 at 05:25 PM

vallejo
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #5 · p.2 #5 · NO FLAME INTENDED! anyone use just LR to process their RAF files?

Another vote for DXO…for converting the RAFs. I’ve used it all. Now I’ve settled with PhotoLab for converting and applying DeepPrime and ClearView.Both are best in class to me. Then I export the files as DNG to Lightroom for editing, where LR excels, specially with the AI Masks... All quick and easy. You can replace Photolab with the conversion only PureRaw, but you loose some good tools, specially ClearView.
I still use Capture One to edit portraits though, it handles skin better then LR and PL.
Do I see a real difference between this approach and LR only? Definitely. And I tested it A LOT…

Jan 20, 2023 at 06:50 PM

gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #6 · p.2 #6 · NO FLAME INTENDED! anyone use just LR to process their RAF files?

Regarding worms, CKrueger wrote:
"... I haven't found the effect on my XT5 yet, either.

Me, too. That jumped out at me right away when I edited my first XT5 files. I was a bit incredulous at first, but I quickly found that I could use the same higher details values with the XT5 files that I often use with my Canon files, and the worms issue doesn't show up. Yes, I tested it on some low contrast distant green foliage — the kind of thing that might make it happen with high details settings on the older sensors.

Lightroom is the best DAM tool on the market, IMHO, and it has a pretty good editor attached to it. That's why I use it, and why I don't mind working with my Fuji files in it. The survey tool, the flagging/ranking/coloring, and the database features (EXIF filtering and such) are a huge feature for me; a bigger deal than some less-than-perfect editing tools, or missing features like ML resolution enhancements.

I'm kind of biased toward ACR and Photoshop, but... everyone I know uses and likes Lightroom (including my wife!), and I do use it occasionally, particularly for culling/sorting large numbers of image files. (My bias really has nothing to do with the quality of LR and everything to do with the workflow I've developed with the other tools — it is a subjective, personal thing.)

People always seem to be chasing after the next miracle nostrum that will be way, way ahead of whatever the popular tools are. There are some worthy alternatives, and I have nothing against them or the people who choose to use them, but none of them are going to make a substantial change to the overall quality of one's work. More important, in my view, is really learning the tool that you choose inside and out.

Dan

Jan 20, 2023 at 07:44 PM

RoamingScott
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #7 · p.2 #7 · NO FLAME INTENDED! anyone use just LR to process their RAF files?

The GFX doesn’t do it because it has a Bayer sensor layout.

Adobe sucks butt at demosaicing RAF files with the X-Trans layout.

Fuji worms are most prevalent in shots with a lot of crisscrossing foliage.

CKrueger wrote:
LR works fine for sharpening, including using the Details slider. With any camera, turning up Details too high will emphasize noise, including any pattern noise in the file. It just so happens that Adobe's RAW processing for a lot of Fuji cameras create the infamous "worms", and the Detail slider is great at adding contrast to the worms.

The solution is... "don't do that".

Incidentally, my GFX100S doesn't do it, and I haven't found the effect on my XT5 yet, either.

Lightroom is the best DAM tool on the market, IMHO, and it has a pretty good editor attached to it. That's why...Show more →

Jan 20, 2023 at 07:48 PM

gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #8 · p.2 #8 · NO FLAME INTENDED! anyone use just LR to process their RAF files?

To our OP, sorry your thread seems to be getting dragged into all of the bizarre and petty personal FM "user wars" stuff.

Take a look at the full range of comments and ask, "If Adobe is so God awful at converting RAF files, why are there so many people using it?"

I suppose that one sort of answer could take forms including: They are all nuts, Adobe shills, bad photographers, unskilled post-processors, have low standards, are fools, are blind, and all kinds of other insulting characterizations.

Another thought is that it might be that it is safe to pay less attention to the angry outliers.

Here are two examples of x-trans files processed using Adobe software. I picked them not for their aesthetic photographic quality but because they illustrate a couple of things that are probably relevant to this thread.

The first example, uh, "sucks butt..." but wait for the explanation:

This is a 400% magnification crop: Source: Fujifilm XT5, 50-140mm f/2.8 lens at 50mm. ISO 125, 1/350 sec, f/8, handheld. This is a 1556x952 .jpf file that has not been interpolated. It has gone through more or less a normal post-processing workflow in ACR and Photoshop.

Why share such an ugly file? This is precisely the situation in which the "worms" effect tends to arise — low contrast, slightly OOF (remember, 400% magnification!), greens. Yes, it has been sharpened. The inherent softness here comes from significant atmospheric haze. (Hang on, you'll see it in a moment.)

I'm not seeing any worms.

"Well, one might say, "that's because it is too soft to begin with!"

Remember 400% magnification...

Here's a 100% magnification crop from the same file centered on the same section of the source image.

Again, not a lovely image. Lots of haze. But here at 100% I'm not seeing any worms. And, yes, I raised the details fader in this one to something like 50.

Here's a small jpg of the full image. It may take a second, but you should be able to locate the section shown in the crops above.

No, as I wrote, not a great photograph. It is just a useful image that I came back with from my first trip to the Big Sur coast with the XT5.

Next, probably: "Well, there aren't any worms in these Fujifilm images because OOF and because Adobe x-trans file handling, uh, 'sucks butt!'"

So here is a 200% magnification crop from a different photograph made on the same recent Big Sur visit. My records describe the example this way: "A 200% magnification crop at 144 ppi resolution. Source: Fujifilm XT5, Fujifilm 50-140mm f/2.8 lens. Handheld with IS active. 106mm, f/8, ISO 125, 1/400 second. Raw file converted in ACR and post-processed in Photoshop." 885 x 725 px.

Details look pretty good here, too. See especially the small details at lower right in this 200% magnification crop... that is probably shown even larger in your browser.

Here's a small .jpg of the full image:

One additional note on all images shown here. They were shot at f/8, so — as some sharp reader will eventually point out — this is not the ideal aperture for a 40MP APS-C image. At these magnifications there is a bit of softening from diffraction blur. If I had chosen the setting specifically for maximum sharpness in the plane of focus I might have used f/5.6.

Adobe programs work fine on x-trans files. So do some of the alternatives. I'd say relax and choose whichever one you'll be most comfortable with overall and don't sweat it.

Dan

Jan 20, 2023 at 08:43 PM

gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #9 · p.2 #9 · NO FLAME INTENDED! anyone use just LR to process their RAF files?

For fun last night, I played a few "worms" games. I found two things:

1. I can produce "worms" in the first image that are visible at 400% magnification in ACR by setting amount to the very highest level and also setting details to the very highest level. There is an inverse relation in the two settings. If I raise details way beyond the norm, I'm limited in how far I can raise amount before worms visible at this magnification appear. IfI raise amount all the way, I'm limited as to how far I can raise details before worms appear. To be crystal clear — to get this I have to raise both sliders way beyond what I would do in normal post-processing. If anyone is interested — which I kind of doubt — I can share screen shots.

2. Wondering a bit more about how and where "worms" appear, I decided to open up a 5DsR file and push it the same way. Guess what? I can create worms in Canon files, too! They have a different texture than those produced by the x-trans sensor, but they exist at the fringes here, too.

3. To be double, super, extra, mega-clear... in both cases I had to push settings to extreme levels I would not use in real post-processing.

All of this reinforces my understanding that we can make any camera's files look pretty awful if we push them far enough.

Jan 21, 2023 at 01:21 PM

gyoung143
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #10 · p.2 #10 · NO FLAME INTENDED! anyone use just LR to process their RAF files?

gdanmitchell wrote:
For fun last night, I played a few "worms" games. I found two things:

1. I can produce "worms" in the first image that are visible at 400% magnification in ACR by setting amount to the very highest level and also setting details to the very highest level. There is an inverse relation in the two settings. If I raise details way beyond the norm, I'm limited in how far I can raise amount before worms visible at this magnification appear. IfI raise amount all the way, I'm limited as to how far I can raise details before worms appear. To...Show more →
Thanks Dan for going to the trouble to do that. I hope, but doubt, it will settle the moaners.
Heavy handed use of post processing tools always has given 'problems', I long ago proved to myself that I can produce ugliness with Nikon and Sony files too.
I often wonder why some of these moaners are here, do they actually use Fuji. If so why, if they find it so easy to produce crap results, I wouldn't.

Gerry

Jan 21, 2023 at 06:08 PM

524f44
Offline
•
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #11 · p.2 #11 · NO FLAME INTENDED! anyone use just LR to process their RAF files?

robfilms wrote:
...
But if I rely on LR to process my X-T1 and X-T2 RAF files, will I REALLY regret my decision to use just Lightroom?
...
Rob

+1 for LR here (like others in this conversation).

I use LRC[lassic] edition mainly for its photo/file organizational features. And, to touch up OOC JPEGS. Since discovering Fuji cameras & their amazing JPEG ability I shoot that way mostly. When I do shoot RAW I find LR works just fine. If you're printing/displaying large size Fine Art prints maybe there is a better RAW converter (maybe not) I don't do that, so, not an issue for me.

And hey, if you find LR failing you, you still have your RAWs to reprocess in some other software.

--
Rod

Jan 22, 2023 at 07:26 AM

mmm55
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #12 · p.2 #12 · NO FLAME INTENDED! anyone use just LR to process their RAF files?

My thoughts for the OP, based on my own experiences:

If you need DAM, stick with LR. If you don't, learn C1.

Jan 22, 2023 at 09:13 AM

doowop42
Online
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #13 · p.2 #13 · NO FLAME INTENDED! anyone use just LR to process their RAF files?

robfilms wrote:
kenbennett wrote:
I use Lightroom, been using it since the first version. I shoot 100% Fuji, X and GFX. Been shooting Fuji professionally since 2013. I get very good results with Lightroom on my .raf files. Prints are terrific. Clients have never complained (and they have printed very, very large.)

I couldn't have said it better.

Jan 22, 2023 at 09:16 AM

molson
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #14 · p.2 #14 · NO FLAME INTENDED! anyone use just LR to process their RAF files?

Jan 22, 2023 at 10:37 AM

molson
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #15 · p.2 #15 · NO FLAME INTENDED! anyone use just LR to process their RAF files?

CKrueger wrote:
Incidentally, my GFX100S doesn't do it, and I haven't found the effect on my XT5 yet, either.

None of the Fuji cameras with a Bayer CFA show the artifacts, which includes all of the GFX cameras.

It's encouraging to hear the X-T5 might not suffer from this issue - maybe the boost in resolution was enough to overcome the shortcomings in Adobe's demosaicing algorithm, similar to how increases in resolution have gradually reduced the occurrence of moire in other sensors.

Jan 22, 2023 at 10:43 AM

gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #16 · p.2 #16 · NO FLAME INTENDED! anyone use just LR to process their RAF files?

molson wrote:
You've certainly made one thing "double, super, extra, mega-clear..." - that you have absolutely no idea what the "wormy" demosaicing artifacts being discussed actually look like.

You never get tired of this, do you?

As I've written here a ton of times, I have seen them in my own photographs... in rare cases and when using inappropriate raw-conversion settings. That's why I learned to use settings that don't create the problem.

More regarding the 40MP sensor. Yesterday I decided to see if it was still possibly to create the worms effect with this sensor. In fact, it is, though it took settings that are way outside of anything most people will ever use.

In ACR, in one test image that incudes areas of fine, random detail, I can create them by pushing "amount" to the maximum setting of 150 and "details" to the maximum setting of 100. With amount at 150, worm start to appear in any image with find detail at around 20 on the details slider if you look closely. In the image that I'm currently looking at (bricks in a street photog), If I set details to 100 (all the say up), I start to see (at 200% magnification) a worms effect with amount above about 75.

By the way, you can also produce [EDIT] a very similar effect on Bayer sensor cameras if you crank certain images far enough, [EDIT] in the manner described above. I managed to produce them on a 5DsR raw file last week by pushing things up all the way, too. The effect isn't quite the same, but for a moment I considered sharing it without identifying the source camera and sitting back and waiting for the "those are terrible Fujifilm worms" posts to arrive. ;-

Your condescending "you don't what you are talking about" replies don't further the discussion or contribute to understanding this issue one bit.

Plus, I do know what I'm talking about.

Do better.

- - -

Adding one thing: I don't think that the x-trans sensor array offers any particular value at this point. Its original value was that it assuaged the fears that many had a decade ago that removing AA filtering would create awful aliasing artifacts. But it soon became clear that Bayer sensors without AA filtering (or with cancelled or minimal filtering) were not coughing up the feared artifacts. In my experience using x-trans and non-AA-filtering cameras that have Bayer sensors, I don't see any particular advantage or disadvantage to the x-trans array... and I'd be happy to see Fujifilm just move to Bayer in the whole line-up, not just the GFX systems.

Jan 22, 2023 at 01:51 PM

Makten
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #17 · p.2 #17 · NO FLAME INTENDED! anyone use just LR to process their RAF files?

gdanmitchell wrote:
Next, probably: "Well, there aren't any worms in these Fujifilm images because OOF and because Adobe x-trans file handling, uh, 'sucks butt!'"

So here is a 200% magnification crop from a different photograph made on the same recent Big Sur visit. My records describe the example this way: "A 200% magnification crop at 144 ppi resolution. Source: Fujifilm XT5, Fujifilm 50-140mm f/2.8 lens. Handheld with IS active. 106mm, f/8, ISO 125, 1/400 second. Raw file converted in ACR and post-processed in Photoshop." 885 x 725 px.

That whole crop is made up of worms, to my eyes. Yikes.

Jan 23, 2023 at 06:32 AM

524f44
Offline
•
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #18 · p.2 #18 · NO FLAME INTENDED! anyone use just LR to process their RAF files?

FWIW: Found this article about processing Fuji Raw files with different software. https://blog.thomasfitzgeraldphotography.com/blog/2022/1/processing-fujifilm-raw-files-in-2022-the-best-solutions

Might be interesting/useful for some. Or maybe I'm throwing gasoline on the fire. You just never know how things will turn out here in the wild and woolly "interwebz". :-)

Just keep this in mind, nothing's perfect. https://archive.org/details/northern-exposure/Season+4/Northern.Exposure.S04E03.1080p.BluRay.x265.10bit.hevc-bearfish.mkv

--
Rod --"...and that's all i have to say about that...", Forest Gump--

Jan 23, 2023 at 08:51 AM

gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #19 · p.2 #19 · NO FLAME INTENDED! anyone use just LR to process their RAF files?

Makten wrote:
That whole crop is made up of worms, to my eyes. Yikes.

"Are the worms in the room with us now, Makten?" ;-)

That is at... 400% magnification... and fine details are beyond the ability of the sensor/lens resolution at that level in these conditions, which I used because they are a worst case for potential worms.

Take a look at the 100% crop below it.

- - -

Going to try this one more time, since some are absolutely devoted to the worms thing.

First, to those pointing out that 400% magnification crops don't look like prints, thanks for that. ;-)
(This is, after all, a 24MP APS-C sensor camera, and not what I usually use for this kind of subject.)

A photograph with high "worms" potential. XPro2 24MP raw file converted in ACR and post processed in Photoshop. Here is a small version of the image prepared for the web.

- - - - -

Here is a 1500 x 1500 pixel crop from the original full size file, exported to jpg from photoshop without interpolation, with the area from off-center towards the upper right area in order to include material that would tend to reveal the worms effect.

- - - - -

Next, a 400% magnification crop screenshot of a smaller area from within the above crop with ACR sharpening turned off (set to zero amount. Image size 2352 × 1950 pixels.

Looks crappy, as we would expect a raw image at 400% magnification crop to look with no sharpening.

- - - - -

Now let's see how sharpening settings affect this:

Screenshot of raw file in ACR at 400% magnification. 2352 . 1950 pixels.
Sharpening settings:
Amount: 40
Radius: .5
Details: 10

At 400% magnification lots of flaws appear and the image will not be sharp. (If you print and work at large sizes and high magnifications, you know this.) In my workflow an additional sharpening operation would be applied once the file was in Photoshop using a high amount and small radius. In any case, there is no real worms issue here.

- - - - -

So let's play with the boundaries a bit. I'll up the details setting to 50.

Screenshot of raw file in ACR at 400% magnification. 2352 . 1950 pixels.
Sharpening settings:
Amount: 40
Radius: .5
Details: 50

If I look carefully I can start to see some "worms" effects in a few locations in the image. For example, look at bright areas in where the rocks are a bit darker in shadows, and in a slightly "swirly" are just right of center where rocks are in the sun. So, with amount at 50, if we look closely (400% magnification!) we can start to see evidence of worms... that you'll never see in a print.

- - - - -

But let's keep going. Here I'll continue to increase the amount value up to 75, but drop details back to 0.
Screenshot of raw file in ACR at 400% magnification. 2352 . 1950 pixels.
Sharpening settings:
Amount: 75
Radius: .5
Details: 0

With this higher amount setting (higher than I would use) and no details, the slight "worminess" in the previous example goes away.

- - - - -

So, let's crank up the details slider, too, and see what happens. (I don't think I have ever actually used this combination of high amount and details settings in a real world situation.)

Screenshot of raw file in ACR at 400% magnification. 2352 . 1950 pixels.
Sharpening settings:
Amount: 75
Radius: .5
Details: 75

Why, look, worms out the proverbial wazoo!

So, what is the general approach to worm-free x-trans images from raw? Generally, use a small radius (I like .5) a reasonable amount (a bit higher than you might use with a larger radius), and minimal details (I typically keep it between 0 and 25).

Or get a XT5 or XH2, where the sensor seems to be almost immune to the effect. (To get it with the 40MP sensor I have to use really outrageously high settings.)

I know some readers will still persist with the oh-so-fun worms meme, but I hope that at least a few of you start to see the relationship between the details setting and worms.

Dan

Jan 23, 2023 at 03:13 PM

molson
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #20 · p.2 #20 · NO FLAME INTENDED! anyone use just LR to process their RAF files?

I wonder why there's no EXIF data provided... there are no "wormy" artifacts visible in the images, but it would be helpful to know if this image was actually shot with a Fuji camera and lens. Without any supporting data, the rest of the images only prove that stupid actions = stupid results.

Jan 23, 2023 at 03:35 PM

1 2 3 4 end
FM Forums \| Fuji Forum \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 3 4 end