Who is at fault for the waxy skin tones? Locked

Started Feb 20, 2014 | Discussions
Shop cameras & lenses ▾
This thread is locked.
Daniel Lauring
Daniel Lauring Veteran Member • Posts: 9,033
Re: Who is at fault for the waxy skin tones?

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!

taz98spin Contributing Member • Posts: 526
Re: Who is at fault for the waxy skin tones?

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-P5 Fujifilm X-T1 Sony Alpha 7S +8 more
LaFonte Senior Member • Posts: 2,744
oh, it is the time of the month again?

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 Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ1000 Fujifilm X-Pro1 +1 more
kodachromeguy Contributing Member • Posts: 713
Re: oh, it is the full moon again?

Maybe the full moon brings them out?

-- hide signature --

The Kodachromeguy

 kodachromeguy's gear list:kodachromeguy's gear list
Fujifilm X-E1 Leica Summicron-M 50mm f/2 Fujifilm XF 14mm F2.8 R Fujifilm XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS Fujifilm XF 18mm F2 R +6 more
stulevine
stulevine Regular Member • Posts: 207
Re: Who is at fault for the waxy skin tones?

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-T10 Fujifilm XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R Fujifilm XF 60mm F2.4 R Macro Fujifilm XF 14mm F2.8 R +18 more
Graham Hill Senior Member • Posts: 1,355
Re: oh, it is the time of the month again?

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
BillyInya Senior Member • Posts: 1,453
Re: Who is at fault for the waxy skin tones?

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
Fujifilm X-E1 Nikon D7000 Tokina AT-X Pro 12-24mm f/4 (IF) DX Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6G ED-IF Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D +8 more
TThorne
TThorne Senior Member • Posts: 3,013
Re: Who is at fault for the waxy skin tones?

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 Monochrom (Typ 246) Leica M Typ 240 Leica SL (Typ 601) Leica Summilux-M 35mm f/1.4 ASPH Leica Summilux-M 50mm f/1.4 ASPH +11 more
(unknown member) Contributing Member • Posts: 578
Re: TThorne

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
BillyInya Senior Member • Posts: 1,453
You Are Kidding Me

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
Fujifilm X-E1 Nikon D7000 Tokina AT-X Pro 12-24mm f/4 (IF) DX Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6G ED-IF Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D +8 more
TThorne
TThorne Senior Member • Posts: 3,013
Re: Who is at fault for the waxy skin tones?

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 Monochrom (Typ 246) Leica M Typ 240 Leica SL (Typ 601) Leica Summilux-M 35mm f/1.4 ASPH Leica Summilux-M 50mm f/1.4 ASPH +11 more
Daniel Lauring
Daniel Lauring Veteran Member • Posts: 9,033
Re: You Are Kidding Me

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.

TThorne
TThorne Senior Member • Posts: 3,013
Re: You Are Kidding Me

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 Monochrom (Typ 246) Leica M Typ 240 Leica SL (Typ 601) Leica Summilux-M 35mm f/1.4 ASPH Leica Summilux-M 50mm f/1.4 ASPH +11 more
hellocrowley Senior Member • Posts: 1,271
Re: Who is at fault for the waxy skin tones?

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
BillyInya Senior Member • Posts: 1,453
Re: Who is at fault for the waxy skin tones?

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
Fujifilm X-E1 Nikon D7000 Tokina AT-X Pro 12-24mm f/4 (IF) DX Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6G ED-IF Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D +8 more
TThorne
TThorne Senior Member • Posts: 3,013
Re: Who is at fault for the waxy skin tones?

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 Monochrom (Typ 246) Leica M Typ 240 Leica SL (Typ 601) Leica Summilux-M 35mm f/1.4 ASPH Leica Summilux-M 50mm f/1.4 ASPH +11 more
DocetLector Regular Member • Posts: 305
Re: Who is at fault for the waxy skin tones?

Are you going to tell us that in a "controlled enviroment" you need to shoot above ISO 1600?

 DocetLector's gear list:DocetLector's gear list
Fujifilm X-E2 Fujifilm X-Pro2 Fujifilm XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS XF 90mm Fujifilm XF 14mm F2.8 R +1 more
BillyInya
BillyInya Senior Member • Posts: 1,453
Re: Who is at fault for the waxy skin tones?

TThorne wrote:

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...

Is a matter of fact yes. The jpegs out of the S3Pro and S5Pro hold up surprisingly well to quite a bit of post processing when compared to other jpegs. If you had experience with either camera you would know this.

If you are talking about RAW, then I can't help you. I gave up labouring away with RAW almost a decade ago. But by all means, you keep plodding along at it.

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.

You don't own an S5Pro and you don't know the S5Pro so if I were you I would not be telling us all about the S5Pro.

But yes, why don't you go and buy one of the ones near you. After using it for a while you will begin to understand what I and others are saying.

 BillyInya's gear list:BillyInya's gear list
Fujifilm X-E1 Nikon D7000 Tokina AT-X Pro 12-24mm f/4 (IF) DX Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6G ED-IF Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D +8 more
TThorne
TThorne Senior Member • Posts: 3,013
Re: Who is at fault for the waxy skin tones?

BillyInya wrote:

TThorne wrote:

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...

Is a matter of fact yes. The jpegs out of the S3Pro and S5Pro hold up surprisingly well to quite a bit of post processing when compared to other jpegs. If you had experience with either camera you would know this.

If you are talking about RAW, then I can't help you. I gave up labouring away with RAW almost a decade ago. But by all means, you keep plodding along at it.

So you are comparing the jpegs vs other cameras jpegs while I am talking about the extreme highlight recovery of the raw files vs the jpeg files. Why? I could care lass how the jpegs stack up against other jpegs. Jpegs only handle a finite amount of information, whereas raw files, and this is a fact Billy, contain substantially more information.

I'll say it again in a different way. If you want to get the most out of the S5/S3, especially with regards to this one feature that the camera is well known for, then you are shooting raw.

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.

You don't own an S5Pro and you don't know the S5Pro so if I were you I would not be telling us all about the S5Pro.

I could literally say the same about you.

But yes, why don't you go and buy one of the ones near you. After using it for a while you will begin to understand what I and others are saying.

No need to understand because you are arguing something totally different than what I am talking about, just for the sake of doing it. Totally worthless. Thanks for being consistent.

-- 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 Monochrom (Typ 246) Leica M Typ 240 Leica SL (Typ 601) Leica Summilux-M 35mm f/1.4 ASPH Leica Summilux-M 50mm f/1.4 ASPH +11 more
Miamistan Forum Member • Posts: 61
Re: Who is at fault for the waxy skin tones?

This area of complaint of the fuji system seems really stupid to me.  As a former professional photographer when I shot film the most I could get was asa 3200 and that was pushing a 1600 asa film.  It was grainy as hell and unless you were shooting bw photography of jazz musicians totally unacceptable.  My first camera digital camera was nikon 3 megapixel that could go up to iso 400 and look pretty good.  Then I had a an olympus e series 4 megapixel and looked pretting good up to iso 400.  In 2007 nobodies camera looked good above iso 1600.  The idea that the judgement of a system is how it shoots portraits at iso 6400 is ludicrous. Real pros would be using professional lighting at these extremes.  Process RAW if a jpeg is unpleasing. BTW Nikon and Cannon do not have great jpegs at 6400.  Even now I only go up to 1600 in portaits on any system.  The idea that shots should look great at super iso without post processing is absurd and should no way reflect on Fujis system let alone accuse any manufacture of sabotage.  A bunch of pixel peeping, shoot more shots and analyse less

 Miamistan's gear list:Miamistan's gear list
Sony RX100 Nikon D5100 Fujifilm X-E1 Fujifilm X-E2 Sigma 17-70mm F2.8-4 DC Macro OS HSM | C +12 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads