First XF1 photos

Started Aug 2, 2013 | Photos
Lloydy
Forum ProPosts: 18,866Gear list
Like?
Wellington ...
In reply to Wellington100, Aug 9, 2013

Wellington100 wrote:

When you process your images, do you process the RAW or the jpeg? I am assuming it is the jpeg, otherwise why use all those settings in the 1st place. This being the case, why do you shoot a RAW file as well?

... Mostly I simply use the Jpeg file and use my PS sharpening action. I shoot Raw so that I have a fall back, if needed.

-- hide signature --

Cheers, Dave

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Lloydy
Forum ProPosts: 18,866Gear list
Like?
Wellington ...
In reply to homepics, Aug 9, 2013

homepics wrote:

Lloydy wrote:

Program (P) mode, large (L) size, 4:3, Fine, Raw+Jpeg, DR 200%, ISO 800 (Auto), Astia, Highlight Tone - Medium Soft, Shadow Tone - Medium Soft, Noise Reduction - Medium Low, minus 0.33 EV, Photometry - Average, AF Tracking.

-- hide signature --

Cheers, Dave

Dave,

Thanks for all of your help with the camera. We who are learning appreciate it. There seems to be two similar threads going on about the XF1. For your settings, what is the preferred "processing" method. By that I mean in-camera JPEG, in-camera RAW processed to JPEG, or raw with an external converter (Silkypix - the free version, another processor)? I believe I read that to get the benefit of L, raw should be used. Thanks, David

... I shoot Raw + Jpeg but mostly will simply PP the Jpeg. I use Photoshop and I have a custom sharpening action which I use for most images.

PS Sharpening Action

The Raw files I process in PS, or in Silkypix (RFC EX). I don't do any in-camera processing.

Using RFC EX

-- hide signature --

Cheers, Dave

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Danielepaolo
Senior MemberPosts: 4,314
Like?
Re: Kim vs Dave settings
In reply to CAcreeks, Aug 9, 2013

CAcreeks wrote:

Danielepaolo wrote:

what I notice primarily is that small lettering on signs is easier to read with Kim's settings.

That is the first thing I noticed. 2nd things was the "punchier colors".

Punchier with Provia than with Astia? I don't see a lot of punch difference, but the Astia is warmer with less shadow detail.

Punchier in the L size images as mentioned by Wellington

-- hide signature --

Apologies if my lack of photographic knowledge is catching.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
davidge
Forum MemberPosts: 90
Like?
Re: Great comparison M vs L
In reply to CAcreeks, Aug 9, 2013

CAcreeks wrote:

I think the M size (KimL) is far nicer than the L size (Dave). It could be entirely a matter of exposure. Weird, but the L size is overexposed by more than 1 EV (6.6 vs 7.8). Don't know how that happened. Also don't know why ISO 400 was selected for M size (bit of noise at pixel level). I feel your Silkypix raw conversion comes in a close second to the M size DR 400. Thanks for posting!

My understanding from reading elsewhere on DPR is that because the M size is ISO 400 DR400%, the 'clever' EXR processing would not be performed in this case (i.e. splitting the sensor to expose highlights and mid/shadows separately then combining to produce the final image) as that only happens when ISO is less that DR. When they are the same (or ISO>DR?) then the same processing happens as for L size DR - i.e. underexposure of the whole frame to preserve highlights with tone curve adjustement to raise the shadows and mids. So in theory the only differences between the two are the overall exposure value and the M size discarding pixels. The M size one looks sharper because the L size one is not in focus or is suffering from camera shake - look at the writing on wine glass or bottle at full size.

This EXR stuff can be damn confusing!

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Wellington100
Veteran MemberPosts: 6,103Gear list
Like?
Re: Great comparison M vs L
In reply to davidge, Aug 9, 2013

davidge wrote:

CAcreeks wrote:

I think the M size (KimL) is far nicer than the L size (Dave). It could be entirely a matter of exposure. Weird, but the L size is overexposed by more than 1 EV (6.6 vs 7.8). Don't know how that happened. Also don't know why ISO 400 was selected for M size (bit of noise at pixel level). I feel your Silkypix raw conversion comes in a close second to the M size DR 400. Thanks for posting!

My understanding from reading elsewhere on DPR is that because the M size is ISO 400 DR400%, the 'clever' EXR processing would not be performed in this case (i.e. splitting the sensor to expose highlights and mid/shadows separately then combining to produce the final image) as that only happens when ISO is less that DR.

That is true but Auto ISO will lower the ISO in good light so its not an issue. If you don't set Auto ISO 400 then you preclude the camera using the 320 ISO setting which is the highest ISO it can use for the above mentioned trickery.

Dave uses Auto ISO 200 so the camera is always in the zone on that side of things, but 800% DR has the same effect as 400 ISO in that it stops the EXR processing.

The way to guarantee EXR processing every time is to use Auto ISO 200 and Auto DR 400 but of course those are good light settings only. Perhaps an optimised good light setting and a low light setting would be a good use for C1 and C2. I might have a go at that.

Any suggestions for an optimised low light setting would be appreciated, would increasing NR for example be a good idea?

When they are the same (or ISO>DR?) then the same processing happens as for L size DR - i.e. underexposure of the whole frame to preserve highlights with tone curve adjustement to raise the shadows and mids. So in theory the only differences between the two are the overall exposure value and the M size discarding pixels. The M size one looks sharper because the L size one is not in focus or is suffering from camera shake - look at the writing on wine glass or bottle at full size.

This EXR stuff can be damn confusing!

-- hide signature --

Doctors are bad for your lifestyle.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
davidge
Forum MemberPosts: 90
Like?
Re: Great comparison M vs L
In reply to Wellington100, Aug 9, 2013

Wellington100 wrote:

That is true but Auto ISO will lower the ISO in good light so its not an issue. If you don't set Auto ISO 400 then you preclude the camera using the 320 ISO setting which is the highest ISO it can use for the above mentioned trickery.

Dave uses Auto ISO 200 so the camera is always in the zone on that side of things, but 800% DR has the same effect as 400 ISO in that it stops the EXR processing.

The way to guarantee EXR processing every time is to use Auto ISO 200 and Auto DR 400 but of course those are good light settings only. Perhaps an optimised good light setting and a low light setting would be a good use for C1 and C2. I might have a go at that.

Any suggestions for an optimised low light setting would be appreciated, would increasing NR for example be a good idea?

On the X10 (which is what I have) I don't have Auto ISO 200 or Auto DR 400 settings available, hence I set ISO200 and DR200%. I do have AUTO DR which chooses between DR100% and DR400% but on the X-10 if it chooses DR200% or DR400% it overexposes by 0.5 to 1 stop. It may not be a problem on the XF1 and is simple to test for. A shame, because being able to simply set Auto ISO+AUTO DR and letting the camera get on with it would be useful at times.

AUTO ISO 400 is OK but as you mention that does mean in M size with DR 400% it would not use the EXR trickery if it selected ISO 400. The other aspect (as I understand it) is that when it gets darker and the ISO is pushed up to 400 (assuming DR is 400%) it would still apply the 'full frame' DR (whether using M or L size) when it is then probably not required. However I have also read (again on DPR) that in M size if ISO is > 2xDR% (e.g. DR400%, ISO 800) then the camera uses EXR-SN noise minimalisation and not the DR trickery.

Low light settings I have seen recommended are Auto ISO 3200+DR100% (i.e. in M size would, if the above is true, apply EXR-SN as the ISO rises above 100) or Auto ISO 3200+DR200% or DR400% if you want some DR applied.

Me, I'm lazy. When the light gets low I simply switch to EXR Auto and let the camera get on with it! I get M size images but it saves a lot of phaffing around. If I really want L size I use Auto ISO 1600+DR100% or DR200%.

I guess there is no one 'best way' with these cameras and if Fuji would actually explain when the various trickeries are used it would help us all to make our choices.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
prime
Senior MemberPosts: 1,544
Like?
Re: Great comparison M vs L
In reply to davidge, Aug 9, 2013

davidge wrote:

My understanding from reading elsewhere on DPR is that because the M size is ISO 400 DR400%, the 'clever' EXR processing would not be performed in this case (i.e. splitting the sensor to expose highlights and mid/shadows separately then combining to produce the final image) as that only happens when ISO is less that DR. When they are the same (or ISO>DR?) then the same processing happens as for L size DR - i.e. underexposure of the whole frame to preserve highlights with tone curve adjustement to raise the shadows and mids. So in theory the only differences between the two are the overall exposure value and the M size discarding pixels.

Long, long ago, I learned that when it is said that "that works in theory, but not in practice," then the real meaning is that it does not work in theory. I have seen some of those "elsewhere" theory posts on DPR, as you have, and my problem with them is that they completely contradict my experience of four years and 6,000 exposures with a Fujifilm F70EXR, probably 5,500+ of which were shot with the camera set to M size, ISO Auto400, and DR400. Hardware dynamic range expansion was evident in every scene that had strong contrast. I do not know where this myth began that ISO number has to be set lower than DR number for EXR to come into effect for dynamic range headroom.

Extremely high contrast backlit scene, F70EXR set in P mode: ISO set at Auto400, DR set at DR400, EXR dynamic range expansion worked, unquestionabky; this image would not have been possible without it.  Some post processing in Aperture.

Same image as above without post-processing.

Now, it is possible that Fujifilm has changed the "trigger" for EXR to kick in for the XF1, and that EXR works differently on the XF1 than it always has on the F-series EXR cameras. But why would Fujifilm do that, and -- if it did do that -- why would Fujifilm keep it a secret?

Very high contrast scene, XF1 in P mode:  ISO set at Auto400, DR set at DR400.  Although the backs of the fingers are overexposed, it appears that the XF1 used hardware DR expansion.

The M size one looks sharper because the L size one is not in focus or is suffering from camera shake - look at the writing on wine glass or bottle at full size.

Look at the shutter speed.  I took both the M and L shots of the wine glass and bottle handheld,  although my elbow was stabilized by the tabletop.  The M size image was exposed at a shutter speed of about 1/10 second, and the L size image was exposed at a shutter speed of about 1/3 second (0.32258 second, to be exact)..  Yes, there was some camera shake at 1/3 second, even with the XF1's excellent optical image stabilization.

This EXR stuff can be damn confusing!

It was so much simpler before DPReview fora got involved.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
prime
Senior MemberPosts: 1,544
Like?
Re: Great comparison M vs L
In reply to davidge, Aug 9, 2013

davidge wrote:

AUTO ISO 400 is OK but as you mention that does mean in M size with DR 400% it would not use the EXR trickery if it selected ISO 400.

That is not true with the F70EXR, and (on the basis of only threee months' use and 1,000 exposures so far) I am pretty sure that it is not true with the XF1. I have not used the X10, so I cannot address whether it is true as to the X10.

My understanding is that when an EXR camera is set to M size, hardware DR expansion always is the first option where possible up to DR400, and software DR (under-exposing and push-processing) kicks in on top of hardware DR expansion when the camera is set for DR800 and above. That understanding comports with four years of experience shooting with an F70EXR.

Me, I'm lazy. When the light gets low I simply switch to EXR Auto and let the camera get on with it! I get M size images but it saves a lot of phaffing around.

I agree; I never found any use for EXR Auto on the F70EXR, but, with the XF1, EXR Auto gives me better low-light performance than I get with diddling with settings.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
jimr
Forum ProPosts: 11,211
Like?
Auto EXR...XF1 Different... Just Check the Fuji Website And Compare The Number Of Scene Comparisons
In reply to prime, Aug 9, 2013

Imaging-resource sang the praises of Auto EXR in the XF1 .

Do note Auto EXR is not that same in the XF1 than it was in all previous EXR cameras including the X10.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
CAcreeks
Senior MemberPosts: 6,523
Like?
Re: Great comparison M vs L
In reply to davidge, Aug 9, 2013

davidge wrote:

My understanding from reading elsewhere on DPR is that because the M size is ISO 400 DR400%, the 'clever' EXR processing would not be performed in this case (i.e. splitting the sensor to expose highlights and mid/shadows separately then combining to produce the final image) as that only happens when ISO is less that DR.

I don't think that is true. With software EXR, the ISO must be raised.

Definitely there is an upper limit on shutter speed for hardware EXR, one stop below maximum at DR 200 and two stops at DR 400.

I remember reading about overexposure with JPEG+RAW but do not remember the details because I found Raw to be a waste of time so I ignored the info.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
CAcreeks
Senior MemberPosts: 6,523
Like?
Re: I agree with Prime here
In reply to prime, Aug 9, 2013

prime wrote:

My understanding is that when an EXR camera is set to M size, hardware DR expansion always is the first option where possible up to DR400, and software DR (under-exposing and push-processing) kicks in on top of hardware DR expansion when the camera is set for DR800 and above. That understanding comports with four years of experience shooting with an F70EXR.

This is my impression from owning four EXR cameras.

I would bet cash money that I can find some ISO 400 or higher shots that use hardware DR 400.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads