XF1 setting comparisons

Started Aug 18, 2013 | Discussions
homepics
Regular MemberPosts: 311
Like?
XF1 setting comparisons
Aug 18, 2013

These shots are from the camera, to iphoto, and imported to dpreview. No processing was done. The comparison shots are taken on a tripod, with the timer. This first set compares EXR, Kim's and Dave's settings. The only change from the recommended settings is on Dave's. I forgot the -ev. The pictures were taken in the late afternoon.

I think EXR is out.  I don't like what it does with the foreground plants. Dave's looks a little too dark. I am not sure -ev is needed. From other tests I have done, the metering setting of Average tends to result in a darker result than Multi. The pictures were taken in the late afternoon.  Anyway, I'll see how Dave's settings worked tweaked with Multi metering instead of Average.

Dave

Kim

EXR

homepics
Regular MemberPosts: 311
Like?
More XF1 setting comparisons
In reply to homepics, Aug 19, 2013

I took a few more sets of comparison shots today. Here is the first group. A pattern that emerged is that Average meter may result in better pictures after adjustments, but with no adjustment Average (to my eye) results in the picture being too dark. (More to come in a short while.)

Dave, Multi meter, no -ev

Dave Average meter, no -ev

Kim

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
homepics
Regular MemberPosts: 311
Like?
Re: More XF1 setting comparisons
In reply to homepics, Aug 19, 2013

Kim

Dave, Average, no -ev

Dave, Multi, no -ev

Dave, Multi, -1/3 ev

Dave, Average, - 1.3 ev

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
homepics
Regular MemberPosts: 311
Like?
More XF1 setting comparisons
In reply to homepics, Aug 19, 2013

In this set, you can really see a difference between Kim and Dave's settings. But, with the changes in Dave's settings to color, tones, etc., it is hard to tell how much of the difference is a result of the different DR setting and the M and L setting.

Dave, Average, no -ev

Dave, Average, -1/3 ev

Dave, Multi -1/3

Dave, Multi no -ev

Kim

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Lloydy
Forum ProPosts: 18,840Gear list
Like?
Homepics ...
In reply to homepics, Aug 19, 2013

... It is certainly an interesting set of comparisons you have posted.

And, there are a few unexpected results.

One is that sharpening halos are obvious in M size but not L size, The other is the M size settings seem darker than the L size.

I find this a little strange as Provia with DR 400% setting should, by rights, be lighter than Astia with DR 200%.

The main thing that has attracted my attention though is the difference between Multi and Average.

I will try some comparisons between the two as I can see Multi may have some benefit.

Thanks for all the work you have done.

In the end, it really is up to the user as to what they choose. And, you have certainly added food for thought.

-- hide signature --

Cheers, Dave

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
CAcreeks
Senior MemberPosts: 6,281
Like?
Re: [set#1] XF1 setting comparisons
In reply to homepics, Aug 19, 2013

Homepic, thanks for doing this comparison! These are the only ones I looked at so far. I see you used a tripod, based on the shadow at bottom of image.

The difference between EXR and KimL could be exposure. The EXR is 1/3 stop more exposed at EV 13.1 vs 13.4. With KimL settings everything looks more 3D - not just plants in foreground, but trees in the background as well. I think this is more than can be explained by 1/3 stop different exposure. However the EXIF claims that Auto-EXR selected DR 400%, and KimL EXIF says that Development Dynamic Range = 400.

Dave's settings result in ISO 200, unnecessary f/8, and warmer colors due to film mode "F1b/Studio Portrait Smooth Skin Tone" which I think means Astia. Although the EXIF claims the Light Value = 13.8, when calculating, the EV comes out at 14.8. This is probably a bug in Fuji firmware. I feel the image is underexposed.

Well there you have it: ammunition for those who say EXR is overcomplicated with lousy defaults.

Film Mode : F1b/Studio Portrait Smooth Skin Tone
homepics wrote:

These shots are from the camera, to iphoto, and imported to dpreview. No processing was done. The comparison shots are taken on a tripod, with the timer. This first set compares EXR, Kim's and Dave's settings. The only change from the recommended settings is on Dave's. I forgot the -ev. The pictures were taken in the late afternoon.

I think EXR is out. I don't like what it does with the foreground plants. Dave's looks a little too dark. I am not sure -ev is needed. From other tests I have done, the metering setting of Average tends to result in a darker result than Multi. The pictures were taken in the late afternoon. Anyway, I'll see how Dave's settings worked tweaked with Multi metering instead of Average.

Dave

Kim

EXR

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
John.Laninga
Senior MemberPosts: 1,778Gear list
Like?
My take on the settings
In reply to CAcreeks, Aug 19, 2013

Thanks for the good work, very interesting.  I have done something similar, with similar results.  Combining your experiments, and my much less rigorous testing, here are my observations:

1.  Without actually seeing the scene in person, it is hard to judge which mode is more accurate.

2.  Any mode does OK for a travel camera.  I may be a heretic here and say to just use the ones you like best.  If I want to get any more detailed then I will pull out my DSLR.

Honestly, the XF1 (as well as my LX7) are great little cameras, capable of doing a superb job as a travel camera.  Maybe our desire to pixel peep is overkill on these small format cameras.

But I do appreciate reading everyones experience with these cameras, I learn every time!

 John.Laninga's gear list:John.Laninga's gear list
Fujifilm X-S1 Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX7 Fujifilm XF1 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7 Olympus E-M1 +5 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
CAcreeks
Senior MemberPosts: 6,281
Like?
Re: My take on the settings
In reply to John.Laninga, Aug 19, 2013

John.Laninga wrote:

2. Any mode does OK for a travel camera. I may be a heretic here and say to just use the ones you like best. If I want to get any more detailed then I will pull out my DSLR.

I don't have a DSLR. Had a film SLR, seldom used because it was too big, and DSLRs are even bigger. And heavier.

If by "travel camera" you mean something that can make posts for Facebook, all three settings are fine. So is a cellphone.

However if you want to display an image at full monitor size, especially the Apple Retina displays, the KimL settings look superior to the other two, in the first set, and probably most of the time.

Same goes for printing at 13x19, which is the maximum you can get from an affordable inkjet.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
homepics
Regular MemberPosts: 311
Like?
Re: My take on the settings
In reply to CAcreeks, Aug 19, 2013

Thanks for the comments.  I did use a tripod for all pictures, with the camera timer.

I think everyone knows Kim's settings. The settings I used for Dave (which I think are his settings), are:

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 (but I used AF center for the tests).

I'll probably do some more tests next weekend (see how Kim's settings look with shadow adjusted, and maybe a few other variables).

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
homepics
Regular MemberPosts: 311
Like?
Re: Homepics ...
In reply to Lloydy, Aug 19, 2013

Lloydy wrote:

... It is certainly an interesting set of comparisons you have posted.

And, there are a few unexpected results.

One is that sharpening halos are obvious in M size but not L size, The other is the M size settings seem darker than the L size.

I find this a little strange as Provia with DR 400% setting should, by rights, be lighter than Astia with DR 200%.

The main thing that has attracted my attention though is the difference between Multi and Average.

I will try some comparisons between the two as I can see Multi may have some benefit.

Thanks for all the work you have done.

In the end, it really is up to the user as to what they choose. And, you have certainly added food for thought.

-- hide signature --

Cheers, Dave

Dave,

The lowered shadow tone on your settings might contribute to your settings being lighter than Kim's.

Also, I wonder if lowering sharpening will lessen the Halos?

David

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
CAcreeks
Senior MemberPosts: 6,281
Like?
Re: My take on the settings
In reply to homepics, Aug 19, 2013

homepics wrote:

The settings I used for Dave (which I think are his) are:

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 (but I used AF center for the tests).

In the first set of images (gray house and cars across the street) the EXIF says 0 EV.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
CAcreeks
Senior MemberPosts: 6,281
Like?
Re: XF1, buildings at 25th street
In reply to homepics, Aug 19, 2013

In this scene, average metering resulted in .4 stop less exposure, 14.9 vs 14.5 EV. So the shadows in that one match KimL settings, while highlights in the multi-metering match KimL settings. With KimL settings the  exposure was 14.5 EV.

Large is getting better since early EXR days. However if your goal is to show this image at monitor resolution, e.g. 1600x1200, the KimL image looks more 3-dimensional and it's easier to read signs that are not in shadow. But perhaps the large image prints better, especially shadow portions of the multi-metered image.

Overall: six of one, half dozen of the other, unlike the gray house and cars, where the KimL settings were decidedly superior.

homepics wrote:

I took a few more sets of comparison shots today. Here is the first group. A pattern that emerged is that Average meter may result in better pictures after adjustments, but with no adjustment Average (to my eye) results in the picture being too dark. (More to come in a short while.)

Dave, Multi meter, no -ev

Dave Average meter, no -ev

Kim

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Wellington100
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,883Gear list
Like?
Re: XF1 setting comparisons
In reply to homepics, Aug 19, 2013

homepics wrote:

These shots are from the camera, to iphoto, and imported to dpreview. No processing was done. The comparison shots are taken on a tripod, with the timer. This first set compares EXR, Kim's and Dave's settings. The only change from the recommended settings is on Dave's. I forgot the -ev. The pictures were taken in the late afternoon.

I think EXR is out. I don't like what it does with the foreground plants. Dave's looks a little too dark. I am not sure -ev is needed. From other tests I have done, the metering setting of Average tends to result in a darker result than Multi. The pictures were taken in the late afternoon. Anyway, I'll see how Dave's settings worked tweaked with Multi metering instead of Average.

Dave

Kim

EXR

I have come to the conclusion that there is no absolute better or worse situation because both Dave and Kim PP their images and Kim has recently said that his settings are designed to do as little damage as possible to the image to facilitate better PP, which would imply that OOC, they will not look their best. A bit like the old Nikon D70 which produced very flat images specifically designed to be PP'ed, whereas the D50 images were more vibrant up OOC.

It makes comparing hard, do you compare OOC or after optimal PP of each image. Whats more, both of them are very proficient with RAW and can get more out of decent capture that way. Its hard to get to a truly objective and definitive conclusion IMHO.

-- hide signature --

Doctors are bad for your lifestyle.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads