p.3 #2 · NO FLAME INTENDED! anyone use just LR to process their RAF files?
molson wrote:
Oh, gosh... Detail slider set to 100, but no worms!
Processed in DxO and then adjusted to taste in LR, with a the extra Detail just for kicks.
You don't see worms in my files in small jpg images either. The example I shared was at 400% magnification, using settings that I'd never use in real life.
Of course, your share demonstrates yet another thing that the worm fans overlook: Even if they do show up at 400% if you look really close, they aren't visible in prints and they sure as heck aren't visible in little jpgs.
molson wrote:
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.
You're kidding, right? No, you probably are not. :-(
Let's see. So now it is, "the results are 'stupid' because maybe it isn't really from a Fujifilm camera..." because you didn't bother to check the EXIF on the original image from which the crops came... where the EXIF is included.
The original small jpg is posted here. On that page, click "View More Information" to see EXIF.
Or download that first image — the small one with the border — and open it in our favorite program that reads EXIF.
The EXIF is also IN the second file, the 1500 x 1500 100% crop. Download it and take a look.
Fujifilm XPro2
Fujifilm 16-55mm f/2.8 lens at 55mm
f/8, 1/120 second, ISO 200
I chose the old XPro2 24MP file because it is MORE prone to rare "worms" than my current 40MP x-trans sensor camera, which makes them even hard to produce.
The series of 400% mag crops are screenshots of the ACR editing screen where the raw file is editable, including the same sharpening settings that you'll find in Lightroom. Screenshots don't include camera EXIF. If you imagine that I somehow found pictures of the same exact subject, photographed at the same moment, from the same camera position, using a different camera (that I would have had to backpack 10 miles to the Sierra crest, where this lake is located), just so that 5+ years later I could use the second image to fool Molson in a FM thread...
p.3 #3 · NO FLAME INTENDED! anyone use just LR to process their RAF files?
gdanmitchell wrote:
You don't see worms in my files in small jpg images either. The example I shared was at 400% magnification, using settings that I'd never use in real life.
So now you're changing your story, and the Details slider isn't creating the artifacts? Why am I not surprised...
If your image has the demosaicing artifacts, they are visible in a standard LR preview (if you are viewing them on a decent monitor) , and are plainly visible at 100%. Your image also has to be in sharp focus in order for the demosaicing artifacts to appear, which probably explains why you're not seeing them...
Hmmm... very ugly viewed at 400%, but still no worms with the Detail slider set to 100. What ridiculous excuse will Dan concoct next? ...Show more →
p.3 #4 · NO FLAME INTENDED! anyone use just LR to process their RAF files?
Have you heard about Occam his razor?
A very apt reference... since it's been proven conclusively that the Detail slider cannot create the artifacts, and it has also been demonstrated exhaustively that changing the Detail slider cannot remove the artifacts, the simplest and most obvious conclusion is that the LR detail slider has nothing to do with the artifacts... no matter how you slice it.
Now, run back to Wikipedia and come up with another story to entertain us...
p.3 #6 · NO FLAME INTENDED! anyone use just LR to process their RAF files?
I've found that using the detail slider increases the appearance of wormy artifacts.
There's a balance between the sharpness, detail, texture, and clarity tools that can minimize the appearance of these effects, but it really depends on the photo and the viewer's sensitivity to these effects.
p.3 #7 · NO FLAME INTENDED! anyone use just LR to process their RAF files?
molson wrote:
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.
To be clear, I won’t say it doesn’t maze—I can’t prove this negative, after all—but I haven’t personally seen LRC do so, yet.
p.3 #8 · NO FLAME INTENDED! anyone use just LR to process their RAF files?
gdanmitchell wrote:
"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.
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
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.
All of those crops have worms too. It's pretty clear now that you don't understand the issue (lucky you).
I also don't care what magnification you think the crops are; I can easily compare them to the whole image and see that the magnification isn't larger than that it would show when magnifying and looking around in an image. Which I do all the time.
Edit: And I don't care one bit about how it looks in print, because I don't print.
Not saying the results are useless. Only that I personally would not accept it, when there are cameras without that stupid x-trans CFA.
p.3 #9 · NO FLAME INTENDED! anyone use just LR to process their RAF files?
At the suggestion of an image processor that knows much more about software than I do, I bought the DXO program. I was happy with my results before, but am pretty amazed at the results I now get. It is fun to reprocess old images using DXO and also Topaz plug in or two.
p.3 #10 · NO FLAME INTENDED! anyone use just LR to process their RAF files?
It’s visibly better than the Adobe raf conversion. Period.
Adobe is then much better to further edit the image…
Have fun!
Jeff Rogers wrote:
At the suggestion of an image processor that knows much more about software than I do, I bought the DXO program. I was happy with my results before, but am pretty amazed at the results I now get. It is fun to reprocess old images using DXO and also Topaz plug in or two.
p.3 #11 · NO FLAME INTENDED! anyone use just LR to process their RAF files?
mdude85 wrote:
I've found that using the detail slider increases the appearance of wormy artifacts.
But it doesn't create the wormy artifacts if they aren't present, and it doesn't remove them if they are present.
It's unfortunate that some people are going off on all sorts of tangents arguing about how they are dealing with something that's not even present in their example images in the first place.
p.3 #13 · NO FLAME INTENDED! anyone use just LR to process their RAF files?
mdude85 wrote:
Not sure what you mean by "create". If you cannot see the artifacts in the unaltered image then are they "present"?
No. If you can't see them viewed at 100% (on a decent monitor) then they are not present.
Look at the rocks on the gravel bar in this image - you should be able to see the "worms" at 100% (but the 200% view makes it easier to illustrate the artifacts).
p.3 #19 · NO FLAME INTENDED! anyone use just LR to process their RAF files?
molson shared an image:
Hmmm... very ugly viewed at 400%, but still no worms with the Detail slider set to 100. What ridiculous excuse will Dan concoct next?
Good lord, that is awful. Do you always over sharpen like this!?
On the other hand, this does point out yet another thing that lots of folks fail to understand about sharpening: Settings that create artifacts at high magnification settings are often the _better_ settings for your final output.
I first learned this when I became aware of the role of dot gain in ink jet printing and learned that slightly over-sharpening images after resizing and flattening for printing would result in the sharpest prints... from images that look slightly crunchy on the screen.
There's so much energy behind the worms belief system at this point, that arguing with folks about it seems pointless. The wild variety of the counter "argument" is evidence enough — apparently my demo images are both too sharp and too soft, and there are terrible awful worms in them.
I have to wonder if some of you actually ever go beyond looking for "proof" of problems in image files to actually making photographs...
p.3 #20 · NO FLAME INTENDED! anyone use just LR to process their RAF files?
gdanmitchell wrote:
Good lord, that is awful. Do you always over sharpen like this!?
On the other hand, this does point out yet another thing that lots of folks fail to understand about sharpening: Settings that create artifacts at high magnification settings are often the _better_ settings for your final output.
I first learned this when I became aware of the role of dot gain in ink jet printing and learned that slightly over-sharpening images after resizing and flattening for printing would result in the sharpest prints... from images that look slightly crunchy on the screen.
There's so much energy behind the worms belief system at this point, that arguing with folks about it seems pointless. The wild variety of the counter "argument" is evidence enough — apparently my demo images are both too sharp and too soft, and there are terrible awful worms in them.
I have to wonder if some of you actually ever go beyond looking for "proof" of problems in image files to actually making photographs......Show more →
Your reading comprehension skills are just as bad as your eyesight.
There are no demosaicing artifact "worms" present in any example you've posted so far, so why do you keep harping about how to deal with them, when you obviously don't even know what they look like? Maybe it's time you left the discussion to people who actually take photographs...
