But zoom the shots in (see examples below) and you’ll notice crisper detail in the PureRAW version. From an overview, they look pretty similar. The image on the left was processed through Lightroom, the image on the right through PureRAW. Shooting autumn foliage, for instance, often vexes me because, while the overall image looks good, at 100% magnification and closer the pattern is pretty obvious. Lightroom’s conversion can create a “wormy” appearance, particularly in textured areas. Mason Marsh Processing Fujifilm Raw files with PureRAW 2Īs a Fujifilm camera owner, I was also happy to hear that PureRAW 2 added support for Fujifilm’s X-Trans Raw files. Re: Hugh Brownstones review of Sigmas 18-50mm f/2.8 DC DN (vs XF 16-55 f/2.8) 4. Tips For Better Subject Detection for Wildlife and Birds. Copy/copy variation - collection of SOPs - Quick decentering test. Mason Marsh The same example cropped to 200%. A decent baseline for Fujifilm X-T4 video recording (for video beginners) 6. The latter maintains as much or more detail than the former, without any of the ugly noise.
A 100% crop with the Lightroom example on the left and the PureRAW 2 one on the right. Mason Marshįor another example, this image of a Bristlecone Pine was shot on a Sony A7R IV at ISO 12800 and processed in Lightroom and using PureRAW 2 without any other adjustments applied. Another noisy example The image on the left was processed through Lightroom with no adjustments made, the image on the right was processed through PureRAW 2, also with no adjustments made.
0 kommentar(er)
