Bill Pierce
Well-known
There is an immense amount of discussion about different cameras, lenses and sensors and their “sharpness.” And, in this forum, we’ve all discussed the rarely discussed element that can kayo the sharpness - US, THE FOLKS USING THE CAMERA. Camera shake, misfocus and all our other mistakes are all the more obvious in a system capable of producing good “sharpness.” But not all the transgressions occur when we are taking the picture. Just as in the film days, some of the more subtle ones occur when we are “developing” the image - albeit we are now using a computer instead of a darkroom. And, just as it was in the wet darkroom, there are techniques that can promote "sharpness."
Sometimes it’s our choice of “developer” or image processing program. Sometimes it’s our misuse of the program. For example, Fuji files still show different degrees of sharpness in different programs. Probably more important, different sharpening techniques within a given program can give different results for a variety of sensors. Let me give you an example that is a little bit of both situations.
One of the “sharpest” programs for processing Fuji files (and a lot of other files, too) is AccuRaw. While the program has its own sharpening features built in, it is possible to use the program to produce a zero’d DNG file, no adjustment to exposure, contrast, color or anything else, just a conversion of the raw file to DNG format. A program like Photoshop can then be used to make these adjustments in the file. It also means that you can use an auxilliary sharpening program. One of the first and best such programs was PhotoKit Sharpener which, among other features, had different initial sharpening settings for types of sensors or scans of different types of film. There was one setting for high end scanning backs. It turns out that for whatever reason, that setting works well with the DNG’s from the Fuji APS C sensors. The sharp conversion and the sharp sharpening program combine to produce files that are so sharp that at very high magnifications you can see a pattern that reflects the individual cels of the sensor, something that looks like a cross between grain and the dot screen in a photo engraving. While this isn’t something very desirable if you’re making murals of high ISO images, it’s pretty impressive when you’re making more conventional prints of photos taken when you were able to optimize all the elements that go into a “sharp” picture. Is this a working technique you should use for every picture - absolutely not. But it is indicative of the variation possible in the digital darkroom. Sadly, at the other end of that spectrum, there are ways of using programs that will take the same raw file and reduce its potential quality. Any tips you have discovered for getting the best out of the digital darkroom are of value to all of us. And any humiliating mistakes, which we presume you are no longer making, well, we would appreciate the warning.
Sometimes it’s our choice of “developer” or image processing program. Sometimes it’s our misuse of the program. For example, Fuji files still show different degrees of sharpness in different programs. Probably more important, different sharpening techniques within a given program can give different results for a variety of sensors. Let me give you an example that is a little bit of both situations.
One of the “sharpest” programs for processing Fuji files (and a lot of other files, too) is AccuRaw. While the program has its own sharpening features built in, it is possible to use the program to produce a zero’d DNG file, no adjustment to exposure, contrast, color or anything else, just a conversion of the raw file to DNG format. A program like Photoshop can then be used to make these adjustments in the file. It also means that you can use an auxilliary sharpening program. One of the first and best such programs was PhotoKit Sharpener which, among other features, had different initial sharpening settings for types of sensors or scans of different types of film. There was one setting for high end scanning backs. It turns out that for whatever reason, that setting works well with the DNG’s from the Fuji APS C sensors. The sharp conversion and the sharp sharpening program combine to produce files that are so sharp that at very high magnifications you can see a pattern that reflects the individual cels of the sensor, something that looks like a cross between grain and the dot screen in a photo engraving. While this isn’t something very desirable if you’re making murals of high ISO images, it’s pretty impressive when you’re making more conventional prints of photos taken when you were able to optimize all the elements that go into a “sharp” picture. Is this a working technique you should use for every picture - absolutely not. But it is indicative of the variation possible in the digital darkroom. Sadly, at the other end of that spectrum, there are ways of using programs that will take the same raw file and reduce its potential quality. Any tips you have discovered for getting the best out of the digital darkroom are of value to all of us. And any humiliating mistakes, which we presume you are no longer making, well, we would appreciate the warning.
willie_901
Veteran
For LR/ACR the Film-Simulation Camera profiles co-developed by Fujifilm and Adobe render better than the Adobe Standard Profile. It is a mistake not to use one of these as a starting point.
With LR rendering workflows/strategies that worked well with Bayer raw do not work as well with XTrans raw. XTrans raw rendering can be optimized using completely different workflows and strategies. The effects of the Development Pane Sliders are different. This is inconvenient as it requires a steeper learning curve compared to changing from one Bayer CFA brand or body to new Bayer CFA brand or body.
Some more general mistakes would be:
- not using third-party plug-ins; NIK's Silver Effex Pro 2 is particularly useful for B&W rendering
- not using selective rendering adjustments for regions that benefit from different parameters (e.g. color temperature in areas lit by lighting with different temperatures; appropriate/subtle dodging and burning)
- not using a calibrated display monitor in a work space with homogeneous ambient lighting temperatures
- not matching the rendering to the printer platform
My most humiliating mistakes involve overdoing changes to hue and saturation levels. Another specific example is gratuitously pushing shadow regions too much just because the a new camera's shadow signal-to-noise ratio was so much better than my previous camera's.
With LR rendering workflows/strategies that worked well with Bayer raw do not work as well with XTrans raw. XTrans raw rendering can be optimized using completely different workflows and strategies. The effects of the Development Pane Sliders are different. This is inconvenient as it requires a steeper learning curve compared to changing from one Bayer CFA brand or body to new Bayer CFA brand or body.
Some more general mistakes would be:
- not using third-party plug-ins; NIK's Silver Effex Pro 2 is particularly useful for B&W rendering
- not using selective rendering adjustments for regions that benefit from different parameters (e.g. color temperature in areas lit by lighting with different temperatures; appropriate/subtle dodging and burning)
- not using a calibrated display monitor in a work space with homogeneous ambient lighting temperatures
- not matching the rendering to the printer platform
My most humiliating mistakes involve overdoing changes to hue and saturation levels. Another specific example is gratuitously pushing shadow regions too much just because the a new camera's shadow signal-to-noise ratio was so much better than my previous camera's.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
I'm using FF Canon with 50L.
Both digital and film FF Canon gives me enough sharpness, colors and saturation without hassle as above in old version of Lightroom and in the classic darkroom.
Once in awhile I use 100L and this gives me sharpness I have to desharp
Both digital and film FF Canon gives me enough sharpness, colors and saturation without hassle as above in old version of Lightroom and in the classic darkroom.
Once in awhile I use 100L and this gives me sharpness I have to desharp
MCTuomey
Veteran
It's a Fuji x-trans file workflow conundrum, for me. Alternative #1 is to do raw conversion and subsequent processing entirely in LR. Alternative #2 is to do raw conversion outside of LR and import to LR for subsequent processing. Alternative #1 sacrifices ultimate quality to the extent another raw converter would do a better initial conversion. Alternative #2 sacrifices the benefit of having the fuji profiles available.
I'm in alt #1 now. I want it all, d@mm!t.
I'm in alt #1 now. I want it all, d@mm!t.
Bill Pierce
Well-known
Mike -
I think Iridient Developer, a good conversion program for Fuji files, also has some Fuji like profiles. Fuji isn’t giving anything away, but the developer has created profiles that produce similar results. Check the Iridient web site. (I don’t use the profiles, tweaking colors on my own. But I think they are available on the web site.)
MCTuomey
Veteran
Bill, thanks. As far as I know, Iridient Developer is not available for windows, just mac. But I get the point - I should try to see whether some of the film emulation presets might work well enough to replace the proprietary fuji profiles.
