# sharpening Fuji X files with NIK sharpener pro?



## stephan_w (Apr 22, 2014)

Hello

there is some discussion about the handling of Fuji T X1-files in LR. Since version 5.4, LR supports Fuji-RAW-files but it looks as the output is not so satisfying as expected.

In the dpreview-forum there was a suggestion to use pre-sharpening with NIK presharpener pro, befor making any other adjustements in LR. I find this suggestion a bit strange, as the exported - tiff - file is a LR-export anyway. I made some tests which were not bad, but the idea of systematically blow up my files to tiff are holding me back.

So maybe there are some Fuji X users here who can give some advice ?


----------



## wblink (Apr 22, 2014)

Hi,

Read this too and also many people like the rendering of Capture One Pro much better. I cannot try this because I run a W7/32 and Capture is only available for 64 bit OS's.


----------



## Jknights (Apr 23, 2014)

The reported issues with ACR and Lightroom processing of Fuji X-Trans RAW files, for me, seem to only occur if sharpening is applied aggressively to images which then results in the much quoted effects.  If 'light sharpening' is applied in LR5 or PS CS6 then there is little or no display of the quoted watercolour or painterly effects.  A second round of sharpening can later be performed usually with NIK Sharpener or Photoshop USM with no negative results.


I would be interested to get feedback on this from some of the experts on the forum as I am sure that the painterly or watercolour effect is real but it is a question of why is it worse in LR than some other RAW processors but also why is it made worse by what I call 'excessive' sharpening.  Since the degree of sharpening varies with the image and its content it is difficult to put an absolute number boundary but I seem to be able to reproduce it with sharpening in the 65-90 slider values but if I reduce these values to 25-30 it goes away.   Almost always the effect is seen in green areas but I have also seen it in red areas of the image where OOF areas are found.
I think for 95% of my images this is a non-issue but for 5% it can be a challenge that makes for extra work but usually not an unusable image.

BTW I also use Capture One Pro and the same effects can be seen but to a lesser extent.


Are others experiencing or seeing this effect and what strategies do you use to reduce it ?


----------



## Mark Sirota (Apr 23, 2014)

I rented an X-E2 for a vacation a couple of weeks ago, which is my only real experience playing with these files. (By comparison, I've been using Nikon raw files with Lightroom for 8 years.)

I find I can make the "painterly" thing happen pretty easily, but it's not that hard to back off on the settings. It does happen more easily than with Nikon files, no question about it. I also find that the files don't come into Lightroom looking as good as they do from the Nikons -- they need more work -- but that could just be a familiarity issue.  I'm renting the camera again for another vacation next month, so I'll get a bit more experience then.

I'm sure the difference between raw processors that we're discussing here is all about the demosaic stage. The Fujifilm X cameras don't have a typical Bayer array, so the years of tweaking and tuning done to the Bayer demosaic algorithm doesn't apply, each raw converter had to develop something new. And the comparatively small market share for these cameras doesn't make the software vendors eager to spend a lot of engineering time to perfect it.


----------



## sizzlingbadger (Apr 23, 2014)

i thought the whole point of X-Trans was it didn't need pre-sharpening as there is no anti-alias filter. My X-E1 was sharp enough at the default settings in LR. I did see the painterly effect pretty easily though when lifting the sharpening levels. I have Capture One and it does make a better job of the files but it drives me insane as its so unreliable.


----------



## Jknights (Apr 23, 2014)

Mark, 
I have no problem with my Nikon NEFs in LR but for a small number of images from my Fujis I get the painterly effect but if I reduce the sharpening than the effect is a slightly less sharpened image and no painterlyeffect.
I agree that the demosaicing stage seems to be stage that creates the potential for the painterly effect.  The use of non-Bayer array should not be a big deal to a giant the size of Adobe especially when Fuji have or are currently providing technical information that should aid the process.  That said every iteration from early XTrans support has been an improvement   Maybe we just need to learn to be more patient in our now,now,now world.

However I think that Adobe as the market leader has the finances to sort this fairly easily through some purchased consulting from the likes of Dave Coffin (DCRAW) and Sandy McGuffog (AccuRAW) or others.   Since I am not embedded in the Adobe management team I can comment on their thoughts on this.  For me as an Adobe user for >10 years I see this a being poor customer care rather than clever management delivering shareholder value. Also if they didnt think it important enough they wouldnt add the RAW support into LR and ACR.   If you have happy customers and are charging the right amount for your product the you will have happy shareholders as well.

I do think Adobe take the Fuji X-Trans products seriously as they have added support for the Fuji simulations in LR5.4.  This really good work.  Now with some twists I have my own Fuji simulation presets that I can use for my Nikon files as well.   Thank you Adobe.


----------



## Jknights (Apr 23, 2014)

sizzlingbadger said:


> i thought the whole point of X-Trans was it didn't need pre-sharpening as there is no anti-alias filter. My X-E1 was sharp enough at the default settings in LR. I did see the painterly effect pretty easily though when lifting the sharpening levels. I have Capture One and it does make a better job of the files but it drives me insane as its so unreliable.


I tend to not-sharpen my Fuji RAF conversions to JPG files until I send to print but if I use default or slightly lower than usually sharpening all is good.  I also sharpen slightly for web use.

In truth if I follow my normal workflow I have little problem at all as I catalog in LR5 (the catalogs in Capture One Pro are too flaky for me).  I keyword and rate images in LR5.  The 5* images go to customers, but if I edit these at all then they are opened in Capture One Pro 7.2.1 and saved as TIFF if they need further work in Photoshop.  All edited files are sharpened in PS-CS6 and saved as JPGs and for large format printing as TIFF.   The images that require no edits (80%) other than crop and small spot retouching are processed to JPGs with limited sharpening. 

I will say this with some caveats that may apply to specific lighting conditions.
The results from Capture One Pro (COP) are only very slightly better so if a person has LR5 currently and use it for all their RAW processing then the additional investment in tome and money could be considered to be a waste.

BTW:  I dont claim to be an expert in LR or Capture One Pro as I only use LR for my cataloguing and prior to getting COPro I used Bibble Pro/Corel Aftershot Pro (ASP) for 12 years and this is where I am expert (Tester and support helper).  However I find the service from Corel Support to be woeful and their ability to provide RAW support for the latest camera causes me problems.  I still beta test the new Aftershot Pro products but their release schedule is very slow.
I have Capture One Pro because I got it in a special sale and I got it at a point where I was dropping ASP due to the poor RAW update process.


----------



## stephan_w (Apr 24, 2014)

just a side note in this discussion: Would it be advisable not to import in a DNG-file then? Actually i importa all my files in DNG, but if the processing of Fjui-Raw-files seems to be sub optimal, then maybe better wait till there is an improved version?


----------



## Jim Wilde (Apr 24, 2014)

I'm not sure why or how the processing of an original Raw file would be any different than one converted to DNG. It's still the same raw data being processed after all, but easy enough to test for yourself to see if you can spot a difference.


----------



## sizzlingbadger (Apr 24, 2014)

Jim, because it limits your choice of raw convertor. Capture One is terrible with dng files for example. (You would have to keep the originals too if you wanted to cover all situations which for me makes converting to dng pointless in the first place)


----------



## Jknights (Apr 26, 2014)

I did a wedding shoot just after Easter.  As an experiment I processed all the XE1 and XT1 images through Lightroom5.4 and output them.  I am just looking through the results for the painterly effect.
I decided in the processing of all these files that if you keep sharpening to 60 or less then there were no problems.  On a small number of files I needed to push to 75 and I could see some nastiness but only because I was looking at 100%.

My conclusion is that with the Fuji files that if you limit yourself to 60 then there should be no problem.  If you use 25-60 then the images are very good.   
However on my Nikons I can use up to 95 with no problem but usually I max at 80.
I think that the Develop module is better than I remember (am I being converted?) when I last used it a few years ago.


----------



## Jim Wilde (Apr 26, 2014)

Jknights said:


> I think that the Develop module is better than I remember (am I being converted?) when I last used it a few years ago.



It might depend on how many years ago. Lightroom 4, which was released in March 2012, saw the introduction of Process Version 2012....this was a major update to the develop engine, and is generally regarded as being capable of producing far better images than its predecessor, PV2010. So yes, if you are using PV2012 for the first time you should notice a difference from your previous experience.


----------



## Jknights (Apr 26, 2014)

Jim Wilde said:


> It might depend on how many years ago. Lightroom 4, which was released in March 2012, saw the introduction of Process Version 2012....this was a major update to the develop engine, and is generally regarded as being capable of producing far better images than its predecessor, PV2010. So yes, if you are using PV2012 for the first time you should notice a difference from your previous experience.



Yes it is more like LR2 or LR3 when I last tried the Develop module.
It is a lot better now.


----------

