X-Pro1 JPEG vs RAW

Started Jan 16, 2013 | Discussions
Chris Dodkin
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,895Gear list
Like?
X-Pro1 JPEG vs RAW
Jan 16, 2013

There has been a lot of discussion recently because of the CaptureOne release, around in-camera JPEG vs various RAW conversions.

I did the following tests with all 3 prime lenses back in the summer - comparing out of camera JPEG from the X-Pro1, with files converted from RAW using ACR into Photoshop CS6. The JPEGs were with the default camera settings for sharpness etc - seeing as default seems to be the theme of the day.

The results are as I'd expected, but do go against some people's preconceptions around the 'ultimate' quality of the Fuji JPEG files

All of these are 100% crops

18mm Lens - Top JPEG - Bottom RAW

35mm Lens - Top JPEG - Bottom RAW

60mm Lens - Left JPEG - Right RAW

Pictures are worth a thousand words etc - clearly if you're thinking that RAW and especially RAW via Adobe is in some way inferior to Fuji JPEG, these may give you pause for thought.

I'll just add that I did not use the default settings in ACR in order to get max IQ out of the RAW files.

Link to the image set on Flickr here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/dodkin/sets/72157630330887924/

-- hide signature --

http://www.dodkin.com
Chris@1D-Images.com
Mac Pro/MacBook Pro/iPods/iPhones/iPad

 Chris Dodkin's gear list:Chris Dodkin's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix X100 Canon EOS-1D Canon EOS-1D Mark II Canon EOS 5D Mark II Canon EOS 30D +34 more
Fujifilm X-Pro1
If you believe there are incorrect tags, please send us this post using our feedback form.
Cadder
Senior MemberPosts: 1,392
Like?
Re: X-Pro1 JPEG vs RAW
In reply to Chris Dodkin, Jan 16, 2013

Thanks,

That helps me with the probable purchase of an X-Pro1

Cadder

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Asylum Photo
Senior MemberPosts: 1,277Gear list
Like?
Re: X-Pro1 JPEG vs RAW
In reply to Chris Dodkin, Jan 16, 2013

Oddly enough, I prefer the jpeg in all three samples. BUT, that's the beauty of choice.

-- hide signature --
 Asylum Photo's gear list:Asylum Photo's gear list
Fujifilm X-E2 Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R Fujifilm XF 60mm F2.4 R Macro Fujifilm XF 14mm F2.8 R Fujifilm XF 23mm F1.4 R +2 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
rich789
Regular MemberPosts: 150Gear list
Like?
Re: X-Pro1 JPEG vs RAW
In reply to Asylum Photo, Jan 16, 2013

Asylum Photo wrote:

Oddly enough, I prefer the jpeg in all three samples. BUT, that's the beauty of choice.

-- hide signature --

+1

Unless its my uneducated eye, the only difference I can see is that the raw has had a slight exposure lift relative to the Jpeg.

 rich789's gear list:rich789's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix X100 Fujifilm X-E1 Fujifilm X-M1 Fujifilm XF 18mm F2 R Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R +1 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Zardoz
Senior MemberPosts: 1,249Gear list
Like?
Re: X-Pro1 JPEG vs RAW
In reply to Chris Dodkin, Jan 16, 2013

None of this makes the well documented problems with Adobe's RAF conversion go away, unfortunately.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
David McGaughey
Senior MemberPosts: 2,245
Like?
JPEGs are less sharpened than the RAWs
In reply to Chris Dodkin, Jan 16, 2013

Chris Dodkin wrote:

There has been a lot of discussion recently because of the CaptureOne release, around in-camera JPEG vs various RAW conversions.

I did the following tests with all 3 prime lenses back in the summer - comparing out of camera JPEG from the X-Pro1, with files converted from RAW using ACR into Photoshop CS6. The JPEGs were with the default camera settings for sharpness etc - seeing as default seems to be the theme of the day.

The results are as I'd expected, but do go against some people's preconceptions around the 'ultimate' quality of the Fuji JPEG files

All of these are 100% crops

I brought the 35mm and 60mm shots into Photoshop and added some "smart sharpen" to just the JPEGs.....they sharpen up nicely and look as crisp as the RAWs. The RAWs can't take any more sharpening without getting weird looking.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
vkphoto
Senior MemberPosts: 1,571
Like?
looks odd
In reply to Chris Dodkin, Jan 16, 2013

Chris, are you sure that you didn't mixed up labels (jpeg/raw, top/bottom, /left/right)???

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Chris Dodkin
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,895Gear list
Like?
Re: looks odd
In reply to vkphoto, Jan 17, 2013

vkphoto wrote:

Chris, are you sure that you didn't mixed up labels (jpeg/raw, top/bottom, /left/right)???

LOL - yep, I'm sure 

I should have taken the time to match the RAW to the JPEG regarding color saturation and WB, to make the comparison on detail the key differentiator.

As presented, the 'film' sim in camera has a more saturated look - but the processed RAW files can provide higher levels of detail, as well as more manageable WB, dynamic range, highlight recovery, shadow detail etc etc

You can adjust WB and saturation to match the JPEGs look - and adjust to taste.

-- hide signature --

http://www.dodkin.com
Chris@1D-Images.com
Mac Pro/MacBook Pro/iPods/iPhones/iPad

 Chris Dodkin's gear list:Chris Dodkin's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix X100 Canon EOS-1D Canon EOS-1D Mark II Canon EOS 5D Mark II Canon EOS 30D +34 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Chris Dodkin
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,895Gear list
Like?
Re: JPEGs are less sharpened than the RAWs
In reply to David McGaughey, Jan 17, 2013

David McGaughey wrote:

Chris Dodkin wrote:

There has been a lot of discussion recently because of the CaptureOne release, around in-camera JPEG vs various RAW conversions.

I did the following tests with all 3 prime lenses back in the summer - comparing out of camera JPEG from the X-Pro1, with files converted from RAW using ACR into Photoshop CS6. The JPEGs were with the default camera settings for sharpness etc - seeing as default seems to be the theme of the day.

The results are as I'd expected, but do go against some people's preconceptions around the 'ultimate' quality of the Fuji JPEG files

All of these are 100% crops

I brought the 35mm and 60mm shots into Photoshop and added some "smart sharpen" to just the JPEGs.....they sharpen up nicely and look as crisp as the RAWs. The RAWs can't take any more sharpening without getting weird looking.

The JPEGs are using the default in-camera JPEG sharpening - no adjustments or PP have been applied.

You can of course adjust sharpening to taste on both JPEG and processed RAW - doing sharpening during RAW conversion will generally provide a higher quality of sharpened output that sharpening a JPEG.

-- hide signature --

http://www.dodkin.com
Chris@1D-Images.com
Mac Pro/MacBook Pro/iPods/iPhones/iPad

 Chris Dodkin's gear list:Chris Dodkin's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix X100 Canon EOS-1D Canon EOS-1D Mark II Canon EOS 5D Mark II Canon EOS 30D +34 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Chris Dodkin
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,895Gear list
Like?
Re: X-Pro1 JPEG vs RAW
In reply to Asylum Photo, Jan 17, 2013

Asylum Photo wrote:

Oddly enough, I prefer the jpeg in all three samples. BUT, that's the beauty of choice.

-- hide signature --

I prefer the saturation in the JPEG, and the detail in the converted RAW

You can of course adjust the saturation and WB in the converted RAW to match the JPEG - I just didn't do this in this case.

Perhaps I should have.

-- hide signature --

http://www.dodkin.com
Chris@1D-Images.com
Mac Pro/MacBook Pro/iPods/iPhones/iPad

 Chris Dodkin's gear list:Chris Dodkin's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix X100 Canon EOS-1D Canon EOS-1D Mark II Canon EOS 5D Mark II Canon EOS 30D +34 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Chris Dodkin
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,895Gear list
Like?
Re: X-Pro1 JPEG vs RAW
In reply to rich789, Jan 17, 2013

rich789 wrote:

Asylum Photo wrote:

Oddly enough, I prefer the jpeg in all three samples. BUT, that's the beauty of choice.

-- hide signature --

+1

Unless its my uneducated eye, the only difference I can see is that the raw has had a slight exposure lift relative to the Jpeg.

If you look at the blue siding for example, in the 18mm shot - there is more detail in the processed RAW than the JPEG.

In the 35mm shot - there is more detail in the palm tree in the RAW than the JPEG.

In the 60mm shot - there is crisper detail in the railing

The exposure and color/WB is all adjustable in RAW PP - I didn't spend time trying to 'match' the JPEG 'film' look

-- hide signature --

http://www.dodkin.com
Chris@1D-Images.com
Mac Pro/MacBook Pro/iPods/iPhones/iPad

 Chris Dodkin's gear list:Chris Dodkin's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix X100 Canon EOS-1D Canon EOS-1D Mark II Canon EOS 5D Mark II Canon EOS 30D +34 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Ryan Williams
Contributing MemberPosts: 592
Like?
Re: looks odd
In reply to Chris Dodkin, Jan 17, 2013

I think at this point most X-Trans owners are aware of ACR's limitations. Detail isn't really the big issue, it's colour smearing that's the real problem — something no amount of sharpening or fine-tuning can fix.

In your example photos I could tell which were the ACR shots without even looking at the labels, because the colour smearing is apparent in many places if you know what you're looking for (areas where there're highly-contrasting bold tones, such as green next to white or blue next to red).

Not that I'm saying this is a huge deal, but the limitations are clear and known to most.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Chris Dodkin
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,895Gear list
Like?
Re: looks odd
In reply to Ryan Williams, Jan 17, 2013

Ryan Williams wrote:

I think at this point most X-Trans owners are aware of ACR's limitations. Detail isn't really the big issue, it's colour smearing that's the real problem — something no amount of sharpening or fine-tuning can fix.

In your example photos I could tell which were the ACR shots without even looking at the labels, because the colour smearing is apparent in many places if you know what you're looking for (areas where there're highly-contrasting bold tones, such as green next to white or blue next to red).

Not that I'm saying this is a huge deal, but the limitations are clear and known to most.

Given that we're looking here at a 100% crop, so we're seeing the smallest of details - I'd say that the JPEG in #1 (the 18mm shot) shows more color bleed from the red area on the left of frame, than the processed RAW file does.

Same with the deep blue sign against the green building on the left of frame.

So I'd be 180 degrees from your statement, based on the evidence in front of me.

The JPEG appears to have more color smear than the processed RAW file.

-- hide signature --

http://www.dodkin.com
Chris@1D-Images.com
Mac Pro/MacBook Pro/iPods/iPhones/iPad

 Chris Dodkin's gear list:Chris Dodkin's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix X100 Canon EOS-1D Canon EOS-1D Mark II Canon EOS 5D Mark II Canon EOS 30D +34 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Randy Benter
Senior MemberPosts: 1,736Gear list
Like?
Re: X-Pro1 JPEG vs RAW
In reply to Chris Dodkin, Jan 17, 2013

Chris,

Could you please process the tram picture from the DPR examples:

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/1887029702/capture-one-fujifilm-x-trans-raw-support-tested

Can you process this in LR and eliminate the color bleeding in the street sign. Please share your settings if you can. Thanks.

 Randy Benter's gear list:Randy Benter's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix X100 Fujifilm X-Pro1 Canon EOS 70D Fujifilm X-A1 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM1 +23 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
marbla
New MemberPosts: 5
Like?
Re: X-Pro1 JPEG vs RAW
In reply to Randy Benter, Jan 17, 2013

Randy Benter wrote:

Chris,

Could you please process the tram picture from the DPR examples:

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/1887029702/capture-one-fujifilm-x-trans-raw-support-tested

Can you process this in LR and eliminate the color bleeding in the street sign. Please share your settings if you can. Thanks.

Here is a simple conversion in C1 with some small tweaks made.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/marbla/8389709656/in/photostream

Do realize that most of the foliage is out of focus though so I don't know how much benefit pixel peeping does.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Ryan Williams
Contributing MemberPosts: 592
Like?
Re: X-Pro1 JPEG vs RAW
In reply to marbla, Jan 17, 2013

marbla wrote:

Randy Benter wrote:

Chris,

Could you please process the tram picture from the DPR examples:

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/1887029702/capture-one-fujifilm-x-trans-raw-support-tested

Can you process this in LR and eliminate the color bleeding in the street sign. Please share your settings if you can. Thanks.

Here is a simple conversion in C1 with some small tweaks made.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/marbla/8389709656/in/photostream

Do realize that most of the foliage is out of focus though so I don't know how much benefit pixel peeping does.

marbla, this thread is about Lightroom/Adobe Camera RAW. Note that the poster you quoted specifically asked to see this done in Lightroom (LR).

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
marbla
New MemberPosts: 5
Like?
Re: X-Pro1 JPEG vs RAW
In reply to Ryan Williams, Jan 17, 2013

Sorry about that... I guess I somehow thought RAW in general but I guess I read past that part.

I gave it a shot in lightroom but I don't really see how to remove the color bleeding unless maybe by pushing clarity though that is not doing anything to remove the problem.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Chris Dodkin
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,895Gear list
Like?
Did you mean this one Randy?
In reply to Randy Benter, Jan 17, 2013

I don't have LR though, but I use ACR into CS6 as previously stated.

This is the DPR RAW file in ACR at 100% zoom - screen grab, saved as a JPEG.

I've taken dozens, maybe hundreds, of images that include signage - and never seen one as bad as that DPR sample - I have no idea what's going on there as I didn't take the original shot.

It's not been an issue for me personally in the last 9 mths - but given that it cropped up rarely, as on the streetcar shot from DPR, it's easy enough to address if this was an image you needed to process to full print resolution.

Other signage shots I've gone through show no issue - so again, if we're talking rate of occurrence and how this impacts the use of the camera, it's been no issue for me.

Just to get a flavor.

-- hide signature --

http://www.dodkin.com
Chris@1D-Images.com
Mac Pro/MacBook Pro/iPods/iPhones/iPad

 Chris Dodkin's gear list:Chris Dodkin's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix X100 Canon EOS-1D Canon EOS-1D Mark II Canon EOS 5D Mark II Canon EOS 30D +34 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
framus
Contributing MemberPosts: 847Gear list
Like?
Re: X-Pro1 JPEG vs RAW
In reply to Chris Dodkin, Jan 17, 2013

Chris,

Thanks for the great examples.

I've done similar testing but attempting tomatch the OOC jpeg file with the raw file converted in LR4.3 and printed on B3 paper with an Epson 3800. The jpegs are quite good by my criteria. The raws are better in regards to detail and the range of shadow and hightlght detail.  The heinous WC effect in LR raw conversions is discernible in my tests when the files are viewed at 200% on screen. In the B3 prints this WC effect is not discernible to the my naked old eyes.

The  'well documented issues' with ACR & LR X-trans raw conversions are not universally interpreted. Some are alarmed, others not so much.  My tests and your well illustrated examples have me in the 'not so much' camp.

Having said all this, I continue to entertain fond hopes that Adobe will improve their demosaicing routines for the X-trans raw files.

-Framus

 framus's gear list:framus's gear list
Fujifilm X100S
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
vkphoto
Senior MemberPosts: 1,571
Like?
Re: Did you mean this one Randy?
In reply to Chris Dodkin, Jan 17, 2013

Chris Dodkin wrote:

This is the DPR RAW file in ACR at 100% zoom - screen grab, saved as a JPEG.

Same image, different results. What am I doing wrong?



Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads