X-T1 jpg quality question

Started 7 months ago | Questions
seukel
Regular MemberPosts: 465Gear list
Like?
X-T1 jpg quality question
7 months ago

This is a question for those who already have the camera. As the X-T1 has the same sensor and jpg engine as the X-E2 and X100s I suppose it is also prone to show those waxy smoothened skin tones, that many disliked. Or does it behave differently?

Peter

-- hide signature --

Education is an admirable thing, but it is well to remember from time to time that nothing that is worth knowing can be taught.
Oscar Wilde

ANSWER:
Fujifilm X100S Fujifilm X-E2 Fujifilm X-T1
If you believe there are incorrect tags, please send us this post using our feedback form.
Ed B
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,971
Like?
Re: X-T1 jpg quality question
In reply to seukel, 7 months ago

seukel wrote:

This is a question for those who already have the camera. As the X-T1 has the same sensor and jpg engine as the X-E2 and X100s I suppose it is also prone to show those waxy smoothened skin tones, that many disliked. Or does it behave differently?

Peter

-- hide signature --

Education is an admirable thing, but it is well to remember from time to time that nothing that is worth knowing can be taught.
Oscar Wilde

I don't own either camera, I have an X-E1 but I wish someone would post some examples, with EXIF data, of this waxy skin tone problem.

I'm not saying anyone is being overly critical, of the new cameras, but find it hard to believe that Fuji JPEGs would have this problem and sometimes wonder if people aren't simply repeating an opinion that isn't shared by the majority.

Seems like any post, where an individual has a problem, turns into a slam about Fuji.

I'd almost bet that if I posted that my camera had a paint chip, there would be 20 people who would chime in and say the paint job on Fuji cameras was inferior to X, Y, Z brand.

Naturally, I could be 100% wrong about the waxy skin issue but I, personally, have never seen a sample, with EXIF data, posted.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
LaFonte
Senior MemberPosts: 2,648Gear list
Like?
Re: X-T1 jpg quality question
In reply to seukel, 7 months ago

seukel wrote:

This is a question for those who already have the camera. As the X-T1 has the same sensor and jpg engine as the X-E2 and X100s I suppose it is also prone to show those waxy smoothened skin tones, that many disliked. Or does it behave differently?

Peter

-- hide signature --

Education is an admirable thing, but it is well to remember from time to time that nothing that is worth knowing can be taught.
Oscar Wilde

I don't have x-t1, but I am 100% sure if you dislike output from X-E2 you will not like the X-T1 as it will be exactly the same.

 LaFonte's gear list:LaFonte's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix X100 Fujifilm X-Pro1 +1 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
seukel
Regular MemberPosts: 465Gear list
Like?
Re: X-T1 jpg quality question
In reply to Ed B, 7 months ago

Ed B wrote:

seukel wrote:

This is a question for those who already have the camera. As the X-T1 has the same sensor and jpg engine as the X-E2 and X100s I suppose it is also prone to show those waxy smoothened skin tones, that many disliked. Or does it behave differently?

Peter

-- hide signature --

Education is an admirable thing, but it is well to remember from time to time that nothing that is worth knowing can be taught.
Oscar Wilde

I don't own either camera, I have an X-E1 but I wish someone would post some examples, with EXIF data, of this waxy skin tone problem.

I'm not saying anyone is being overly critical, of the new cameras, but find it hard to believe that Fuji JPEGs would have this problem and sometimes wonder if people aren't simply repeating an opinion that isn't shared by the majority.

Seems like any post, where an individual has a problem, turns into a slam about Fuji.

I'd almost bet that if I posted that my camera had a paint chip, there would be 20 people who would chime in and say the paint job on Fuji cameras was inferior to X, Y, Z brand.

Naturally, I could be 100% wrong about the waxy skin issue but I, personally, have never seen a sample, with EXIF data, posted.

Well, as someone wrote elswhere, the waxy skin phenomenon "has been shown time and time again, and it used to be talked about a lot more, but I think those that complained finally just moved on from Fuji, while the others that stuck with Fuji don't mention it much anymore", and probably mostly use raw. Or they moved back from the X100s to the X100, if they prefered jpgs.

It's a pity that the X-T1 has the same kind of output.

-- hide signature --

Education is an admirable thing, but it is well to remember from time to time that nothing that is worth knowing can be taught.
Oscar Wilde

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
eye specs
Regular MemberPosts: 131
Like?
Here is a post at 3200 showing waxy skin from excess nr.
In reply to seukel, 7 months ago

I hope this is helpful as the sort of side by side comparison of x e1 vs xe2/xt1 jpeg noise reduction issue that is of concern to some: http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/53132928

I do not have not read enough posts to form an opinion and yet it seems that people are divided with some seeing it clearly as in this example and others not. Presumably it is a firmware fixable issue and therefore if real you have reasonable reason to hope that fuji will announce a nr off option for the later cameras. eyespecs.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
seukel
Regular MemberPosts: 465Gear list
Like?
Re: Here is a post at 3200 showing waxy skin from excess nr.
In reply to eye specs, 7 months ago

Thanks, a "good" example. The problem has been around since the X100s arrived. No firmware fix up to now at least

-- hide signature --

Education is an admirable thing, but it is well to remember from time to time that nothing that is worth knowing can be taught.
Oscar Wilde

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
unknown member
(unknown member)
Like?
Re: X-T1 jpg quality question
In reply to Ed B, 7 months ago

seukel wrote:

This is a question for those who already have the camera. As the X-T1 has the same sensor and jpg engine as the X-E2 and X100s I suppose it is also prone to show those waxy smoothened skin tones, that many disliked. Or does it behave differently?

Peter

-- hide signature --

Education is an admirable thing, but it is well to remember from time to time that nothing that is worth knowing can be taught.
Oscar Wilde

I don't own either camera, I have an X-E1 but I wish someone would post some examples, with EXIF data, of this waxy skin tone problem.

I'm not saying anyone is being overly critical, of the new cameras, but find it hard to believe that Fuji JPEGs would have this problem and sometimes wonder if people aren't simply repeating an opinion that isn't shared by the majority.

Seems like any post, where an individual has a problem, turns into a slam about Fuji.

I'd almost bet that if I posted that my camera had a paint chip, there would be 20 people who would chime in and say the paint job on Fuji cameras was inferior to X, Y, Z brand.

Naturally, I could be 100% wrong about the waxy skin issue but I, personally, have never seen a sample, with EXIF data, posted.

I thought the same thing and shot happily with an xe2 until getting my hands on an xe1 last week . It's pretty obvious doing a side by side and I posted that example linked above.

I don't see how fuji let it slip by but I am willing to wait for a fix as they've done so many other things right and the raw files are unaffected. I don't often shoot critical portraits at ISO 6400 anyways as usually when you have to go that high the light will be terrible anyways and a hi ISO shot won't really save it. My opinion anyways. Pre ordered my XT1 yesterday and if I need hi ISO portraits my xe1 will always be with me as a backup body

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Graham Hill
Senior MemberPosts: 1,355Gear list
Like?
Re: X-T1 jpg quality question
In reply to Ed B, 7 months ago

Ed B wrote:

seukel wrote:

This is a question for those who already have the camera. As the X-T1 has the same sensor and jpg engine as the X-E2 and X100s I suppose it is also prone to show those waxy smoothened skin tones, that many disliked. Or does it behave differently?

Peter

-- hide signature --

Education is an admirable thing, but it is well to remember from time to time that nothing that is worth knowing can be taught.
Oscar Wilde

I don't own either camera, I have an X-E1 but I wish someone would post some examples, with EXIF data, of this waxy skin tone problem.

I'm not saying anyone is being overly critical, of the new cameras, but find it hard to believe that Fuji JPEGs would have this problem and sometimes wonder if people aren't simply repeating an opinion that isn't shared by the majority.

This phenomena has been shown in great detail, over and over and over again.  The X-E2 shows sledgehammer amounts of noise at higher ISO values which is dramatically destructive to skin.

You can continue to deny it exists, or do basic research here and find it for yourself.  I dont even care about this issue and still have managed to see a half dozen examples in various threads here.

Seems like any post, where an individual has a problem, turns into a slam about Fuji.

I'd almost bet that if I posted that my camera had a paint chip, there would be 20 people who would chime in and say the paint job on Fuji cameras was inferior to X, Y, Z brand.

Naturally, I could be 100% wrong about the waxy skin issue but I, personally, have never seen a sample, with EXIF data, posted.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Ed B
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,971
Like?
Re: Here is a post at 3200 showing waxy skin from excess nr.
In reply to eye specs, 7 months ago

eye specs wrote:

I hope this is helpful as the sort of side by side comparison of x e1 vs xe2/xt1 jpeg noise reduction issue that is of concern to some: http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/53132928

I do not have not read enough posts to form an opinion and yet it seems that people are divided with some seeing it clearly as in this example and others not. Presumably it is a firmware fixable issue and therefore if real you have reasonable reason to hope that fuji will announce a nr off option for the later cameras. eyespecs.

All I'm seeing here are two extremely poor quality pictures. Yes, the X-E2 picture does look like it has more noise reduction applied but both shots are so bad that neither one represents anything other than shots taken by a person who doesn't know anything about photography.

I know that sounds a little ruff but let's get serious.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Ed B
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,971
Like?
Re: X-T1 jpg quality question
In reply to Graham Hill, 7 months ago

Graham Hill wrote:

This phenomena has been shown in great detail, over and over and over again. The X-E2 shows sledgehammer amounts of noise at higher ISO values which is dramatically destructive to skin.

You can continue to deny it exists, or do basic research here and find it for yourself. I dont even care about this issue and still have managed to see a half dozen examples in various threads here.

I'm not going to disagree with you but I've still not seen any good examples of this so if it has been shown "in detail, over and over again" I must have missed it.

Granted, it has been talked about in great detail.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Astrophotographer 10
Senior MemberPosts: 4,630Gear list
Like?
Re: X-T1 jpg quality question
In reply to newone757, 7 months ago

There is no link to an example image in your post.

Greg.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Graham Hill
Senior MemberPosts: 1,355Gear list
Like?
Re: X-T1 jpg quality question
In reply to Ed B, 7 months ago

Ed B wrote:

Graham Hill wrote:

This phenomena has been shown in great detail, over and over and over again. The X-E2 shows sledgehammer amounts of noise at higher ISO values which is dramatically destructive to skin.

You can continue to deny it exists, or do basic research here and find it for yourself. I dont even care about this issue and still have managed to see a half dozen examples in various threads here.

I'm not going to disagree with you but I've still not seen any good examples of this so if it has been shown "in detail, over and over again" I must have missed it.

Granted, it has been talked about in great detail.

There was a fantastic image shot by someone here who overlayed an X-E2 shot on top of an X-E1.  The shot was of someone's hand and it showed clear as day the sledgehammer noise reduction that the X-E2 uses at very high ISO values.

One look at this single image and that is all that you need to know.

I wish I bookmarked that image.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Ed B
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,971
Like?
Re: X-T1 jpg quality question
In reply to Graham Hill, 7 months ago

Graham Hill wrote:

Ed B wrote:

Graham Hill wrote:

This phenomena has been shown in great detail, over and over and over again. The X-E2 shows sledgehammer amounts of noise at higher ISO values which is dramatically destructive to skin.

You can continue to deny it exists, or do basic research here and find it for yourself. I dont even care about this issue and still have managed to see a half dozen examples in various threads here.

I'm not going to disagree with you but I've still not seen any good examples of this so if it has been shown "in detail, over and over again" I must have missed it.

Granted, it has been talked about in great detail.

There was a fantastic image shot by someone here who overlayed an X-E2 shot on top of an X-E1. The shot was of someone's hand and it showed clear as day the sledgehammer noise reduction that the X-E2 uses at very high ISO values.

One look at this single image and that is all that you need to know.

I wish I bookmarked that image.

Yes, I've seen that.

Now let's see some properly exposed portraits with white balance properly set.

I'm not denying that the X-E2/X-T1 may use a more heavy handed noise reduction at ISO 6400 and above but I still haven't seen real life portraits that show "waxy" skin tones.

Heard a lot about them but would like to see real life examples from a photographer.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Randy Benter
Senior MemberPosts: 1,956Gear list
Like?
Re: X-T1 jpg quality question
In reply to Ed B, 7 months ago

Ed B wrote:

Graham Hill wrote:

Ed B wrote:

Graham Hill wrote:

This phenomena has been shown in great detail, over and over and over again. The X-E2 shows sledgehammer amounts of noise at higher ISO values which is dramatically destructive to skin.

You can continue to deny it exists, or do basic research here and find it for yourself. I dont even care about this issue and still have managed to see a half dozen examples in various threads here.

I'm not going to disagree with you but I've still not seen any good examples of this so if it has been shown "in detail, over and over again" I must have missed it.

Granted, it has been talked about in great detail.

There was a fantastic image shot by someone here who overlayed an X-E2 shot on top of an X-E1. The shot was of someone's hand and it showed clear as day the sledgehammer noise reduction that the X-E2 uses at very high ISO values.

One look at this single image and that is all that you need to know.

I wish I bookmarked that image.

Yes, I've seen that.

Now let's see some properly exposed portraits with white balance properly set.

I'm not denying that the X-E2/X-T1 may use a more heavy handed noise reduction at ISO 6400 and above but I still haven't seen real life portraits that show "waxy" skin tones.

Heard a lot about them but would like to see real life examples from a photographer.

I don't understand what you are expecting to see. Do you not know the difference between test shots and photography? The example images were shot using the same exposure and they are perfectly suitable for showing the different noise handling of the two cameras. The artistic value of the images is completely irrelevant. Do you think the noise reduction algorithm will magically change if the camera is held by an artist?

 Randy Benter's gear list:Randy Benter's gear list
Leica X2 Fujifilm X100S Leica M8 Fujifilm X-Pro1 Olympus PEN E-P5 +33 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Ed B
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,971
Like?
Re: X-T1 jpg quality question
In reply to Randy Benter, 7 months ago

Randy Benter wrote:

I don't understand what you are expecting to see. Do you not know the difference between test shots and photography? The example images were shot using the same exposure and they are perfectly suitable for showing the different noise handling of the two cameras. The artistic value of the images is completely irrelevant. Do you think the noise reduction algorithm will magically change if the camera is held by an artist?

No Randy, I think people are over reacting and owe it to themselves to get a little more information before they talk about waxy skin tones.

People could go to a site like Pbase.com and do a search for the X-E2 camera and look at some of the high ISO pictures of people.

Granted, there aren't a lot of ISO 6400 and above portraits taken by photographers but the few I've seen look pretty good.

Example: http://www.pbase.com/image/153840223

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Graham Hill
Senior MemberPosts: 1,355Gear list
Like?
Re: X-T1 jpg quality question
In reply to Ed B, 7 months ago

Ed B wrote:

Graham Hill wrote:

Ed B wrote:

Graham Hill wrote:

This phenomena has been shown in great detail, over and over and over again. The X-E2 shows sledgehammer amounts of noise at higher ISO values which is dramatically destructive to skin.

You can continue to deny it exists, or do basic research here and find it for yourself. I dont even care about this issue and still have managed to see a half dozen examples in various threads here.

I'm not going to disagree with you but I've still not seen any good examples of this so if it has been shown "in detail, over and over again" I must have missed it.

Granted, it has been talked about in great detail.

There was a fantastic image shot by someone here who overlayed an X-E2 shot on top of an X-E1. The shot was of someone's hand and it showed clear as day the sledgehammer noise reduction that the X-E2 uses at very high ISO values.

One look at this single image and that is all that you need to know.

I wish I bookmarked that image.

Yes, I've seen that.

No you havent.  The image I'm talking about was perfectly exposed.

Now let's see some properly exposed portraits with white balance properly set.

I'm not denying that the X-E2/X-T1 may use a more heavy handed noise reduction at ISO 6400 and above but I still haven't seen real life portraits that show "waxy" skin tones.

Heard a lot about them but would like to see real life examples from a photographer.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Robert Garcia NYC
Contributing MemberPosts: 966Gear list
Like?
Re: X-T1 jpg quality question
In reply to Graham Hill, 7 months ago

If you can't see the skin softening being applied your images that's great for you but lots of other folks don't like that treatment applied and I also think it can be an easy firmware fix maybe to adjust it or turn off.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Robert Garcia NYC
Contributing MemberPosts: 966Gear list
Like?
Re: X-T1 jpg quality question
In reply to Ed B, 7 months ago

Ed B wrote:

Randy Benter wrote:

I don't understand what you are expecting to see. Do you not know the difference between test shots and photography? The example images were shot using the same exposure and they are perfectly suitable for showing the different noise handling of the two cameras. The artistic value of the images is completely irrelevant. Do you think the noise reduction algorithm will magically change if the camera is held by an artist?

No Randy, I think people are over reacting and owe it to themselves to get a little more information before they talk about waxy skin tones.

People could go to a site like Pbase.com and do a search for the X-E2 camera and look at some of the high ISO pictures of people.

Granted, there aren't a lot of ISO 6400 and above portraits taken by photographers but the few I've seen look pretty good.

Example: http://www.pbase.com/image/153840223

That one example is good but it could have been processed in raw we are talking about jpegs.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
mbb101
Junior MemberPosts: 37
Like?
Re: X-T1 jpg quality question
In reply to Ed B, 7 months ago

The simple truth is the test is extremely easy. You take a portrait at iso 6400 in raw + jpg and output the raw in your favourite program and compare with the jpg OOC. Whilst the plastic skin effect may not be obvious on a very young baby a pic of anyone over the age of 30 will show the problem very clearly. You keep insisting on someone showing you the results - why don't you do the test for yourself and show us that it isn't a problem.

I have an XP 1, X100s and X100. It is very visible over iso 1600 on the X100s and not only on skin tones but other shades in the yellow part of the colour gamut especially light coloured wooden objects. The only solution is to shoot raw.

If you have an X100S or XE 1 then show us your results if you do not believe what other people are saying.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Ed B
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,971
Like?
Re: X-T1 jpg quality question
In reply to Graham Hill, 7 months ago

Graham Hill wrote:


Yes, I've seen that.

No you havent. The image I'm talking about was perfectly exposed.

You seem to be an expert on all things Fuji so I'm sure this isn't the image you're talking about and couldn't be the one I've never seen.

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/52978696

As I've already said. Post some portrait samples. I haven't seen any and from what you've said there are plenty to choose form.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads