![]() ![]() Checking this box forces Lightroom to apply zero sharpening and noise reduction by default, rather than what it thinks is best for the camera. The same argument applies to these settings. Therefore I would recommend setting the tags for both sharpness and noise reduction to “Do Not Include” to avoid overriding the default behaviour. I did some tests and for the X-T3 the default behaviour appears to be the same as the “Low” setting, but there is no point in us specifying this explicitly. Setting the tag to “Do Not Include” seems to allow Lightroom to fall back on its default behaviour for the camera. If we are trying to change the Lightroom demosaicing behaviour and nothing else then we don’t want to change the default baseline sharpness. This means that adjusting this tag will change how much effect Lightroom's default level of sharpening has on the image. With baseline sharpness set to low I had to increase the sharpening slider to 60 to get the same amount of sharpening as 40 had when the baseline sharpness was set to “Adobe Standard”. You can verify this though experimentation. Setting the baseline sharpness lower means that “40” has less effect compared to setting it higher. The maximum value is 150.īut, crucially, what “40” means is affected by the BaselineSharpness tag. Let’s assume that the defaults are a sensible starting point for a given camera.Īs a quick example, when I open a RAF file from an X-T3 it sets the sharpening slider to 40 by default, where as with a DNG from my Leica SL it is 25 by default. I haven’t found out how Lightroom decides on these values, but I assume it is part of its internal profile for each camera. ![]() When you open a RAW file in Lightroom it applies some default sharpening and noise reduction, but the precise amount depends on the camera. The X-T3 has no anti-aliasing filter, implying we might want this set to “Low” or “Very Low”, however I would suggest setting it to “Do Not Include” and I’ll explain why. Cameras with weak or no filters require less sharpening than cameras with strong anti-aliasing filters.” Camera models vary in the strengths of their anti-aliasing filters. "BaselineSharpness specifies the relative amount of sharpening required for this camera model, compared to a reference camera model. The DNG spec says the following about the sharpness tag: There is one baseline tag option for sharpness, and one for noise. Using these options “bakes in” the results to the RAW file, meaning they can’t be later reduced or adjusted in Lightroom, although you could still apply Lightroom’s own sharpening or noise reduction on top.Īs we have no particular issues with Lightroom’s sharpening or noise reduction algorithms, only its demosaicing, I’m leaving them set to “None” to keep the DNG as raw as possible. These settings are to do with applying Iridient’s own sharpening or noise reduction algorithms to the demosaiced output. There are two options here: Smoother or More Detailed. This is the only option which affects the demosaicing algorithm. I’m using the evaluation version of X-Transformer (version 1.1.1) for these tests, which watermarks the image. You run Enhance Details on a RAF file after importing it into Lightroom and, like X-Transformer, it also generates a DNG file containing demosaiced sensor data. I’ll compare both of these options to the Lightroom default rendering. Adobe also recently released a feature for Lightroom called “Enhance Details”, which people say could potentially replace X-Transformer in their workflow. The most common workaround for the problem is using a program called Iridient X-Transformer, which converts the Fuji RAF file into a DNG file with the sensor data already demosaiced using Iridient's own algorithm. As I don't yet own a Fuji camera, I used a selection of publicly available RAW files from the Fuji X-T3, trying to chose a set with enough variety to expose any demosaicing issues. Starting from a position of scepticism that Lightroom could be as bad as people say with X-Trans, I decided to investigate for myself. Adobe, on the other hand, said that many people are perfectly happy with their rendering, while acknowledging that things aren’t perfect. The short version of this controversy is that some people aren’t happy, calling Lightroom’s demosaicing of X-Trans files waxy or like an oil painting, and citing artefacts such as “worms” or "bacteria". ![]() That in turn led me to the controversy surrounding Lightroom’s demosaicing of Fuji’s X-Trans RAW files. ![]() I’ve recently been considering getting a smaller camera system, which naturally led me to look at Fujifilm’s smaller bodies like the recently announced X-T30. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |