But even then, Lightroom is not doing a good job.īottom line, LR isn't capable of producing the kind of results on the 24Mp x-trans sensors that C1 and Iridient Developer are.
Better results can be had by setting it very low - under 15 or even under 10 and sharpening from there. I keep seeing it hinted at here and didn't realize where it came from. Most of the time, and that's really always for me, it enhances and increases wormy artifacts. I don't recommend the detail method seen in the link above. No-brainer really.ĭoing that, the results are extremely different than C1 and Iridient.
#Iridient developer raf compressed support software
I'm totally fine with the extra conversion stage taking a moment, and the software is less than 25e. I always continue processing in Photoshop, and apply output sharpening after the image is scaled to final size- doing all this careful work on a lower quality source file just doesn't make much sense. Whether or not these differences are visible in your end product depends on the image content and output format, but to me it makes sense to preserve as high fidelity as possible in the first stage. The difference here a result of different demosaicing algorithms, the issues in LR sharpening originate from that and not the sharpening tool itself- it merely makes the issue more apparent by bringing out the demosaicing defects. Just to clarify, I'm discussing "capture/input sharpening" or the raw development stage. It's more like looking at files produced by different cameras tbh. In LR you either get less fine details, or as much details but many times more artifacts. Unfortunately the results are not "nearly identical" as you claim, they are dramatically different viewed at 100%. The RAW processing in X-Transformer is configurable, "Smoother" might suit some photos better, but in my tests More detailed/default produced great results. If you push LR sharpening to a level where you get as much fine detail (think dust particles, wood end grain, powder coating textures etc), you're neck deep in sharpening artifacts elsewhere. Using Iridient X-Transformer with "More detailed" demosaicing algo and "Default" sharpening simply results in a file with more clean details than is possible to get from the RAF file using the Detail module in Lightroom. The color difference I am sure is valid, but the entire reason I shoot RAW in the first place is so I can choose how it looks. When comparing these settings in LR to results using Iridient to import, the worms never fully go away in foliage and other certain situations regardless of which one you use, but the results are nearly identical. I tried moving the detail slider between 85 and 100, wormy artifacts are still present at 3:1 and the color differences still make Iridient worth using in a Fuji workflow. There's almost no difference once you do that. It's well known that LR's detail slider should be set between 85 to 100 as it changes the sharpening algorithm and gives results similar to Iridient and C1. Iridient Sharpening (v3 Detail+ X-Trans, Iridient Reveal, No sliders were moved from default) Imported RAF, sharpened using each program All of these photos have just been sharpened their respective programs. I can't believe the color/contrast differences before editing any of those sliders. Just another crop of the same photo to show the color difference.
The Iridient file looks like it has already been edited, but this is just the RAW processor at work.Īt 3:1 we can see the wormy artifacts in the LR file much more so than in the Iridient file. Please note the color differences in the sky and building. Both images are similar sharpness and at 1:1 wormy artifacts aren't a big issue. These are RAF files straight out of camera and thrown into each program and sharpened. No color/contrast editing has been applied for these images. Please don't start a Fuji vs Sony flame war, this isn't the purpose of this thread. I have since left Fuji for Sony for various reasons but I figured this post might help someone. I am also really surprised at how Iridient processes the RAF file. I used to think this was only for foliage but the wormy artifacts can start affect any image. I am sure most people know by now that LR doesn't handle RAF files too well.
0 kommentar(er)
