![]() In any case, I think the take away here is that if you do not apply sharpening the worms don't appear, and the more sharpening you apply, the greater the chance of worms, and so to an extent, this problem exists for users who sharpen their photos more? And that in that sense, C1 and IX can be better solutions, but not everyone needs to use those software? The main issue as you might have guessed is that I rather not have to use C1 or IX since I am very used to LR and IX costs money for a plugin that does only one thing (albeit and important thing). And you guys did warn me about the differences of opinion, but I thought just maybe the issue got resolved or at least evolved since the early days. If you have LR or are planning to get it, I think it will serve you well, especially with a minimum amount of tweaking of settings. Of course there are as many ways of sharpening as there are photographers! ACR is easy to use, but experience really helps! Then there is masking and the use different degrees of sharpening for each area - easy enough to do with layers and PS. Cameras differ wildly, depending a large degree on mp count. Maybe even 1.5 pixel for Radius, at 100% for Amount, and 0% for Threshold. 6 for Amount, at 150% for Radius, and 0% for Threshold. Over sharpening is a huge problem for many photographers. Which Lightroom, I wonder? There is a world of difference between them. I then used Topaz Sharpen AI on both files. I repeated the processing in both, turning down the sharpening. The "worms" were ever so slight compared to the SilkyPix files. At high magnification, I noticed what looked like "worms" in ACR. I then used SilkyPix to develop the file, then took the resulting TIFF into Photoshop. Just for grins, I processed it with ACR and took it into Photoshop. I was processing a Fuji X-E3 RAW file this weekend. Look at the results full screen and at 100% crop. Then try any of the many alternate RAW converters and compare the results. If you don't have a recent version of Photoshop or Lightroom on your computer download an evaluation and try it. I don't think you will learn anything by listing to the answers you get here.ĭo your own test. I believe this was once a problem and that Adobe resolved it about a year ago. The above paragraph is nothing more than my opinion based on my experience and others on this forum will disagree vehemently so the best route for you (IMHO) is to do the research for yourself. The irony is it's been so long since I used Enhanced Details I couldn't say when or what I used it for. For those rare situations, if I want to feel good about the image when pixel peeping at 100 or 200%, I may use the Lr "Enhance Details" feature which in my experience takes care of the issue at the expense of a substantially increased file size. IMHO the worm and water color issues are no longer a factor with the possible exception of certain foliage scenes shot at certain FL's at longer distances. I use Lr but have also experimented with IXT. There's quite a bit of information with detailed comparisons available if you search properly on the WEB. I suggest you do your own research rather than ask for opinions on any forum. You might also read up on the recently added Enhance Details function within LR, which is designed to deal with this very issue, and from my own experience and a number of reports here, works quite well. For those very occasional situations where there might be an issue, tools like Iridient Transformer can help deal with any sharpness/detail issues you encounter. ![]() You'll find many photographers here (myself included) who almost exclusively use LR for processing and are quite happy with the results. This is not only the most discussed topic here, but one that remains very controversial. You can of course also use Iridient X-transformer with LR to get better results.Īfter reading up on this, expecting a consensus on this here would be very optimistic (but not particularly realistic). It does still seem to suffer from the "watercolor effect" to at least some extent, though. LR used to be terrible for X-trans, but from what I've read it has gotten better, especially with the new "enhance details" feature. Can be avoided by simply not applying too much sharpening.īut then we also have the "watercolor effect" which makes foliage and other complex textures look smeared like a water painting. This occurs across the entire photo on all photos. "Worms" are the artefacts you get from applying to much sharpening. How bad really is the problem today with current ACR, does it show up only in certain circumstances (what are those?), and is a third party really necessary or is there a work around (other than going to C1)? Some say that the worms are horrible in LR and so only use C1 or a paid plugin for LR, others say the problem is not so bad. I've tried reading up on this topic but there seems to be differences of opinion.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |