X-Trans for commercial work

Started Nov 10, 2013 | Discussions
Shop cameras & lenses ▾
Najinsky Veteran Member • Posts: 4,931
X-Trans for commercial work

Hi, has anyone here had any of their work rejected (or know of someone who has) due to X-Trans artefacts?

Or conversely, has any here had commercial success shooting with an X-Trans sensor?

Thanks.

abelits
abelits Contributing Member • Posts: 677
Re: X-Trans for commercial work
2

Najinsky wrote:

X-Trans artefacts?

You mean, ones that can be only reproduced on obsolete version of DCRaw and Adobe converters?

 abelits's gear list:abelits's gear list
Fujifilm X-Pro1 Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R Fujifilm XF 14mm F2.8 R Fujifilm XF 55-200mm F3.5-4.8 R LM OIS Fujifilm XF 56mm F1.2 R APD +11 more
Joachim Gerstl
Joachim Gerstl Veteran Member • Posts: 6,459
Re: X-Trans for commercial work
9

I think you underestimate the importance of content and overestimate the importance of technical details.

A picture is successful when it is a good picture. This has nothing to do with sensors details.

-- hide signature --
 Joachim Gerstl's gear list:Joachim Gerstl's gear list
Ricoh GR Canon PowerShot G7 X Fujifilm X-T1 Sony a6000 Sony Alpha 7R +13 more
Najinsky OP Veteran Member • Posts: 4,931
Re: X-Trans for commercial work
1

abelits wrote:

Najinsky wrote:

X-Trans artefacts?

You mean, ones that can be only reproduced on obsolete version of DCRaw and Adobe converters?

No, I mean the very real artefacts that are still visible in the latest raw converters, like Lightroom 5.2 and Aperture 3.5.

The existence of the artefacts is not a question for debate, they are real and viewable my anybody who takes the time to download samples and view them in various raw converters:

Like the red smearing here from Lightroom 5.2, most visible in 'Product of Italy' and to some degree the decoration on the Fujitsu Logo.

Lightroom 5.2

Aperture does a better job in eliminating the smear, and the red saturation in general:

Aperture 3.5

But both Aperture and Lightroom still struggle with other colour bleeds, for example the Baileys bottle details:

Aperture 3.5 - Grey instead of gold on the strike-through and throughout the sig and on the 'D'

Both Aperture and Lightroom have trouble rendering the gold of the bailey's bottle details consistently, turning it grey in places:

Lightroom 5.2 - Grey on join to the 'B' and throughout, and more slight on the 'D'. Poor red saturation on 'Q'

Contrast this with the renderings from some other cameras, like the D800:

Nikon D800

Or perhaps the Olympus EM-5:

Olympus OM-D EM-5

My interest is not whether you believe the artefacts exist, anyone with working eyes can see that they do, and what you choose to tell yourself and others is up to you, it is whether these artefacts have presented a stumbling block for some types of commercial work in the real world.

-Najinsky

Najinsky OP Veteran Member • Posts: 4,931
Re: X-Trans for commercial work
1

Joachim Gerstl wrote:

I think you underestimate the importance of content and overestimate the importance of technical details.

A picture is successful when it is a good picture. This has nothing to do with sensors details.

Think what you like, in the real world images can be subjected to all manner of technical QA.

-Najinsky

vkphoto
vkphoto Senior Member • Posts: 1,632
silly indeed...
2

Why are you posting your question on DPR????

There are plenty of professional photographers that are using X cameras, ask them :)))

http://fujifilm-x.com/photographers/en/

Bert Stephanie, Kevin Mullins, David Hobby, Zack Arias, Dave Kai Piper, Chris Dodkin, etc to name few.

-- hide signature --
Beat Traveller Contributing Member • Posts: 744
Re: X-Trans for commercial work
1

Najinsky wrote:

Hi, has anyone here had any of their work rejected (or know of someone who has) due to X-Trans artefacts?

Well that sounds like a loaded question...

 Beat Traveller's gear list:Beat Traveller's gear list
Fujifilm X-E1 Nikon D60 Fujifilm XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS Fujifilm XF 18mm F2 R Fujifilm XF 60mm F2.4 R Macro
Najinsky OP Veteran Member • Posts: 4,931
Re: X-Trans for commercial work
1

Beat Traveller wrote:

Najinsky wrote:

Hi, has anyone here had any of their work rejected (or know of someone who has) due to X-Trans artefacts?

Well that sounds like a loaded question...

Which was then balanced by:

Najinsky wrote:

Or conversely, has any here had commercial success shooting with an X-Trans sensor?

Which you saw fit to edit out. So just who is doing the loading here.

-Najinsky

Al Valentino Senior Member • Posts: 4,619
Re: silly indeed...
2

Aren't some of those examples like 400% crops? At least that is what I recall from the paperclip images from long ago. I never really printed beyond 50%, often smaller (14" wide prints at 300 ppi would be roughly 30%). So now concerned about something a person would need a magnifying glass taken to a print to see. But then I am not a buyer of images files or a pixel peeper.

Sorry, I know this is a serious question.

-- hide signature --

Fuji XE1 w/14, 18-55, 55-200, Rokinon 8mm Fisheye & Tamron 90mm f/2.8 Macro

 Al Valentino's gear list:Al Valentino's gear list
Fujifilm X-E1 Fujifilm XF 14mm F2.8 R Fujifilm XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS Fujifilm XF 55-200mm F3.5-4.8 R LM OIS Rokinon 8mm f/2.8 UMC Aspherical Fisheye +6 more
Asylum Photo
Asylum Photo Senior Member • Posts: 1,277
Re: X-Trans for commercial work
1

There's not many professional commercial photographers on these forums, might have better luck asking elsewhere.

That being said, I've not heard anyone have issues here, or on Fujix-forum.com.

-- hide signature --
 Asylum Photo's gear list:Asylum Photo's gear list
Fujifilm X-E2 Fujifilm XF 23mm F1.4 R Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R Fujifilm XF 60mm F2.4 R Macro Fujifilm XF 14mm F2.8 R +2 more
Najinsky OP Veteran Member • Posts: 4,931
Re: silly indeed...
4

vkphoto wrote:

Why are you posting your question on DPR????

There are plenty of professional photographers that are using X cameras, ask them :)))

http://fujifilm-x.com/photographers/en/

Bert Stephanie, Kevin Mullins, David Hobby, Zack Arias, Dave Kai Piper, Chris Dodkin, etc to name few.

Thanks, for the link.

Until DPR change the name of the forum to 'FujiLove' and ban people from asking questions that some may find uncomfortable, I'll continue to use DPR for the purposes they intend.

-Najinsky

vkphoto
vkphoto Senior Member • Posts: 1,632
good luck then :)

Najinsky wrote:

vkphoto wrote:

Why are you posting your question on DPR????

There are plenty of professional photographers that are using X cameras, ask them :)))

http://fujifilm-x.com/photographers/en/

Bert Stephanie, Kevin Mullins, David Hobby, Zack Arias, Dave Kai Piper, Chris Dodkin, etc to name few.

Thanks, for the link.

Until DPR change the name of the forum to 'FujiLove' and ban people from asking questions that some may find uncomfortable, I'll continue to use DPR for the purposes they intend.

-Najinsky

Pros may find your question ......one day

-- hide signature --
Cartwheels MD Regular Member • Posts: 178
Re: X-Trans for commercial work
1

Zack Arias does some of his commercial work with his Fuji cameras. Some of his work for Range Rover was with Fujis. Then again, he has a Phase 1 that he uses as well.

 Cartwheels MD's gear list:Cartwheels MD's gear list
Fujifilm X-E1 Fujifilm XF 18mm F2 R Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R Fujifilm XF 23mm F1.4 R Apple Aperture
Najinsky OP Veteran Member • Posts: 4,931
Re: good luck then :)

vkphoto wrote:

Najinsky wrote:

vkphoto wrote:

Why are you posting your question on DPR????

There are plenty of professional photographers that are using X cameras, ask them :)))

http://fujifilm-x.com/photographers/en/

Bert Stephanie, Kevin Mullins, David Hobby, Zack Arias, Dave Kai Piper, Chris Dodkin, etc to name few.

Thanks, for the link.

Until DPR change the name of the forum to 'FujiLove' and ban people from asking questions that some may find uncomfortable, I'll continue to use DPR for the purposes they intend.

-Najinsky

Pros may find your question ......one day

Thanks for your good wishes

Really, no pros in the forum? That's quite odd, there are pros in most of the forums I have participated in here.

I'm sure I've seen some posts from wedding and reportage and the like here, with some really excellent work.

Simply put, I decided to wait until the release of the 1.4/23, to give X-Trans processing time to mature before revisiting Fuji for my single purpose HQ camera. That time has come, but having tested a number of converters that would fit within my workflow, I still see they suffer from different tradeoffs.

So, I'm changing tack a little and saying, ok, it's still there but how much of a problem is it in reality.

99% of my photography is for personal use, and here the colour bleeds won't be an issue for me. But my higher quality images get put to commercial use by way of print sales and/or stock, to help fund and advance the hobby into possibly a supplemental income.

And depending on the sites, there can be quite stringent technical IQ assessments, with many photographers having work rejected due to pixel level technical artefacts; noise, over-sharpening, and more.

I already have cameras for most of my personal photography, but I'm now looking specifically for a camera with very high IQ that I will switch to when encountering situations that I feel have some commercial potential to them. Of course, If I can use that camera in more situations too, so much the better.

To me it seems logical to raise the issue at this time with both the XE2 and 1.4/23 now available, it's an ideal candidate on many levels.

Now, I just want to research some of the negative topics, the 'cons' on my 'pro/con' list.

-Najinsky

Najinsky OP Veteran Member • Posts: 4,931
Re: silly indeed...

Al Valentino wrote:

Aren't some of those examples like 400% crops? At least that is what I recall from the paperclip images from long ago. I never really printed beyond 50%, often smaller (14" wide prints at 300 ppi would be roughly 30%). So now concerned about something a person would need a magnifying glass taken to a print to see. But then I am not a buyer of images files or a pixel peeper.

Sorry, I know this is a serious question.

Yes, I don't usually know how people will be viewing the images, so when discussing technical artefacts I zoom in to make it really clear what I'm talking about.

Near pixel level quality can be important. For example, on one site, depending on the file size, prints are available up to 60 inches but only if the IQ is acceptable. They do a test rendering at the required size and assess the quality, if the quality isn't high enough, the photographer/artist is contacted to see if a higher quality file is available, if not, the sale is cancelled. The issue could be noise, over-sharpening, lack of detail, halos, jaggies, etc. So my interest is whether anyone has experience of X-Trans artefacts causing a QA issue.

-Najinsky

mr moonlight Senior Member • Posts: 1,781
Re: silly indeed...

If a client requires more detail than what the x-trans can deliver, they will likely be seeking a photographer who shoots MF. So were talking product, high fashion, architecture... The X-trans is in no more danger of being rejected for not having enough detail or containing artifacts than any other APS-C or FF camera on the market. You can process X-trans files that come out looking like crap just as you can process 1D and D800 files that look like crap and vice versa. The issues that the X-trans has are way overrated. Bayer sensors are not exactly problem free either.

Chris Dodkin
Chris Dodkin MOD Veteran Member • Posts: 6,775
Re: X-Trans for commercial work

Najinsky wrote:

Hi, has anyone here had any of their work rejected (or know of someone who has) due to X-Trans artefacts?

Or conversely, has any here had commercial success shooting with an X-Trans sensor?

Thanks.

This has not been an issue for me to date - no one has questioned the camera model the image has been shot with. In fact, no one ever has - whether it's FF 5DII, 120 MF scanned film, X-Trans etc etc.

I think people on DPR worry far more about this than the customer ever does.

Conversely, I've had clients select images from the X-Pro1 over images from my 5DII, taken at on the same shoot - so clearly they're not seeing anything that causes them an issue.

I see you've been given the X Photographers links - here are some additional ones which will provide useful pro refs:

http://photo.fusina.net/index.php?do=news&id=74

http://www.prophotonut.com

http://www.lovegrovephotography.com/fujifilm-xf-60mm-pictures/#!prettyPhoto

http://cdbsi.net/2013/10/21/fujifilm-xpro-1-wedding-photography-michigan-usa/

http://fstoppers.com/dave-kai-piper-and-his-fuji-x-pro1-nsfw

-- 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 5D Mark II Canon EOS-1D Canon EOS-1D Mark II Canon EOS 30D +34 more
psartman
psartman Junior Member • Posts: 40
Re: silly indeed...
1

OK, I'll bite. I'm a long-time pro, mostly working now in fine art but still doing an occasional select editorial job. I shot an extended magazine piece this summer with a new X-Pro1 system. The European magazine was happy with the work, published in a multi-paged spread. Trust me, photo editors and art directors are not remotely interested in pixel peeping.. Unless there's an obvious visible problem they are not going to be looking at the camera and processing information in the metadata.  They look at and care about pictures, not pixels. They do care about the technical quality of the photographs, but it is the photographer's job to figure out the details of how to deliver that quality. I would not be using the Fuji X system if I did not think it was up to snuff for my uses.

abelits
abelits Contributing Member • Posts: 677
Re: X-Trans for commercial work

Najinsky wrote:

abelits wrote:

Najinsky wrote:

X-Trans artefacts?

You mean, ones that can be only reproduced on obsolete version of DCRaw and Adobe converters?

No, I mean the very real artefacts that are still visible in the latest raw converters, like Lightroom 5.2 and Aperture 3.5.

The recommended converter is Silkypix. There are others that are about as good. Adobe is consistently the worst for X-Trans, though the amount of awfulness varies.

The existence of the artefacts is not a question for debate,

Oh yes, it is!

they are real and viewable my anybody who takes the time to download samples and view them in various raw converters:

Then don't use converters that produce them, or find the settings that cause no artefacts. The sample images are made for reference only, they do not reflect optimal processing.

 abelits's gear list:abelits's gear list
Fujifilm X-Pro1 Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R Fujifilm XF 14mm F2.8 R Fujifilm XF 55-200mm F3.5-4.8 R LM OIS Fujifilm XF 56mm F1.2 R APD +11 more
PenPix Senior Member • Posts: 2,159
Re: silly indeed...

psartman wrote:

OK, I'll bite. I'm a long-time pro, mostly working now in fine art but still doing an occasional select editorial job. I shot an extended magazine piece this summer with a new X-Pro1 system. The European magazine was happy with the work, published in a multi-paged spread. Trust me, photo editors and art directors are not remotely interested in pixel peeping.. Unless there's an obvious visible problem they are not going to be looking at the camera and processing information in the metadata. They look at and care about pictures, not pixels. They do care about the technical quality of the photographs, but it is the photographer's job to figure out the details of how to deliver that quality. I would not be using the Fuji X system if I did not think it was up to snuff for my uses.

Agreed.  If you need that level of detail, you should not be using the Fuji X.

My work was primarily for newspaper advertising.  When digital was still relatively new,  the client would request a certain sized file as the software they were using for layout was incapable of handling large images.  I initially used a 6MP DSLR, and was resizing my files to a smaller size before submitting them.

I haven't done any pro work for 5 years now, but the Fuji X would definitely been better than anything I used before.

As you have heard often, find a tool that fits the job.  Just curious,  but I don't think you said what kind of work you intend to do with it?

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads