Fuji "worm-like" artefacts

W

wooster

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,171
Edit My Images
Yes
wooster said:
I was a bit puzzled by the references to these fuji worm-like effects on foliage so I did an experiment. I was pretty surprised by the results.

Look at this link to a test shot I took of some foliage here. I used dropbox link so that everyone can see this clearly.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/0tjeyi4fwaw075v/foliage.jpg?dl=0

It looks all right until you process in LR and zoom a bit and then you get this

https://www.dropbox.com/s/zwl4z0nray8x60j/Artefact.jpg?dl=0

Bummer. Is there a solution?
Click to expand...
:LOL::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::LOL:

You could always go fishing :D
 
wooster said:
I was a bit puzzled by the references to these fuji worm-like effects on foliage so I did an experiment. I was pretty surprised by the results.

Look at this link to a test shot I took of some foliage here. I used dropbox link so that everyone can see this clearly.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/0tjeyi4fwaw075v/foliage.jpg?dl=0

It looks all right until you process in LR and zoom a bit and then you get this

https://www.dropbox.com/s/zwl4z0nray8x60j/Artefact.jpg?dl=0

Bummer. Is there a solution?
Click to expand...

you're opening a can of..oh wait..:exit:

going by your 2nd link i'd say perhaps the solution is to sharpen a little less. that should do it :whistle:
 
Yes, sell the bloody thing.

I had the artifacts on an XT2 and got shot quick.

For £1400 at the time I expected a good camera.

And I saw the issue on the RAWs too, not just in Lightroom.
 
Last edited:
GreenNinja67 said:
Yes Steve, hence the reason I "liked" the OP's post.
Click to expand...
Fair enough, it just seemed a little out of place to have a rant at Fuji in a light hearted thread.
 
jakeblu said:
Fair enough, it just seemed a little out of place to have a rant at Fuji in a light hearted thread.
Click to expand...

To be honest I only clicked on the links AFTER my rant.

My opinions and findings stand though in case anyone's thinking of an X-Trans sensor camera.

It pays to test these things to ensure you're happy with the output.
 
GreenNinja67 said:
To be honest I only clicked on the links AFTER my rant.

My opinions and findings stand though in case anyone's thinking of an X-Trans sensor camera.

It pays to test these things to ensure you're happy with the output.
Click to expand...
For the record, no-one has shown me a single print at any size exhibiting strange artefacts. Nor any image at 100% (senseless going higher). :)
 
Stephen L said:
For the record, no-one has shown me a single print at any size exhibiting strange artefacts. Nor any image at 100% (senseless going higher). :)
Click to expand...
Either your lawn is to dry or youre not digging deep enough
 
wooster said:
I was a bit puzzled by the references to these fuji worm-like effects on foliage so I did an experiment. I was pretty surprised by the results.

Look at this link to a test shot I took of some foliage here. I used dropbox link so that everyone can see this clearly.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/0tjeyi4fwaw075v/foliage.jpg?dl=0

It looks all right until you process in LR and zoom a bit and then you get this

https://www.dropbox.com/s/zwl4z0nray8x60j/Artefact.jpg?dl=0

Bummer. Is there a solution?
Click to expand...
Yes you can install a free worm remover called blackbird
 
Ha, caught me out nice :D

It is an issue though, I could specific select show you a bunch of Fuji images without the issue, but I could show you others where it was an issue. It exists unfortunately. And from the sample images I have seen from the XT3, I don't think it's gone away.
 
Dave70D said:
Good fun post, before I switched from canon to Fuji X, I`d heard all about this worms lark. In all my images I have never seen one, but as I am not making a living from it I don`t blow my images up to stupid size to pixel peep, so I am happy :p
Click to expand...


I have to say it was rare I found the issue too, and I only ever use LR. I don't do much landscape though, and I've seen plenty of examples from those who do. It is what turned them away. I wish Fuji would ditch the Xtrans thing tbh, I don't see it adds anything really significant. People would perhaps enjoy their great little cameras if they went Bayer and kept all else the same. If they had given the T100 more features I think it would have done extremely well.

I am still in ponder mode, I could end up back with Fuji yet, but even the niggling potential of this issue occurring is enough to make me think twice. And you know I loved my ol' X-T1 ;)
 
Cagey75 said:
I have to say it was rare I found the issue too, and I only ever use LR. I don't do much landscape though, and I've seen plenty of examples from those who do. It is what turned them away. I wish Fuji would ditch the Xtrans thing tbh, I don't see it adds anything really significant. People would perhaps enjoy their great little cameras if they went Bayer and kept all else the same. If they had given the T100 more features I think it would have done extremely well.

I am still in ponder mode, I could end up back with Fuji yet, but even the niggling potential of this issue occurring is enough to make me think twice. And you know I loved my ol' X-T1 ;)
Click to expand...


What's worse than the artifacts is the way human skin is rendered almost waxy with low detail. You see it on here even with certain posted images.
 
At the risk of hijacking this amusing thread, aren't we getting a little technical and up our own a$@£$s? I doubt if I would see a difference in image quality between Bayer and X-Trans sensors unless the identical shot were made with both and placed side by side. Probably not even then. And certainly anyone viewing just one of those images wouldn't turn round and say that they don't like that picture because it was taken with x sensor. I think we collectively need to "get real" and enjoy images for what they describe to us.
 
Stephen L said:
At the risk of hijacking this amusing thread, aren't we getting a little technical and up our own a$@£$s? I doubt if I would see a difference in image quality between Bayer and X-Trans sensors unless the identical shot were made with both and placed side by side. Probably not even then. And certainly anyone viewing just one of those images wouldn't turn round and say that they don't like that picture because it was taken with x sensor. I think we collectively need to "get real" and enjoy images for what they describe to us.
Click to expand...


Don't get me wrong, some of my images made with the X-trans bodies were superb. I even sold a couple. That being said I needed a body I could rely on taking what I wanted to see, every time.

You may be up your own arse, I'm still smelling the sweet air of the great outdoors.
 
Stephen L said:
At the risk of hijacking this amusing thread, aren't we getting a little technical and up our own a$@£$s? I doubt if I would see a difference in image quality between Bayer and X-Trans sensors unless the identical shot were made with both and placed side by side. Probably not even then. And certainly anyone viewing just one of those images wouldn't turn round and say that they don't like that picture because it was taken with x sensor. I think we collectively need to "get real" and enjoy images for what they describe to us.
Click to expand...

Let's pretend it doesn't happen you mean? OP brought it up, jokingy or not, it invited discussion on it. You would see a difference over time, as in you wouldn't see any weird artifacts when sharpening. Pretending it doesn't occur doesn't make it so.
 
Last edited:
That's twice in a month Keith & I have agreed.

You lot had better buy hats.

Shame there's not a good wedding tog around when you need one :D
 
Stephen L said:
At the risk of hijacking this amusing thread, aren't we getting a little technical and up our own a$@£$s? I doubt if I would see a difference in image quality between Bayer and X-Trans sensors unless the identical shot were made with both and placed side by side. Probably not even then. And certainly anyone viewing just one of those images wouldn't turn round and say that they don't like that picture because it was taken with x sensor. I think we collectively need to "get real" and enjoy images for what they describe to us.
Click to expand...
No I don't think so, I've had shots that I've binned due to the artefacts. And despite most opinions to the contrary I've seen artefacts (although not worms) on jpegs too so I don't believe it's a RAW converter issue as most allude to. I'll leave it there though before I start getting flamed again ;) :p
 
snerkler said:
No I don't think so, I've had shots that I've binned due to the artefacts. And despite most opinions to the contrary I've seen artefacts (although not worms) on jpegs too so I don't believe it's a RAW converter issue as most allude to. I'll leave it there though before I start getting flamed again ;) :p
Click to expand...


Yeah I prefer to refer to it as strange artifacts too. It was more so when I bumped ISO I'd find it, but you did have to be looking for it to be fair.
 
Cagey75 said:
Yeah I prefer to refer to it as strange artifacts too. It was more so when I bumped ISO I'd find it, but you did have to be looking for it to be fair.
Click to expand...
That's the thing, I didn't go looking for it :( I guess we all see things differently, like ancient mariner being able to tell the difference between those m4/3 and FF images I posted, I genuinely think from his description that he can see a difference. Whether it's a web browser or PC vs Mac thing with that I don't know though, I can't really tell from the originals.
 
snerkler said:
That's the thing, I didn't go looking for it :( I guess we all see things differently, like ancient mariner being able to tell the difference between those m4/3 and FF images I posted, I genuinely think from his description that he can see a difference. Whether it's a web browser or PC vs Mac thing with that I don't know though, I can't really tell from the originals.
Click to expand...


Many others couldn't tell though, sure he was right, but it's a 50/50, he took the chance on looking smug :D I think it was the different exposure, as I pointed out before you revealed. The water was silkier in the top one, this could have tricked his mind enough
 
The plain fact is that I can't prove that you can see the effects, and you can't prove that I can't.
 
Dave70D said:
The thing that really does make me laugh though is, if Fuji are so bad with worms and waxy skin why do so many Pros switch to Fuji for weddings and landscape shots. The answer is all over the Fuji Blog site and some shots are fantastic, but they are Pros :)
Click to expand...
TBH worms are only there from over sharpening imo. Other artefacts are more subtle and difficult to describe. The biggest issue I found was the way they rendered rocks sometimes, there was most certainly a watercolour kind of look, even in the SOOC jpegs or SOOC RAW. I've seen others' images where they say "here look at this, no artefacts on this" yet they're glaringly obvious to me.

The cut of it all is, if you're happy with the gear what does it matter what other people see. Just like some moan about Sony colours, or Nikon greens, there's plenty of "pros" (not that being a pro or amateur should make any difference) that use both Sony and Nikon. There's plenty of pros use m4/3 yet but the way some people talk you'd think m4/3 is only good enough for the trash ;)

On the whole I really like Fuji files, and due to this I keep being tempted to come back. But then I see the odd images that have the artefacts and it stops me. It's a shame, and I wish they went back to bayer. Or maybe it' isn't anything to do with X-trans vs bayer and just Fuji's processor (although I've never seen artefacts from the X100 ;))
 
Stephen L said:
The plain fact is that I can't prove that you can see the effects, and you can't prove that I can't.
Click to expand...
Very true, and maybe some can't. Maybe it's. bit like the blue and black dress that some people thought was white and gold?
 
GreenNinja67 said:
When opened in Adobe RAW converter you can.

You knew exactly what I meant
Click to expand...

No, RAW files aren't bitmaps that you can view directly to make any sense.

And regardless of which Adobe tool you use, it's clear that Adobe don't know how to demosaic the output from a Fuji sensor.
 
Stephen L said:
The plain fact is that I can't prove that you can see the effects, and you can't prove that I can't.
Click to expand...


We could prove that others can! I'm not cherry picking, you can just google it yourself if interested. It's a thing, there's ways around, but it's a bit fanboy to say it doesn't exist and then come ranting at others for the mere mention of it - the bloody thread has it in the title!!
 
Cagey75 said:
We could prove that others can! I'm not cherry picking, you can just google it yourself if interested. It's a thing, there's ways around, but it's a bit fanboy to say it doesn't exist and then come ranting at others for the mere mention of it - the bloody thread has it in the title!!
Click to expand...
Is there a dislike button? I'm not saying that strange effects don't exist, just that I have yet to see them, therefore they aren't an issue to me. I fail to see where "ranting" comes into it. It's just a discussion. We're not on DPR here. ;)
 
frod said:
No, RAW files aren't bitmaps that you can view directly to make any sense.

And regardless of which Adobe tool you use, it's clear that Adobe don't know how to demosaic the output from a Fuji sensor.
Click to expand...


Well in that case Fuji do a p*** arse job of "demosaicifying" their own files as the jpgs SOOC were affected too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top