![]() ![]() Here's the whole test picture again so you can calibrate to the areas you're looking at: We're looking at quite small segments of the overall image. If you disagree, I'm okay with that, but to me the lower sample looks more like tree branches. (Recall that with B&W panchromatic films, filters lighten their own color and darken their opposite, so yellow filters darken blues.) That's the effect of the "virtual yellow filter" changing the spectral response in the Fuji X Raw Studio B&W conversion. Note that the sky is a slightly different value in these. ![]() But then I noticed something-the bare tree branches in the background seemed more smeared and less "rounded" or real in the Iridient rendering: ![]() Again, bear in mind that the blogging software softens the images I post here just slightly.) You can open up both and set them next to each other so you can let your eyes go back and forth from one to the other. (If you open these up by clicking on them, they should be at 100% on your monitor. More detail, harder edges, a little more microcontrast. Since I already had the Fuji Acros + Y version made with Fuji X Raw Studio open in another tab, it was easy to toggle back and forth and compare the two.Īt first, the Iridient version looked a little better. DNG using Iridient Digital X Transformer, reputed among aficionados as being one of the best raw converters for Fuji X-Trans files, then opened it in ACR and converted it to Adobe Grayscale. Well, I got curious yesterday, and did a few more comparisons. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |