Fuji X-E2 image problems

Started 10 months ago | Discussions
bigpigbig
Senior MemberPosts: 1,593Gear list
Like?
Re: Fuji X-E2 image problems
In reply to Gazeomon, 10 months ago

Gazeomon wrote:

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

-- hide signature --

Hans

Please (rolls eyes)

 bigpigbig's gear list:bigpigbig's gear list
Nikon D800E Fujifilm X-E1 Fujifilm X-T1 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
Daniel Lauring
Veteran MemberPosts: 7,472Gear list
Like?
Re: Fuji X-E2 image problems
In reply to bigpigbig, 10 months ago

bigpigbig wrote:

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...

Might be the definition but the reality I suspect is something else.  For example the engine that reads the values does some signal to noise processing during the read operation.  I suspect there is some other intelligent stuff going on to extrapolate or interpolate sensor values from surrounding sensors.  One specific example, would be mapping out bad pixels.

 Daniel Lauring's gear list:Daniel Lauring's gear list
Fujifilm XF 55-200mm F3.5-4.8 R LM OIS
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
unknown member
(unknown member)
Like?
Re: Fuji X-E2 image problems
In reply to bigpigbig, 10 months ago

bigpigbig wrote:

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...

It doesn't imply that at all. That data gets manipulated to the RAW file by Fuji, nobody will ever know for sure but most experts agree they add a decent amount of noise reduction to their raws.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
bigpigbig
Senior MemberPosts: 1,593Gear list
Like?
Re: Fuji X-E2 image problems
In reply to Daniel Lauring, 10 months ago

Daniel Lauring wrote:

bigpigbig wrote:

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...

Might be the definition but the reality I suspect is something else. For example the engine that reads the values does some signal to noise processing during the read operation. I suspect there is some other intelligent stuff going on to extrapolate or interpolate sensor values from surrounding sensors. One specific example, would be mapping out bad pixels.

I could be wrong, but remember, we are talking about an individual photosensitive site with either a red, green or blue filter over it converting photons that pass through into electrical energy. At that level there is no "noise". Noise happens at the stage when pixels are created (jpg or tiff files RAW files have no pixels) when there is not enough information at the photosensitive site and its surrounding sites to accurately create a color.

I am fairly certain about this. I am always willing to learn and have my mind changed.

 bigpigbig's gear list:bigpigbig's gear list
Nikon D800E Fujifilm X-E1 Fujifilm X-T1 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
bigpigbig
Senior MemberPosts: 1,593Gear list
Like?
Re: Fuji X-E2 image problems
In reply to stimpy, 10 months ago

stimpy wrote:

bigpigbig wrote:

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...

It doesn't imply that at all. That data gets manipulated to the RAW file by Fuji, nobody will ever know for sure but most experts agree they add a decent amount of noise reduction to their raws.

Could you post a link to one of these experts, please? I would like to learn how they think this happens.

How would you think that is happening? A RAW file contains only data from each photosensitive site (RGB). Noise happens at the pixel level. Pixels are created by interpreting this data (Demosaicing).

Reading this might help: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demosaicing

 bigpigbig's gear list:bigpigbig's gear list
Nikon D800E Fujifilm X-E1 Fujifilm X-T1 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
Daniel Lauring
Veteran MemberPosts: 7,472Gear list
Like?
Re: Fuji X-E2 image problems
In reply to bigpigbig, 10 months ago

bigpigbig wrote:

Might be the definition but the reality I suspect is something else. For example the engine that reads the values does some signal to noise processing during the read operation. I suspect there is some other intelligent stuff going on to extrapolate or interpolate sensor values from surrounding sensors. One specific example, would be mapping out bad pixels.

I could be wrong, but remember, we are talking about an individual photosensitive site with either a red, green or blue filter over it converting photons that pass through into electrical energy. At that level there is no "noise". Noise happens at the stage when pixels are created (jpg or tiff files RAW files have no pixels) when there is not enough information at the photosensitive site and its surrounding sites to accurately create a color.

I am fairly certain about this. I am always willing to learn and have my mind changed.

You are correct, my point is manufacturer might map out say a faulty green photosite to be some value when the surrounding ones are some value respectively, knowing that that site is defective and would cause a false color. They might do the same manipulation with respect to noise when they know certain sites get "hotter" than they should causing false noise colors as well. These values are delivered to the RAW processors instead of the actual values measured at the individual photo sites. I'm pretty certain this is done. The question is to what extent and to what extent does this manipulation start "smoothing" noisy images, at the loss of detail, similar to what happens in demosaicing and in post.

 Daniel Lauring's gear list:Daniel Lauring's gear list
Fujifilm XF 55-200mm F3.5-4.8 R LM OIS
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
unknown member
(unknown member)
Like?
Re: Fuji X-E2 image problems
In reply to bigpigbig, 10 months ago

bigpigbig wrote:

stimpy wrote:

bigpigbig wrote:

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...

It doesn't imply that at all. That data gets manipulated to the RAW file by Fuji, nobody will ever know for sure but most experts agree they add a decent amount of noise reduction to their raws.

Could you post a link to one of these experts, please? I would like to learn how they think this happens.

How would you think that is happening? A RAW file contains only data from each photosensitive site (RGB). Noise happens at the pixel level. Pixels are created by interpreting this data (Demosaicing).

Reading this might help: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demosaicing

If you want to learn, Google "cooking camera RAW files" or "Manufacturers manipulate RAW data" something along those lines. It may help you understand a bit better.
It's a bit of a con really, but you're not really to blame becasue it is insunuated that a raw file is purely camera data.

Manufacturers aren't stupid, they know people look to DPreview, DXO etc who compare RAW files against different manufacturers so tweaking them to produce less noise for example, is going to give them better test result and therefore better sales.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
bigpigbig
Senior MemberPosts: 1,593Gear list
Like?
Re: Fuji X-E2 image problems
In reply to stimpy, 10 months ago

stimpy wrote:

bigpigbig wrote:

stimpy wrote:

bigpigbig wrote:

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...

It doesn't imply that at all. That data gets manipulated to the RAW file by Fuji, nobody will ever know for sure but most experts agree they add a decent amount of noise reduction to their raws.

Could you post a link to one of these experts, please? I would like to learn how they think this happens.

How would you think that is happening? A RAW file contains only data from each photosensitive site (RGB). Noise happens at the pixel level. Pixels are created by interpreting this data (Demosaicing).

Reading this might help: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demosaicing

If you want to learn, Google "cooking camera RAW files" or "Manufacturers manipulate RAW data" something along those lines. It may help you understand a bit better.
It's a bit of a con really, but you're not really to blame becasue it is insunuated that a raw file is purely camera data.

Manufacturers aren't stupid, they know people look to DPreview, DXO etc who compare RAW files against different manufacturers so tweaking them to produce less noise for example, is going to give them better test result and therefore better sales.

Stimpy,

Rather than have me Google, can you give me the links to the experts you are referring to?

I tried and found very little. Certainly no experts. A few blogs with circumstantial evidence.

I am NOT saying it isn't happening, I just can't see how noise could possibly be controlled before it is created.

It seems (from your google links) that color balance and lens corrections are being done in RAW, and THAT seems possible. All green photosites could be adjusted downward for example.

 bigpigbig's gear list:bigpigbig's gear list
Nikon D800E Fujifilm X-E1 Fujifilm X-T1 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
Alessandro63
Contributing MemberPosts: 785
Like?
Re: Fuji X-E2 image problems
In reply to Daniel Lauring, 10 months ago

Daniel Lauring wrote:
You are correct, my point is manufacturer might map out say a faulty green photosite to be some value when the surrounding ones are some value respectively, knowing that that site is defective and would cause a false color. They might do the same manipulation with respect to noise when they know certain sites get "hotter" than they should causing false noise colors as well. These values are delivered to the RAW processors instead of the actual values measured at the individual photo sites. I'm pretty certain this is done. The question is to what extent and to what extent does this manipulation start "smoothing" noisy images, at the loss of detail, similar to what happens in demosaicing and in post.

Not so much into technical stuff, but I would say these raw files should be opened with dcraw, or RPP or such "rough" developers.

I am not, intuitively, quite sure there is a raw cooking in general. What I'm really sure of, is that mainstream raw developers concur in doing "strange" things, using the metadata they find in the file. One for all regarding fuji: adjusting exposure in DR≠100 underexposed files. Adobe is also using an aggressive anti-aliasing procedure on xtrans files which is, I believe, the reason why small foliage is always a mess.

I've never found a noise-cooked raw when opening it with DCRAW or RPP.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
unknown member
(unknown member)
Like?
Re: Fuji X-E2 image problems
In reply to bigpigbig, 10 months ago

bigpigbig wrote:

stimpy wrote:

bigpigbig wrote:

stimpy wrote:

bigpigbig wrote:

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...

It doesn't imply that at all. That data gets manipulated to the RAW file by Fuji, nobody will ever know for sure but most experts agree they add a decent amount of noise reduction to their raws.

Could you post a link to one of these experts, please? I would like to learn how they think this happens.

How would you think that is happening? A RAW file contains only data from each photosensitive site (RGB). Noise happens at the pixel level. Pixels are created by interpreting this data (Demosaicing).

Reading this might help: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demosaicing

If you want to learn, Google "cooking camera RAW files" or "Manufacturers manipulate RAW data" something along those lines. It may help you understand a bit better.
It's a bit of a con really, but you're not really to blame becasue it is insunuated that a raw file is purely camera data.

Manufacturers aren't stupid, they know people look to DPreview, DXO etc who compare RAW files against different manufacturers so tweaking them to produce less noise for example, is going to give them better test result and therefore better sales.

Stimpy,

Rather than have me Google, can you give me the links to the experts you are referring to?

I tried and found very little. Certainly no experts. A few blogs with circumstantial evidence.

I am NOT saying it isn't happening, I just can't see how noise could possibly be controlled before it is created.

It seems (from your google links) that color balance and lens corrections are being done in RAW, and THAT seems possible. All green photosites could be adjusted downward for example.

Haha - nice try. If you want to learn about RAW files there is no shortcut, you'll need to read and yourself; I'm not going to do it for you.
It makes no odds to me if you wish to believe that a raw files are pure and untouched, so I'm certainly  not going to spend my hours trying to convince you otherwise.
All I am saying is that there is plenty of expert opinion and proof that ALL manufacturers cook their RAWS if you can be bothered to find it. It's pretty much accepted as well, not sure why you resist.
OF course most manufacturers are going to come out and give specifics, that should be obvious. Though I do believe Nikon said something some years back about cooking NR for long exposures in their RAW files...which should at least satisfy you that it's possible.

I also recall something about the RAW file sizes being different which showed noise reduction happening...I can't recall specifics.
On the same vein, you do know manufacturers fabricate their ISO numbers as well don't you

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Daniel Lauring
Veteran MemberPosts: 7,472Gear list
Like?
Re: Fuji X-E2 image problems
In reply to bigpigbig, 10 months ago

Here is an interesting article about manufacturers cooking the curves.

RAW is not RAW

 Daniel Lauring's gear list:Daniel Lauring's gear list
Fujifilm XF 55-200mm F3.5-4.8 R LM OIS
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
bigpigbig
Senior MemberPosts: 1,593Gear list
Like?
Re: Fuji X-E2 image problems
In reply to stimpy, 10 months ago

stimpy wrote:

bigpigbig wrote:

stimpy wrote:

bigpigbig wrote:

stimpy wrote:

bigpigbig wrote:

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...

It doesn't imply that at all. That data gets manipulated to the RAW file by Fuji, nobody will ever know for sure but most experts agree they add a decent amount of noise reduction to their raws.

Could you post a link to one of these experts, please? I would like to learn how they think this happens.

How would you think that is happening? A RAW file contains only data from each photosensitive site (RGB). Noise happens at the pixel level. Pixels are created by interpreting this data (Demosaicing).

Reading this might help: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demosaicing

If you want to learn, Google "cooking camera RAW files" or "Manufacturers manipulate RAW data" something along those lines. It may help you understand a bit better.
It's a bit of a con really, but you're not really to blame becasue it is insunuated that a raw file is purely camera data.

Manufacturers aren't stupid, they know people look to DPreview, DXO etc who compare RAW files against different manufacturers so tweaking them to produce less noise for example, is going to give them better test result and therefore better sales.

Stimpy,

Rather than have me Google, can you give me the links to the experts you are referring to?

I tried and found very little. Certainly no experts. A few blogs with circumstantial evidence.

I am NOT saying it isn't happening, I just can't see how noise could possibly be controlled before it is created.

It seems (from your google links) that color balance and lens corrections are being done in RAW, and THAT seems possible. All green photosites could be adjusted downward for example.

Haha - nice try. If you want to learn about RAW files there is no shortcut, you'll need to read and yourself; I'm not going to do it for you.
It makes no odds to me if you wish to believe that a raw files are pure and untouched, so I'm certainly not going to spend my hours trying to convince you otherwise.
All I am saying is that there is plenty of expert opinion and proof that ALL manufacturers cook their RAWS if you can be bothered to find it. It's pretty much accepted as well, not sure why you resist.
OF course most manufacturers are going to come out and give specifics, that should be obvious. Though I do believe Nikon said something some years back about cooking NR for long exposures in their RAW files...which should at least satisfy you that it's possible.

I also recall something about the RAW file sizes being different which showed noise reduction happening...I can't recall specifics.
On the same vein, you do know manufacturers fabricate their ISO numbers as well don't you

Stimpy,

I am not resisting. I simply don't like to change my understandings based on blog posts. You seem to think you read an expert. I can't find it.

If you are posting facts and saying they are supported by "plenty of expert evidence", you should be prepared to share that evidence. I am guessing you are not an expert. Neither am I.

I try hard not to be swayed by blog posts that might well be made by camera manufactures to make others look bad. Believe me, there are plenty of people being paid to do just that.

I teach photography for a living and when I teach my students about RAW files, I want to be right. I hope you understand.

My high ISO shots are always larger files. What are you referring to?

 bigpigbig's gear list:bigpigbig's gear list
Nikon D800E Fujifilm X-E1 Fujifilm X-T1 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
bigpigbig
Senior MemberPosts: 1,593Gear list
Like?
Re: Fuji X-E2 image problems
In reply to Daniel Lauring, 10 months ago

Daniel Lauring wrote:

Here is an interesting article about manufacturers cooking the curves.

RAW is not RAW

This is ONLY referring to tone curves. That makes sense as a possibility. Adjusting individual photosensitive sites values. Like WB and lens corrections.

Does not explain how noise could be reduced in a RAW file.

 bigpigbig's gear list:bigpigbig's gear list
Nikon D800E Fujifilm X-E1 Fujifilm X-T1 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: 114Gear list
Like?
Re: Fuji X-E2 image problems
In reply to stimpy, 10 months ago

stimpy wrote:

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.

I post another image that I found on the web because it is the same problem the OP has, I hope he doesn't mind. I posted it on another thread but I got no answers. It's a sample picture from a review of the X-A1, at

http://www.whatdigitalcamera.com/equipment/galleries/sample-images/fujfilm/35202/1/fujifilm-x-a1-review-sample-image-gallery.html

the lady you can see in the second row. I'm attaching the full-size image. You can see regions on her face where NR is applied quite differently. The camera correctly shows the wrinkles around her eyes, but then, on the smoother regions decides that it should apply a much stronger NR and the resulting look at 100% is quite horrible. The ISO is 640!!, we are not talking about high-ISO here!! I presume it's SOOC, no mention about that, I suppose NR is standard.

 virgil1612's gear list:virgil1612's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX7 Sony a6000
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
unknown member
(unknown member)
Like?
Re: Fuji X-E2 image problems
In reply to virgil1612, 10 months ago

virgil1612 wrote:

stimpy wrote:

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.

I post another image that I found on the web because it is the same problem the OP has, I hope he doesn't mind. I posted it on another thread but I got no answers. It's a sample picture from a review of the X-A1, at

http://www.whatdigitalcamera.com/equipment/galleries/sample-images/fujfilm/35202/1/fujifilm-x-a1-review-sample-image-gallery.html

the lady you can see in the second row. I'm attaching the full-size image. You can see regions on her face where NR is applied quite differently. The camera correctly shows the wrinkles around her eyes, but then, on the smoother regions decides that it should apply a much stronger NR and the resulting look at 100% is quite horrible. The ISO is 640!!, we are not talking about high-ISO here!! I presume it's SOOC, no mention about that, I suppose NR is standard.

Thanks for posting, yes that looks terrible.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Corwin Lee
Forum MemberPosts: 64Gear list
Like?
Have you try the silkypix, default fuji raw converter?
In reply to stimpy, 10 months ago

As default setting of Lightroom used to give softer image for Fuji, and I found capture one give best result.

 Corwin Lee's gear list:Corwin Lee's gear list
Fujifilm X-E2 Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R Samyang 8mm F2.8 UMC Fisheye Fujifilm XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS Fujifilm XF 55-200mm F3.5-4.8 R LM OIS +1 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
unknown member
(unknown member)
Like?
Re: Fuji X-E2 image problems
In reply to bigpigbig, 10 months ago

bigpigbig wrote:

I simply don't like to change my understandings based on blog posts.

But yet you're happy to have your original belief based on a wikipedia post?

bigpigbig wrote:

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.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Daniel Lauring
Veteran MemberPosts: 7,472Gear list
Like?
Re: Fuji X-E2 image problems
In reply to virgil1612, 10 months ago

virgil1612 wrote:

found on the web because it is the same problem the OP has, I hope he doesn't mind. I posted it on another thread but I got no answers. It's a sample picture from a review of the X-A1, at

http://www.whatdigitalcamera.com/equipment/galleries/sample-images/fujfilm/35202/1/fujifilm-x-a1-review-sample-image-gallery.html

the lady you can see in the second row. I'm attaching the full-size image. You can see regions on her face where NR is applied quite differently. The camera correctly shows the wrinkles around her eyes, but then, on the smoother regions decides that it should apply a much stronger NR and the resulting look at 100% is quite horrible. The ISO is 640!!, we are not talking about high-ISO here!! I presume it's SOOC, no mention about that, I suppose NR is standard.

That is quite different and may very well be using the Fuji skin smoothing function that is available in the X-A1's menu.  I've never seen results like that from the X-E1 or X100s at any ISO.

 Daniel Lauring's gear list:Daniel Lauring's gear list
Fujifilm XF 55-200mm F3.5-4.8 R LM OIS
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
bigpigbig
Senior MemberPosts: 1,593Gear list
Like?
Re: Fuji X-E2 image problems
In reply to stimpy, 10 months ago

stimpy wrote:

bigpigbig wrote:

I simply don't like to change my understandings based on blog posts.

But yet you're happy to have your original belief based on a wikipedia post?

bigpigbig wrote:

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.

And a half dozen books I have read on the subject.

Please, be civil.

 bigpigbig's gear list:bigpigbig's gear list
Nikon D800E Fujifilm X-E1 Fujifilm X-T1 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)
Like?
Re: Fuji X-E2 image problems
In reply to Daniel Lauring, 10 months ago

Daniel Lauring wrote:

virgil1612 wrote:

found on the web because it is the same problem the OP has, I hope he doesn't mind. I posted it on another thread but I got no answers. It's a sample picture from a review of the X-A1, at

http://www.whatdigitalcamera.com/equipment/galleries/sample-images/fujfilm/35202/1/fujifilm-x-a1-review-sample-image-gallery.html

the lady you can see in the second row. I'm attaching the full-size image. You can see regions on her face where NR is applied quite differently. The camera correctly shows the wrinkles around her eyes, but then, on the smoother regions decides that it should apply a much stronger NR and the resulting look at 100% is quite horrible. The ISO is 640!!, we are not talking about high-ISO here!! I presume it's SOOC, no mention about that, I suppose NR is standard.

That is quite different and may very well be using the Fuji skin smoothing function that is available in the X-A1's menu. I've never seen results like that from the X-E1 or X100s at any ISO.

I'd be interested if you could do a quick portrait with the X100s at 6400 and post?

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads