Lightroom classic - Fuji raw worm artifact issue

[sergiollag1]

Is adobe doing something to resolve fuji raw files worm artifact issue?

{Thread title edited by moderator}

[nikunj.m]

Hi there,

We are sorry about the issue you are facing while working with Fuji Raw files in Lightroom Classic.

Would you mind sharing the version of Lightroom Classic you are using by going to the Help menu > System info? Also, are you looking the images at a 1:1 zoom level or are you zoomed in to the image and are you applying sharpening to the image prior to seeing the wormy artifacts?

You can go to the link below and add you vote to the discussion. The forum linked below is monitored directly by our product team and they are currently working on a fix for this issue.

https://feedback.photoshop.com/photoshop_family/topics/fuji_x_trans_support

Regards,

Nikunj

[sergiollag1]

Lightroom 8.4.1

Camera Raw 11.4.1

See screenshots attached comparing the same image (ISO 800) edited in Lightroom and Capture One (zoomed @ 3:1). Same amount of sharpeninig was applied to both images (Lightroom sharpening slider value = 70). 

[72sekund]

I refuse to belive that you guys at Adobe dont know about this issue. It has been a problem for many years. Its so annoying that you guys never even bother to fix this issue, and every time someone writes about it, you just pretend to not know about it and ask for screenshots and stuff.

Its easy: Adobe are NOT able to render Fujifilm raw files! Adobe destroyes Fujifilm raw files. You have to use Capture One or convert raw files to dng to get usable results. Its called x trans worming, and it is basically noise, ugly noise. 

I am a professional photographer who has previously worked for AP, Reuters and such. Ive used Nikon cameras, some canon, Leica, and recently (last 3 years) Fujifilm. No issue with Nikon Raw files. A big issue with Fuji raw files. And its a shame that you guys at Adobe never bothers to listen to customers. This issue have been repeated for years. There are lots of threads about this, youtube videos and such. You dont need screenshot, latest firmware info and stuff. You just need to fix how Adobe renders Fuji raw files....

[richardplondon]

FYI this is a user-to-user forum where we help each other out with the application as it stands. The contributors here are no more "you guys at Adobe" than YOU are - aside from those few user specifically flagged as Adobe employees, and even those are probably not the persons who would perform any "fix".

I am well aware that non-Bayer sensor artefacts have been a distinct issue, but not everyone here owns such a camera; there have been various generations of such; and reportedly Adobe's support even for a given X-Trans model has sometimes been rewritten across software versions. So it is surely reasonable IMO to concentrate on exploring demonstrable effects with the specific data and app version relevant to you. Blanket assertions are merely that. To observe that Nikon Raw files convert fine, may be true but is simply moot: we wouldn't say that someone plays the piano OK, so that must make him good at the saxophone too. Separate competences: a Fuji non-Bayer sensor produces an objectively different nature of Raw file than e.g. a Nikon does. So not only is the raw conversion bound to involve some different coding: the adjustment strategies and settings on the part of the user will naturally call for a slightly different approach too. One can then either engage constructively in being helped with that, or... refuse.

[DerBoiNicomount]

I'm using Adobe Lightroom in combination with Negative Lab Pro to convert scanned 35mm film negatives into digital positives. I use a Fuji XT3 to scan and unfortunately the RAW WORMS ARTIFACTS are extremely visible to the point where I'd rather want to use Capture One instead.. I sincerely hope that Adobe adresses this issue soon!

[richardplondon]

Would you be able to share a link to a sample scan file please? (e.g. Dropbox hosted) 

Actual data - including the input file, and not only showing the bad result - is always helpful. Thanks.

[DdeGannes]

At DerBoiNicomoun,

What version of Lightroom Classic and Negative LabPro are you using. Share an image raw if that is what you are using to capture as requested by Richard.

[DerBoiNicomount]

Hello and thank you for replying!
To clarify: I'm using the latest Lightrom Classic Version 12.0.1 with the latest version of Negative Lab Pro 2.4.2.
The Adobe-Fuji Raw worms are the most severe when sharpening is increased - which should "normally" bring out the film grain more (which it does in other software like Capture One). In Lightroom however it only produces really weird looking digital "worm-like" structures/textures that are not at all pleasing.
I've attatched a converted image together witch a screenshot of a zoomed-in area. 

Here is the original raw file - taken with a Fuji XT3 camera and a 100mm macro lens:
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1fKDS9NZaFqo3QfgeSvlnBBnS0s_jBdRe?usp=share_link

I hope this helps and I really hope Adobe might try and fix this issue.
Thank you!

[TheDigitalDog]

If you do not use Negative Lab Pro, but do all the other processing steps in LR, do you see the worms? 

[DerBoiNicomount]

When I don't use Negative Lab Pro I still see the worms when I try to convert negatives manually - When I sharpen a Fuji Raw File that I don't convert / dont use heavy processing on it's fine. 
However negative lab pro is one of the main reasons I use Lightroom and I'd love to be able to get as good results as other users get when using non Fuji Cameras for the scanning.

[richardplondon]

I did a rough job of neg reversal just in Tone Curve, plus WB tweak (which confusingly works upside down in effect! because of my abuse of  Tone Curve - an admitted kludge) - then cropped and made virtual copy. Gave first image a high value of sharpening parameter changing nothing else from default. Then gave second image a less high value - at around 70 artefacting seemed to 'jump' somehow, though hard to untangle from other factors - plus the other changes as included screenshot of Detail panel.

Certainly not perfect, also a matter of taste - for me a little nudge of Texture in the Basic panel may be called for. But does seem to confirm that some processing tends to highlight these maze effects particularly, while slightly different processing choices may be able to subdue them.

[DdeGannes]

I did the following with the original raw image and Imported to LrC with default import settings. Converted with NegativeLab-Pro with mainly basic settings.

See the screen capture.

I proceeded to send the raw file to PS vis the edit-in option, applied a Topaz Sharpen AI filter, and returned the tiff to LrC with no further edits.  Proceeded to do a comparison of the TIFF and Raw image in the Library module with a portion of the image in the window  The view is at 100%. See the screen capture.

[DerBoiNicomount]

Thank you for the tests!
I feel it shows the problem quite well - no matter what or how, the "fuji-adobe raw worms" are still showing. Instead of sharpening the grain, it produces these weird unnatural looking artifacts. I hope that Adobe recognizes the need to adress this

[richardplondon]

I must say, I thought the tests showed that these "worms" could be made obvious OR suppressed - and to my own judgement and taste, suppressed enough for practical purposes.

I don't think there is the resolution here to show specific film grain, so the issue is rather about sharpening / not sharpening pixel level artefacts. As with noisiness in the capture, it's the other options in the Detail panel besides just the Sharpen slider, which allow distinguishing spurious pixel-level stuff from useful pictorial detail.

Some people do have a very low tolerance for seeing any noise (read noise or shot noise) at all. Others only object when that noisiness has an obviously digital character - and I do agree, if a maze effect is obviously visible that can be especially nervy and distracting to see. But I won't go looking for it, when it isn't immediately obvious.

Conversely, some people are tolerant of noise reduction processing that is itself quite obviously digital in character - while others, and I include myself, would tend to consider that outcome a 'cure worse than the disease'. I can't object to seeing some filmic grit and grain if I think that reflects the actuality of the capture - such as low light conditions, or high ISO film for that matter.

So I personally don't prefer CaptureOne's default, rather IMO 'over-cleaned', results. It's certainly possible C1 may act differently so far as 'worms' in particular - but given the above comments, I wouldn't say it must be a governing factor.