Fuji Look? Lack of interesting color/richness on Xpro?

[zwarte_kat]

It is still a new camera, and maybe some more people who are actually skillful haven't started using it, but I often find images from the Xpro online a bit lackluster.
They are very sharp and detailed for sure, bit it seems to be just that: cold quality, no atmosphere.
I am using the X100 myself and I always thought this look was caused by the 23mm lens on crop, but I see it on the Xpro with other lenses now as well.

I also have a GXR M-mount, and the images it produces with my zeiss/voightlander/minolta lenses creates a much smoother images. Maybe it's an unfair comparison, but even these kind of lenses with adapter loose some of their charm on the Xpro.
I am not talkng about corner sharpness or color vignetting. I actually don't care about that (seriously, what's people's obsession with these corners?) I am talking about the overel color and structure of the image, the look.

Can anyone show me Xpro images shot with zeiss lenses that have as nice colors as the GXR or digital Ms?

Can anyone show me Xpro images shot with Leica/Rokkor lenses those nice Leica colors or summicron look I see from digital M's?

Can anyone show me some nice smooth creamy BW images?

I am not so interested in flowers and stone objects, which I see are being posted a lot. More street/reportage/documentary/portrait kind of work.

It is not my intention to trash the Xpro. I want it to be nice and work well with M-lenses. I am sure in the future (Fuji's M mount) manual focussing will be taken care of, and again, I don't care about that corner stuff, so it is the look (and cost I admit) that is keeping me with the GXR. The GXR is an odd combination with my X100 though, and soon the 2nd hand price of the Xpro will start sinking. That's why I really want to Xpro to be something that it maybe isn't.

[Keith]

I must admit I was a little disappointed with my X100 colour images when I had one and kept comparing them to the results I get with my D700 and 35mm ZF Distagon ...to my eye they were worlds apart which is probably being a little harsh on the Fuji as I've been working with my Nikon's files for a couple of years now and know pretty well what's required to make them look the way I want.

In time I may have mastered the Fuji files but the slow AF in bad light was the killer for me so the camera only had a temporary stay!

[tom.w.bn]

It is still a new camera, and maybe some more people who are actually skillful haven't started using it, but I often find images from the Xpro online a bit lackluster.
They are very sharp and detailed for sure, bit it seems to be just that: cold quality, no atmosphere.
I am using the X100 myself and I always thought this look was caused by the 23mm lens on crop, but I see it on the Xpro with other lenses now as well.


Same observation with my X100. Very detailed and sharp but some sort of "plastic look". Tried a lot of tweaking in image processing but ended most of the time by converting them to black and white. So if the Xpro is similar in that aspect then I really don't want to have it.

[gavinlg]

Part of the problem is that everyone shoots them in aperture priority and they overexpose pretty easily. With all digital cameras you gotta expose for the highlights to create density in color and shadows. Overexposed they become very 'thin'.

I've shown these all before here, and to be honest they're under sharpened so look 'flatter' than they should, but I think these demonstrate what I mean about exposing for the highlights and looking more 'dense'. They're all straight out of cam too.

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m0voitEzp71r5w50to3_1280.jpg

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lzh33sykEP1r5w50to1_1280.jpg

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lzh33sykEP1r5w50to2_1280.jpg

[jarski]

there is Adobe DNG Profile Editor, for those who want to modify color representation of their RAW's. works only in Photoshop/Lightroom environment ofcourse.

[noimmunity]

It is still a new camera, and maybe some more people who are actually skillful haven't started using it, but I often find images from the Xpro online a bit lackluster.
They are very sharp and detailed for sure, bit it seems to be just that: cold quality, no atmosphere.
I am using the X100 myself and I always thought this look was caused by the 23mm lens on crop, but I see it on the Xpro with other lenses now as well.

I also have a GXR M-mount, and the images it produces with my zeiss/voightlander/minolta lenses creates a much smoother images. Maybe it's an unfair comparison, but even these kind of lenses with adapter loose some of their charm on the Xpro.
I am not talkng about corner sharpness or color vignetting. I actually don't care about that (seriously, what's people's obsession with these corners?) I am talking about the overel color and structure of the image, the look.

Can anyone show me Xpro images shot with zeiss lenses that have as nice colors as the GXR or digital Ms?

Can anyone show me Xpro images shot with Leica/Rokkor lenses those nice Leica colors or summicron look I see from digital M's?

Can anyone show me some nice smooth creamy BW images?

I am not so interested in flowers and stone objects, which I see are being posted a lot. More street/reportage/documentary/portrait kind of work.

It is not my intention to trash the Xpro. I want it to be nice and work well with M-lenses. I am sure in the future (Fuji's M mount) manual focussing will be taken care of, and again, I don't care about that corner stuff, so it is the look (and cost I admit) that is keeping me with the GXR. The GXR is an odd combination with my X100 though, and soon the 2nd hand price of the Xpro will start sinking. That's why I really want to Xpro to be something that it maybe isn't.

Have you tried looking here? http://www.flickr.com/photos/25805910@N05/sets/72157629380067295/

[zwarte_kat]

Have you tried looking here? http://www.flickr.com/photos/25805910@N05/sets/72157629380067295/

I looked at them again, though I saw them a while ago.
They are great photos, but they kind of confirm my concerns. If you look at the shots from Indonesia, I mean, it's INDONESIA, a country with gorgeous colors. They photos are taken by a very skillful person, but they lack the colors that I like to see from Leica or Zeiss.

Maybe if he could just shoot with some of those lenses I'd be convinced, but now, no.

[zwarte_kat]

Part of the problem is that everyone shoots them in aperture priority and they overexpose pretty easily. With all digital cameras you gotta expose for the highlights to create density in color and shadows. Overexposed they become very 'thin'.

I've shown these all before here, and to be honest they're under sharpened so look 'flatter' than they should, but I think these demonstrate what I mean about exposing for the highlights and looking more 'dense'. They're all straight out of cam too.

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m0voitEzp71r5w50to3_1280.jpg

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lzh33sykEP1r5w50to1_1280.jpg

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lzh33sykEP1r5w50to2_1280.jpg

Nice pictures.
Well I am sure that helps a bit, but would the same problem be there with the GXR? Maybe Fuji X series just have a different look, they DO have a completely different sensor.

Often I even see the nice Zeiss colors on the nex cameras.

[BobYIL]

I do not have an XP1, nor the X100, however as far as I was able to note the OOC Jpegs of Fujifilm are the most impressive ones I have seen from any camera and better than the Olympus which is known for its Jpeg quality. Regarding the Raws, could it be due to Silkypix? (Why Fuji did not cooperate with some top processing authority like Adobe for example?! Many users are not pleased with Silkypix as I heard..)

[Archiver]

It's funny you should say this because I am noticing something similar. This afternoon I spent a good 30 minutes taking a lot of sample photos in varying light conditions in and outside my dealer. I'm looking at the sample images now and I'm seeing exactly what you are - a flatness that kind of bugs me.

I saw this before with the X100 but I found that putting the raws through Lightroom and giving them a bit of a custom preset to beef up the saturation, 'depth' and contrast has given them a great look. My GXR-M and M9 also come out as very rich through Lightroom, and my X100 does as well.

I am just waiting for Adobe Camera Raw to support the X-Pro 1. When it does, I'll convert today's samples and adjust them in Lightroom.

Gavin, that's a good tip about correct exposure. I usually shoot the X100 with a bit of underexposure, sometimes a lot. To the other poster who said that the X100 files are kind of plastic, I agree wholeheartedly. The Sigma DPx and Leica M8/9 files are the most natural looking that I've seen from a digital camera. The GXR files are not exactly natural, they are very dense, sharp and saturated, but still not in the 'plasticky' way that the X100's are.

[gavinlg]

One of the other things I've noticed about the x100 files is that they have a huge dynamic range, and they are very low noise. So put those two together and you get a rather flat photograph. Especially if you choose to use extended or 'auto' DR options, the output can look very flat in soft light/shadows as the camera is boosting shadows and pulling highlights, making everything grey and soft. My advice is to turn auto DR off most of the time unless the light is SUPER contrasty and harsh, and use ASTIA preset which is contras tier than provia.

Another big thing is that the built in nd filter WILL reduce the contrast in images, especially the cam is shot wide open. That extra contrast reduction is pretty significant.

I've found (since the photos above) that adding a 'touch' of grain and applying an 'S' curve in PP makes a big difference to the giving the files more snap/grit/life.

[rbelyell]

One of the other things I've noticed about the x100 files is that they have a huge dynamic range, and they are very low noise. So put those two together and you get a rather flat photograph. Especially if you choose to use extended or 'auto' DR options, the output can look very flat in soft light/shadows as the camera is boosting shadows and pulling highlights, making everything grey and soft. My advice is to turn auto DR off most of the time unless the light is SUPER contrasty and harsh, and use ASTIA preset which is contras tier than provia.

Another big thing is that the built in nd filter WILL reduce the contrast in images, especially the cam is shot wide open. That extra contrast reduction is pretty significant.

I've found (since the photos above) that adding a 'touch' of grain and applying an 'S' curve in PP makes a big difference to the giving the files more snap/grit/life.

absolutely on point! plus, i have two other questions: are we really comparing output from a $1000 cam/lens combination to multi thousand dollar cam/lens combos? the only cam memtioned in this thread so far that we can realistically compare to the x100 is the gxr, the others, m8s-9s are just silly comparisons.

next, where are all those forum members who defend the 'flatness' of the new M9M output as exactly what they want? as i recall post after post on that thread, the thought was DR and resolution were most important, and that 'flatness' was properly dealt with by the photographer in PP, and shouldnt be 'imposed' by the camera...(btw, i didnt buy that POV, but just wondering why the argument only applies to absurdly priced leica products).

at the end of the day, i'm wondering if the issue here is the pesence of an AA filter on the x100, and its abscence on the other cams...it is this issue alone that has re-piqued my interest in the gxr.
tony

[jsrockit]

I don't think they lack anything... I always see Fuji as having Fuji colors and Leica as having Kodak colors. They are just different.

Perhaps super clean digital is just not your thing?

[j.scooter]

I am actually surprised at this thread. I have always like the colors out of the X100 and the same goes for the XP1.
These are SOOC jpegs from the XP1
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/rffgallery/gallery/38373/U38373I1337170462.SEQ.0.jpg

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/rffgallery/gallery/38373/U38373I1337083456.SEQ.0.jpg

[noimmunity]

I looked at them again, though I saw them a while ago.
They are great photos, but they kind of confirm my concerns. If you look at the shots from Indonesia, I mean, it's INDONESIA, a country with gorgeous colors. They photos are taken by a very skillful person, but they lack the colors that I like to see from Leica or Zeiss.

Maybe if he could just shoot with some of those lenses I'd be convinced, but now, no.

I thought I could follow what you mean until I read this response. It's all so subjective. If you don't like it, just follow your heart.

There have been some advances seen in XP1 color as beta programs for RAW conversion emerge. I'm sure this will get better. This has been the case for some of the photos that are in that flickr collection above, and no doubt it will continue.

To make a final judgment about M mount lenses on the XP1, I suggest waiting until the official Fuji adapter is released.

OT: Subjective associations with color are part of the operative social fantasy known as "Orientalism". Now I've lived in Asia for 25 years, Europe for 2, and North America for about 23. The association of particular countries with "color" is a well-documented function of exoticism and "othering". Although I grew up in an environment where everybody saw things in this way, I discovered long ago that it is just a way of viewing that can easily be applied to any country. Of course, if you go to highly normalized disciplined places like factories, schools, prisons, army barracks, offices, banks, etc, the color you will find is going to be just that, highly normalized. But even that could be exoticized, just as photographers once did with Maoist China. It really tells us more about the viewer than about what is being viewed. I know exoticism turns a lot of people on, but it's not for me. Color is everywhere and nowhere!

[v_roma]

+1 from me too. I don't have an Xpro but I have no complaints about the colors and punch of my X100 photos shooting RAW. Take advantage of the dynamic range and add some contrast, as needed. My X100 is with Fuji for repair (dropped it on the floor :bang:) so I had to fall back to my old Canon dSLR. Talk about dull colors.

absolutely on point! plus, i have two other questions: are we really comparing output from a $1000 cam/lens combination to multi thousand dollar cam/lens combos? the only cam memtioned in this thread so far that we can realistically compare to the x100 is the gxr, the others, m8s-9s are just silly comparisons.

next, where are all those forum members who defend the 'flatness' of the new M9M output as exactly what they want? as i recall post after post on that thread, the thought was DR and resolution were most important, and that 'flatness' was properly dealt with by the photographer in PP, and shouldnt be 'imposed' by the camera...(btw, i didnt buy that POV, but just wondering why the argument only applies to absurdly priced leica products).

at the end of the day, i'm wondering if the issue here is the pesence of an AA filter on the x100, and its abscence on the other cams...it is this issue alone that has re-piqued my interest in the gxr.
tony

[jsrockit]

OT: Subjective associations with color are part of the operative social fantasy known as "Orientalism". Now I've lived in Asia for 25 years, Europe for 2, and North America for about 23. The association of particular countries with "color" is a well-documented function of exoticism and "othering". Although I grew up in an environment where everybody saw things in this way, I discovered long ago that it is just a way of viewing that can easily be applied to any country. Of course, if you go to highly normalized disciplined places like factories, schools, prisons, army barracks, offices, banks, etc, the color you will find is going to be just that, highly normalized. But even that could be exoticized, just as photographers once did with Maoist China. It really tells us more about the viewer than about what is being viewed. I know exoticism turns a lot of people on, but it's not for me. Color is everywhere and nowhere!

Interesting. I've always been more attracted photographically to the dead pan and common... the stuff people tend to walk past daily without ever paying attention to. That said, perhaps the common in my area is exotic to someone else (which we kind of know is). Interesting.

[PatrickCheung]

I don't have a Fuji Xpro, though I do have an X100. Iunno what you think of these images, though I've enjoyed the results I get with a little processing, with regards to both BW and Colour.

http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6107/6292851152_8020286394_b.jpg

http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5236/5886075841_6f82236431_b.jpg

http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5028/5886093123_fd45d1558e_b.jpg

http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6142/5935746344_28fb733b8e_b.jpg

http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6134/5965501689_904bbb359d_b.jpg

http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6162/6205721248_e170e6e819_b.jpg

http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6152/6205213513_3e47af2c76_b.jpg

apologies if this isn't what you're looking for, I like my S curves steep and I'm a little colour blind (red-green) XD

[noimmunity]

Interesting. I've always been more attracted photographically to the dead pan and common... the stuff people tend to walk past daily without ever paying attention to. That said, perhaps the common in my area is exotic to someone else (which we kind of know is). Interesting.

Some of my favorite photographers/photographs do pretty much just that.

[back alley]

the eye of the beholder?

[f16sunshine]

Everyone is always begging for higher dynamic range. When a camera starts to deliver it and folks begin to "develop" their images using wide DR. We can not complain when they look flat or plasticy. Like Gavin points out, a slight under exposure or exposing for highlights gives a denser and richer look. It's really just a shorter DR giving a lower black point in effect and more contrast. Sort of the Zeiss philosophy of lens Contrast.

[Deep Fried]

this is pretty funny, because I think M9 files look 'flat' colour wise. But it gets applauded for having 'natural' colour.

A couple of points; first the X100 likes -2/3 to -1 exp comp in bright light. As noted, overexposure gives a thin look. Secondly, any digital file can have dull or saturated colour depending on processing. My X100 raw files are not dull at all, because I don't process them that way.

[Paul T.]

They're not as lacking in colour as the M-9M, and look how much that costs!

Seriously, I don't buy into this idea. Buying a camera and complaining about the OOB colours is like buying a synthesiser and complaining about the preset sounds. The whole point is to get what you want out of it.


In general, I like the look of the Fuji files I've seen, but the colour balance is surely the part that is most subject to change, depending on your settings and workflow.

[Aristophanes]

Ummm...isn't this thread obviated by shooting RAW?

[Deep Fried]

Ummm...isn't this thread obviated by shooting RAW?

Yes, it is. No raw support from adobe yet for Xpro though.

[f16sunshine]

Ummm...isn't this thread obviated by shooting RAW?


I would agree with this. The ooh jpeg is not to everyones taste. That's basically what this thread is about. People tastes and in that regard I guess I agree with the OP in wanting an image with more pop. The Xpro-1 is fully capable of giving whatever sort of image one wants. Sure that's my opinion but, one based on playing with the camera and files it delivers.

[tom.w.bn]

Ummm...isn't this thread obviated by shooting RAW?

No. With JPG you get Fuji colors, with RAW you get Adobe colors, or Apple colors if you use Aperture. You always get someones interpretation of the sensor. The benefits of RAW over JPG are overrated. You have more options regarding white balance and most of the time highlight/shadow recovery is better. For everything else, especially color modifications, contrast, etc. it's the same. So if you don't like the JPGs and don't like the colors out of the RAW the amount of work to get something you like is the same.

[Aristophanes]

No. With JPG you get Fuji colors, with RAW you get Adobe colors, or Apple colors if you use Aperture. You always get someones interpretation of the sensor. The benefits of RAW over JPG are overrated. You have more options regarding white balance and most of the time highlight/shadow recovery is better. For everything else, especially color modifications, contrast, etc. it's the same. So if you don't like the JPGs and don't like the colors out of the RAW the amount of work to get something you like is the same.

I use RAW and can get a vast gamut and variety based on what I want from the sensor.

Within the DR of today's sensors there is nothing I *cannot* get colour wise and I have presets to get what I want. That's the whole point of shooting RAW. It sill obviates this thread which is about Fuji's JPEG's and not the camera's innate abilities.

I find the colours demonstrated here so far fine, but the corner light falloff is no so good IMO.

[semilog]

I'm using a beta version of Raw Photo Processor 64 for the XPRO. I'm playing with default files out of RPP64 into LAB .tiffs, then doing really minimal work in LR (tone adjustments, minimal sharpening of +30 @ 0.8 px, maybe +5 for chroma NR and +8 for luminance NR, and a modest saturation bump).

The results are absolutely stunning. I don't have anything to share yet -- I've just done some test shots of the mess on my desk and the window above it, but the ability of RPP64 to retain tonality and detail from xpro files -- even underexposed a stop or two at ISO 3200 -- makes the already very good out-of-camera JPEGs look like placeholders.

[Deep Fried]

I use RAW and can get a vast gamut and variety based on what I want from the sensor.

Within the DR of today's sensors there is nothing I *cannot* get colour wise and I have presets to get what I want. That's the whole point of shooting RAW. It sill obviates this thread which is about Fuji's JPEG's and not the camera's innate abilities.

I find the colours demonstrated here so far fine, but the corner light falloff is no so good IMO.

exactly. Record a raw file and then do whatever you want with it after. Process it ten different ways. Change your mind later. Why let the camera lock in a result before you've even seen it?

On the other hand, if you have to have a camera generated jpeg with deeper colour then the X's have a whole bunch of settings to tweak to get you there in camera. The camera can do whatever the user asks of it, but the user has to make adjustments and put in the time to figure out what they want.

[willie_901]

Just more FUD about Fuji.

Now the colors are uninteresting.

[macjim]

Cameralabs has posted a short review of the images from the X-Pro1. A full camera review is to come out soon. http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Fujifilm_X-Pro1/sample_images.shtml

[semilog]

Not an interesting picture, but it serves to make the point. This is (beta) RPP64 output with a slight tonal adjustment in LR3. WB is keyed to the bike's crankarm, and K64 emulation mode is used.

This is not close to optimized -- it's just a starting point, but one that makes it clear that I'll be able to get what I want. Click for larger versions that bring out more of the hue and tonal range.

http://semilog.smugmug.com/Other/35-Biogon-C-test-photos/i-366phxk/0/L/DSCF8395-2-2-L.jpg (http://semilog.smugmug.com/Other/35-Biogon-C-test-photos/12347860_7pjD73#!i=1855351741&k=366phxk&lb=1&s=A)

Here's the corresponding out-of-camera JPEG (16:9 crop). Settings are intentionally a bit flat: film = std, high -1, shad -1, DR auto, color -2, sharp -1.

http://semilog.smugmug.com/Other/35-Biogon-C-test-photos/i-JqngcJm/0/L/DSCF8395-L.jpg (http://semilog.smugmug.com/Other/35-Biogon-C-test-photos/12347860_7pjD73#!i=1855365417&k=JqngcJm&lb=1&s=A)

[Landshark99]

It is still a new camera, and maybe some more people who are actually skillful haven't started using it, but I often find images from the Xpro online a bit lackluster.
They are very sharp and detailed for sure, bit it seems to be just that: cold quality, no atmosphere.
I am using the X100 myself and I always thought this look was caused by the 23mm lens on crop, but I see it on the Xpro with other lenses now as well.

I also have a GXR M-mount, and the images it produces with my zeiss/voightlander/minolta lenses creates a much smoother images. Maybe it's an unfair comparison, but even these kind of lenses with adapter loose some of their charm on the Xpro.
I am not talkng about corner sharpness or color vignetting. I actually don't care about that (seriously, what's people's obsession with these corners?) I am talking about the overel color and structure of the image, the look.

Can anyone show me Xpro images shot with zeiss lenses that have as nice colors as the GXR or digital Ms?

Can anyone show me Xpro images shot with Leica/Rokkor lenses those nice Leica colors or summicron look I see from digital M's?

Can anyone show me some nice smooth creamy BW images?

I am not so interested in flowers and stone objects, which I see are being posted a lot. More street/reportage/documentary/portrait kind of work.

It is not my intention to trash the Xpro. I want it to be nice and work well with M-lenses. I am sure in the future (Fuji's M mount) manual focussing will be taken care of, and again, I don't care about that corner stuff, so it is the look (and cost I admit) that is keeping me with the GXR. The GXR is an odd combination with my X100 though, and soon the 2nd hand price of the Xpro will start sinking. That's why I really want to Xpro to be something that it maybe isn't.
Why bother to ask, do not buy the camera.
I love the Fuji color, also shot Fuji film when I shot film. Color is subjective, that is why when we did shoot film there were so many kinds. I had a GXR for a short time could not "warm" up to the camera, it just was not for me. .

[rasterdogs]

The color lacking thing puzzles me.

If anything I find myself lowering the Vibrance setting in LR4 for many of the OOC jpegs.

Additionally I've been able to make the LCD virtually vibrate with color by using the in camera raw converter, Velvia film type, and boosting Color +2. Not advocating this but if you want COLOR this might be what you are looking for. ;)

Maybe I have weird rods and cones but I've no problem with color and the Xpro-1. I can make it as interesting and rich as I want and then some. This will only get better when Adobe supports raw from the Xpro-1 (and yup I know about
SilkyPix and will NOT use it).

[zwarte_kat]

Just more FUD about Fuji.

Now the colors are uninteresting.

I notice some people seem to be bothered, perhaps the title was off.

If you read my post, you will see that I realize that we are still in an early stage of this camera, and that I literally said I don't mean to trash the Xpro (though there is no reason I shouldn't be allowed to on a camera forum). I just wanted to see some images of the look that I like, and I wanted to see some examples of images with Zeiss/Leica lenses with nice popping colors.

I don't mean to criticize the x100 for what you get for the prize, and I understand the Fuji sensor/lens combo produces the fuji look OOC. I have the x100 myself and use it almost daily, probably shooting with one more then 90% of it's owners. I have no problem with focus and shoot on the street and in dark places, not just flowers.

However, I am looking to start doing projects, and would like to use different focal lengths. The Xpro seems like a good solution, which is why I am interested in it and am asking these questions.
I have some M lenses that I really love, and that is probably why I prefer the GXR output. If I could get a similar output with the Xpro, then I might get one, but it is a big investment. Using just Ricoh is an option too, but the camera is less dynamic for me.

So not looking to insult anyone's camera, just doing my research before I spent money and time, and wanted to see some images.

thanks for posting all the thoughts and images, I will wait until Raw support and the M mount is there, and see what comes out of it.

[DominikDUK]

First I don't own any X-series Fuji but looking at the pictures they don't seem lackluster to me in fact I'd say the look sometimes too much like Velvia. Semilog example shows an Image one gets from most digicams. The K64 emulation looks a bit warmer and better but nothing like K64 imho. I think that starting with a flat native raw image was the right thing. After all RAW is meant to be worked over until one gets the desired result.

Dominik

[mobilexile]

The benefits of RAW over JPG are overrated.

With all due respect, this statement is inaccurate. RAW files have far more information to be leveraged when processing.

For work I regularly hire photographers for ad campaigns. If a shooter were to supply JPEG files alone we'd never work together again. JPEGs simply don't cut the muster. Most stock photography is supplied in JPEG form. We accept the drop in quality as a trade for lower cost and convenience but it's never the preference.

I understand my file needs for work do not reflect those of this thread or community, please excuse my soap box.

[willie_901]

When exposure and white balance temperature is perfect, raw file manipulation is redundant. Perfect implies the in-camera jpeg parameters (such as sharpening, noise filtering, contrast, etc., etc) are the best possible parameters for the chosen subject.

Otherwise, the greater the deviation from perfection, the more useful raw file processing becomes.

[Landshark99]

When I am playing JPEGS are fine but for work all of my jobs require raw files

[mobilexile]

When exposure and white balance temperature is perfect, raw file manipulation is redundant. Perfect implies the in-camera jpeg parameters (such as sharpening, noise filtering, contrast, etc., etc) are the best possible parameters for the chosen subject.

Otherwise, the greater the deviation from perfection, the more useful raw file processing becomes.

If images will ultimately run on press RAW files are a must.

[Landshark99]

I am very happy with the Fuji files even this JPEG seems very cool to mehttp://i148.photobucket.com/albums/s39/abcphotowest/PacificGrove1sm.jpg

[Landshark99]

or this one
http://i148.photobucket.com/albums/s39/abcphotowest/PLlayerssm.jpg

[mobilexile]

I am very happy with the Fuji files even this JPEG seems very cool to me

I tend to agree, the X-Pro1 produces lovely results.

Great shots, btw.

[willie_901]

If images will ultimately run on press RAW files are a must.

I agree completely.

[gavinlg]

Update: I feel like I've unlocked a bit more potential in the fuji X files - I now feel shooting RAW is a must, as the jpegs are too 'smooth' and flat. I'm now adding a touch of 'grain' to the raw files amongst a few other little tricks and to my eye, they're much richer and more 'real' looking. It's all in the processing (assuming you expose correctly to begin with - underexpose if in doubt)

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m1j42kkreQ1r5w50to8_r1_1280.jpg

[ColinMichael]

Personally, I'm a ex-Pro 400h shooter so I love the X-Pro1 files. Compared to my 5DII, files are richer, have better skin tones and the color pallet is a bit more pastel... sort of like the film I love so much. Shooting manually as I find A mode to be a bit unpredictable.

Here's a couple from a recent engagement session. All Jpeg, set to standard. Note I'm now shooting in the Pro Neg Std mode:

http://www.colinmichaelphoto.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/san-luis-obispo-01.jpg


Open shade details:

http://www.colinmichaelphoto.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/X-Pro-1-Sample-Image-3.jpg


Here's a comparison vs. the 5DII file (I'll let you guess):

http://www.colinmichaelphoto.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/san-luis-obispo-06.jpg

[ColinMichael]

I am very happy with the Fuji files even this JPEG seems very cool to mehttp://i148.photobucket.com/albums/s39/abcphotowest/PacificGrove1sm.jpg

Nicely done!

[buzzardkid]

Still, it's a thread on comparing cows to airplanes.

Nobody's even bothered to tell what monitor and calibration software they are using!

I like the shots I'm seeing in the last few posts, but have no way of being sure that what I'm seeing on my SpyderExpress calibrated HP LED screen is anywhere near close to what the original poster intended with the shot...

In-camera JPEGs in B&W seem to lack DR in skylights in some shots but again, no way of knowing for sure. And, I'd never shoot in-camera JPEGs in B&W anyway when I can have RAW.

Interesting camera to use my M and LTM glass on. More so than the Oly which I held last week, it's too small for me and the all-electronic EVF is good but still not a true VF.
This X-Pro1 might prove itself a winner to me over time when the price comes down...:eek:

[mobilexile]

I like the shots I'm seeing in the last few posts, but have no way of being sure that what I'm seeing on my SpyderExpress calibrated HP LED screen is anywhere near close to what the original poster intended with the shot...

Regardless of what the original poster intended you're never going to see the same result on your end. That's like comparing images from a 1975 consumer Polaroid and a Leica M9 – they will never be the same. A FEW reasons include file compression, interwebs, two machines in different environments that aren't calibrated to match, more than likely two different monitor makes and models, etc. Sure, you can get a reasonable sense but they'll differ.

[semilog]

RAW conversion with RPP64 4.5.0 Beta 61 and post-conversion adjustments in LR 4.1. Lens is the XF 18/2.

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8163/7368989042_3b473c8d35_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/semilog/7368989042/)
DSCF0257-2 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/semilog/7368989042/) by Semilog (http://www.flickr.com/people/semilog/), on Flickr

[Benjamin Marks]

Well, I think you got some color richness there Semilog. ;-)

One thing I noticed: the jpgs out of the box, factory default settings are more saturated than the Silkypix converstions to TIFF out of the box, with its factory default settings. But this is to be expected, no?

[semilog]

....and some rich local color ;-)

[jsrockit]

RAW conversion with RPP64 4.5.0 Beta 61 and post-conversion adjustments in LR 4.1. Lens is the XF 18/2.

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8163/7368989042_3b473c8d35_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/semilog/7368989042/)
DSCF0257-2 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/semilog/7368989042/) by Semilog (http://www.flickr.com/people/semilog/), on Flickr

Nice one. :)