Fuji X-E2 image problems

Started 11 months ago | Discussions thread
bigpigbig
Senior MemberPosts: 1,634Gear list
Like?
Re: Fuji X-E2 image problems
In reply to stimpy, 11 months ago

stimpy wrote:

bigpigbig wrote:

stimpy wrote:

bigpigbig wrote:

stimpy wrote:

bigpigbig wrote:

According to wikipedia:

"In digital photography, the raw file plays the role that photographic film plays in film photography. Raw files thus contain the full resolution (typically 12- or 14-bit) data as read out from each of the camera's image sensor pixels."

This would imply no noise reduction in the RAW file. Simply data from each photosensitive site. Covered with a RGB filter then light converted to electrical charge and quantified.

stimpy wrote:

They all apply NR but not to this degree. It certainly seems to be worse with the X-E2 in my experience. It doesn't help that my wife has freckles...

It doesn't imply that at all. That data gets manipulated to the RAW file by Fuji, nobody will ever know for sure but most experts agree they add a decent amount of noise reduction to their raws.

Could you post a link to one of these experts, please? I would like to learn how they think this happens.

How would you think that is happening? A RAW file contains only data from each photosensitive site (RGB). Noise happens at the pixel level. Pixels are created by interpreting this data (Demosaicing).

Reading this might help: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demosaicing

If you want to learn, Google "cooking camera RAW files" or "Manufacturers manipulate RAW data" something along those lines. It may help you understand a bit better.
It's a bit of a con really, but you're not really to blame becasue it is insunuated that a raw file is purely camera data.

Manufacturers aren't stupid, they know people look to DPreview, DXO etc who compare RAW files against different manufacturers so tweaking them to produce less noise for example, is going to give them better test result and therefore better sales.

Stimpy,

Rather than have me Google, can you give me the links to the experts you are referring to?

I tried and found very little. Certainly no experts. A few blogs with circumstantial evidence.

I am NOT saying it isn't happening, I just can't see how noise could possibly be controlled before it is created.

It seems (from your google links) that color balance and lens corrections are being done in RAW, and THAT seems possible. All green photosites could be adjusted downward for example.

Haha - nice try. If you want to learn about RAW files there is no shortcut, you'll need to read and yourself; I'm not going to do it for you.
It makes no odds to me if you wish to believe that a raw files are pure and untouched, so I'm certainly not going to spend my hours trying to convince you otherwise.
All I am saying is that there is plenty of expert opinion and proof that ALL manufacturers cook their RAWS if you can be bothered to find it. It's pretty much accepted as well, not sure why you resist.
OF course most manufacturers are going to come out and give specifics, that should be obvious. Though I do believe Nikon said something some years back about cooking NR for long exposures in their RAW files...which should at least satisfy you that it's possible.

I also recall something about the RAW file sizes being different which showed noise reduction happening...I can't recall specifics.
On the same vein, you do know manufacturers fabricate their ISO numbers as well don't you

Stimpy,

I am not resisting. I simply don't like to change my understandings based on blog posts. You seem to think you read an expert. I can't find it.

If you are posting facts and saying they are supported by "plenty of expert evidence", you should be prepared to share that evidence. I am guessing you are not an expert. Neither am I.

I try hard not to be swayed by blog posts that might well be made by camera manufactures to make others look bad. Believe me, there are plenty of people being paid to do just that.

I teach photography for a living and when I teach my students about RAW files, I want to be right. I hope you understand.

My high ISO shots are always larger files. What are you referring to?

 bigpigbig's gear list:bigpigbig's gear list
Nikon D800E Fujifilm X-E1 Fujifilm X-T1 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED +12 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
??New
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow