Allan Bell Posted July 10, 2019 Share Posted July 10, 2019 6 minutes ago, amycicconi said: Actually I was just shooting jpegs. I didn't realize that that would make that significant of an impact on image sharpness? I will do some experimentation today with RAWs. Thank you Usually jpegs are sharpened by the in camera software so you do not need to do that step. RAW images always (or nearly always) need the photographer to add sharpening in their processing workflow. Allan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Harrison Posted July 10, 2019 Share Posted July 10, 2019 6 minutes ago, amycicconi said: I didn't realize that that would make that significant of an impact on image sharpness No, may well not but might be worth trying RAW to be sure. I'm as surprised as you are though have no experience of either camera, I guess it's the lens that we're talking about here, but the larger sensor of the Fuji should work in its favour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amycicconi Posted July 10, 2019 Share Posted July 10, 2019 4 minutes ago, Allan Bell said: Usually jpegs are sharpened by the in camera software so you do not need to do that step. RAW images always (or nearly always) need the photographer to add sharpening in their processing workflow. Allan So that doesn't explain the lack of crispness. I'll shoot some RAW today and see if I see a difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted July 10, 2019 Share Posted July 10, 2019 I think many will agree that RAWs are inherently sharper, just because they're uncompressed. Jpeg conversion guesses out some of the detail. It's probably not significant as low ISOs but you can still see it at 100%. I had a spot of bother a few years ago and took a bit (OK, a lot) of convincing by the forum that RAWS were just better. But I was convinced. Once you get used to a RAW workflow it doesn't even take much longer. Certainly if it does I've long forgotten about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amycicconi Posted July 10, 2019 Share Posted July 10, 2019 1 minute ago, spacecadet said: I think many will agree that RAWs are inherently sharper, just because they're uncompressed. Jpeg conversion guesses out some of the detail. It's probably not significant as low ISOs but you can still see it at 100%. I had a spot of bother a few years ago and took a bit (OK, a lot) of convincing by the forum that RAWS were just better. But I was convinced. Once you get used to a RAW workflow it doesn't even take much longer. Certainly if it does I've long forgotten about it. I normally shoot Raw on my Nikons and Sony RX100. I was just in a hurry to try it and didn't bother to change to RAW. We'll see if it makes a difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Harrison Posted July 10, 2019 Share Posted July 10, 2019 23 minutes ago, amycicconi said: So that doesn't explain the lack of crispness Well it may be that the Sony jpegs have more sharpening to flatter the images, the RAW comparison will check for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amycicconi Posted July 10, 2019 Share Posted July 10, 2019 2 minutes ago, Harry Harrison said: Well it may be that the Sony jpegs have more sharpening to flatter the images, the RAW comparison will check for that. The Sony I shot RAW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Harrison Posted July 10, 2019 Share Posted July 10, 2019 6 minutes ago, amycicconi said: The Sony I shot RAW. OK, scrub that then, unlikely that the Fuji jpegs won't be sharpened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amycicconi Posted July 10, 2019 Share Posted July 10, 2019 Could it be that I am running an old version of Lightroom? 5.7.1? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amycicconi Posted July 10, 2019 Share Posted July 10, 2019 (edited) *deleted* Edited July 10, 2019 by amycicconi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amycicconi Posted July 10, 2019 Share Posted July 10, 2019 OK shot RAW/JPG at lunch today and the photos are a lot crisper. Still not *quite* RX100 crisp, but, maybe it's not fair to try and compare the 'pretty good' 18-55 Fuji kit lens to the RX100 II output. Now realizing that I'm going to finally have to upgrade my OS from El Capitan and/or go to Lightroom CC, as I am running 5.7.1 and it doesn't recognize the XT2 Raws. Does upgrading to Lightroom CC overlay or risk messing up my current 5.7.1 desktop lightroom and catalog? the thought of upgrading scares me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Standfast Posted July 10, 2019 Share Posted July 10, 2019 12 minutes ago, amycicconi said: OK shot RAW/JPG at lunch today and the photos are a lot crisper. Still not *quite* RX100 crisp, but, maybe it's not fair to try and compare the 'pretty good' 18-55 Fuji kit lens to the RX100 II output. Now realizing that I'm going to finally have to upgrade my OS from El Capitan and/or go to Lightroom CC, as I am running 5.7.1 and it doesn't recognize the XT2 Raws. Does upgrading to Lightroom CC overlay or risk messing up my current 5.7.1 desktop lightroom and catalog? the thought of upgrading scares me! As an alternative to upgrading is to convert your fuji .raf (raw) files to .dng then your LR 5.7.1 will be able to read them. I did this for a year before bitting the bullet and buying LR6. The dng converter is free from Adobe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amycicconi Posted July 10, 2019 Share Posted July 10, 2019 1 minute ago, Mr Standfast said: As an alternative to upgrading is to convert your fuji .raf (raw) files to .dng then your LR 5.7.1 will be able to read them. I did this for a year before bitting the bullet and buying LR6. The dng converter is free from Adobe. Yes. Considering that. However, I have to update from El Capitan to High Sierra to support that. Which I guess is probably a relatively smooth upgrade process. Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MDM Posted July 10, 2019 Share Posted July 10, 2019 20 minutes ago, amycicconi said: OK shot RAW/JPG at lunch today and the photos are a lot crisper. Still not *quite* RX100 crisp, but, maybe it's not fair to try and compare the 'pretty good' 18-55 Fuji kit lens to the RX100 II output. Now realizing that I'm going to finally have to upgrade my OS from El Capitan and/or go to Lightroom CC, as I am running 5.7.1 and it doesn't recognize the XT2 Raws. Does upgrading to Lightroom CC overlay or risk messing up my current 5.7.1 desktop lightroom and catalog? the thought of upgrading scares me! The real issue is whether your computer is up to the job. You should check the minimum specs before upgrading to CC. Lightroom CC has loads of new features and is much faster than LR5 or LR6 but it does need a bit more computing power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amycicconi Posted July 10, 2019 Share Posted July 10, 2019 2 minutes ago, MDM said: The real issue is whether your computer is up to the job. You should check the minimum specs before upgrading to CC. Lightroom CC has loads of new features and is much faster than LR5 or LR6 but it does need a bit more computing power. Thanks, will do. I'm running an iMac retina with 32GB memory, 2015 model. I'm probably OK but will verify. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MDM Posted July 10, 2019 Share Posted July 10, 2019 That iMac should be fine I expect. The large amount of RAM will really help Lightroom run fast. The graphics card can also have an influence on speed in the Develop module I think but adequate RAM is probably the most important thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amycicconi Posted July 10, 2019 Share Posted July 10, 2019 2 minutes ago, MDM said: That iMac should be fine I expect. The large amount of RAM will really help Lightroom run fast. The graphics card can also have an influence on speed in the Develop module I think but adequate RAM is probably the most important thing. Does going to the CC version impact or otherwise touch my current locally installed Lightroom 5.7.1 and its most precious LR catalog? 😳 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MDM Posted July 10, 2019 Share Posted July 10, 2019 I’ve not had any problem. Make sure you have written the metadata to.xmp files first though if you don’t already do that. And back up the catalog of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Harrison Posted July 11, 2019 Share Posted July 11, 2019 11 hours ago, amycicconi said: OK shot RAW/JPG at lunch today and the photos are a lot crisper. Still not *quite* RX100 crisp, but, maybe it's not fair to try and compare the 'pretty good' 18-55 Fuji kit lens to the RX100 II output. Just wondering if what you're seeing is just decreased depth of field from the Fuji at any given aperture due to to the larger sensor? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan Bell Posted July 11, 2019 Share Posted July 11, 2019 13 hours ago, amycicconi said: Does going to the CC version impact or otherwise touch my current locally installed Lightroom 5.7.1 and its most precious LR catalog? 😳 If you want LR via monthly subscription and want to use something which more or less imitates your version of LR (perpetual licence) you need LR CLASSIC not LRCC on your computer. However if you want to process images across mac OS and IOS you need LRCC I believe. At least thats how I read the information on Adobes website. Allan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amycicconi Posted July 11, 2019 Share Posted July 11, 2019 3 hours ago, Harry Harrison said: Just wondering if what you're seeing is just decreased depth of field from the Fuji at any given aperture due to to the larger sensor? Honestly, Harry, I think you are right. I wasn't really thinking about that fact and the differences between these cameras. Now that I have spent more time with the XT2 yesterday I feel good about it. I will, of course, always be carrying my little Sony as well Thank you for your insight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amycicconi Posted July 11, 2019 Share Posted July 11, 2019 8 minutes ago, Allan Bell said: If you want LR via monthly subscription and want to use something which more or less imitates your version of LR (perpetual licence) you need LR CLASSIC not LRCC on your computer. However if you want to process images across mac OS and IOS you need LRCC I believe. At least thats how I read the information on Adobes website. Allan Right, thanks. I'm more so worried about the risk of the install process and its affect on my current catalog. I think I've sent this thread off topic though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Harrison Posted July 11, 2019 Share Posted July 11, 2019 6 minutes ago, amycicconi said: Honestly, Harry, I think you are right. Excellent, always loved my X100 and tempted by the X-Pro2. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan Bell Posted July 11, 2019 Share Posted July 11, 2019 (edited) 9 minutes ago, Harry Harrison said: Excellent, always loved my X100 and tempted by the X-Pro2. Threads often morph like this one. Allan Sorry quoted Harry instead of amycicconi Edited July 11, 2019 by Allan Bell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan Bell Posted July 11, 2019 Share Posted July 11, 2019 15 minutes ago, amycicconi said: Right, thanks. I'm more so worried about the risk of the install process and its affect on my current catalog. I think I've sent this thread off topic though Threads often morph. Allan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now