Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Fuji Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1       2      
3
       4       end
  

Archive 2023 · NO FLAME INTENDED! anyone use just LR to process their RAF files?

  
 
molson
Online
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #1 · p.3 #1 · NO FLAME INTENDED! anyone use just LR to process their RAF files?


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.




  X-E2S    XF100-400mmF4.5-5.6 R LM OIS WR lens    400mm    f/5.6    1/420s    6400 ISO    0.0 EV  




Jan 23, 2023 at 04:54 PM
gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #2 · 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...

I eagerly await your next irrelevant objection.

Have you heard about Occam his razor?



Jan 23, 2023 at 05:02 PM
molson
Online
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #3 · 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
...Show more







Jan 23, 2023 at 05:22 PM
molson
Online
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #4 · 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...



Jan 23, 2023 at 05:32 PM
vallejo
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #5 · p.3 #5 · NO FLAME INTENDED! anyone use just LR to process their RAF files?


Now, why did the OP had to write “ no flame intended”…he should have known better…rsrsrs…


Jan 23, 2023 at 05:52 PM
mdude85
Online
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #6 · 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.



Jan 23, 2023 at 06:02 PM
CKrueger
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #7 · 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.



Jan 23, 2023 at 09:00 PM
Makten
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #8 · 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
...Show more

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.



Jan 24, 2023 at 02:48 AM
Jeff Rogers
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #9 · 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.


Jan 24, 2023 at 09:40 AM
vallejo
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #10 · 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.




Jan 24, 2023 at 10:27 AM
molson
Online
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #11 · 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.



Jan 24, 2023 at 10:33 AM
mdude85
Online
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #12 · p.3 #12 · NO FLAME INTENDED! anyone use just LR to process their RAF files?


molson wrote:
But it doesn't create the wormy artifacts if they aren't present, and it doesn't remove them if they are present.



Not sure what you mean by "create". If you cannot see the artifacts in the unaltered image then are they "present"?

Dialing up the detail slider can "create" of all sorts of undesirable artifacts that were not visible in the original, unaltered image.




Jan 24, 2023 at 11:10 AM
molson
Online
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #13 · 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).





Lightroom File, 100% View, Default Sharpening







Lightroom File, 200% View, Default Sharpening




Jan 24, 2023 at 12:04 PM
molson
Online
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #14 · p.3 #14 · NO FLAME INTENDED! anyone use just LR to process their RAF files?


You can definitely make the effect more visible with the Detail slider or the Sharpen slider, as you would obviously expect:












Jan 24, 2023 at 12:07 PM
molson
Online
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #15 · p.3 #15 · NO FLAME INTENDED! anyone use just LR to process their RAF files?


But reducing the Detail slider to 0 doesn't make the artifacts go away - it just blurs them a bit (as one would obviously expect...)





200% View







100% View




Jan 24, 2023 at 12:08 PM
molson
Online
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #16 · p.3 #16 · NO FLAME INTENDED! anyone use just LR to process their RAF files?


But the same image processed with Capture One does not show the wormy artifacts... even with aggressive sharpening applied.





100% View







200% View




Jan 24, 2023 at 12:10 PM
molson
Online
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #17 · p.3 #17 · NO FLAME INTENDED! anyone use just LR to process their RAF files?


And as an added bonus, the Capture One files just look cleaner with better colours - but at the cost of a much more tedious workflow.







Jan 24, 2023 at 12:11 PM
gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #18 · p.3 #18 · NO FLAME INTENDED! anyone use just LR to process their RAF files?


delete

Edited on Jan 24, 2023 at 07:57 PM · View previous versions



Jan 24, 2023 at 12:23 PM
gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #19 · 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...



Jan 24, 2023 at 12:24 PM
molson
Online
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #20 · 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
...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...




Jan 24, 2023 at 12:32 PM
1       2      
3
       4       end




FM Forums | Fuji Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1       2      
3
       4       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username       Or Reset password



This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.