Who is at fault for the waxy skin tones? Locked

Started 7 months ago | Discussions
This thread is locked.
taz98spin
Contributing MemberPosts: 504Gear list
Re: Who is at fault for the waxy skin tones?
In reply to TThorne, 7 months ago

TThorne wrote:

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

Ask any studio photographer in Korea that works for a studio that does themed wedding/ engagement photos.

Not sure if you know what I'm talking about, but many studios in Korea have sets built inside their studios to mimic different locations, so many couples will do their wedding photos / engagement photos there in a controlled environment to announce their engagement or show the photos on the day of the wedding.

So of course you'll ask me how do I know if most studios shoot JPEG. I shopped around 7 of the most popular places in Seoul to get my own photos taken and every studio told me that they shoot JPEGS. So if the top 7 are shooting JPEGs, what makes you think the other studios will shoot RAW?

This trend is popular in China/Taiwan as well. Although, I can't vouch that the Chinese studios use JPEG, but if the formula works in Korea, I don't see a reason to differ.

I also had my real wedding in Las Vegas. The photographer that came with the wedding package for the MGM Grand also shoots JPEGS only. And.. being a photographer myself, we talked quite a bit and he told me his peers in the Las Vegas wedding market shoot JPEGs.

& if you think he's lying, when we initially shopped around for venues in Las Vegas, we went to 5 different venues, and all the wedding photo packages had photographers that shot JPEGs.

So there, that is my proof of "Many professionals I know"

Did I ever say that RAW does not have advantage?

But like you mentioned, "other factors", as in time & money are important to some, so "get it right in camera" is what I and the many JPEG photographers try to do.

-- hide signature --
 taz98spin's gear list:taz98spin's gear list
Fujifilm X100S Fujifilm X-Pro1 Olympus PEN E-P5 Fujifilm X-T1 Sony Alpha 7S +8 more
Daniel Lauring
Veteran MemberPosts: 7,480Gear list
Re: Who is at fault for the waxy skin tones?
In reply to Graham Hill, 7 months ago

Graham Hill wrote:

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.

I'll say it again.  If you are bothered by it, and plan on shooting a lot of jpegs at ISO 6400 don't buy the camera.  However, for me it is something I can live with.  All cameras and life for that matter is a series of compromises.  I like the Fuji compromises better than I like most other brand compromises.  If I didn't I'd be carrying a different camera around.

 Daniel Lauring's gear list:Daniel Lauring's gear list
Fujifilm XF 55-200mm F3.5-4.8 R LM OIS
Daniel Lauring
Veteran MemberPosts: 7,480Gear list
Re: Who is at fault for the waxy skin tones?
In reply to taz98spin, 7 months ago

taz98spin wrote:

Ask any studio photographer in Korea that works for a studio that does themed wedding/ engagement photos.

They shoot themed wedding engagement photos at ISO 6400 in a studio!?!?!

 Daniel Lauring's gear list:Daniel Lauring's gear list
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, 7 months ago

Daniel Lauring wrote:

Graham Hill wrote:

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.

I'll say it again. If you are bothered by it, and plan on shooting a lot of jpegs at ISO 6400 don't buy the camera. However, for me it is something I can live with. All cameras and life for that matter is a series of compromises. I like the Fuji compromises better than I like most other brand compromises. If I didn't I'd be carrying a different camera around.

So what is gained by this compromise?  The X-E1 did not require sledgehammer amounts of noise reduction that reduced people's skin to a melted wax appearance.

What was gained by losing the X-E1's ability?

Dorkington
Regular MemberPosts: 355Gear list
Re: Who is at fault for the waxy skin tones?
In reply to mistermejia, 7 months ago

As others have said, it's clearly a decision by Fuji.

http://www.fujifilm.com/image_intelligence/photography/facial_skin_smoothing_function/

I find the effects aren't too terrible when shooting -2 NR, and +1 or 2 sharpness. But I rarely use a jpeg straight from camera.

 Dorkington's gear list:Dorkington's gear list
Fujifilm X-E2 Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R Fujifilm XF 14mm F2.8 R Fujifilm XF 23mm F1.4 R Fujifilm XF 56mm F1.2 R +2 more
taz98spin
Contributing MemberPosts: 504Gear list
Re: Who is at fault for the waxy skin tones?
In reply to Daniel Lauring, 7 months ago

Daniel Lauring wrote:

taz98spin wrote:

Ask any studio photographer in Korea that works for a studio that does themed wedding/ engagement photos.

They shoot themed wedding engagement photos at ISO 6400 in a studio!?!?!

Issues with reading comprehension much?

When did I ever say they shoot ISO 6400?

I said they shoot JPEG.

-- hide signature --
 taz98spin's gear list:taz98spin's gear list
Fujifilm X100S Fujifilm X-Pro1 Olympus PEN E-P5 Fujifilm X-T1 Sony Alpha 7S +8 more
Daniel Lauring
Veteran MemberPosts: 7,480Gear list
Re: Who is at fault for the waxy skin tones?
In reply to Graham Hill, 7 months ago

Graham Hill wrote:

Daniel Lauring wrote:

Graham Hill wrote:

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.

I'll say it again. If you are bothered by it, and plan on shooting a lot of jpegs at ISO 6400 don't buy the camera. However, for me it is something I can live with. All cameras and life for that matter is a series of compromises. I like the Fuji compromises better than I like most other brand compromises. If I didn't I'd be carrying a different camera around.

So what is gained by this compromise? The X-E1 did not require sledgehammer amounts of noise reduction that reduced people's skin to a melted wax appearance.

What was gained by losing the X-E1's ability?

The difference is hardly "sledgehammer." I have both cameras and did many tests. It is a noticeable difference when crossing over from ISO 3200 to ISO 6400 but hardly "sledgehammer."

Having said that, would I like it to be less? Yes. However, I'd also like my d__n Nikon D800 PDAF focus system to not require tweaking for every lens and every focal length. I'd like it's live view to actually focus as reliably as an $80 point and shoot. I wanted my D600's metering to not get so darn confused everytime a bright object entered the frame. I want my darn RX1 to focus at all sometimes. I want my RX1 to understand what slowsynch means and to not blowout photos with it's flash. I want my Olympus EM1 to not sharpen the cr_p out of every darn thing making shadow recovery that much more difficult.

P.S. What was gained was much faster and more reliable focus. Much faster response time in general. No, Fuji didn't have to change the jpeg engine the way they did and I wish they didn't. But, overall, I'd still rather shoot with the X-E2 because I get more keepers with it.

 Daniel Lauring's gear list:Daniel Lauring's gear list
Fujifilm XF 55-200mm F3.5-4.8 R LM OIS
Daniel Lauring
Veteran MemberPosts: 7,480Gear list
Re: Who is at fault for the waxy skin tones?
In reply to taz98spin, 7 months ago

taz98spin wrote:

Daniel Lauring wrote:

taz98spin wrote:

Ask any studio photographer in Korea that works for a studio that does themed wedding/ engagement photos.

They shoot themed wedding engagement photos at ISO 6400 in a studio!?!?!

Issues with reading comprehension much?

When did I ever say they shoot ISO 6400?

I said they shoot JPEG.

-- hide signature --

I could ask you the same question.  The "issue" everyone is talking about ONLY occurs at ISO 6400.  It isn't going to effect the studios and even most people most of the time which was my point.  Try reading between the lines.

 Daniel Lauring's gear list:Daniel Lauring's gear list
Fujifilm XF 55-200mm F3.5-4.8 R LM OIS
Jim Evidon
Contributing MemberPosts: 505Gear list
Re: The waxy skin tones are just Fuji's interpretation
In reply to mistermejia, 7 months ago

Every camera manufacturer has it's own idea as to what is acceptable with in-camera processing of jpeg images. Frankly, I find fault with all of them. but then again, I shoot RAW and I post process. With Nikon I was doing a lot of things in post precessing to get my acceptable image. Same comment goes for Panasonic, Sony, Leica M's and Olympus. I do not like any of their in-camera processed jpegs. JPEG was the industry's attempt to get an acceptable image out of a tiny 1 to 3 megapixel sensor camera and compressing the image. So much data is lost using jpeg, I am surprised that any serious photographer still uses that format.

With my Fuji XPro-1, the Raw images are near acceptable as is, and my post process workflow is now very simple and quick with minimal tweaking. I use Capture One Pro to convert my Fuji images to TIFF format and the IQ is amazing.

So my advise is to shoot Raw and tweak the images on your computer or keep looking for that perfect camera that produces just the final jpeg image you want. And good luck to you.
Jim

 Jim Evidon's gear list:Jim Evidon's gear list
Canon PowerShot G15 Fujifilm XF1 Leica M9 Fujifilm X-Pro1 Olympus OM-D E-M5 +2 more
taz98spin
Contributing MemberPosts: 504Gear list
Re: Who is at fault for the waxy skin tones?
In reply to Daniel Lauring, 7 months ago

Daniel Lauring wrote:

taz98spin wrote:

Daniel Lauring wrote:

taz98spin wrote:

Ask any studio photographer in Korea that works for a studio that does themed wedding/ engagement photos.

They shoot themed wedding engagement photos at ISO 6400 in a studio!?!?!

Issues with reading comprehension much?

When did I ever say they shoot ISO 6400?

I said they shoot JPEG.

-- hide signature --

I could ask you the same question. The "issue" everyone is talking about ONLY occurs at ISO 6400. It isn't going to effect the studios and even most people most of the time which was my point. Try reading between the lines.

TThorne had issue with me saying "many professionals" shoot JPEG.

I was giving him an answer and not replying to you or about this "issue".

So once again read before commenting.

-- hide signature --
 taz98spin's gear list:taz98spin's gear list
Fujifilm X100S Fujifilm X-Pro1 Olympus PEN E-P5 Fujifilm X-T1 Sony Alpha 7S +8 more
sinistral
Junior MemberPosts: 27Gear list
Re: Who is at fault for the waxy skin tones?
In reply to taz98spin, 7 months ago

I know exactly who is at fault for waxy skin tones...

Madame Tussaud.

-- hide signature --

In case of photography, take glass.

taz98spin
Contributing MemberPosts: 504Gear list
Re: Who is at fault for the waxy skin tones?
In reply to sinistral, 7 months ago

sinistral wrote:

I know exactly who is at fault for waxy skin tones...

Madame Tussaud.

-- hide signature --

In case of photography, take glass.

Yes, those wax statues freak me out..!

-- hide signature --
 taz98spin's gear list:taz98spin's gear list
Fujifilm X100S Fujifilm X-Pro1 Olympus PEN E-P5 Fujifilm X-T1 Sony Alpha 7S +8 more
Graham Hill
Senior MemberPosts: 1,355Gear list
Re: Who is at fault for the waxy skin tones?
In reply to Daniel Lauring, 7 months ago

Daniel Lauring wrote:

Graham Hill wrote:

Daniel Lauring wrote:

Graham Hill wrote:

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.

I'll say it again. If you are bothered by it, and plan on shooting a lot of jpegs at ISO 6400 don't buy the camera. However, for me it is something I can live with. All cameras and life for that matter is a series of compromises. I like the Fuji compromises better than I like most other brand compromises. If I didn't I'd be carrying a different camera around.

So what is gained by this compromise? The X-E1 did not require sledgehammer amounts of noise reduction that reduced people's skin to a melted wax appearance.

What was gained by losing the X-E1's ability?

The difference is hardly "sledgehammer." I have both cameras and did many tests. It is a noticeable difference when crossing over from ISO 3200 to ISO 6400 but hardly "sledgehammer."

Having said that, would I like it to be less? Yes. However, I'd also like my d__n Nikon D800 PDAF focus system to not require tweaking for every lens and every focal length. I'd like it's live view to actually focus as reliably as an $80 point and shoot. I wanted my D600's metering to not get so darn confused everytime a bright object entered the frame. I want my darn RX1 to focus at all sometimes. I want my RX1 to understand what slowsynch means and to not blowout photos with it's flash. I want my Olympus EM1 to not sharpen the cr_p out of every darn thing making shadow recovery that much more difficult.

Lots of straw men there that have nothing to do with Fujifilm's muffed JPEG engine.  Irrelevant.

P.S. What was gained was much faster and more reliable focus. Much faster response time in general. No, Fuji didn't have to change the jpeg engine the way they did

Which is it?  You just said the compromise was faster autofocus and now you are saying that it didnt need to be made.  This is nothing but pure spin to protect Fujifilm from the consequences of their decision to blast images with noise reduction.

and I wish they didn't. But, overall, I'd still rather shoot with the X-E2 because I get more keepers with it.

Daniel Lauring
Veteran MemberPosts: 7,480Gear list
Re: Who is at fault for the waxy skin tones?
In reply to taz98spin, 7 months ago

taz98spin wrote:

Daniel Lauring wrote:

taz98spin wrote:

Daniel Lauring wrote:

taz98spin wrote:

Ask any studio photographer in Korea that works for a studio that does themed wedding/ engagement photos.

They shoot themed wedding engagement photos at ISO 6400 in a studio!?!?!

Issues with reading comprehension much?

When did I ever say they shoot ISO 6400?

I said they shoot JPEG.

-- hide signature --

I could ask you the same question. The "issue" everyone is talking about ONLY occurs at ISO 6400. It isn't going to effect the studios and even most people most of the time which was my point. Try reading between the lines.

TThorne had issue with me saying "many professionals" shoot JPEG.

I was giving him an answer and not replying to you or about this "issue".

So once again read before commenting.

-- hide signature --

You did reply to me.  It says, "in reply to Daniel Lauring."  Pretty sure that is me.

Yes, I did reply to your reply to someone else.  I did because I think it is important to note that most people will avoid ISO 6400 to begin with and when they do shoot it most will seriously consider using RAW to get the best product for their clients.

Let me try an analogy for you.  Someone complains that their race car uses premium gas.  Someone else says most cars don't use premium gas.  Things get confused.

The issue is how big the issue really is which gets back to how much you depend on jpegs at high iso's and how much you shoot high iso's.  If the answer is you do and all the time and you hate the effect than the Fuji is absolutely NOT the camera for you.

 Daniel Lauring's gear list:Daniel Lauring's gear list
Fujifilm XF 55-200mm F3.5-4.8 R LM OIS
Graham Hill
Senior MemberPosts: 1,355Gear list
Re: The waxy skin tones are just Fuji's interpretation
In reply to Jim Evidon, 7 months ago

Jim Evidon wrote:

Every camera manufacturer has it's own idea as to what is acceptable with in-camera processing of jpeg images. Frankly, I find fault with all of them. but then again, I shoot RAW and I post process. With Nikon I was doing a lot of things in post precessing to get my acceptable image. Same comment goes for Panasonic, Sony, Leica M's and Olympus. I do not like any of their in-camera processed jpegs. JPEG was the industry's attempt to get an acceptable image out of a tiny 1 to 3 megapixel sensor camera and compressing the image. So much data is lost using jpeg, I am surprised that any serious photographer still uses that format.

With my Fuji XPro-1, the Raw images are near acceptable as is, and my post process workflow is now very simple and quick with minimal tweaking. I use Capture One Pro to convert my Fuji images to TIFF format and the IQ is amazing.

So my advise is to shoot Raw and tweak the images on your computer or keep looking for that perfect camera that produces just the final jpeg image you want. And good luck to you.
Jim

The mantra from this forum for years have been Fujifilm's JPEG engine is the best in the industry.

Now, it seems people are so quick to toss that over the side, forget about what was once taken for granted, and take a giant leap away from the former standard of performance.

LaFonte
Senior MemberPosts: 2,648Gear list
Re: The waxy skin tones are just Fuji's interpretation
In reply to Jim Evidon, 7 months ago

Jim Evidon wrote:

Every camera manufacturer has it's own idea as to what is acceptable with in-camera processing of jpeg images. Frankly, I find fault with all of them. but then again, I shoot RAW and I post process. With Nikon I was doing a lot of things in post precessing to get my acceptable image. Same comment goes for Panasonic, Sony, Leica M's and Olympus. I do not like any of their in-camera processed jpegs. JPEG was the industry's attempt to get an acceptable image out of a tiny 1 to 3 megapixel sensor camera and compressing the image. So much data is lost using jpeg, I am surprised that any serious photographer still uses that format.

With my Fuji XPro-1, the Raw images are near acceptable as is, and my post process workflow is now very simple and quick with minimal tweaking. I use Capture One Pro to convert my Fuji images to TIFF format and the IQ is amazing.

So my advise is to shoot Raw and tweak the images on your computer or keep looking for that perfect camera that produces just the final jpeg image you want. And good luck to you.
Jim

there is a big difference between a hobby photographer and professional regardless of how serious they are. i dont think any professional photographer uses jpg as it would hugely limit what he can do post. but for hobby, for most people the jpg is far enough. if the result is a facebook photo, instagram or any of the many social media with tiny images, raw is just an useless sidestep, it doesn't make the result any more better.

Unfortunately there are many hobby users who pretend play they are professionals and then this waxy thing and orbs and all that is a direct result.

 LaFonte's gear list:LaFonte's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix X100 Fujifilm X-Pro1 +1 more
Daniel Lauring
Veteran MemberPosts: 7,480Gear list
Re: Who is at fault for the waxy skin tones?
In reply to Graham Hill, 7 months ago

Graham Hill wrote:

Daniel Lauring wrote:

The difference is hardly "sledgehammer." I have both cameras and did many tests. It is a noticeable difference when crossing over from ISO 3200 to ISO 6400 but hardly "sledgehammer."

Having said that, would I like it to be less? Yes. However, I'd also like my d__n Nikon D800 PDAF focus system to not require tweaking for every lens and every focal length. I'd like it's live view to actually focus as reliably as an $80 point and shoot. I wanted my D600's metering to not get so darn confused everytime a bright object entered the frame. I want my darn RX1 to focus at all sometimes. I want my RX1 to understand what slowsynch means and to not blowout photos with it's flash. I want my Olympus EM1 to not sharpen the cr_p out of every darn thing making shadow recovery that much more difficult.

Lots of straw men there that have nothing to do with Fujifilm's muffed JPEG engine. Irrelevant.

Very relevant because you can't buy your ideal camera unless you are really lucky so you buy the camera which works best for you.  Sometimes you need more than one for different situations.  The X-E2 works better for me than the X-E1.  Heck, at the conditions that I'd be shooting at ISO 6400 the X-E1 would frustrate me with missed focus much more often than would the X-E2.

P.S. What was gained was much faster and more reliable focus. Much faster response time in general. No, Fuji didn't have to change the jpeg engine the way they did

Which is it? You just said the compromise was faster autofocus and now you are saying that it didnt need to be made. This is nothing but pure spin to protect Fujifilm from the consequences of their decision to blast images with noise reduction.

The compromise between the two cameras is better auto focus and faster performance vs. more jpeg noise reduction at ISO 6400.  I'll take door number 1.

Yeah, I get it.  We all do.  Fuji didn't have to increase the noise reduction at ISO 6400.  Many wish they didn't.  But, for me it isn't a show stopper.  If it is for you fine.  Do not buy the camera.

 Daniel Lauring's gear list:Daniel Lauring's gear list
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, 7 months ago

Daniel Lauring wrote:

Graham Hill wrote:

Daniel Lauring wrote:

The difference is hardly "sledgehammer." I have both cameras and did many tests. It is a noticeable difference when crossing over from ISO 3200 to ISO 6400 but hardly "sledgehammer."

Having said that, would I like it to be less? Yes. However, I'd also like my d__n Nikon D800 PDAF focus system to not require tweaking for every lens and every focal length. I'd like it's live view to actually focus as reliably as an $80 point and shoot. I wanted my D600's metering to not get so darn confused everytime a bright object entered the frame. I want my darn RX1 to focus at all sometimes. I want my RX1 to understand what slowsynch means and to not blowout photos with it's flash. I want my Olympus EM1 to not sharpen the cr_p out of every darn thing making shadow recovery that much more difficult.

Lots of straw men there that have nothing to do with Fujifilm's muffed JPEG engine. Irrelevant.

Very relevant because you can't buy your ideal camera unless you are really lucky so you buy the camera which works best for you. Sometimes you need more than one for different situations. The X-E2 works better for me than the X-E1. Heck, at the conditions that I'd be shooting at ISO 6400 the X-E1 would frustrate me with missed focus much more often than would the X-E2.

I understand your point but it is meaningless to our discussion as you noted earlier: Fujifilm did NOT have to add the increased noise reduction to the X-E2's jpegs.

P.S. What was gained was much faster and more reliable focus. Much faster response time in general. No, Fuji didn't have to change the jpeg engine the way they did

Which is it? You just said the compromise was faster autofocus and now you are saying that it didnt need to be made. This is nothing but pure spin to protect Fujifilm from the consequences of their decision to blast images with noise reduction.

The compromise between the two cameras is better auto focus and faster performance vs. more jpeg noise reduction at ISO 6400. I'll take door number 1.

But it's not a compromise that is needed as the RAW files clearly show.  The sensor CAN capture the right skin tones.  Fujifilm bludgeons away the detail with noise reduction.

Yeah, I get it. We all do. Fuji didn't have to increase the noise reduction at ISO 6400. Many wish they didn't. But, for me it isn't a show stopper. If it is for you fine. Do not buy the camera.

taz98spin
Contributing MemberPosts: 504Gear list
Re: Who is at fault for the waxy skin tones?
In reply to Daniel Lauring, 7 months ago

Daniel Lauring wrote:

taz98spin wrote:

Daniel Lauring wrote:

taz98spin wrote:

Daniel Lauring wrote:

taz98spin wrote:

Ask any studio photographer in Korea that works for a studio that does themed wedding/ engagement photos.

They shoot themed wedding engagement photos at ISO 6400 in a studio!?!?!

Issues with reading comprehension much?

When did I ever say they shoot ISO 6400?

I said they shoot JPEG.

-- hide signature --

I could ask you the same question. The "issue" everyone is talking about ONLY occurs at ISO 6400. It isn't going to effect the studios and even most people most of the time which was my point. Try reading between the lines.

TThorne had issue with me saying "many professionals" shoot JPEG.

I was giving him an answer and not replying to you or about this "issue".

So once again read before commenting.

-- hide signature --

You did reply to me. It says, "in reply to Daniel Lauring." Pretty sure that is me.

Yes, I did reply to your reply to someone else. I did because I think it is important to note that most people will avoid ISO 6400 to begin with and when they do shoot it most will seriously consider using RAW to get the best product for their clients.

Let me try an analogy for you. Someone complains that their race car uses premium gas. Someone else says most cars don't use premium gas. Things get confused.

The issue is how big the issue really is which gets back to how much you depend on jpegs at high iso's and how much you shoot high iso's. If the answer is you do and all the time and you hate the effect than the Fuji is absolutely NOT the camera for you.

Are you confused?

You replied to me 1st and said "They shoot themed wedding engagement photos at ISO 6400 in a studio!?!?!"

So that's why I replied back to you.

-- hide signature --
 taz98spin's gear list:taz98spin's gear list
Fujifilm X100S Fujifilm X-Pro1 Olympus PEN E-P5 Fujifilm X-T1 Sony Alpha 7S +8 more
Daniel Lauring
Veteran MemberPosts: 7,480Gear list
Re: The waxy skin tones are just Fuji's interpretation
In reply to Graham Hill, 7 months ago

Graham Hill wrote:

Jim Evidon wrote:

Every camera manufacturer has it's own idea as to what is acceptable with in-camera processing of jpeg images. Frankly, I find fault with all of them. but then again, I shoot RAW and I post process. With Nikon I was doing a lot of things in post precessing to get my acceptable image. Same comment goes for Panasonic, Sony, Leica M's and Olympus. I do not like any of their in-camera processed jpegs. JPEG was the industry's attempt to get an acceptable image out of a tiny 1 to 3 megapixel sensor camera and compressing the image. So much data is lost using jpeg, I am surprised that any serious photographer still uses that format.

With my Fuji XPro-1, the Raw images are near acceptable as is, and my post process workflow is now very simple and quick with minimal tweaking. I use Capture One Pro to convert my Fuji images to TIFF format and the IQ is amazing.

So my advise is to shoot Raw and tweak the images on your computer or keep looking for that perfect camera that produces just the final jpeg image you want. And good luck to you.
Jim

The mantra from this forum for years have been Fujifilm's JPEG engine is the best in the industry.

Now, it seems people are so quick to toss that over the side, forget about what was once taken for granted, and take a giant leap away from the former standard of performance.

It is one of the best, from a color rendition standpoint and even from a skin flattering standpoint.  That is why Fuji has long been loved by wedding photographers.  It is not one of the best jpeg engines with regard to rendering green foliage in landscape photos.  Therefore it isn't the tool someone should buy if that is their main objective.

 Daniel Lauring's gear list:Daniel Lauring's gear list
Fujifilm XF 55-200mm F3.5-4.8 R LM OIS
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads