Given how well Adobe’s Super Resolution feature worked on digital images I was curious if it would deliver the same results on scanned film negatives, so I tried it with two photos – one shot on Ilford Delta 100 and another on Ilford HP5+. While I normally scan my own images I used scans done by the local store where I get my film developed. I believe they use Noritsu scanners.
Below are the original and enhanced images from the scanned TIFF of the Delta 100 negative. The original is 3999 x 2666, while the enhanced is 7998 x 5332. As with previously enhanced images I think the outcome is excellent and the larger jpeg is essentially indistinguishable from the original. In particular I don’t see any negative impact from the detail enhancer on the grain.
The next shot is with the grainier Ilford HP5+, but despite the grain I got the same excellent outcome. The original scan is 4917 x 3276, while the enhanced image is 9828 x 6552. As well as being able to print bigger an additional benefit specific to film scans is that instead of trying to stretch my scanner to the limit on resolution, I can now scan at a slightly lower resolution and then upres using Super Resolution. As with previous posts you can download the images and make your own comparison. Right click on the image and select ‘open file in new tab’ to get around WordPress’s image scaling.
Exceptional. I think that’s the only word I can use for Adobe’s new Super Resolution feature. I tried it this evening with an old favourite from my 10MP LX3 which, when cropped to taste gives me an 8.1MP image.
I chose this image to see how well Super Resolution worked and the results are spectacular. I won’t bother with crops and comparisons. Instead look at the two images below – the first is a JPEG from the original RAW file as edited in Lightroom. For the second I saved the edited file as a DNG, opened it in Bridge and applied Super Resolution via ACR. (This slightly convoluted route is necessary since Super Resolution is currently only available in ACR but will be coming to Lightroom eventually.) The end result is a file that is twice the pixel length and height, and four times the overall area, coming in at 32.3MP.
I’ve compared the two closely in Lightroom and I can see no reduction in quality in the enlarged file. The file I chose has been heavily edited and I suspect this feature might work better still when applied to the initial unedited RAW file. When it does finally arrive on Lightroom it should be possible to apply it to the RAW file then paste existing adjustments from the history panel onto the new, higher resolution file.
The two versions of the image above are full size so feel free to download and compare directly for yourself. (To get round WordPress’s irritating practice of scaling large files, right click and choose ‘open link in new tab’ to get the original full size image.)
I have many, many images taken on 10MP sensors, generally good enough for a 12″ x 8″ print, and plenty of images cropped to that size or smaller. This feature means I can now print my smaller and cropped images at much bigger sizes without any loss in quality. It also means the 24MP sensor in my X-T2 is effectively an 96MP sensor!
So, here is an image from my 24MP X-T2, slightly cropped to 22.4MP. The end result after applying Super Resolution is an image that is 88.4MP with 11,585 pixels on the long edge, meaning I could comfortably produce a three feet wide high quality print.
Note also that this is a Fuji X-Trans file. Adobe applied their machine learning technique to produce a version for Bayer sensors and then did it all over again to produce a version for the relatively few of us using Fuji X-Trans sensors. As a Fuji user having learned to live with occasional frustrations with software that doesn’t always play nice with Fuji’s unique sensor technology I hugely appreciate Adobe’s commitment from the off to make this available to Fuji users.
Again, to get round WordPress’s image scaling, right click and select ‘open link in new tab’ in the pictures above to see the full size image.
My first digital camera was a Canon A520 with a small 4MP sensor. At that time I was using my photographs to illustrate my blog from Albania, Our Man in Tirana. This was back in 2005 – 2007 when the internet was not quite as zippy as it is these days and I generally resized my already small files to 800px or 1000px after editing them in Picasa, then deleted the originals. Some of these pictures are not bad but I have done very little with them, since at 800px they are not much use for anything.
So I tried Super Resolution on a few of these old jpegs and was pleasantly surprised. Here are a couple of images enhanced to 1800px for the first and 2048px for the second. They are not great but that is more a reflection of the limitations of my sensor back then and these compare very well to my ‘originals’. At 1800px I can at least display these at a reasonable size online and could even get a 6″ or 7″ print out of them. I have around 1,700 images from that old camera and I’m looking forward to reviving a few of them.
My initial impression is that this looks like a genuinely revolutionary step up in processing capabilities. The only down side is that on older, slower computers this may not work so well since it does use a lot of computing power. My laptop was state of the art five or six years ago when I got it and has a good i7 processor, 16GB of RAM and a separate graphics card, all of which help. That said, despite a message telling me processing of these images might take five minutes even the biggest of them from the X-T2 0nly took 45 seconds.
You can read more about the Super Resolution feature on the Adobe blog.
I’ve been using Lightroom since version 2 which I picked up back in 2009 I think. Lightroom – now Lightroom Classic – is currently on version 10.1. Along the way I’ve had my gripes and complaints. In the early days it was mostly to do with missing features. With more recent versions the big issue is speed – or the lack of it. I also did my share of complaining when Lightroom finally went all in with the subscription model, though I do find the intensity of the hostility that this move generated a little excessive. From time to time I have also experimented with Lightroom alternatives, but every time I come back to Lightroom.
Partly this is down to familiarity. I’ve been using Lightroom for more than a decade now. It’s second nature to me. The Lightroom alternatives, try as they might to replicate Lightroom visually, all have a steep learning curve to use to their full potential. I’m not sure I have the time or energy to for that.
Mostly, though, its down to the simple fact that there is only one viable Lightroom alternative. Over the years I’ve seen no end of articles purporting to introduce the next ‘Lightroom killer’. I’ve tried most of them and while the best are very good they still have some way to go until they can match Lightroom while others aren’t even close. The only genuine alternative in my view is Capture One.
I have downloaded the thirty day trial for almost every version of Capture One over the years and always been impressed but Capture One precisely because it is so capable has the steepest learning curve of all when transitioning (even though with more recent versions Phase One has tried to make the transition easier.) That it was also quite expensive also put me off. Last year, though, I got an email from Phase One offering the full version of Capture One Pro for $90 per year on subscription. Normally Capture One is $20 per month or $300 for a perpetual licence so I signed up on the basis that I could use it for a full year then decide if I wanted to keep it. Better yet, a closer reading of the offer revealed that the $90 price was not just for one year but also applied to annual renewal. I was a little sceptical but this year my subscription did indeed renew for $90. I have no idea how long this will last since I assume at some point Phase One will raise the standard price, but at least it means I can run Capture One alongside Lightroom without feeling I’m wasting money.
Despite slowly learning the ways of Capture One and appreciating some of its superb capabilities Lightroom remains my default choice and I don’t foresee that changing. Only if the price of either Lightroom or Capture One were to jump would I consider choosing between the two. Even then I would probably stick with Lightroom. For all the gripes it remains very reasonably priced at $120 per year bearing in mind that also include Photoshop and a handful of other Adobe products like Portfolio and Spark. Lightroom’s latest release has brought yet more capability to local adjustments with the option for localised hue adjustment. Used together with the colour range mask it is now possible to fine tune the hue of a specific colour in a localised selection. No other application I know of offers that degree of detailed control.
So what about the Fuji ‘worms’? If you are not a Fujifilm user you will probably never have heard of this. Even if you are a Fujifilm user you may not have heard of this. Without going into detail some uses have an issue with how Lightroom renders RAW files from Fuji’s X-Trans sensor. I’m on of those Fujifilm users who has never seen this as an issue, which I think is the case for the great majority of users. If you are interested just take a deep breath and search for ‘Fujifilm worms’.