![]() ![]() ![]() Looking closely at the greens you can see some of the issues that LR has. NOTE again the greens on the LR image appear overdone. With each file I used the default sharpening of the raw converter, in fact I added a bit more to the C1 conversion as I felt the default left too many details on the table.Įxample no 4, a comparison of C1 and LR on Fuji raw files I feel that the only way to really tell how well a image file will hold up in printing is to view at 100%, not view at print size. To capture these crops, I opened both images in Adobe CC 2014 and then selected view at 100%. But now lets look at a few crops from each of these files. Both C1 and LR were able to give me the strong yellows and reds that were available and also provide for a nice tone to the blue sky. This type of shot is a hard one to work since I had to expose for the sky and still have enough room in my foreground to pull up the shadows without losing too much details to noise. Out the gate, I feel that the C1 image has a bit better representation of the color that was displayed, however the LR file is not far off. In this case I was not looking for a true 1:3 ratio pano, but instead I planned to stitch the 3 files into 1 normal 3:2 landscape shot which would allow me to have more resolution for printing. This image is the middle of a 3 part panorama series I took. In this example, I have taken a typical photo from one of my Arkansas landscape studies. I used the 18-55 on the X-T1 and as I recall the file was taken at 200 iso.Ī side by side conversion, Fuji X-T1 file in C1 and LR Click on the image at anytime to view it larger. ![]() Note that what I am writing holds true for the X-E1, Xe2 and XT1 as they all share the same sensor. Here is a side by side comparison of a Fuji X-T1 raw taken in the fall of 2014. LR has gotten better in that it no longer has the issue with haloing around green/blue transitions, which was such an issue before. Overall I feel the C1 images converted loose too much details and get a bloated look where as the LR files can start to take on a overdone look which is some cases can start to look painterly.īut for sure I can’t say C1 is better than LR or vise versa and I have been working on Fuji X-trans files now since early 2013. Color out the gate C1 wins more times than not, but I can get there in LR. To me C1 has some positives, but so does LR and in no way do I see C1 as the end all to Fuji conversions.īut to my eyes, many times the LR conversion looks better and holds up for sure in a interpolation scheme for making a larger print. With the Fuji files, I personally don’t think you can make definite all or nothing statements, as C1 gets around the issues by applying too much blur in the demosaicing alogrithim, and LR seems to pull out the edges a bit more than necessary, neither of the tools seem able to get all the surface details that are there, (when you use Iridient developer for example). You can easily find out about the differences by a quick web search and since so much has been written already I am going to move on to the actual raw conversions. Due to the different layout on the CMOS chip, the Fuji raw file needs a different domosaicing algorithm than most Bayer pattern CMOS sensors. One of the single largest issues that comes up with Fuji raw files is how to get the most detail out of the files. I prefer to do the majority of my work in either Lightroom (LR) or Capture One (C1). I have worked with all three and since Iridient chooses to only work on the MAC platform, I rarely use it. At present there are three main solutions: Since the announcement of the Fuji X-Trans cameras, which now max out at 16MP in an APS-C format, there has been a lot written about which raw conversion software provides the best output. I realized once again that there is still no perfect raw conversion software for Fuji files however it does seem to me that Lightroom CC has made some improvements. Since 2014 was such a great year on the Buffalo National River for fall colors, I have been going back over some of my shots. There were some spots that held OK color, but they were the exception. Since July Arkansas has been short on rainfall and the month of September and first half of October no measurable rain fell in the state. In 2015, Arkansas did not present a good color display really anywhere throughout the state. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |