X-Trans for commercial work

Started Nov 10, 2013 | Discussions
Shop cameras & lenses ▾
abelits
abelits Contributing Member • Posts: 677
Re: X-Trans for commercial work

P.S. What is wrong with you?
Here is Silkypix conversion:

Silkypix 5.0.47.0

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

abelits wrote:

P.S. What is wrong with you?

I suffer from a condition known as 20/20 vision. Don't worry, I don't think you are affected.

From your Silkypix conversion, which handle some aspects of conversion well, but not others:

Smeared fine details in the feathers

OMD/Aperture

Detail retained in feathers

-Najinsky

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

Chris Dodkin wrote:

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.

I agree in general, but sometimes photography sales sites take that decision out of the customers hands and pre-filter the images based on technical IQ factors. Not exclusively, lots of the other photographic factors come into play too, like relevancy, composition, lighting, etc. But those are in my hands and it should be a given that those factors are important.

These X-Trans artefacts are out of my hands, so I'm trying to research if they are relevant.

Thanks for the additional links.

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

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

Najinsky wrote:

abelits wrote:

P.S. What is wrong with you?

I suffer from a condition known as 20/20 vision. Don't worry, I don't think you are affected.

From your Silkypix conversion, which handle some aspects of conversion well, but not others:

Smeared fine details in the feathers

OMD/Aperture

Detail retained in feathers

-Najinsky

If you really care:

However those details are not supposed to be visible in the first place -- they are at the limit of resolution, and photographer should never rely on them being discernible. Parts of the same feather show up solid on the same photos, thus creating the impression of two different materials being present, or feather being covered with spots of paint.

 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
Beat Traveller Contributing Member • Posts: 744
Re: silly indeed...
1

Najinsky wrote:

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

If you need a camera that will allow you to sell photos printed at 60 inches, I think you would be better off looking at something with much higher resolution, especially if you want the maximum DPI. That's probably a bigger issue than artefacts, honestly.

 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: silly indeed...

Beat Traveller wrote:

If you need a camera that will allow you to sell photos printed at 60 inches, I think you would be better off looking at something with much higher resolution, especially if you want the maximum DPI. That's probably a bigger issue than artefacts, honestly.

Yes, the images that are current for sale up to 60 inches were taken with my 5D Mk2. It's set by the site and is determined by the file size, but it assumes a level of quality (detail) within those files that gets verified when a sale is made.

My OMD and X100 images are available up to a smaller maximum size.

The site offers customers a money back guarantee so will only complete the sale if it feels the quality is sufficient.

While the OM-D has been great for most of my recreational shooting, there are some shots that would  struggle to make larger print sizes and so I'm looking to notch the quality up a bit again. The Sony RX1 or A7 are natural choices, but I really like the lens selection for the X system hence the critical investigation into the IQ. It's not done to wind people up. It's simply about what I'm seeing when examining the files for fine detail quality.

-Najinsky

davidevans1 Senior Member • Posts: 1,294
Have you tried Capture One 7?
1

I don't think this has been suggested yet in this thread. I think you can download a free trial.

Maybe that will convert the raw files better than LR etc. I haven't tried this myself and only got an X Pro last week. Artefacts weren't something I was concerned about personally.

Having just Googled it though, Diglloyd seems to be with you on the artefact trail though!

I'd be interested to know what most peoples' raw workflow is with their Fuji files and what converter most people use.

-- hide signature --

David

Chris Dodkin
Chris Dodkin MOD Veteran Member • Posts: 6,784
Re: X-Trans for commercial work
1

Najinsky wrote:

Chris Dodkin wrote:

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.

I agree in general, but sometimes photography sales sites take that decision out of the customers hands and pre-filter the images based on technical IQ factors. Not exclusively, lots of the other photographic factors come into play too, like relevancy, composition, lighting, etc. But those are in my hands and it should be a given that those factors are important.

These X-Trans artefacts are out of my hands, so I'm trying to research if they are relevant.

Thanks for the additional links.

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

So just to confirm - a non issue in the real world

-- 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
D200_4me Veteran Member • Posts: 3,873
For stock photos...
1

istockphoto has inspected and accepted every X100S shot I've uploaded and these were raw file converted in Lightroom to jpg.  There's no problem using x-trans.

 D200_4me's gear list:D200_4me's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix X100 Sony a6000 Nikon Df Nikon D750 Sony E 16-50mm F3.5-5.6 PZ OSS +6 more
hexxthalion Contributing Member • Posts: 536
Re: X-Trans for commercial work

Chris Dodkin wrote:

http://www.prophotonut.com

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

prophotonut.com is Damien's blog, so these two are from the same person - I like his work and been following his articles for well over a year, well worth checking -> NSFW (some of them)

 hexxthalion's gear list:hexxthalion's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix X100 Sigma DP2 Merrill Fujifilm X-Pro1 Fujifilm XF 18mm F2 R Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R +11 more
hellocrowley Senior Member • Posts: 1,271
Re: X-Trans for commercial work

The artifacts are real, and probably inherent to the CFA design. However if you were a pro whose clients care about this level of quality, you'd have many other concerns with the X system. Most pros care about ruggedness, versatility, reliability, responsiveness, and perhaps sync speed, weather seal, etc.. all of which are either missing or inadequately addressed in the X cameras.

Lovegrove is a master and also a great businessman. I'd be shocked if he didn't have a contract with Fuji And he's still keeping his 5D2 + lenses.

mr moonlight Senior Member • Posts: 1,781
Re: X-Trans for commercial work
2

hellocrowley wrote:

The artifacts are real, and probably inherent to the CFA design. However if you were a pro whose clients care about this level of quality, you'd have many other concerns with the X system. Most pros care about ruggedness, versatility, reliability, responsiveness, and perhaps sync speed, weather seal, etc.. all of which are either missing or inadequately addressed in the X cameras.

Lovegrove is a master and also a great businessman. I'd be shocked if he didn't have a contract with Fuji And he's still keeping his 5D2 + lenses.

It's just a camera and most pro's don't care about versatility, sync speed, weather sealing, etc... Reliability and ruggedness are both very important. Beyond anything else, your gear needs to work when you need it to and how you need it to. A lot of marketing hype pushes the idea that pro's need things like weather sealing, speed, versatility... and yes, a few select photographers need these things. If you're shooting sports, yes, you want something fast, rugged and weather sealed. If you're shooting product, food, architecture,... speed, ruggedness and weather sealing are of little importance. You can't exactly shoot with a Phase One in the rain, yet no one will argue that it's not "pro-camera" enough because it doesn't have enough weather sealing or isn't rugged enough.

mr moonlight Senior Member • Posts: 1,781
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.

Very true. I work professionally on both sides of the fence as a photographer and an art director. If the photo looks great, we run it. If it doesn't we don't. The issues that pixel peepers argue about day in and day out never even come up for discussion on the design side. As a photographer, I want to deliver the highest quality product possible and I'm definitely a pixel peeper on that front. As an art director I could care less about a little smudge or fringe that you can only see at 300%. If I'm delivering files directly to clients, they often like to see how good the fine details are. It's sort of like showing someone who is buying a Maserati how perfect the stitching on the seats are under a magnifying glass. It makes the client really feel like they are paying for a quality product, but in the end, it very rarely matters.

The Davinator
The Davinator Forum Pro • Posts: 16,638
Re: X-Trans for commercial work

The biggest I've output so far was for a couple from their engagement session at 20x30.  No artifacts anywhere.  Normally my print sizes for that type of work are no bigger than 16x24 and I have never seen artifacts from the X Trans sensor.  That said, would I select the Fuji for large landscape prints of 40x60 inches, not really.  Different tools for different meeds.

 The Davinator's gear list:The Davinator's gear list
Canon PowerShot G3 Canon PowerShot SX150 IS Canon EOS 10D Canon EOS D30 Nikon D2X +18 more
Asylum Photo
Asylum Photo Senior Member • Posts: 1,277
Re: X-Trans for commercial work
4

Looks like we've had a few shooters reply that they've had no issues.

Certainly no one here has said they do have issues.

But we have one guy who doesn't have the camera(s) claiming that there are issues.

This place is predictable.

-- 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
Randy Benter
Randy Benter Veteran Member • Posts: 3,145
Re: X-Trans for commercial work
2

Asylum Photo wrote:

Looks like we've had a few shooters reply that they've had no issues.

Certainly no one here has said they do have issues.

But we have one guy who doesn't have the camera(s) claiming that there are issues.

This place is predictable.

You seem to have missed the point; the OP is not asking if the artifacts/smearing exist. It is well known that this can be a problem when looking at pixel-level detail in X-Trans files. The OP posted examples of the artifacts he is concerned about.

The OP is asking if any pros have had issues with submitting X-Trans files for professional use. He is not claiming there are such issues; he is asking. If the OP has previously had his images subjected to pixel-level scrutiny, then he has a valid concern and question for the forum.

Your attempt to discredit and dismiss the OP was rude and "predictable".

To the OP: As far as I know, no pros have reported problems with submitting X-Trans images. Some of them even use Adobe raw processing, though other converters eliminate the pixel-level artifacts. I tend to agree with others who have said that a good photo is a good photo even if you can pixel-peep and find a few pixels that aren't as they should be. If a pro ever does have an X-Trans image rejected due to such artifacts, they could address the issue by processing the raw file with a different application (like the aforementioned CaptureOne). Whether or not it is worth purchasing/using another application is completely up to the individual.

 Randy Benter's gear list:Randy Benter's gear list
Fujifilm X100T Fujifilm X-T10 Nikon D7200 Carl Zeiss Touit 1.8/32 Apple Aperture +18 more
D200_4me Veteran Member • Posts: 3,873
Here's a real example to look at
1

Some people have talked about smearing in foliage (like grass).  This photo of mine was shot raw and converted in Lightroom.  I'm not a 'pro' but I do dabble in istockphoto occasionally for stock photo sales.

Here's the image on istockphoto

And here it is on my smugmug site  (where you can view the EXIF data on the file)

I don't know what else to say other than that's a real life example of a Fuji X-Trans file scrutinized at 100% by a stock photo agency and they've accepted it...along with several other photos from my X100S.   Again, that's raw and converted in Lightroom, a huge no-no, as some here the forums would say...but I did it and they like it.  I only shoot raw and edit in Lightroom.  I'm happy.  That's all I can say.  That's my experience

 D200_4me's gear list:D200_4me's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix X100 Sony a6000 Nikon Df Nikon D750 Sony E 16-50mm F3.5-5.6 PZ OSS +6 more
mr moonlight Senior Member • Posts: 1,781
Re: X-Trans for commercial work

Randy Benter wrote:

Asylum Photo wrote:

Looks like we've had a few shooters reply that they've had no issues.

Certainly no one here has said they do have issues.

But we have one guy who doesn't have the camera(s) claiming that there are issues.

This place is predictable.

You seem to have missed the point; the OP is not asking if the artifacts/smearing exist. It is well known that this can be a problem when looking at pixel-level detail in X-Trans files. The OP posted examples of the artifacts he is concerned about.

The OP is asking if any pros have had issues with submitting X-Trans files for professional use. He is not claiming there are such issues; he is asking. If the OP has previously had his images subjected to pixel-level scrutiny, then he has a valid concern and question for the forum.

Your attempt to discredit and dismiss the OP was rude and "predictable".

To the OP: As far as I know, no pros have reported problems with submitting X-Trans images. Some of them even use Adobe raw processing, though other converters eliminate the pixel-level artifacts. I tend to agree with others who have said that a good photo is a good photo even if you can pixel-peep and find a few pixels that aren't as they should be. If a pro ever does have an X-Trans image rejected due to such artifacts, they could address the issue by processing the raw file with a different application (like the aforementioned CaptureOne). Whether or not it is worth purchasing/using another application is completely up to the individual.

Quite true. Many aspiring photographers browse forums to get all types of info on everything from lighting to gear. When you start talking gear, you get a flood of discussion revolving around miniscule details that are for the most part meaningless in the real world, but are enough for people to slam a camera as useless or a complete failure across the forums. For a beginner who's never experienced the professional photographic world, it may seem like these details will make or break you once you start submitting photos for publication or that this or that camera is useless as a professional tool because it's missing some random feature. It's easy to get caught up in all the talk and the OP was expressing a very valid concern of, do these issues matter in real world use? and wanted the input of Pro's who would know from experience.

Asylum Photo
Asylum Photo Senior Member • Posts: 1,277
Re: X-Trans for commercial work
1

mr moonlight wrote:

Randy Benter wrote:

Asylum Photo wrote:

Looks like we've had a few shooters reply that they've had no issues.

Certainly no one here has said they do have issues.

But we have one guy who doesn't have the camera(s) claiming that there are issues.

This place is predictable.

You seem to have missed the point; the OP is not asking if the artifacts/smearing exist. It is well known that this can be a problem when looking at pixel-level detail in X-Trans files. The OP posted examples of the artifacts he is concerned about.

The OP is asking if any pros have had issues with submitting X-Trans files for professional use. He is not claiming there are such issues; he is asking. If the OP has previously had his images subjected to pixel-level scrutiny, then he has a valid concern and question for the forum.

Your attempt to discredit and dismiss the OP was rude and "predictable".

To the OP: As far as I know, no pros have reported problems with submitting X-Trans images. Some of them even use Adobe raw processing, though other converters eliminate the pixel-level artifacts. I tend to agree with others who have said that a good photo is a good photo even if you can pixel-peep and find a few pixels that aren't as they should be. If a pro ever does have an X-Trans image rejected due to such artifacts, they could address the issue by processing the raw file with a different application (like the aforementioned CaptureOne). Whether or not it is worth purchasing/using another application is completely up to the individual.

Quite true. Many aspiring photographers browse forums to get all types of info on everything from lighting to gear. When you start talking gear, you get a flood of discussion revolving around miniscule details that are for the most part meaningless in the real world, but are enough for people to slam a camera as useless or a complete failure across the forums. For a beginner who's never experienced the professional photographic world, it may seem like these details will make or break you once you start submitting photos for publication or that this or that camera is useless as a professional tool because it's missing some random feature. It's easy to get caught up in all the talk and the OP was expressing a very valid concern of, do these issues matter in real world use? and wanted the input of Pro's who would know from experience.

The answer has been shown to be a clear and resounding "no."

Yet the OP is getting in a pssing match about OMD's detail retention in DPR's "lab test". Originally, I was fine with the question. And I like the answers, as well. It's the followup discussion that called for my snarky answer.

-- 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: Here's a real example to look at
1

Thanks for sharing your experience. Exactly the sort of comment I was looking for.

D200_4me wrote:

Some people have talked about smearing in foliage (like grass). This photo of mine was shot raw and converted in Lightroom. I'm not a 'pro' but I do dabble in istockphoto occasionally for stock photo sales.

Here's the image on istockphoto

And here it is on my smugmug site (where you can view the EXIF data on the file)

I don't know what else to say other than that's a real life example of a Fuji X-Trans file scrutinized at 100% by a stock photo agency and they've accepted it...along with several other photos from my X100S. Again, that's raw and converted in Lightroom, a huge no-no, as some here the forums would say...but I did it and they like it. I only shoot raw and edit in Lightroom. I'm happy. That's all I can say. That's my experience

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads