Who is at fault for the waxy skin tones? Locked

Started 10 months ago | Discussions
This thread is locked.
MrChristopher
Senior MemberPosts: 1,028Gear list
Re: Who is at fault for the waxy skin tones?
In reply to mistermejia, 10 months ago

"Who is at fault for the waxy skin tones?"

In the final analysis the answer would be people who don't know how to use/configure their camera.  If Fuji's noise reduction is too aggressive the camera owner is responsible for compensating for that, or they can produce waxy skin tones.  The final choice is theirs.

You could just as easily say "who is responsible for the x100s missed shots?"  Again, it is the camera owners responsibility to recognize the limitations of the x100 AF and adjust their approach accordingly.

Any X camera is capable of taking breath taking shots of people and without a waxy look, assuming the user knows how to operate their camera.

I can take some dog choking, awful photos with my x100.  In fact some of my worst photos ever came from my x100.  I can take equally bad ones with my Sony alpha.  But I prefer nice shots so I spend/spent a lot of time learning their sweet spots, strengths and especially their quirks and limitations.

Many people in camera forums want to shoot JPG, not spend more than 10 seconds in post, and get Henri Bresson results.  All I can say is may the Force be with you.

-- hide signature --
 MrChristopher's gear list:MrChristopher's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix X100 Fujifilm X-E1 Fujifilm XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS +1 more
TThorne
Senior MemberPosts: 2,641Gear list
Re: Who is at fault for the waxy skin tones?
In reply to AustinB, 10 months ago

AustinB wrote:

TThorne wrote:

For the life of me I can't understand people wanting a serious system camera and all the fixings just to shoot jpeg, but to each their own.

Many shoot RAW/JPEG and often use the excellent JPEG for time saving purposes.

That makes sense, but time saving and getting the absolute best quality do not always go hand in hand.

-- hide signature --

A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on. - Sir Winston Churchill

 TThorne's gear list:TThorne's gear list
Leica M Typ 240 Sony Alpha 7S Leica M-Monochrom Leica Summilux-M 21mm f/1.4 Asph Leica Summilux-M 35mm f/1.4 ASPH +5 more
TThorne
Senior MemberPosts: 2,641Gear list
Re: TThorne
In reply to mistermejia, 10 months ago

mistermejia wrote:

TThorne wrote:

mistermejia wrote:

Is it Fuji itself ?? Or could this be a SABOTAGE thing from the sensor maker itself??

It is in the processing. I believe that, in an attempt to win the more tangible battle, showing less noise at higher ISO, aggressive NR and processing is causing this issue. So many consumers these days equate lack of noise to low light IQ, because it is tangible and can be seen easily, that they forget the other, and some times more important aspects of low light IQ, like texture and detail retention. Fuji is smart here. They know who they are catering to and so they pull their own special wool sheet.

Does Fuji actually make this sensors, or do they buy them from Sony or someone else?

They buy them from Sony.

I am just curious because i CAN'T believe that the jpegs are changing so much with the new sensors, i couldn't possibly believe that Fuji is just bypassing or ignoring this skin tone issue.

I doubt they are ignoring it, but there is only so much they can do before they introduce noise back not the photo, which is fine in my opinion, but then it will effect all the people who only ever post DPR high ISO sample comparison shots to declare Fuji the noiseless low light king.

I just moved from nikon to get away from plastic looking skin tones, and Fuji's new cameras are all coming out like this now??? I don't get it.

For the life of me I can't understand people wanting a serious system camera and all the fixings just to shoot jpeg, but to each their own. Mix poor light, high ISO, and bad WB settings, then demand a SOOC jpeg, and that is what you may get.

-- hide signature --

A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on. - Sir Winston Churchill

I probably started "hearing" about this Xtrans cameras around two years ago. I was not into them at all. All i would "hear" is this "awesome jpeg performance". So i said to myself yeah why not! If i don't HAVE to shoot RAW all the time that would be great! Fantastic jpegs out of the camera, yeah why not i said!

So i went and bought my very little X10 and took it to my vacation trip to Guatemala last november, and shot jpeg all the way. That changed my life and thoughts about this compact size bodies

Under certain scenarios or whenever i feel like it, I shoot RAW, but I didn't move to Fuji to shoot raw ALL THE TIME

That is fair enough in my opinion, but by shooting jpeg you are asking the camera to make a bunch of decisions for you. Humans don't make the best decisions on the most consistent basis, so I might not expect so much out of a camera. Fuji has been heavy handed on the NR and has made a priority of parading around noiseless jpegs. This isn't some revolutionary new technology. There are going to be compromises.

In any event, I hope, what ever direction you choose, that it all works out for you.

-- hide signature --

A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on. - Sir Winston Churchill

 TThorne's gear list:TThorne's gear list
Leica M Typ 240 Sony Alpha 7S Leica M-Monochrom Leica Summilux-M 21mm f/1.4 Asph Leica Summilux-M 35mm f/1.4 ASPH +5 more
TThorne
Senior MemberPosts: 2,641Gear list
Re: Who is at fault for the waxy skin tones?
In reply to taz98spin, 10 months ago

taz98spin wrote:

TThorne wrote:

For the life of me I can't understand people wanting a serious system camera and all the fixings just to shoot jpeg, but to each their own. Mix poor light, high ISO, and bad WB settings, then demand a SOOC jpeg, and that is what you may get.

-- hide signature --

A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on. - Sir Winston Churchill

Many professionals that I know, shoot jpeg. It saves time + smaller file size for storage.

I shoot portraits and events and on top of that, I have a full time job. I have no time, nor desire to tinker with the RAW files.

-- hide signature --

"Many professionals I know"

Okay, I am not going to jump all over that one other than to ask, how many pros out there do you think shoot RAW?

I had a broken watch once, and it was right twice a day.

I could go on and on, but if we are going to talk about "many professionals", lets get a clear look at how many actually shoot jpeg vs RAW. RAW will always have it's advantages and jpeg will always have it's compromises. There is a reason for all of this. If you want the final say and to get the most out of your images, for yourself or for your clients, then you shoot Raw. If other factors are more important to you than those, then you make compromises.

-- hide signature --

A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on. - Sir Winston Churchill

 TThorne's gear list:TThorne's gear list
Leica M Typ 240 Sony Alpha 7S Leica M-Monochrom Leica Summilux-M 21mm f/1.4 Asph Leica Summilux-M 35mm f/1.4 ASPH +5 more
Sal Baker
Veteran MemberPosts: 7,872Gear list
Re: TThorne
In reply to mistermejia, 10 months ago

mistermejia wrote:

TThorne wrote:

mistermejia wrote:

Is it Fuji itself ?? Or could this be a SABOTAGE thing from the sensor maker itself??

It is in the processing. I believe that, in an attempt to win the more tangible battle, showing less noise at higher ISO, aggressive NR and processing is causing this issue. So many consumers these days equate lack of noise to low light IQ, because it is tangible and can be seen easily, that they forget the other, and some times more important aspects of low light IQ, like texture and detail retention. Fuji is smart here. They know who they are catering to and so they pull their own special wool sheet.

Does Fuji actually make this sensors, or do they buy them from Sony or someone else?

They buy them from Sony.

I am just curious because i CAN'T believe that the jpegs are changing so much with the new sensors, i couldn't possibly believe that Fuji is just bypassing or ignoring this skin tone issue.

I doubt they are ignoring it, but there is only so much they can do before they introduce noise back not the photo, which is fine in my opinion, but then it will effect all the people who only ever post DPR high ISO sample comparison shots to declare Fuji the noiseless low light king.

I just moved from nikon to get away from plastic looking skin tones, and Fuji's new cameras are all coming out like this now??? I don't get it.

For the life of me I can't understand people wanting a serious system camera and all the fixings just to shoot jpeg, but to each their own. Mix poor light, high ISO, and bad WB settings, then demand a SOOC jpeg, and that is what you may get.

-- hide signature --

A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on. - Sir Winston Churchill

I probably started "hearing" about this Xtrans cameras around two years ago. I was not into them at all. All i would "hear" is this "awesome jpeg performance". So i said to myself yeah why not! If i don't HAVE to shoot RAW all the time that would be great! Fantastic jpegs out of the camera, yeah why not i said!

So i went and bought my very little X10 and took it to my vacation trip to Guatemala last november, and shot jpeg all the way. That changed my life and thoughts about this compact size bodies

Under certain scenarios or whenever i feel like it, I shoot RAW, but I didn't move to Fuji to shoot raw ALL THE TIME

You don't have to shoot RAW all the time with the Fuji, unless you shoot JPEG portraits at ISO 6400 all the time.  I'm sure there are indeed cameras better suited for that if you don't like the X-E1.

Sal

 Sal Baker's gear list:Sal Baker's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark II Canon EOS 350D Fujifilm X-E2 Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM +5 more
Jim Cassatt
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,625Gear list
Re: Who is at fault for the waxy skin tones?
In reply to mistermejia, 10 months ago

I have not read all of the replies, so I hope this is not redundant.  If so please forgive me.  Usually I shoot RAW only.  However, I did photograph my granddaughter at ISO 6400 using RAW plus jpeg.  Sure enough the skin had plastic like skin tones.

So I am curious.  What was the setting for the noise reduction for those who have experienced this.  My setting was zero.  However, zero does not mean the noise reduction is turned off.  Indeed with my X-E1, I did some shots at a museum at ISO 6400. The jpegs showed no noise while there was quite a bit of noise in the RAW files.  So even when set to zero, the noise reduction was turned on.

So if you go to the menus you will find that the noise reduction ranges from -2 to +2 with zero in the middle.  Has anyone tried setting the noise reduction to -2 to see is the noise reduction is completely turned off ant that setting?

-- hide signature --
 Jim Cassatt's gear list:Jim Cassatt's gear list
Fujifilm X10 Canon EOS 5D Mark III Canon EOS 40D Canon EOS 300D Fujifilm X-E1 +18 more
SaltLakeGuy
Forum ProPosts: 10,661Gear list
It is a tool
In reply to MrChristopher, 10 months ago

so learn HOW to USE the tool. The camera is perfectly capable of putting out a file that is stunningly crisp.......even in Jpeg. They have parameters with which you can make adjustments. I suggest you try several different settings, one of which should include diminished noise reduction. Honestly I don't know what all the bellyaching is about. Most of you are likely going to either take the shot with the intention of putting it on the web in a tiny format, or at best make a 8x10 print (already the size above the national standard statistically speaking) so the kind of detail you are barking about isn't going to matter at all in the first place. Frankly Sony practically invented the "plasticky" look due to their excessive noise reduction that is in built and can't be completely turned off. I never had that issue with Nikon semi and pro stuff I've used. Canon gets lots of praise for their low noise performance, but people are not realizing it comes at the cost of detail as well. I was getting more fine detail resolution from a top Micro 4/3rd camera than a Canon 6D I tried so surprise surprise. No free lunches folks

 SaltLakeGuy's gear list:SaltLakeGuy's gear list
Epson Stylus Pro 3880
mistermejia
Senior MemberPosts: 2,921Gear list
Re: TThorne
In reply to TThorne, 10 months ago

TThorne wrote:

mistermejia wrote:

TThorne wrote:

mistermejia wrote:

Is it Fuji itself ?? Or could this be a SABOTAGE thing from the sensor maker itself??

It is in the processing. I believe that, in an attempt to win the more tangible battle, showing less noise at higher ISO, aggressive NR and processing is causing this issue. So many consumers these days equate lack of noise to low light IQ, because it is tangible and can be seen easily, that they forget the other, and some times more important aspects of low light IQ, like texture and detail retention. Fuji is smart here. They know who they are catering to and so they pull their own special wool sheet.

Does Fuji actually make this sensors, or do they buy them from Sony or someone else?

They buy them from Sony.

I am just curious because i CAN'T believe that the jpegs are changing so much with the new sensors, i couldn't possibly believe that Fuji is just bypassing or ignoring this skin tone issue.

I doubt they are ignoring it, but there is only so much they can do before they introduce noise back not the photo, which is fine in my opinion, but then it will effect all the people who only ever post DPR high ISO sample comparison shots to declare Fuji the noiseless low light king.

I just moved from nikon to get away from plastic looking skin tones, and Fuji's new cameras are all coming out like this now??? I don't get it.

For the life of me I can't understand people wanting a serious system camera and all the fixings just to shoot jpeg, but to each their own. Mix poor light, high ISO, and bad WB settings, then demand a SOOC jpeg, and that is what you may get.

-- hide signature --

A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on. - Sir Winston Churchill

I probably started "hearing" about this Xtrans cameras around two years ago. I was not into them at all. All i would "hear" is this "awesome jpeg performance". So i said to myself yeah why not! If i don't HAVE to shoot RAW all the time that would be great! Fantastic jpegs out of the camera, yeah why not i said!

So i went and bought my very little X10 and took it to my vacation trip to Guatemala last november, and shot jpeg all the way. That changed my life and thoughts about this compact size bodies

Under certain scenarios or whenever i feel like it, I shoot RAW, but I didn't move to Fuji to shoot raw ALL THE TIME

That is fair enough in my opinion, but by shooting jpeg you are asking the camera to make a bunch of decisions for you.

Of course! That's why i pay the camera to do the job for me

Humans don't make the best decisions on the most consistent basis, so I might not expect so much out of a camera. Fuji has been heavy handed on the NR and has made a priority of parading around noiseless jpegs. This isn't some revolutionary new technology. There are going to be compromises.

In any event, I hope, what ever direction you choose, that it all works out for you.

My choice will be on what Fuji handles this issue in time. I just got my XE1 so i guess i wont be experiencing this problem right now, but in a year or so when the XT1 price drops then i decide i want to upgrade, i DON'T want to be having this jpeg issue. But yes, i could shoot RAW and don't have a real problem in that, but why would fuji want to screw up the beautiful jpegs?

And the other side of the coin is, if one can shoot RAW why not just apply the extreme noise reduction there if one wants to and leave the darn jpeg alone? There is no reason why the jpeg has to be screwed up either, in my opinion.

-- hide signature --

A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on. - Sir Winston Churchill

 mistermejia's gear list:mistermejia's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix S5 Pro Fujifilm X-E1 Rokinon 85mm F1.4 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G Fujifilm XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS +4 more
Les Lammers
Senior MemberPosts: 2,215Gear list
Re: Who is at fault for the waxy skin tones?
In reply to mistermejia, 10 months ago

This was answered in another thread. Fuji did it because the Asian market prefers it. They are aware that is an issue elsewhere. We all see things differently.

 Les Lammers's gear list:Les Lammers's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix X100 Fujifilm X10 Fujifilm X-E1 Fujifilm XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS Fujifilm XF 27mm F2.8 +3 more
Daniel Lauring
Veteran MemberPosts: 8,211
Re: Who is at fault for the waxy skin tones?
In reply to mistermejia, 10 months ago

This is a greatly exaggerated issue, IMHO, that only really becomes noticeable at ISO 6400. It can be mitigated by setting NR to -2, Sharpness -2. Yes, I wish there was a lower NR number. Honestly, most people prefer the "waxy" look to what their real skin looks like.

I have posted selfies to demonstrate how much settings make a difference and how it does not effect RAW's. Most professionals will shoot RAW at high ISO's so it is even less of an issue. I can remember when no one would consider trying to sell a picture shot at ISO 6400. Now we get pretty darn good results. Amazing, if you ask me.

Liviu Namolovan
Regular MemberPosts: 477
Re: waxy skin tones? What's that?
In reply to mistermejia, 10 months ago

Could you please post an example?

nixda
Senior MemberPosts: 1,904Gear list
Re: TThorne
In reply to mistermejia, 10 months ago

mistermejia wrote:

TThorne wrote:

mistermejia wrote:

TThorne wrote:

mistermejia wrote:

Is it Fuji itself ?? Or could this be a SABOTAGE thing from the sensor maker itself??

It is in the processing. I believe that, in an attempt to win the more tangible battle, showing less noise at higher ISO, aggressive NR and processing is causing this issue. So many consumers these days equate lack of noise to low light IQ, because it is tangible and can be seen easily, that they forget the other, and some times more important aspects of low light IQ, like texture and detail retention. Fuji is smart here. They know who they are catering to and so they pull their own special wool sheet.

Does Fuji actually make this sensors, or do they buy them from Sony or someone else?

They buy them from Sony.

I am just curious because i CAN'T believe that the jpegs are changing so much with the new sensors, i couldn't possibly believe that Fuji is just bypassing or ignoring this skin tone issue.

I doubt they are ignoring it, but there is only so much they can do before they introduce noise back not the photo, which is fine in my opinion, but then it will effect all the people who only ever post DPR high ISO sample comparison shots to declare Fuji the noiseless low light king.

I just moved from nikon to get away from plastic looking skin tones, and Fuji's new cameras are all coming out like this now??? I don't get it.

For the life of me I can't understand people wanting a serious system camera and all the fixings just to shoot jpeg, but to each their own. Mix poor light, high ISO, and bad WB settings, then demand a SOOC jpeg, and that is what you may get.

-- hide signature --

A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on. - Sir Winston Churchill

I probably started "hearing" about this Xtrans cameras around two years ago. I was not into them at all. All i would "hear" is this "awesome jpeg performance". So i said to myself yeah why not! If i don't HAVE to shoot RAW all the time that would be great! Fantastic jpegs out of the camera, yeah why not i said!

So i went and bought my very little X10 and took it to my vacation trip to Guatemala last november, and shot jpeg all the way. That changed my life and thoughts about this compact size bodies

Under certain scenarios or whenever i feel like it, I shoot RAW, but I didn't move to Fuji to shoot raw ALL THE TIME

That is fair enough in my opinion, but by shooting jpeg you are asking the camera to make a bunch of decisions for you.

Of course! That's why i pay the camera to do the job for me

Humans don't make the best decisions on the most consistent basis, so I might not expect so much out of a camera. Fuji has been heavy handed on the NR and has made a priority of parading around noiseless jpegs. This isn't some revolutionary new technology. There are going to be compromises.

In any event, I hope, what ever direction you choose, that it all works out for you.

My choice will be on what Fuji handles this issue in time. I just got my XE1 so i guess i wont be experiencing this problem right now, but in a year or so when the XT1 price drops then i decide i want to upgrade, i DON'T want to be having this jpeg issue. But yes, i could shoot RAW and don't have a real problem in that, but why would fuji want to screw up the beautiful jpegs?

And the other side of the coin is, if one can shoot RAW why not just apply the extreme noise reduction there if one wants to and leave the darn jpeg alone? There is no reason why the jpeg has to be screwed up either, in my opinion.

I think there is some sort of misunderstanding. The raw files are just that: raw. There is not image processing applied to them, no sharpening, no noise reduction, nothing. The JPEGs are derived from the raw data.

If you are not satisfied with Fuji's handling of the raw processing under certain circumstances, you can still enjoy the convenience of JPEG: just shoot RAW+JPEG, and decide if you want to keep the JPEG version. If you don't want it, load the raw file into a decent processor of your choice (e.g., Lightroom, Aperture, Capture 1, etc.) and let it do one-step image processing. No need for you to do anything. There are many pre-defined profiles that you can apply with the click of a mouse button, much more conveniently than wading through the menus in the camera.

Instead of Fuji, you would then be paying the respective software developer for processing the data for you. Chances are you will like the possibilities the software gives you, compared to the in-camera processor.

 nixda's gear list:nixda's gear list
Fujifilm X-E1 Fujifilm XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS Fujifilm XF 14mm F2.8 R Fujifilm XF 27mm F2.8 Fujifilm XF 55-200mm F3.5-4.8 R LM OIS
Graham Hill
Senior MemberPosts: 1,355Gear list
Re: Who is at fault for the waxy skin tones?
In reply to Daniel Lauring, 10 months ago

Daniel Lauring wrote:

This is a greatly exaggerated issue,

In fact, your posted examples show exactly how real this issue is.

IMHO, that only really becomes noticeable at ISO 6400.

uh...as everyone else has been saying.

It can be mitigated by setting NR to -2, Sharpness -2. Yes, I wish there was a lower NR number. Honestly, most people prefer the "waxy" look to what their real skin looks like.

Most people prefer waxy, fake looking skin?  Now THAT is some serious spin.

I have posted selfies to demonstrate how much settings make a difference and how it does not effect RAW's. Most professionals will shoot RAW at high ISO's so it is even less of an issue. I can remember when no one would consider trying to sell a picture shot at ISO 6400. Now we get pretty darn good results. Amazing, if you ask me.

Amazing if you like fake wax figures.

nixda
Senior MemberPosts: 1,904Gear list
Now it is clear as light
In reply to Daniel Lauring, 10 months ago

In the images processed from the raw data without excessive noise reduction, you look 20 years older. Since some of the Fuji X-Trans cameras are targeted primarily to young Japanese women, it is clear why they would render the images the way they do.

 nixda's gear list:nixda's gear list
Fujifilm X-E1 Fujifilm XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS Fujifilm XF 14mm F2.8 R Fujifilm XF 27mm F2.8 Fujifilm XF 55-200mm F3.5-4.8 R LM OIS
nixda
Senior MemberPosts: 1,904Gear list
Re: waxy skin tones? What's that?
In reply to Liviu Namolovan, 10 months ago

Liviu Namolovan wrote:

Could you please post an example?

Just a bit higher up there is this example.

 nixda's gear list:nixda's gear list
Fujifilm X-E1 Fujifilm XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS Fujifilm XF 14mm F2.8 R Fujifilm XF 27mm F2.8 Fujifilm XF 55-200mm F3.5-4.8 R LM OIS
Lyle From Canada
Senior MemberPosts: 1,373
Re: Who is at fault for the waxy skin tones?
In reply to Graham Hill, 10 months ago

This is not a raw vs jpeg issue, or a user error issue. The real issue is that this problem is only occurring in the second generation of fuji x cameras. The first gen cameras didn't experience this at all. It seems reasonable, at least to me, that jpeg quality would improve with each generation not get worse.
--
Fuji x-pro1 with 14, 18, 23, 35, 60, 55-200, fuji x100s and WA adapter, fuji x10

mistermejia
Senior MemberPosts: 2,921Gear list
Fuji should create different skin tone firmware versions then!
In reply to Les Lammers, 10 months ago

Les Lammers wrote:

This was answered in another thread. Fuji did it because the Asian market prefers it. They are aware that is an issue elsewhere. We all see things differently.

Oh!  I didn't know that.

Well, since fuji is so "adaptive" to customer's needs, then maybe they should create different firmware versions for different markets.  I need "the latino" firmware skin tone version  

 mistermejia's gear list:mistermejia's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix S5 Pro Fujifilm X-E1 Rokinon 85mm F1.4 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G Fujifilm XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS +4 more
Daniel Lauring
Veteran MemberPosts: 8,211
Re: Who is at fault for the waxy skin tones?
In reply to Graham Hill, 10 months ago

Graham Hill wrote:

Daniel Lauring wrote:

This is a greatly exaggerated issue,

In fact, your posted examples show exactly how real this issue is.

It does and it isn't bad, IMHO.  Look at the first photo.  Does it look waxy and fake to you?

IMHO, that only really becomes noticeable at ISO 6400.

uh...as everyone else has been saying.

Yes.  But how often do people take pictures at ISO 6400.  It compromises image quality for ALL cameras.  I just saw a great interview with Joel Grimes where he said he tries to stay below ISO 400.

It can be mitigated by setting NR to -2, Sharpness -2. Yes, I wish there was a lower NR number. Honestly, most people prefer the "waxy" look to what their real skin looks like.

Most people prefer waxy, fake looking skin? Now THAT is some serious spin.

Not a "spin" at all and note how I put "" around waxy because I don't agree skin looks like wax unless you move away from NR -2.

I have posted selfies to demonstrate how much settings make a difference and how it does not effect RAW's. Most professionals will shoot RAW at high ISO's so it is even less of an issue. I can remember when no one would consider trying to sell a picture shot at ISO 6400. Now we get pretty darn good results. Amazing, if you ask me.

Amazing if you like fake wax figures.

It is real simple.  If you hate the look don't buy the camera.  Hundreds of professionals disagree and buy Fuji products and give them glowing reviews.  Some people hate the green tones in Nikon's.  Hundreds of other professionals disagree and buy them anyway.  To each his own.

mistermejia
Senior MemberPosts: 2,921Gear list
AMEN!!
In reply to Lyle From Canada, 10 months ago

Lyle From Canada wrote:

This is not a raw vs jpeg issue, or a user error issue. The real issue is that this problem is only occurring in the second generation of fuji x cameras. The first gen cameras didn't experience this at all. It seems reasonable, at least to me, that jpeg quality would improve with each generation not get worse.
--
Fuji x-pro1 with 14, 18, 23, 35, 60, 55-200, fuji x100s and WA adapter, fuji x10

+1  

 mistermejia's gear list:mistermejia's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix S5 Pro Fujifilm X-E1 Rokinon 85mm F1.4 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G Fujifilm XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS +4 more
Graham Hill
Senior MemberPosts: 1,355Gear list
Re: Who is at fault for the waxy skin tones?
In reply to Daniel Lauring, 10 months ago

Daniel Lauring wrote:

Graham Hill wrote:

Daniel Lauring wrote:

This is a greatly exaggerated issue,

In fact, your posted examples show exactly how real this issue is.

It does and it isn't bad, IMHO. Look at the first photo. Does it look waxy and fake to you?

IMHO, that only really becomes noticeable at ISO 6400.

uh...as everyone else has been saying.

Yes. But how often do people take pictures at ISO 6400. It compromises image quality for ALL cameras. I just saw a great interview with Joel Grimes where he said he tries to stay below ISO 400.

That's great for Joel.  It is meaningless advice for people who do shoot at ISO6400.  That ISO value was put on the camera to be used.  Further, OLDER X cameras COULD shoot at ISO6400 and not produce wax figures.  Your spin helps protect this exceedingly poor decision from Fujiilm.

It can be mitigated by setting NR to -2, Sharpness -2. Yes, I wish there was a lower NR number. Honestly, most people prefer the "waxy" look to what their real skin looks like.

Most people prefer waxy, fake looking skin? Now THAT is some serious spin.

Not a "spin" at all and note how I put "" around waxy because I don't agree skin looks like wax unless you move away from NR -2.

Others disagree and for them, this IS an issue.

I have posted selfies to demonstrate how much settings make a difference and how it does not effect RAW's. Most professionals will shoot RAW at high ISO's so it is even less of an issue. I can remember when no one would consider trying to sell a picture shot at ISO 6400. Now we get pretty darn good results. Amazing, if you ask me.

Amazing if you like fake wax figures.

It is real simple. If you hate the look don't buy the camera. Hundreds of professionals disagree and buy Fuji products and give them glowing reviews. Some people hate the green tones in Nikon's. Hundreds of other professionals disagree and buy them anyway. To each his own.

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads