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

[f16sunshine]

Originally Posted by Aristophanes

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]

Originally Posted by Aristophanes

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]

Originally Posted by tom.w.bn

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]

Originally Posted by Aristophanes

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/Fu...e_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.



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.

[Landshark99]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by willie_901

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]

Originally Posted by tom.w.bn

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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 me

[Landshark99]

or this one

[mobilexile]

Originally Posted by Landshark99

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]

Originally Posted by mobilexile

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)

[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:




Open shade details:




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

[ColinMichael]

Originally Posted by Landshark99

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

Nicely done!

[johannielscom]

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...

[mobilexile]

Originally Posted by buzzardkid

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.