A denoise question (Fuji / Lightroom)

[Alex Ramsay]

I have a number of dng files that were originally converted from Fuji RAFs using Iridient X-Transformer. Lightroom will not allow me to apply denoise to these files, and unfortunately I no longer have the original RAFs. Does anyone know a way around this?

 

Thanks,

Alex

[Mr Standfast]

Nope. sorry.

 

 

[Harry Harrison]

Worth asking Iridient I would think, some cameras use DNG as their native RAW format but I guess there are different flavours of DNG.

[Sally]

Not really a workaround in LR but I believe you can use Topaz Denoise with DNF files.

[DDoug]

I haven’t been using Iridient X-Transformer much since moving from the first and second generation sensors to the third (X-E3, X-T2). I did a test though and here are a couple of workarounds: double-click a file which automatically opens in ACR. Denoise is not available, so save image as a TIFF. That file can be denoised in a standalone program such as Neat Image (https://ni.neatvideo.com/) or Silkypix (https://silkypix.isl.co.jp/en/), which also does a good job with RAF files.

[Harry Harrison]

2 hours ago, DDoug said:

I haven’t been using Iridient X-Transformer much since moving from the first and second generation sensors to the third (X-E3, X-T2).

Off topic I suppose but I use an X-T2 and very occasionally with a landscape that has distant woodland or even crops in fields then I will use Iridient if I'm uploading it to Alamy but it would never fail QC and probably would not show up in any conceivable use. Mind you I'm using LR 6.14 so don't have 'Enhance details' which I gather is the Adobe solution. I do get better results, more natural and detailed, but I might also be introducing a different level of sharpening so it's difficult to compare precisely.

Even more off topic I remember that you chose to use a Bayer sensor Fuji for slide/negative copying, would you still do that? Certainly I would find it hard to demonstrate how a an X-Trans sensor is better for that application (or any application?) but I just love to use the Fuji cameras, particularly the X-T2 and X100, I don't have anything more recent.

Edited September 16, 2023 by Harry Harrison

[DDoug]

3 hours ago, Harry Harrison said:

Off topic I suppose but I use an X-T2 and very occasionally with a landscape that has distant woodland or even crops in fields then I will use Iridient if I'm uploading it to Alamy but it would never fail QC and probably would not show up in any conceivable use. Mind you I'm using LR 6.14 so don't have 'Enhance details' which I gather is the Adobe solution. I do get better results, more natural and detailed, but I might also be introducing a different level of sharpening so it's difficult to compare precisely.

Even more off topic I remember that you chose to use a Bayer sensor Fuji for slide/negative copying, would you still do that? Certainly I would find it hard to demonstrate how a an X-Trans sensor is better for that application (or any application?) but I just love to use the Fuji cameras, particularly the X-T2 and X100, I don't have anything more recent.

Yes, I still use the X-A5 for slide and negative copying. (To go even further off topic, Silkypix has a “negative film conversion tool” which works well on color negatives.) Another reason for using the X-A5 is that I don’t like to change lenses in the field and used to carry multiple bodies even back in film days. So that camera stays put on the copy setup and I have several X-E3 bodies that I walk around with. The X-T2 is only for shots that demand special features such as focus bracketing.

Below is a photo shot on Tri-X circa 1980. It was copied using the X-A5 and also with an X-E3. Macro lens, F-stop, ISO, etc. are the same in each.

 

 

On the left is the X-E3 and on the right is the X-A5. To my eye, the X-A5 shot looks like Tri-X grain and the grain pattern of the one on the left does not.

So, to simplify matters, I just do the copying with the X-A5.

 

[Harry Harrison]

2 minutes ago, DDoug said:

Yes, I still use the X-A5 for slide and negative copying. (To go even further off topic, Silkypix has a “negative film conversion tool” which works well on color negatives.) Another reason for using the X-A5 is that I don’t like to change lenses in the field and used to carry multiple bodies even back in film days. So that camera stays put on the copy setup and I have several X-E3 bodies that I walk around with.

Absolutely the end of my off topic diversion!

Interesting to know about the Silkypix negative film conversion since I'm toying with the idea of Negative Lab Pro now that its v3 upgrade is settling down. I agree that the X-A5 version looks better and actually I've toyed with the idea of getting a Sony A6000 to sit permanently on my copy setup so that my Fujis can stay in the bag(s), MBP currently have 112 of them (!) at very reasonable prices. I like my X-E1 for walking around though the viewfinder is poor, the X-E3 probably has a much better one just as my X-T2 does though the resolution is apparently the same at 2,360,000 px. The magnification on the X-T2 is higher which I like.

[DDoug]

This thread caused me to take another look at Iridient X-Transformer, and I might go back to using it for some images.

 

In this shot of a dirt road with a horse and rider coming around the bend in the distance, there are two 100% samples. On the left is Iridient and on the right is Silkypix 11 with default sharpening. To me, the detail in the Iridient sample looks defined but more natural. I can still open the result in Silkypix to add Velvia, Astia or other film tastes and make other adjustments.

 

Edited September 17, 2023 by DDoug

[Harry Harrison]

36 minutes ago, DDoug said:

To me, the detail in the Iridient sample looks defined but more natural.

Interesting, almost worth opening a separate thread. I'm not liking the Silkypix version here and Iridient looks natural as you say. A standard Lightroom version would be good to see also. There are a lot of different parameters that you can change in Iridient, would the same be true for Silkypix?

[DDoug]

1 hour ago, Harry Harrison said:

Interesting, almost worth opening a separate thread. I'm not liking the Silkypix version here and Iridient looks natural as you say. A standard Lightroom version would be good to see also. There are a lot of different parameters that you can change in Iridient, would the same be true for Silkypix?

Yes, Silkypix has lots of adjustment parameters available, but I left it at defaults for the purposes of comparison. I don’t tend to use Lightroom, but do use Photoshop regularly, usually in addition to initial raw processing in Silkypix. One of the things I like about Silkypix is the film styles. Velvia tends to render skin tones as reddish. Astia’s good for skin but makes environments look kind of blah. So I’ll process twice and, using layers and the eraser in Photoshop, end up with Astia skin tones in a Velvia environment.

Anyway, I’ve added the image processed in Photoshop ACRto the comparison set. I suppose it’s about the same as Lightroom (which I never learned to like) . It’s also at default settings.

Edited September 17, 2023 by DDoug

[Harry Harrison]

17 minutes ago, DDoug said:

Anyway, I’ve added the image processed in Photoshop ACR

Excellent, thanks, just that one composite demonstrably shows the importance of RAW processing when it comes to Fuji RAF files, the standard Lightroom conversion would lead one to question the quality of the lens. That's not to say that there wouldn't be differences with other types of RAW files between different RAW processors but Fuji is the difficult one. Also as you say it's not just about detail, there's how they handle colour as well.
 

[M.Chapman]

Interesting. Noticing that SilkyPix Developer Studio Raw 10 (now superceded by 11) is currently available at a knockdown price - just $34. So I downloaded the trial. It runs rather slowly on my 2017 iMac (adjustments are far from interactive) but it has some useful features. Negative processing and RAW composting for example. NB. Silkypix 10 was released in Feb 2020 and was last updated in July 2022. Nevertheless at that price I might add it to my "toolbox".  

https://silkypix.isl.co.jp/en/product/dsp10/

 

Mark

 

Edited September 19, 2023 by M.Chapman

[Harry Harrison]

I'd forgotten but Silkypix is the recommended Fuji RAW converter and can be downloaded from their site (a limited version I suppose). How this compares to the in-camera jpeg conversion I don't know.

 

https://fujifilm-x.com/en-gb/support/download/software/raw-file-converter-ex-powered-by-silkypix/

Edited September 17, 2023 by Harry Harrison

[DDoug]

25 minutes ago, Harry Harrison said:

I'd forgotten but Silkypix is the recommended Fuji RAW converter and can be downloaded from their site (a limited version I suppose). How this compares to the in-camera jpeg conversion I don't know.

 

https://fujifilm-x.com/en-gb/support/download/software/raw-file-converter-ex-powered-by-silkypix/

In Silkypix, there is the option to correct automatically for shading/vignetting, distortion and chromatic aberration. The in-camera version does this without being prompted. So if the three corrections are enabled in the software, then the result is equivalent. Silkypix also allows for much more, such as HDR, Dodge & Color Burn, and so on.

 

I've used the in-camera version with its push-pull option to produce a series of brackets which I then merged in Photomatix to produce a result with higher dynamic range. The same thing is possible in Lightroom, but I didn't like that result as much as Photomatix. If the exposure of an image has acceptable light and dark detail, then outputting a JPEG in camera is a quick way to get there, with the result being the same as if you shot JPEGs in the first place.

The full version of Silkypix 11 that works on all kinds of raw files is around $150. I paid ¥3.980 ($27) for version 11 that works only on Fujifilm RAF files and ¥4.980 ($34) for version 10 that is outdated and not upgradable, but works on everything. Using the two, I find version 10 to be just about as good as 11, and quite a bargain.

[M.Chapman]

I played some more with the free trial of SilkyPix 10 and decided it's not worth the $34 for me. It's too slow on my 2017 iMac and the terminology and icons used throughout their UI are most unfamiliar/unusual and so it has a huge learning curve. This makes it difficult to use on an ad-hoc basis for a long term PS/LR user.

 

The easiest to use "budget" RAW editor I've found is still RAWPower (unfortunately MacOS/IOS only). It uses Apple's RAW processing engine, so is extremely fast and effective. I've idea how well it does on Fuji X-Trans images, but I'm happy to try one with it if anyone wants.

 

https://www.gentlemencoders.com/

 

Update. I just ran the DPReview's studio test RAW file for Fuji XT-2 through various RAW developers on their default settings. To my eyes, Iridient and LR/PSACR come out best for extraction of detail. Affinity 2.0 and RawPower are in the middle, but unfortunately with some coloured artefacts in the centre of the radial starburst targets. SilkyPix 10 had the least detail, but is also smoother and with less noise. That's not to say that changing the settings wouldn't have changed the order.

 

Mark

Edited September 17, 2023 by M.Chapman

[DDoug]

On 06/09/2023 at 12:13, Alex Ramsay said:

I have a number of dng files that were originally converted from Fuji RAFs using Iridient X-Transformer. Lightroom will not allow me to apply denoise to these files, and unfortunately I no longer have the original RAFs. Does anyone know a way around this?

 

Thanks,

Alex

Regarding the original post, I notice that Photoshop ACR cannot apply AI denoise to DNG files, but the sliders for manual control of luminance and chroma noise are workable. Have you tried that and were you satisfied with the results?

Cheers,

Don