Who is at fault for the waxy skin tones? Locked

Started 6 months ago | Discussions
This thread is locked.
Daniel Lauring
Veteran MemberPosts: 7,335Gear list
Re: Who is at fault for the waxy skin tones?
In reply to taz98spin, 6 months ago

taz98spin wrote:

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 --

Ugh.  Forget it!!!!  Jeesh!

 Daniel Lauring's gear list:Daniel Lauring's gear list
Fujifilm XF 55-200mm F3.5-4.8 R LM OIS
taz98spin
Regular MemberPosts: 457Gear list
Re: Who is at fault for the waxy skin tones?
In reply to Daniel Lauring, 6 months ago

Daniel Lauring wrote:

taz98spin wrote:

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 --

Ugh. Forget it!!!! Jeesh!

Ok, bye

-- hide signature --
 taz98spin's gear list:taz98spin's gear list
Fujifilm X100S Fujifilm X-Pro1 Olympus PEN E-PM2 Olympus PEN E-P5 Fujifilm X-T1 +6 more
LaFonte
Senior MemberPosts: 2,641Gear list
oh, it is the time of the month again?
In reply to mistermejia, 6 months ago

Seems the orb people are resurfacing again, now with waxy things.

But did you think about others who may like orbs and waxes?

Funny how the Fuji was da $hit for skin tone jpegs just a week ago and now it is plagued by waxy skin tones with so many "affected" professionals. Lets mass returning of Fuji gear commence.... 3,2,1....

 LaFonte's gear list:LaFonte's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix X100 Fujifilm X-Pro1 +1 more
kodachromeguy
Contributing MemberPosts: 530Gear list
Re: oh, it is the full moon again?
In reply to LaFonte, 6 months ago

Maybe the full moon brings them out?

-- hide signature --

The Kodachromeguy

 kodachromeguy's gear list:kodachromeguy's gear list
Fujifilm X-E1
stulevine
Regular MemberPosts: 191Gear list
Re: Who is at fault for the waxy skin tones?
In reply to mistermejia, 6 months ago

the user and... Fujifilm for not providing more robust noise reduction settings in firmware.  It would be nice to turn off luminance noise reduction while adjusting the color noise reduction to your own taste.  then it would look more like high speed color film.  And, of course, this only really matters if you care about OOC JPEGS as your primary source of images and don't shoot RAW.

 stulevine's gear list:stulevine's gear list
Fujifilm X-E2 Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R Fujifilm XF 60mm F2.4 R Macro Fujifilm XF 14mm F2.8 R Fujifilm XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS +17 more
Graham Hill
Senior MemberPosts: 1,355Gear list
Re: oh, it is the time of the month again?
In reply to LaFonte, 6 months ago

LaFonte wrote:

Seems the orb people are resurfacing again, now with waxy things.

Orb people?  You mean the people who called out Fujifilm for their clearly defective sensor, failed to fall for Fujifilm's constant denial, failed to fall for Fujifilm's placebo "fix", and finally forced Fujifilm's hand to issue a recall to fix their defective sensor?  Those Orb people?

But did you think about others who may like orbs and waxes?

Funny how the Fuji was da $hit for skin tone jpegs just a week ago and now it is plagued by waxy skin tones with so many "affected" professionals. Lets mass returning of Fuji gear commence.... 3,2,1....

BillyInya
Senior MemberPosts: 1,231Gear list
Re: Who is at fault for the waxy skin tones?
In reply to TThorne, 6 months ago

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.

Give yourself one full week with an S5Pro, or even an ancient S3Pro for that matter, and you won't be able to understand why people even bother with RAW let alone are talking about it.

 BillyInya's gear list:BillyInya's gear list
Nikon D7000 Fujifilm X-E1 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6G ED-IF Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8G ED-IF Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II +8 more
wyldberi
Senior MemberPosts: 2,065Gear list
Re: Who is at fault for the waxy skin tones?
In reply to mistermejia, 6 months ago

mistermejia wrote:

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

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

The so-called problem has nothing to do with the sensor.

It's a software issue programmed into the EXR image processor. It's associated with the amount of Noise Reduction that gets applied to the JPEG images the processor produces, distorting flesh tone regions in images shot at high ISO settings. It is not present in RAW files, and the same "glitch" was present in the X-E1 and X-Pro1. If you shoot portraits at sensible ISO's, the problem doesn't exist, and if you do have problems with the pictures you take, use RAE files.

Many of those making this into an issue seem to be the same advocates for using RAW files instead of JPEG's. That should make a person stop and consider what type of agenda is going on; at least, it causes me to do so.

Peter Jonas
Senior MemberPosts: 1,593
Re: Who is at fault for the waxy skin tones?
In reply to wyldberi, 6 months ago

wyldberi wrote:

It's a software issue programmed into the EXR image processor.

Do you mean it is hard coded into the processor, or is the code in firmware?

... and the same "glitch" was present in the X-E1 and X-Pro1.

Most people believe this is not case, and apparently, it was done differently in the X-E1, which resulted in less loss of skin details and more realistic texture and colours. The problem seems to be that the X-E2 renders skin in a less pleasing way at very high ISO settings.

In absolute terms images taken at ISO6400 with the X-E2 are nice, but the X-E1 was just a little better. Of course there are workarounds, but those workarounds are not convenient for all.

Some people complain as they thought they had it better before. See how you go with a toddler when you take away from him/her the half eaten chocolate bar you had just given him/her 10 minutes before.

I am not terribly concerned about this since I recently read the interview with a Fuji executive where he said Fuji had done this because this is how most people like it in Asia. However, they realise that it was not everyone's cup of tea, and they are now thinking about a solution. There is hope ...

This is quite relevant to me as I use the X-E2, and shoot lots of pub concerts with really badly lit places, and only regularly use ISO3200 and 6400, and I only use SOOC JPEG output.

The workarounds are not really suitable for me as I cannot put more light on, don't want to use a flash most of the time, and don't want to PP RAW either. I just want to get the optimum performance out of the camera at hand.

I used to have the X-E1 and now I have the X-E2, but I cannot see a lot of difference between the too. It is not a deal breaker for me, as I am OK with the X-E2 in many respects.

However, improvements are always welcome.

-- hide signature --

Cheers,
Peter Jonas

TThorne
Senior MemberPosts: 2,360Gear list
Re: Who is at fault for the waxy skin tones?
In reply to taz98spin, 6 months ago

taz98spin wrote:

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 --

So you are saying jpeg is the new pro standard? Yeah, okay... I work as head of photography for a company that employs over 400 photographers as independent contractors. They all shoot raw. Using your logic I know far more working pros shooting raw, and that is just within one company, than you know shooting jpeg, so I guess I win. I also work with photographers that shoot a lot of high end portraits for celebrities (I am not involved in this on a photography basis and am not a portrait shooter), and all of these photographers, who make a pretty penny I might add, shoot raw.

I am not saying there is anything wrong with shooting jpegs, but making it sound like jpeg is some sort of standard amongst pros? Let me tell you that you are talking about a minority. Don't even get me started on wedding photographers. I don't know a single one who shoots in jpeg, and here in LA/Hollywood/Beverly Hills, we have some really great ones.

-- 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 Summilux-M 21mm f/1.4 Asph Leica Summilux-M 35mm f/1.4 ASPH Leica Noctilux-M 50mm f/0.95 ASPH +3 more
unknown member
(unknown member)
Re: TThorne
In reply to Sal Baker, 6 months ago

Sal Baker 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

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

The waxy effect is visible at ISO 800 and above under some lighting conditions, more so when the exposure is slightly out or light conditions are extreme, I've taken photos with the X100s in large indoor areas that are well and evenly lit  at ISO 1600 and 3200 and there has been no trace of waxy skin but I have shot outside at ISO 800 and peoples skin has the waxy effect although this is more conman when the person has dark/er skin.

I only shoot in Raw and used Photo Ninja to PP.

The issue is obviously caused by the heavy handed inbuilt NR which is also applied to the Raw files.

BillyInya
Senior MemberPosts: 1,231Gear list
You Are Kidding Me
In reply to LWS2013, 6 months ago

I have not shot RAW since 2005 because I have no need to, such is the sublime quality of the Fuji jpegs.

Are people in this thread seriously suggesting with the X-Trans version II we can no longer shoot ISO1600 and above and get the famous Fuji skin tones and sublime true-to-life tonaility and color rendering all of us are use to??

And if that's what we want then are people saying we all have to start labouring away for hours and hours and hours handling monsterous file sizes and post processing our brains out in front of a computer? Is that what people are seriously saying?

If it is then wow, talk about going backwards.

Could be time to grab another X-E1 or even hunt around for a good used S5Pro so I can continue to enjoy instantly out of camera what others may have to spend hours upon hours trying to achieve through post processing!!!!!!

 BillyInya's gear list:BillyInya's gear list
Nikon D7000 Fujifilm X-E1 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6G ED-IF Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8G ED-IF Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II +8 more
TThorne
Senior MemberPosts: 2,360Gear list
Re: Who is at fault for the waxy skin tones?
In reply to BillyInya, 6 months ago

BillyInya 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.

Give yourself one full week with an S5Pro, or even an ancient S3Pro for that matter, and you won't be able to understand why people even bother with RAW let alone are talking about it.

Thats funny. One of the things the S5 Pro was known for was it's amazing highlight retention, being able to pull back up to 5 stops while retaining detail and color. Pretty amazing feature of that camera. Oh, by the way, that was a function of the raw files.

-- 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 Summilux-M 21mm f/1.4 Asph Leica Summilux-M 35mm f/1.4 ASPH Leica Noctilux-M 50mm f/0.95 ASPH +3 more
Daniel Lauring
Veteran MemberPosts: 7,335Gear list
Re: You Are Kidding Me
In reply to BillyInya, 6 months ago

BillyInya wrote:

I have not shot RAW since 2005 because I have no need to, such is the sublime quality of the Fuji jpegs.

Are people in this thread seriously suggesting with the X-Trans version II we can no longer shoot ISO1600 and above and get the famous Fuji skin tones and sublime true-to-life tonaility and color rendering all of us are use to??

And if that's what we want then are people saying we all have to start labouring away for hours and hours and hours handling monsterous file sizes and post processing our brains out in front of a computer? Is that what people are seriously saying?

If it is then wow, talk about going backwards.

Could be time to grab another X-E1 or even hunt around for a good used S5Pro so I can continue to enjoy instantly out of camera what others may have to spend hours upon hours trying to achieve through post processing!!!!!!

1 person.  Personally, the difference I've seen below ISO 6400 is negligible.   I shoot RAW + Jpeg for those times I want to do a little extra in post.

 Daniel Lauring's gear list:Daniel Lauring's gear list
Fujifilm XF 55-200mm F3.5-4.8 R LM OIS
TThorne
Senior MemberPosts: 2,360Gear list
Re: You Are Kidding Me
In reply to BillyInya, 6 months ago

BillyInya wrote:

I have not shot RAW since 2005 because I have no need to, such is the sublime quality of the Fuji jpegs.

I'm not sure anyone here thinks you've shot jpeg either.

Are people in this thread seriously suggesting with the X-Trans version II we can no longer shoot ISO1600 and above and get the famous Fuji skin tones and sublime true-to-life tonaility and color rendering all of us are use to??

For all the people who have only ever posted photos from DPRs test shot comparisons, ahem*Billy*ahem, and have only ever declared IQ superiority over any and all camera systems including FF based on the amount of noise in comparison images, it is no surprise Fuji has gotten so over the top on the NR. Great to see those same folks leading the charge against the outcome...

And if that's what we want then are people saying we all have to start labouring away for hours and hours and hours handling monsterous file sizes and post processing our brains out in front of a computer? Is that what people are seriously saying?

I process countless raw files per day for work. If you are laboring away for hours and hours then you are doing something wrong.

If it is then wow, talk about going backwards.

Could be time to grab another X-E1 or even hunt around for a good used S5Pro so I can continue to enjoy instantly out of camera what others may have to spend hours upon hours trying to achieve through post processing!!!!!!

Good post processing technique allows you to squeeze every last bit of DR, color, and IQ. Sure, if you don't care about that, then it's perfectly fine to leave some on the table, especially if the photos are for you and not for clients. But I find this attitude odd coming from someone on a march to declare the XE1 superior due to 86K pixels being allocated to PDAF on the new cameras, even when you have already admitted that there is no visible decline in resolution.

Walking, talking contradiction.

-- 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 Summilux-M 21mm f/1.4 Asph Leica Summilux-M 35mm f/1.4 ASPH Leica Noctilux-M 50mm f/0.95 ASPH +3 more
hellocrowley
Senior MemberPosts: 1,169
Re: Who is at fault for the waxy skin tones?
In reply to AustinB, 6 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.

Besides, the two things Fuji fans always clamor about are JPEG and high ISO, now these same people are telling us it is stupid to shoot JPEG at high ISO.

BillyInya
Senior MemberPosts: 1,231Gear list
Re: Who is at fault for the waxy skin tones?
In reply to TThorne, 6 months ago

TThorne wrote:

BillyInya 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.

Give yourself one full week with an S5Pro, or even an ancient S3Pro for that matter, and you won't be able to understand why people even bother with RAW let alone are talking about it.

Thats funny. One of the things the S5 Pro was known for was it's amazing highlight retention, being able to pull back up to 5 stops while retaining detail and color. Pretty amazing feature of that camera. Oh, by the way, that was a function of the raw files.

I'm afraid if you think the S5pro (or S3Pro as they have exactly the same sensor) only gave you extra in RAW then you don't know the camera.

Perhaps before you start to tell us all about the S5Pro, perhaps you should ... oh I don't know ...  maybe use one !!

 BillyInya's gear list:BillyInya's gear list
Nikon D7000 Fujifilm X-E1 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6G ED-IF Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8G ED-IF Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II +8 more
wyldberi
Senior MemberPosts: 2,065Gear list
Re: Who is at fault for the waxy skin tones?
In reply to Peter Jonas, 6 months ago

Peter Jonas wrote:

wyldberi wrote:

It's a software issue programmed into the EXR image processor.

Do you mean it is hard coded into the processor, or is the code in firmware?

... and the same "glitch" was present in the X-E1 and X-Pro1.

Most people believe this is not case, and apparently, it was done differently in the X-E1, which resulted in less loss of skin details and more realistic texture and colours. The problem seems to be that the X-E2 renders skin in a less pleasing way at very high ISO settings.

In absolute terms images taken at ISO6400 with the X-E2 are nice, but the X-E1 was just a little better. Of course there are workarounds, but those workarounds are not convenient for all.

Some people complain as they thought they had it better before. See how you go with a toddler when you take away from him/her the half eaten chocolate bar you had just given him/her 10 minutes before.

I am not terribly concerned about this since I recently read the interview with a Fuji executive where he said Fuji had done this because this is how most people like it in Asia. However, they realise that it was not everyone's cup of tea, and they are now thinking about a solution. There is hope ...

This is quite relevant to me as I use the X-E2, and shoot lots of pub concerts with really badly lit places, and only regularly use ISO3200 and 6400, and I only use SOOC JPEG output.

The workarounds are not really suitable for me as I cannot put more light on, don't want to use a flash most of the time, and don't want to PP RAW either. I just want to get the optimum performance out of the camera at hand.

I used to have the X-E1 and now I have the X-E2, but I cannot see a lot of difference between the too. It is not a deal breaker for me, as I am OK with the X-E2 in many respects.

However, improvements are always welcome.

-- hide signature --

Cheers,
Peter Jonas

I am saying the issue is not related to the hardware, including the EXR processor. My understanding of the EXR is that it serves the same function as a CPU in a desk or laptop computer, and that it has a defined instruction set that it uses. There is absolutely nothing there that causes the chip to create a problem when it creates an image file from the RAW data.

The issue, as it is, stems from the algorithms Fuji's software engineers created to handle noise reduction procedures. In effect, they taught the camera how to create nice looking pictures based on the data supplied by the sensor. The noise reduction algorithms, and the resulting noise reduction procedures the EXR Processors perform are an integral part of the wonderful JPEG's most people praise Fuji for achieving.

There are people who claim they want a software switch as a Menu item that can be used to turn off the noise reduction at high ISO values. This is a simplistic approach, and shows only that they who clamor for such either don't know what they're talking about, or they haven't thought the issue through clearly.

The primary issue associated with using digital sensors to create pleasing images at high ISO's is that these settings result in a higher amount of displeasing digital noise being deposited in the image. The solution is to apply noise reduction. Turning off the noise reduction at high ISO levels will do one thing: it will disable the camera from creating pleasing images at high ISO values.

The next time you come across such a comment by someone, ask them what will happen if that's done. When they reply it will make the skin tones appear to be more life-like, ask them how that will happen? Ask them what the noise looks like that the noise reduction procedures currently remove?

In your response to me you wrote:

"The problem seems to be that the X-E2 renders skin in a less pleasing way [ than the X-E1 ] at very high ISO settings."

And later on you wrote:

"... but I cannot see a lot of difference between the two."

This only indicates to me that a point I made in my previous post is valid. It seems to me it is the "Most people" and the "Some people" that are the bigger problem here.

When I related the information I received from quite a few people who use the Fuji cameras professionally who stated the same problem exists in the X-E1's and X-Pro1's they are using to day, you responded "Most people believe this is not the case ..."

This was no idle statement on my part. It came from numerous people I trust, who have no reason to bother themselves with lying to me. To the contrary, they went out of their way to relate their personal experience with the cameras they use. And in open threads where I discussed this issue, I received not one response that contradicted what the other respondents said. As for those who deny the reality of the people I trust, I can only say look where the reality of george w. bush and dick cheney have gotten us.

Here at DPReview, there are quite a few people who seem to enjoy reviving this "complaint" about how poorly the Fuji cameras operate. People are quick to jump on the "tear it down" bandwagon as it rolls down the street. You're welcome to do as you please, but I choose not to do so.

If people want to push the limits of their equipment beyond what it is capable of doing, they are responsible for the results they achieve. If the reasonable limit is to not shoot portraits at ISO 1600 or above, then maybe that's what people should do. If your pictures turn out so poorly in dimly lit pubs, and you refuse to print from RAW files which is a reasonable option that avoids the problem, then that's on you.

I might just as well sit here and complain that people who like to drive their Ferraris at 120 miles per hour and ram them into bridge abutments are getting killed. Certainly Ferraris are capable of being driven at that speed, so why shouldn't their owners be able to drive them into bridge abutments two or three times a week if they choose to do so?

If people want or need to take portraits at 6400 or 12800 ISO, then it's their responsibility to supply themselves with the equipment they need to do so. If Fuji cameras can't do that to their satisfaction, they should go buy Brand Y that does.

wyldberi
Senior MemberPosts: 2,065Gear list
Re: You Are Kidding Me
In reply to BillyInya, 6 months ago

BillyInya wrote:

I have not shot RAW since 2005 because I have no need to, such is the sublime quality of the Fuji jpegs.

Are people in this thread seriously suggesting with the X-Trans version II we can no longer shoot ISO1600 and above and get the famous Fuji skin tones and sublime true-to-life tonaility and color rendering all of us are use to??

And if that's what we want then are people saying we all have to start labouring away for hours and hours and hours handling monsterous file sizes and post processing our brains out in front of a computer? Is that what people are seriously saying?

If it is then wow, talk about going backwards.

Could be time to grab another X-E1 or even hunt around for a good used S5Pro so I can continue to enjoy instantly out of camera what others may have to spend hours upon hours trying to achieve through post processing!!!!!!

Maybe we should all go buy film cameras and 150 cases each of Fujifilm 35mm film, and give up on this disaster of digital photography altogether.

TThorne
Senior MemberPosts: 2,360Gear list
Re: Who is at fault for the waxy skin tones?
In reply to BillyInya, 6 months ago

BillyInya wrote:

TThorne wrote:

BillyInya 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.

Give yourself one full week with an S5Pro, or even an ancient S3Pro for that matter, and you won't be able to understand why people even bother with RAW let alone are talking about it.

Thats funny. One of the things the S5 Pro was known for was it's amazing highlight retention, being able to pull back up to 5 stops while retaining detail and color. Pretty amazing feature of that camera. Oh, by the way, that was a function of the raw files.

I'm afraid if you think the S5pro (or S3Pro as they have exactly the same sensor) only gave you extra in RAW then you don't know the camera.

Oh, is that the case Billy? Are the jpegs as flexible in post as the raw files in the S5/S3? Hmmm...

Perhaps before you start to tell us all about the S5Pro, perhaps you should ... oh I don't know ... maybe use one !!

Are you aware if I have or have not Billy? Funny thing is that there are a couple for sale near me and I bet I could buy one and a couple lenses and come back here and post photos from it before you ever post anything from any of your imaginary cameras.

-- 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 Summilux-M 21mm f/1.4 Asph Leica Summilux-M 35mm f/1.4 ASPH Leica Noctilux-M 50mm f/0.95 ASPH +3 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads