Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Non Rangefinder Cameras > Digital Fixed Lens Advanced Compacts > Fuji X Fixed Lens

Fuji X Fixed Lens This forum is for fans of the rangefinder retrostyled Fuji X Series of digital cameras.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes

Old 01-31-2012   #51
tom.w.bn
Former RF User
 
tom.w.bn is offline
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Germany
Posts: 2,840
I always used raw with all the cameras I have/had. Lightroom gives always good colors. With the X100 I was quite disappointed with the Adobe colors. Images looked rather flat. I switched to JPG and this gives me a better starting point for the little changes I want to make.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-31-2012   #52
celluloidprop
Registered User
 
celluloidprop is offline
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 882
There is a grayness to the unaltered image in LR (it almost looks like a fog over the image) - generally bumping blacks from 5 to around 10 takes care of a lot of that and makes the entire image look richer.

Unlike Canikon models, Adobe has no camera profile under the calibration area for the X100 - with my D700, you could see Camera Standard, Camera Vivid, Camera Neutral, analogous to the various JPG settings available in-camera. If you could select X100 -Provia in that drop-down, you'd see something much closer to JPGs from the camera.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-31-2012   #53
Turtle
Registered User
 
Turtle is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,622
Its very simple. JPEG will give a 90% result 99% of the time. Thats fine, even desirable for general usage, but far from fine if you want the very best possible. The camera's engine cannot possibly know what you want, only you can... and you have to put the time in to get it.

My solution is to capture both files. Use the JPEG when it suits,but have the RAW there for when I need to really work on a file.

Nick, a lot of the best photographers shoot in very challenging lighting conditions most of the time because its a good way to produce powerful images. Visit a Salgado exhibition (pre-Genesis) and then think about whether you'd have shot them in JPEG or wanted the latitude of RAW...
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-31-2012   #54
Turtle
Registered User
 
Turtle is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,622
But KR's photos are not demanding from a technical perspective. I don't look at them and think 'wow, what technically impressive work.... how has he so delicately balanced X & Y... I can see that must have been a nightmare to achieve'

It is easy to see from the sort of work he shoots that he has little need for RAW as the lighting and other factors are relatively straight forward. As long as KR has lots of contrast and lots of colour punch, he seems to be happy and that's fair enough considering his creative objectives. His images are bold rather than subtle and they are rarely shot under nasty lighting conditions.


Quote:
Originally Posted by NickTrop View Post
Ken Rocwell - whose site produces inexplicable angry reactions (because he's opinionated), but remains one of the most informative sites on the intertubes and one I enjoy... has a nice comprehensive article on raw vs. jpeg that I happen to agree with. In fact, I was kinda surprised when I stumbled on this article a while back because I recon'd Rockwell for a raw shooter:


JPG vs Raw:
Get it Right the First Time
2009 KenRockwell.com. All rights reserved.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm

Using raw files obviously takes a lot more time and patience...since you could have had all that processing done right in the camera for free...Raw looks no better than JPG for real photos. It just takes up space, wastes your time and runs the risk of not being able to be opened now and in the future.

I cherry-picked his criticisms of RAW, actually he doesn't diss raw completely. He says, basically, if you don't shoot a lot and like to play around with images for fun and enjoy doing this, knock yourself out. Shoot raw, be my guest. But on the whole it's a waste of time and doesn't result in better looking pics for all you wasted time/effort when printed/viewed at a normal viewing distance - only maybe if you magnify your images to the relative size of a billboard when you pixel peep. Raw is also good for if you completely screw up exposure but any digital camera - even cheap ones, pretty much nail exposure... so the only way you're really going to screw this up if you shoot in manual mode because - ya, know, that sophisticated technology and processing power in your camera that's orders of magnitude greater than what was used to get a manned rocket back and forth to the moon, is incapable of accurate exposure...

I agree with Rockwell in full. His opinion is spot on.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-01-2012   #55
rbelyell
Registered User
 
rbelyell is offline
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,044
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turtle View Post
But KR's photos are not demanding from a technical perspective. I don't look at them and think 'wow, what technically impressive work.... how has he so delicately balanced X & Y... I can see that must have been a nightmare to achieve'

It is easy to see from the sort of work he shoots that he has little need for RAW as the lighting and other factors are relatively straight forward. As long as KR has lots of contrast and lots of colour punch, he seems to be happy and that's fair enough considering his creative objectives. His images are bold rather than subtle and they are rarely shot under nasty lighting conditions.
i think yours is the exact point for a different conclusion, which is UNLESS you are in a technically demanding situation, especially as respects lighting, shooting raw is a waste of time, space and energy. most of us are not professionals testing the limits of man and machine. if we were we'd be using much different equipment. for 90% of us in 90% of the situations we encounter there is no longer any reason whatsoever to shoot raw.

for the space this argument engenders, the definitive conclusion is quite easy and objective to achieve. shoot the same normal scene at the same time raw and jpeg and try to find a difference in your prints. unless youre postering a wall with them, my bet is you won't be able to find any noticeable difference. if you do, that would be worth hearing about!
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-01-2012   #56
jamesbf
Registered User
 
jamesbf is offline
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 58
Pereonally I shoot jpeg. I think I'd only go raw if I was shooting magazine fashion or some type of commercial job. For street and everyday I alway shoot jpeg. If I spend more then 2 min on a edit in photoshop I usually scrap it.
__________________
_____________
website
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-01-2012   #57
Turtle
Registered User
 
Turtle is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,622
Sure, but are you going to switch from JPEG to RAW and back and forth when your lighting varies from shot to shot?

I guess if you are a challenging photographer you have little choice but to shoot RAW. If you play it safe, ensure lighting is always 'compliant' etc then there is no need.

You can always work a RAW file towards the JPEG your camera would have produced, but you cannot always work a JPEG towards the file you would have produced from RAW....

Quote:
Originally Posted by rbelyell View Post
i think yours is the exact point for a different conclusion, which is UNLESS you are in a technically demanding situation, especially as respects lighting, shooting raw is a waste of time, space and energy. most of us are not professionals testing the limits of man and machine. if we were we'd be using much different equipment. for 90% of us in 90% of the situations we encounter there is no longer any reason whatsoever to shoot raw.

for the space this argument engenders, the definitive conclusion is quite easy and objective to achieve. shoot the same normal scene at the same time raw and jpeg and try to find a difference in your prints. unless youre postering a wall with them, my bet is you won't be able to find any noticeable difference. if you do, that would be worth hearing about!
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-01-2012   #58
Turtle
Registered User
 
Turtle is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,622
I'd add that with a very small amount of thought, LR or the like can be set up to squirt out your RAW files pretty much however you want, so you can get out what the camera JPEG would have been with the click of a button.

Besides, we can shoot RAW and JPEG together. I know I do.... Aside from quantum speed, I cannot see any reason not to have those RAW files there just in case. You can always delete them!

While I understand the point about lots of people not being professionals, that's no argument, because the point here is that Ken Rock suggested, as supported by Nick Trop, that there is 'no point' shooting RAW unless you want to spend your time tinkering for the sake of tinkering. That is patently untrue and there seems to be consensus on the idea that if the highest standards are your goal, esp if the lighting is nasty, RAW is the way to go!
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-01-2012   #59
willie_901
Registered User
 
willie_901's Avatar
 
willie_901 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,945
I will always shoot raw because I refuse to automatically destroy information before I know whether or not that information is valuable.
__________________
"Perspective is governed by where you stand object size and the angle of view included in the picture is determined by focal length." H.S. Newcombe

Self-Induced Transparency Photography, FLICKR, Professional Portfolio.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-01-2012   #60
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is online now
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: NYC
Age: 41
Posts: 14,548
I shoot RAW and will work on a file as long as it takes to get it to my liking. My thinking is that if I get the best photo of my life, I'll be glad I used RAW. J-peg is only for convenience or for those who are too lazy or don't have the desire to post-process.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-01-2012   #61
rbelyell
Registered User
 
rbelyell is offline
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,044
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turtle View Post
Sure, but are you going to switch from JPEG to RAW and back and forth when your lighting varies from shot to shot?

I guess if you are a challenging photographer you have little choice but to shoot RAW. If you play it safe, ensure lighting is always 'compliant' etc then there is no need.

You can always work a RAW file towards the JPEG your camera would have produced, but you cannot always work a JPEG towards the file you would have produced from RAW....
when i say 'difficult lighting' i typically mean 'artificial' lighting. typically, that doesnt change from shot to shot. when i'm inside in artificial light and pictures are critical, i shoot raw. 99% of other times i shoot jpeg-no going back and forth.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-01-2012   #62
rbelyell
Registered User
 
rbelyell is offline
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,044
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turtle View Post
I'd add that with a very small amount of thought, LR or the like can be set up to squirt out your RAW files pretty much however you want, so you can get out what the camera JPEG would have been with the click of a button.

Besides, we can shoot RAW and JPEG together. I know I do.... Aside from quantum speed, I cannot see any reason not to have those RAW files there just in case. You can always delete them!

While I understand the point about lots of people not being professionals, that's no argument, because the point here is that Ken Rock suggested, as supported by Nick Trop, that there is 'no point' shooting RAW unless you want to spend your time tinkering for the sake of tinkering. That is patently untrue and there seems to be consensus on the idea that if the highest standards are your goal, esp if the lighting is nasty, RAW is the way to go!
as they say in the states 'i'm from missouri, you've gotta show me'.

some folks like to tinker for the sake of tinkering, i think thats great, go for it and have fun spending hours futzing with your raw files to get them to look pretty much like my jpegs.

some folks believe jpegs destroy critical information without exactly knowing what that information is or how it effects IQ. again, fine, enjoy filling up those hard drives!

some folks, like me, have never seen, actually seen with their own eyes, side by side prints of the same simple scene made from raw and jpeg where there was any noticeable difference between them. in fact, this kind of observation actually showed us no discernible IQ differences. until we actually see real IQ differences, we feel everything else is fantasy.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-01-2012   #63
gavinlg
Registered User
 
gavinlg's Avatar
 
gavinlg is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Melbourne VIC
Posts: 4,779
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbelyell View Post
some folks, like me, have never seen, actually seen with their own eyes, side by side prints of the same simple scene made from raw and jpeg where there was any noticeable difference between them. in fact, this kind of observation actually showed us no discernible IQ differences. until we actually see real IQ differences, we feel everything else is fantasy.
I took some photos with my x100 the other day in a national park with my girlfriend. The WB on the camera was on 'auto', 'provia' and highlight/shadow settings on 'std'. The photos I took in JPEG came out too warm, and far too green. The skin tones on my girlfriend were almost sickly yellow. Adjusting them in lightroom to get a decent balance proved very difficult - mainly with the cast on the skin tones. They were ruined.

Luckily I had the raw files too - I made a quick adjustment to wb, bumped up the red/yellow/orange luminance and then batch corrected the rest of them. Literally took about 20 seconds total for about 40 photos.

Raw 4 lyfe.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-03-2012   #64
celluloidprop
Registered User
 
celluloidprop is offline
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 882
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbelyell View Post
for the space this argument engenders, the definitive conclusion is quite easy and objective to achieve. shoot the same normal scene at the same time raw and jpeg and try to find a difference in your prints. unless youre postering a wall with them, my bet is you won't be able to find any noticeable difference. if you do, that would be worth hearing about!

I will guarantee you that I can "find a difference" between any OOC monochrome JPG that I've used, and one I've edited in LR3/Silver Efex Pro 2.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-03-2012   #65
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is online now
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: NYC
Age: 41
Posts: 14,548
I like it RAW: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mHkRHiEjt8I
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-03-2012   #66
umcelinho
Marcelo
 
umcelinho's Avatar
 
umcelinho is offline
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Sao Paulo
Age: 31
Posts: 1,369
raw keeps more info on each file than a jpeg will do. time goes by and raw processors get better and better, unlike the in camera jpeg converter. so i just shoot raw even if sometimes i just take a look on the files on lr3, am pleased and export them to jpeg right away.
__________________
Gear:
right eye
right index finger
cameras & lenses

What I've seen around: flickr

  Reply With Quote

Old 02-24-2012   #67
Bike Tourist
Registered User
 
Bike Tourist's Avatar
 
Bike Tourist is offline
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Central California
Age: 78
Posts: 923
I don't wish to micromanage my pixels. For me, jpeg works fine, allows me to integrate files from different camera brands, withstands several iterations of manipulation, is fast and uncomplicated, and is my digital buddy.

Of course, I have low standards.
__________________
Dick Thornton

Stock Portfolio:
http://www.shutterstock.com/g/biketourist
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-24-2012   #68
paulfish4570
Registered User
 
paulfish4570's Avatar
 
paulfish4570 is offline
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: On the Locust Fork of the Warrior River, Alabama
Age: 63
Posts: 9,662
if i can ever figure out how to process RAW, maybe i'll have an opinion on this ...
__________________
i show what i see ...
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-24-2012   #69
Richard Berter
Registered User
 
Richard Berter's Avatar
 
Richard Berter is offline
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: cincinnati ,ohio
Posts: 194
Same goes for me Paul
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-24-2012   #70
Benjamin Oliver
Registered User
 
Benjamin Oliver's Avatar
 
Benjamin Oliver is offline
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Louisiana
Age: 25
Posts: 121
I started shooting raw+jpeg with the jpeg in BW. For me it is easier to get the color photos the way I like them with RPP, and the BW jpeg helps he decide if the photo will work better in BW or color having seen both.
__________________
Website

Blog
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-24-2012   #71
andy_v
Registered User
 
andy_v's Avatar
 
andy_v is offline
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Minsk, Belarus
Age: 52
Posts: 85
X100 is my first digital camera I prefer to shoot jpeg with.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-24-2012   #72
gavinlg
Registered User
 
gavinlg's Avatar
 
gavinlg is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Melbourne VIC
Posts: 4,779
Heh.. I've been going back and forth on this issue now since I bought my x100. I'm shooting raw+jpeg currently. After some more experimentation, I've started to change the simulation modes depending on the light - provia mode for very contrasty and harsh light, astia for most situations (but with the color toned down) and velvia for very very flat light. Likewise the highlight and shadow options get moved around a bit - usually I leave them on med-hard for provia, and then make them softer as I go to astia and velvia. The white balance is also really crucial - really warm scenes can trick the auto WB, so I try to set it as one of the presets most of the time. This helps with accuracy a lot.

There is definitely something quite amazing about the x100s JPEG engine - sometimes I literally cannot match the colors and tones with a raw file. When the JPEG engine 'overcooks' the colors on a file I've learned exactly how to tone them down selectively in lightroom, and the results are pretty damn good. I bought the fastest sandisk card available (90mb/s) and it's helped a lot with the write times when shooting raw+jpeg.

So yeah, I've backflipped again and most of my published photos from the x100 are jpegs (with the RAW files there as backup for important stuff).
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-24-2012   #73
gavinlg
Registered User
 
gavinlg's Avatar
 
gavinlg is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Melbourne VIC
Posts: 4,779
Also - I've noticed in Astia mode a tendency to clip shadows a bit - which I actually really like as it reminds me of a positive film scan. Sometimes there's a richness to the astia JPEGs that's really strong and pleasant - like in this photo:

  Reply With Quote

Old 03-15-2012   #74
Deep Fried
Registered User
 
Deep Fried's Avatar
 
Deep Fried is offline
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: CANADA
Posts: 137
X100 blows the white balance in mixed light too often for me to trust it. Indoors with mixed flourescent, halogen and incandescent, it will pick some wacky things sometimes.

Also, for a lightroom user there is zero difference in amount of work required for raw or jpeg. It makes it a non issue.

Yes, raw file colours are flatter. I find this to be true of all digital cameras I have shot raw. The thing is, I want to choose what to do with the colour.

The other big issue for me is creating tone curves for B&W highlights. You can't get nearly as nice highlights when trying to work over a jpeg.
__________________
Jeff
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-15-2012   #75
kbg32
neo-romanticist
 
kbg32's Avatar
 
kbg32 is offline
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: New York, New York
Posts: 4,920
"f i can ever figure out how to process RAW, maybe i'll have an opinion on this ... "

This is a problem with the majority of digital shooters. If they knew how to process RAW files, they would never use a jpeg again. Take your time, ask questions, experiment, find a friend, buy a book......
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:25.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.