Fuji X-E2 image problems

Started Nov 10, 2013 | Discussions
Robert Garcia NYC
Senior MemberPosts: 1,178Gear list
Like?
Re: Fuji X-E2 image problems
In reply to Daniel Lauring, Nov 11, 2013

Daniel Lauring wrote:

Another example. The FF Sony RX1 at ISO 6400. Do you think there is a lot more detail than with the Fuji X-E2? I don't see it.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/peteradams/8483970150/

From this Camera Lab review.

I see more more detail in that image than the ones the OP posted.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
M O
M O
New MemberPosts: 5
Like?
Re: Fuji X-E2 image problems
In reply to Daniel Lauring, Nov 11, 2013

X100s ISO3200 and less than a jpg is really excellent. I think the best thing in any camera. Upwards, especially the skin begins to look worse. ISO6400 for the skin is already completely unnatural because NR is far too powerful.

X-E1 is different and so much better in that regard, even if the noise is more noticeable and larger.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
virgil1612
Regular MemberPosts: 148Gear list
Like?
Re: Fuji X-E2 image problems
In reply to Daniel Lauring, Nov 12, 2013

Daniel Lauring wrote:

Did a little more research.

1. Purple artifacts is either poor RAW processor or problem with your specific camera. Try the included processor and see it that eliminates the problem.

2. Skin smoothing is a "feature" of Fuji cameras and probably one reason they are so loved by portrait and wedding photographers because of their "kindness."

Fuji's "Skin Smoothing Function."

Some people like it, some people, do not.

Fuji "ugly" noise reduction (Rachel Ruffer)

The skin smoothing isn't adjustable but is only applied to jpegs. If you fall in the hate category, and you don't mind the workflow of RAW, you can process the shots yourself. Of course, at this time you would not do that with the LR RAW processor because it apparently has color issues.

Excuse me, I cannot pass lightly over this... Can you confirm from your own experience that this (Rachel Ruffer's blog) is what Fuji does to human face jpegs at minimal noise reduction?  If so, it's just ... dissapointing... I was really prepared to buy the small X-A1... , specifically to shoot jpegs... people photos...

 virgil1612's gear list:virgil1612's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX7 Sony a6000
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Daniel Lauring
Veteran MemberPosts: 8,896
Like?
Re: Fuji X-E2 image problems
In reply to virgil1612, Nov 12, 2013

virgil1612 wrote:

Excuse me, I cannot pass lightly over this... Can you confirm from your own experience that this (Rachel Ruffer's blog) is what Fuji does to human face jpegs at minimal noise reduction? If so, it's just ... disappointing... I was really prepared to buy the small X-A1... , specifically to shoot jpegs... people photos...

As was mentioned earlier it doesn't really get soft till ISO 6400.  ISO 3200 had much less noise reduction.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
virgil1612
Regular MemberPosts: 148Gear list
Like?
Re: Fuji X-E2 image problems
In reply to M O, Nov 12, 2013

M O wrote:

X100s ISO3200 and less than a jpg is really excellent. I think the best thing in any camera. Upwards, especially the skin begins to look worse. ISO6400 for the skin is already completely unnatural because NR is far too powerful.

X-E1 is different and so much better in that regard, even if the noise is more noticeable and larger.

So, as Daniel Lauring was saying, it depends on the ISO, which is to be expected, but it also depends on the camera? X100s is worse than the X-E1 from this point of view... Hmmm.

 virgil1612's gear list:virgil1612's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX7 Sony a6000
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
bigpigbig
Senior MemberPosts: 1,719Gear list
Like?
Re: Fuji X-E2 image problems
In reply to virgil1612, Nov 12, 2013

virgil1612 wrote:

Daniel Lauring wrote:

Did a little more research.

1. Purple artifacts is either poor RAW processor or problem with your specific camera. Try the included processor and see it that eliminates the problem.

2. Skin smoothing is a "feature" of Fuji cameras and probably one reason they are so loved by portrait and wedding photographers because of their "kindness."

Fuji's "Skin Smoothing Function."

Some people like it, some people, do not.

Fuji "ugly" noise reduction (Rachel Ruffer)

The skin smoothing isn't adjustable but is only applied to jpegs. If you fall in the hate category, and you don't mind the workflow of RAW, you can process the shots yourself. Of course, at this time you would not do that with the LR RAW processor because it apparently has color issues.

Excuse me, I cannot pass lightly over this... Can you confirm from your own experience that this (Rachel Ruffer's blog) is what Fuji does to human face jpegs at minimal noise reduction? If so, it's just ... dissapointing... I was really prepared to buy the small X-A1... , specifically to shoot jpegs... people photos...

I am not discounting the over smoothing of the JPGs at high ISO, but when people post photos and label them as RAW and talk about the differences between RAW and JPG, it just shows their ignorance. A RAW file is NOT an image. It is just data. Software is required to interpret the data. The woman in the linked blog has used software (Lightroom, ACR, Aperture, Silkypix, etc.) to convert the RAW into a JPG for her blog. She just doesn't understand that. RAW conversion has become so transparent that people think they are looking at a RAW file. What she is comparing is in camera JPG vs externally created JPG.

 bigpigbig's gear list:bigpigbig's gear list
Fujifilm X-E1 Fujifilm X-T1 Nikon D810 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED +12 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
virgil1612
Regular MemberPosts: 148Gear list
Like?
Re: Fuji X-E2 image problems
In reply to bigpigbig, Nov 12, 2013

bigpigbig wrote:

I am not discounting the over smoothing of the JPGs at high ISO, but when people post photos and label them as RAW and talk about the differences between RAW and JPG, it just shows their ignorance. A RAW file is NOT an image. It is just data. Software is required to interpret the data. The woman in the linked blog has used software (Lightroom, ACR, Aperture, Silkypix, etc.) to convert the RAW into a JPG for her blog. She just doesn't understand that. RAW conversion has become so transparent that people think they are looking at a RAW file. What she is comparing is in camera JPG vs externally created JPG.

Yes of course, I guess we all understand that. Maybe it's just semantics, it's far easier to say "this is raw" than "this is jpeg developed from raw".

 virgil1612's gear list:virgil1612's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX7 Sony a6000
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
bowportes
Senior MemberPosts: 1,936Gear list
Like?
Re: Fuji X-E2 image problems
In reply to virgil1612, Nov 12, 2013

virgil1612 wrote:

bigpigbig wrote:

I am not discounting the over smoothing of the JPGs at high ISO, but when people post photos and label them as RAW and talk about the differences between RAW and JPG, it just shows their ignorance. A RAW file is NOT an image. It is just data. Software is required to interpret the data. The woman in the linked blog has used software (Lightroom, ACR, Aperture, Silkypix, etc.) to convert the RAW into a JPG for her blog. She just doesn't understand that. RAW conversion has become so transparent that people think they are looking at a RAW file. What she is comparing is in camera JPG vs externally created JPG.

Yes of course, I guess we all understand that. Maybe it's just semantics, it's far easier to say "this is raw" than "this is jpeg developed from raw".

Perhaps, but "this is raw" is completely different than "this is rendered from raw." The former is simply inaccurate, while the latter begs the question, How?   It's an important distinction that some folks do NOT understand.

 bowportes's gear list:bowportes's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-G5 Fujifilm X-M1 Fujifilm X-T1 Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 45mm 1:1.8 +9 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keit ll
Senior MemberPosts: 3,038Gear list
Like?
Re: Fuji X-E2 image problems
In reply to virgil1612, Nov 12, 2013

The differences in the RAW developed file & the OOC Jpeg are clear to see but which one is more acceptable ? It is a question of taste but many would prefer the Jpeg so there are no easy answers.......

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
bigpigbig
Senior MemberPosts: 1,719Gear list
Like?
Re: Fuji X-E2 image problems
In reply to virgil1612, Nov 12, 2013

virgil1612 wrote:

bigpigbig wrote:

I am not discounting the over smoothing of the JPGs at high ISO, but when people post photos and label them as RAW and talk about the differences between RAW and JPG, it just shows their ignorance. A RAW file is NOT an image. It is just data. Software is required to interpret the data. The woman in the linked blog has used software (Lightroom, ACR, Aperture, Silkypix, etc.) to convert the RAW into a JPG for her blog. She just doesn't understand that. RAW conversion has become so transparent that people think they are looking at a RAW file. What she is comparing is in camera JPG vs externally created JPG.

Yes of course, I guess we all understand that. Maybe it's just semantics, it's far easier to say "this is raw" than "this is jpeg developed from raw".

True, but how can anyone compare the "RAW" file if they don't know how it was developed?

Plus, the in camera "jpg" is actually "developed from RAW" as well. It just happens in camera.

The RAW data is captured whether one chooses to save it or not. (jpg vs RAW+jpg)

Right?

 bigpigbig's gear list:bigpigbig's gear list
Fujifilm X-E1 Fujifilm X-T1 Nikon D810 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED +12 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
unknown member
(unknown member) OP
Like?
Re: Fuji X-E2 image problems
In reply to bigpigbig, Nov 12, 2013

bigpigbig wrote:

virgil1612 wrote:

Daniel Lauring wrote:

Did a little more research.

1. Purple artifacts is either poor RAW processor or problem with your specific camera. Try the included processor and see it that eliminates the problem.

2. Skin smoothing is a "feature" of Fuji cameras and probably one reason they are so loved by portrait and wedding photographers because of their "kindness."

Fuji's "Skin Smoothing Function."

Some people like it, some people, do not.

Fuji "ugly" noise reduction (Rachel Ruffer)

The skin smoothing isn't adjustable but is only applied to jpegs. If you fall in the hate category, and you don't mind the workflow of RAW, you can process the shots yourself. Of course, at this time you would not do that with the LR RAW processor because it apparently has color issues.

Excuse me, I cannot pass lightly over this... Can you confirm from your own experience that this (Rachel Ruffer's blog) is what Fuji does to human face jpegs at minimal noise reduction? If so, it's just ... dissapointing... I was really prepared to buy the small X-A1... , specifically to shoot jpegs... people photos...

I am not discounting the over smoothing of the JPGs at high ISO, but when people post photos and label them as RAW and talk about the differences between RAW and JPG, it just shows their ignorance. A RAW file is NOT an image. It is just data. Software is required to interpret the data. The woman in the linked blog has used software (Lightroom, ACR, Aperture, Silkypix, etc.) to convert the RAW into a JPG for her blog. She just doesn't understand that. RAW conversion has become so transparent that people think they are looking at a RAW file. What she is comparing is in camera JPG vs externally created JPG.

When people compare a JPEG to a RAW file online, as in this case, it's generally accepted by most that the RAW is opened and saved as a JPEG without any user modifications. This gives a good basic comparison to the OOC JPEG results (which are also assumed to have not been manipulated) an the OOC RAW.
If you read the accompanying article, this should be pretty obvious.
Of course RAW doesn't always mean 'raw' in strict terms as manufactures manipulate the raw data in different ways, and it's long been said Fuji apply NR to theirs. But that's for another topic.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
unknown member
(unknown member) OP
Like?
Re: Fuji X-E2 image problems
In reply to Daniel Lauring, Nov 12, 2013

Daniel Lauring wrote:

Another example. The FF Sony RX1 at ISO 6400. Do you think there is a lot more detail than with the Fuji X-E2? I don't see it.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/peteradams/8483970150/

From this Camera Lab review.

Night and day difference, heaps of detail for 6400 in that sample. I'd be more than happy with that output.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
unknown member
(unknown member) OP
Like?
Re: Fuji X-E2 image problems
In reply to stimpy, Nov 12, 2013

Here is a JPEG saved from RAW (with no manipulation)

The good

Here is a JPEG straight out of camera on the MINIMUM noise reduction setting of -2 and sharpening set to +1 - Fuji Astia (which is meant to be least damaging for skin tones) - everything else is standard ("0")

The bad and the ugly

It's pretty clear in this sample what's happening - bearing i mind this is the lowest setting, but I would say that it is much worse on faces as the parts that are not effected such as hair and eyes really emphasise the smoothing.

Worse still is that this is even more prevalent on faces with 'imperfections' such as freckles or wrinkles.

The processing is most definitely targeting skin and treating that differently to the rest of the scene, as other areas and other subjects show a much more restrained level of NR.

Skin smoothing does happen at all ISOs which is actually very annoying, but it's most certainly problematic at ISO 6400 which seems to be a lot worse than other ISOs.

Of course one can circumvent the problem by shooting RAW instead, though you then have the problem of poor RAW support; but this seems crazy when Fuji are lauded for their straight-out-of-camera Jpeg rendering.

Edit: This frustrating thing is that this scene, under poor light and shot at 6400 ISO doesn't even need much NR, if any.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
unknown member
(unknown member) OP
Like?
Re: Fuji X-E2 image problems
In reply to Randy Benter, Nov 12, 2013

Randy Benter wrote:

Daniel Lauring wrote:

Did a little more research.

1. Purple artifacts is either poor RAW processor or problem with your specific camera. Try the included processor and see it that eliminates the problem.

2. Skin smoothing is a "feature" of Fuji cameras and probably one reason they are so loved by portrait and wedding photographers because of their "kindness."

Fuji's "Skin Smoothing Function."

The Skin Smoothing Function is NOT a feature of Fuji cameras. It is a feature of Fuji printers (part of their Digital Lab equipment). Skin smoothing in JPEGs is the result of aggressive NR. One can minimize the issue by setting NR to -2 or process raw for complete control.

Skin smoothing IS a feature in Fuji Cameras.

In fact there is a feature on the X-A1 called Portrait Enhancer that specifically smooths skin tones. "silky smooth" is the term Fuji use.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Daniel Lauring
Veteran MemberPosts: 8,896
Like?
Re: Fuji X-E2 image problems
In reply to stimpy, Nov 12, 2013

stimpy wrote:

Here is a JPEG saved from RAW (with no manipulation)It's pretty clear in this sample what's happening - bearing i mind this is the lowest setting, but I would say that it is much worse on faces as the parts that are not effected such as hair and eyes really emphasise the smoothing.

I've seen this "targeting" with other cameras with skin colors. Specifically, with Olympus, I found it when I switched to shooting manual white balance because the skin seemed to rosy and while there were subtle changes in other colors the skin still got the colors pumped up. The only way to avoid it was RAW processing.

Worse still is that this is even more prevalent on faces with 'imperfections' such as freckles or wrinkles.

The processing is most definitely targeting skin and treating that differently to the rest of the scene, as other areas and other subjects show a much more restrained level of NR.

Skin smoothing does happen at all ISOs which is actually very annoying, but it's most certainly problematic at ISO 6400 which seems to be a lot worse than other ISOs.

IMHO, it isn't really objectionable till ISO 6400 if you keep NR to -2 and than most people actually prefer how they look with the smoothing...but I agree it would be better if there was a setting where you could turn it off...say NR -3.

Of course one can circumvent the problem by shooting RAW instead, though you then have the problem of poor RAW support; but this seems crazy when Fuji are lauded for their straight-out-of-camera Jpeg rendering.

Edit: This frustrating thing is that this scene, under poor light and shot at 6400 ISO doesn't even need much NR, if any.

Does it not...or is there a little NR going on even with the RAW? There have been suggestions that many of the manufacturers have been applying a bit of NR to their RAW's processors as well.

I can definitely see why some people don't like this targeting, especially not being able to turn it off and that it targets skin, but having said that, people almost universally prefer the smoothed photo's of themselves, when I show it to them.

There are now several very good X-trans RAW processors.  I'm always surprised when it takes time to get support for a "new" camera when that camera uses the same sensor technology as an existing one, ie. the X-E2 support should be instantaneouos considering it is supposedly the same sensor as the X100s which has been out for 8 months and now has full support from everyone.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Daniel Lauring
Veteran MemberPosts: 8,896
Like?
Re: Fuji X-E2 image problems
In reply to stimpy, Nov 12, 2013

stimpy wrote:

When people compare a JPEG to a RAW file online, as in this case, it's generally accepted by most that the RAW is opened and saved as a JPEG without any user modifications. This gives a good basic comparison to the OOC JPEG results (which are also assumed to have not been manipulated) an the OOC RAW.
If you read the accompanying article, this should be pretty obvious.
Of course RAW doesn't always mean 'raw' in strict terms as manufactures manipulate the raw data in different ways, and it's long been said Fuji apply NR to theirs. But that's for another topic.

Of course, all RAW processors are actually manipulating the RAW data in some way and give different looks.  BTW, I've never understood the idea of "in camera" RAW processing.  Does that yield a different jpeg than the regular jpeg processing or just allow you to process a few as jpegs if you want, to save time and space?

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
unknown member
(unknown member) OP
Like?
Re: Fuji X-E2 image problems
In reply to Daniel Lauring, Nov 12, 2013

Daniel Lauring wrote:

stimpy wrote:

Here is a JPEG saved from RAW (with no manipulation)It's pretty clear in this sample what's happening - bearing i mind this is the lowest setting, but I would say that it is much worse on faces as the parts that are not effected such as hair and eyes really emphasise the smoothing.

I've seen this "targeting" with other cameras with skin colors. Specifically, with Olympus, I found it when I switched to shooting manual white balance because the skin seemed to rosy and while there were subtle changes in other colors the skin still got the colors pumped up. The only way to avoid it was RAW processing.

They all apply NR but not to this degree. It certainly seems to be worse with the X-E2 in my experience. It doesn't help that my wife has freckles...

It was not a problem with my X100

Worse still is that this is even more prevalent on faces with 'imperfections' such as freckles or wrinkles.

The processing is most definitely targeting skin and treating that differently to the rest of the scene, as other areas and other subjects show a much more restrained level of NR.

Skin smoothing does happen at all ISOs which is actually very annoying, but it's most certainly problematic at ISO 6400 which seems to be a lot worse than other ISOs.

IMHO, it isn't really objectionable till ISO 6400 if you keep NR to -2 and than most people actually prefer how they look with the smoothing...but I agree it would be better if there was a setting where you could turn it off...say NR -3.

I agree it certainly isn't as bad at other ISO settings, 6400 does seem to behave out of the ordinary - though at lower ISOs it still happens a bit too much for me on some subjects, for my tastes (older people, freckles etc).

Of course one can circumvent the problem by shooting RAW instead, though you then have the problem of poor RAW support; but this seems crazy when Fuji are lauded for their straight-out-of-camera Jpeg rendering.

Edit: This frustrating thing is that this scene, under poor light and shot at 6400 ISO doesn't even need much NR, if any.

Does it not...or is there a little NR going on even with the RAW? There have been suggestions that many of the manufacturers have been applying a bit of NR to their RAW's processors as well.

Definitely NR happening in RAW, no doubt.

I can definitely see why some people don't like this targeting, especially not being able to turn it off and that it targets skin, but having said that, people almost universally prefer the smoothed photo's of themselves, when I show it to them.

I am sure the average Joe actually likes the look, but I like to see pores etc. I used to retouch professionally so I guess I am a bit different, but smoothing skin in post vs having Fuji do it are 2 very different things

There are now several very good X-trans RAW processors. I'm always surprised when it takes time to get support for a "new" camera when that camera uses the same sensor technology as an existing one, ie. the X-E2 support should be instantaneouos considering it is supposedly the same sensor as the X100s which has been out for 8 months and now has full support from everyone.

Yes, see my post about the X-E2 and Lightroom 5.2 (not supported) or 5.3 RC (issues with false color) - I would have assumed it was the same tech as the X100s.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
bigpigbig
Senior MemberPosts: 1,719Gear list
Like?
Re: Fuji X-E2 image problems
In reply to Daniel Lauring, Nov 12, 2013

Daniel Lauring wrote:

stimpy wrote:

When people compare a JPEG to a RAW file online, as in this case, it's generally accepted by most that the RAW is opened and saved as a JPEG without any user modifications. This gives a good basic comparison to the OOC JPEG results (which are also assumed to have not been manipulated) an the OOC RAW.
If you read the accompanying article, this should be pretty obvious.
Of course RAW doesn't always mean 'raw' in strict terms as manufactures manipulate the raw data in different ways, and it's long been said Fuji apply NR to theirs. But that's for another topic.

Of course, all RAW processors are actually manipulating the RAW data in some way and give different looks. BTW, I've never understood the idea of "in camera" RAW processing. Does that yield a different jpeg than the regular jpeg processing or just allow you to process a few as jpegs if you want, to save time and space?

Daniel,

I think the in camera processing is pretty neat. If you shoot RAW or RAW+JPG, you can make as many jpgs as you want with different settings (film settings, NR, Color, WB, etc). Of course you could also do this in post, but it is quick and simple to make a monochrome red filter and a color version before importing to your favorite image editor.

To add to the RAW discussion, if the same RAW file is opened in Aperture, Lightroom, Silkypix, Photoshop and others, ALL with minimal adjustments applied, they will not look the same! Opening a RAW file IS demosaicing the data into color and tone pixels. These processors all do it differently. Hance the Lightroom vs Silkypix threads ad-nauseum.

 bigpigbig's gear list:bigpigbig's gear list
Fujifilm X-E1 Fujifilm X-T1 Nikon D810 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED +12 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Gazeomon
Regular MemberPosts: 449Gear list
Like?
Re: Fuji X-E2 image problems
In reply to stimpy, Nov 12, 2013

Fuji's Raws always stink one way or another on Lightroom. If You want to shoot Raw only, get another camera.

-- hide signature --

Hans

 Gazeomon's gear list:Gazeomon's gear list
Pentax K-5 IIs Pentax K-3 Samsung NX500 Pentax smc D-FA 100mm F2.8 macro HD Pentax DA 21mm F3.2 AL Limited +3 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
bigpigbig
Senior MemberPosts: 1,719Gear list
Like?
Re: Fuji X-E2 image problems
In reply to stimpy, Nov 12, 2013

According to wikipedia:

"In digital photography, the raw file plays the role that photographic film plays in film photography. Raw files thus contain the full resolution (typically 12- or 14-bit) data as read out from each of the camera's image sensor pixels."

This would imply no noise reduction in the RAW file. Simply data from each photosensitive site. Covered with a RGB filter then light converted to electrical charge and quantified.

stimpy wrote:

They all apply NR but not to this degree. It certainly seems to be worse with the X-E2 in my experience. It doesn't help that my wife has freckles...

 bigpigbig's gear list:bigpigbig's gear list
Fujifilm X-E1 Fujifilm X-T1 Nikon D810 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED +12 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads