1. Welcome to Cameraderie.org—a friendly camera & photography discussion forum!

    If you are thinking of buying a camera or need help with your photos, you will find our forum members full of advice! Click here to join for free!

Worm artifacts with LR

Discussion in 'Fuji Cameras' started by Bobby Tingle, Jul 7, 2018.

  1. Bobby Tingle

    Bobby Tingle Super Moderator Subscribing Member

    Dec 31, 2013
    Louisville, Ky
    I recently read an article on Fujirumors.com about sharpening Fuji files. The article stated that LR still causes worm artifacts. Which I've heard about but never given any thought to. Due to me not shooting foliage and grass. And I did most of my post work in Capture One. Having recently reacquired LR I felt this could be an area of concern. So, I checked out some recent photos which I had run through LR. Sure enough, the wormy artifacting was there. Apparently directly affected more by the detail slider than the sharpening slider. I ran the same image through C1. The artifacts were not present in the C1 edit. Adobe still has some work to do with it's algorithms for Fuji files. Which they will have to do given Fuji's ever increasing presence in the market, including more and more professional shooters.

    If you're still with me at this point and haven't already moved on or started typing your reply. This is the most important thing to remember. To see the worm artifacts in the images, they must be enlarged to 2:1 in LR. Or to 100-200% crop. While this is a real issue, it is an issue to pixel peepers and discovered by pixel. Of the images I have posted here, on social media, and other sites edited in LR. A total of 0 people have pointed out the artifacts. I haven't ordered any prints, but I'd bet the artifacts won't show up.
     
  2. Luke

    Luke Super Moderator Subscribing Member

    Nov 11, 2011
    Milwaukee, WI USA
    Luke
    I'm the opposite of a pixel peeper, but now I'm curious. Can you show a photo processed both ways at normal viewing and at 200%
     
  3. Bobby Tingle

    Bobby Tingle Super Moderator Subscribing Member

    Dec 31, 2013
    Louisville, Ky
    I tried to get the editing as close as possible in the two programs.
    LR
    i-4np2v22-L.jpg
    X-Pro2    XF23mmF2 R WR    23mm    f/2.0    1/200s    ISO 1250


    crop
    i-ZcRwPcM-L.jpg
    X-Pro2    XF23mmF2 R WR    23mm    f/2.0    1/200s    ISO 1250


    Capture One
    i-Tt4SBrF-L.jpg
    X-Pro2    XF23mmF2 R WR    23mm    f/2.0    1/200s    ISO 1250


    crop
    i-wCtDtDN-L.jpg
    X-Pro2    XF23mmF2 R WR    23mm    f/2.0    1/200s    ISO 1250


    For comparison, a straight out of camera jpg shot in 1:1 format, sharpening set to +2, using acros
    i-JxBs93s-L.jpg
    X-Pro2    XF23mmF2 R WR    23mm    f/2.0    1/200s    ISO 1000


    crop
    i-qL2DtcP-L.jpg
    X-Pro2    XF23mmF2 R WR    23mm    f/2.0    1/200s    ISO 1000


    In the C1 crop you can still see pores in the skin and detail in the glasses. In the LR crop the wormy artifacts covers the entire image. But you can see how much cropping/enlargement has to be done in order to see the artifacting compared to the full image. Not surprisingly, the sooc jpg looks the best and retains the best resolution at a huge crop.
     
    • Informative Informative x 4
    • Like Like x 1
  4. Matero

    Matero Top Veteran Subscribing Member

    697
    Jan 28, 2014
    Helsinki, Finland
    This is why I’ve chosen a path to trying to utilise in camera settings as well as possible. Sooc jpegs are at best superbs. However at times also frustrating. But time saved in PP is a bonus :) 
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
  5. Bobby Tingle

    Bobby Tingle Super Moderator Subscribing Member

    Dec 31, 2013
    Louisville, Ky
    I agree with all of this. More and more I’ve been shooting just in jpg. When I shoot raw it is either for more latitude in shadows and highlights. Like for a landscape. For portrait work where it will need to go through that whole process of getting the skin right for the client. Or purely for the safety net of having the raw files when shooting something like an awesome event. It’s easier to capture the moment and get the light correct. Then think about B&W or or which film simulation to use later in post.
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
  6. Matero

    Matero Top Veteran Subscribing Member

    697
    Jan 28, 2014
    Helsinki, Finland
    Yes, of course usage of RAW has benefits. I’m lucky to have photography as a hobby only and shooting for myself. It’s not so serious. Then challenging oneself with the settings and making decisions on the fly for soocs is a good therapy and keeps your thoughts away from day job :thumbup:
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  7. AndyMcD

    AndyMcD Veteran

    373
    Jul 15, 2017
    East Midlands, UK
    I watched a Youtube video on this subject yesterday (by someone called Omar) and his conclusion matches yours @Bobby Tingle@Bobby Tingle . I've read about this a few times on DPR as well, but every time this is discussed the tone gets very "shouty" and stops being objective.

    This is the first proper explanation of this that I've seen. Like you, no one has ever pointed out worms in any of my pictures and I can't say that I have ever seen any - but I have my sharpening set to a default within LR and rarely go into that area. I shoot RAW+JPEG for the 1:1 screen preview but always process the RAWS in LR, though I do try to get everything correct in camera to avoid having to do heavy lifting in PP. I will start taking a look to see if I do get worms, for academic interest.
     
    • Appreciate Appreciate x 1
  8. addieleman

    addieleman Regular

    99
    Oct 20, 2012
    The Netherlands
    Ad Dieleman
    For people that like to stick to Lightroom (like me): you might be better off keeping the amount of sharpening low in Lightroom and apply additional sharpening in Photoshop. From what I've seen on the 'net, that seems to yield better results, but of course it's more work and you end up with an additional file alongside the raw.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  9. Adam Bonn

    Adam Bonn Top Veteran

    575
    Jan 13, 2016
    Porto
    Adam Bonn
    I don't really use LR for my Fuji files, but in general I find many of LR's sliders to offer waaaaay more than anyone would ever want!

    At some point in Fuji folklore, someone made popular the notion that Fuji RAFs needed 100% on the detail slider

    lr-df.JPG

    Personally I feel this is a mistake, well with the 24mp files at least.... YMMV

    For my opinion...

    In LR RAFs can look better using a large radius, little detail and a reasonable amount of sharpening

    lr-0d.JPG

    These are low res screen grabs, and I put very little effort into this :D 

    Both images have a degree of worminess to them... (do note zero NR and masking though) but the high detail one doesn't really offer much detail either!

    I'm posting to show that a lot of LR sharpening can be applied it's just IMO the detail slider that care should be taken with...

    Those of you using LR will no doubt have far better settings honed over many images of usage...

    ...not these quick and dirty ones cobbled together by a mildly hungover street photographer, who never really shoots anything with texture or foliage etc

    For anyone madly in love with LR, and who gets sleepless nights over worminess

    Then IMO bung $30 (or whatever it costs) to Brian at Iridient and get the transformer tool

    lr-xid.JPG


    (I went a bit far with this last one, but you get the idea)
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  10. bilzmale

    bilzmale Super Moderator Emeritus Subscribing Member

    Jul 17, 2010
    Perth, Western Australia
    Bill Shinnick
    With an X100T arriving this week and having not shot Fuji for at least 5 years can I ask what is the preferred RAW converter these days. I ditched Adobe 6 months ago and have DxO EditLab, On1 Photo RAW, Luminar and a few odds and ends. Yes I collect software as much or more than I collect cameras. :laugh1:
     
  11. Adam Bonn

    Adam Bonn Top Veteran

    575
    Jan 13, 2016
    Porto
    Adam Bonn
    You know you’re going to get 7 different opinions from 5 people on this right? :D 
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  12. Bobby Tingle

    Bobby Tingle Super Moderator Subscribing Member

    Dec 31, 2013
    Louisville, Ky
    @AndyMcD@AndyMcD That is why I started looking at this. For academic purposes. My intent here was not to bash on LR. Just to see if the artifacts were there. As I had not noticed them during the couple of weeks I have been using LR again.

    @Adam Bonn@Adam Bonn I think that idea of cranking the detail slider to 100 started with the 16mp sensor and the interwebs spread it as gospel. It may have actually worked for the files from that sensor. But I agree with you that it is horrible for the files from the current 24mp sensor. You definitely have it correct with minimal use of the detail slider.

    @bilzmale@bilzmale OnOne Raw does a good job with Fuji files. Capture One is one of the best. Along with Iridient Developer. Silky Pix is probably worth a look also.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  13. Tim Williams

    Tim Williams Top Veteran Subscribing Member

    827
    May 31, 2017
    Central Florida
    Timothy Williams
    I run everything through Lightroom with zero sharpening. If it's a keeper it goes to PS or a plugin.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  14. Bobby Tingle

    Bobby Tingle Super Moderator Subscribing Member

    Dec 31, 2013
    Louisville, Ky
    That seems to be the general consensus of the internet. A bit of reading determined that PS handles sharpening of Fuji files better than LR. Also Iridient was a popular choice for sharpening Fuji files in LR.
     
  15. AndyMcD

    AndyMcD Veteran

    373
    Jul 15, 2017
    East Midlands, UK
    One thing that I struggle with in all this is that LR sharpens the pics a second time when exporting/printing, so do we really need this pre-sharpening (especially given that there is no AA filter on the Fuji X sensors)?
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  16. Adam Bonn

    Adam Bonn Top Veteran

    575
    Jan 13, 2016
    Porto
    Adam Bonn
    You can turn that off!

    This is one area of LR that I personally find to be half baked...

    As what amounts to “small, medium or large” (in the output sharpening box) isn’t very user configurable

    In SilkyPix (which is my raf go to) the output sharpening box has amount/radius/masking and each is completely user configurable

    In LR (but not on fuji files, which I don’t use in lr) I tend to turn global sharpening right down (15) then use the brush/radial filter to sharpen the part(s) I want to stand out a bit (creative sharpening)
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  17. Bobby Tingle

    Bobby Tingle Super Moderator Subscribing Member

    Dec 31, 2013
    Louisville, Ky
    I also leave that turned off in LR.
     
  18. Tim Williams

    Tim Williams Top Veteran Subscribing Member

    827
    May 31, 2017
    Central Florida
    Timothy Williams
    I do process my RAW files in Irridient Developer with no LR sharpening and my final sharpen is in PS smart sharpen , to taste. As I have not been very active lately I don't have files to try in Skylum, but usually my keepers don't need much. I try to crop when I shoot, and adjust EV on the fly.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  19. Bobby Tingle

    Bobby Tingle Super Moderator Subscribing Member

    Dec 31, 2013
    Louisville, Ky
    And more tinkering. The nose area retains a good bit of detail. The worm artifacts are lessened quite a bit. They are still there if you take this huge crop and magnify even further.
    Clarity 15
    Sharpness 75
    Radius 2.3
    Detail 10

    DSCF0008-3.jpg
    X-Pro2    XF50mmF2 R WR    50mm    f/2.0    1/200s    ISO 800

    This is the original image for comparison
    DSCF0008.jpg
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.