Who is at fault for the waxy skin tones? Locked

Started 7 months ago | Discussions
This thread is locked.
DocetLector
Regular MemberPosts: 186Gear list
Re: Who is at fault for the waxy skin tones?
In reply to taz98spin, 7 months ago

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
Canon PowerShot G11 Fujifilm FinePix S3 Pro Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G Nikon AF Micro-Nikkor 60mm f/2.8D Tokina AT-X Pro 12-24mm f/4 (IF) DX +1 more
BillyInya
Senior MemberPosts: 1,265Gear list
Re: Who is at fault for the waxy skin tones?
In reply to TThorne, 7 months ago

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
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: 2,478Gear list
Re: Who is at fault for the waxy skin tones?
In reply to BillyInya, 7 months ago

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 Typ 240 Sony Alpha 7R Sony Alpha 7S Leica Summilux-M 21mm f/1.4 Asph Leica Summilux-M 35mm f/1.4 ASPH +5 more
Miamistan
Forum MemberPosts: 57Gear list
Re: Who is at fault for the waxy skin tones?
In reply to mistermejia, 7 months ago

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 Tamron SP 70-300mm F/4-5.6 Di VC USD +14 more
Patrick T. Kelly
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,058Gear list
Re: Who is at fault for the waxy skin tones?
In reply to AustinB, 7 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.

Then they're making a conscious decision to go with the Fuji skin tones. No problem there.

-- hide signature --

Patrick T. Kelly
Oaxaca, Mexico

BillyInya
Senior MemberPosts: 1,265Gear list
Re: Who is at fault for the waxy skin tones?
In reply to TThorne, 7 months ago

TThorne wrote:

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.

For goodness sake, pick up an S5Pro or an S3Pro, hold it in your actual hand, shoot with it and inspect the image quality coming straight out of it and learn why for so many shooting RAW is almost totally unneccessary and a chore of the past.

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.

No you can't.

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.

What is worthless is when people come in here and attempt to start to lecture the community on a camera they do not own and have never owned.

 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
seukel
Regular MemberPosts: 465Gear list
Re: Who is at fault for the waxy skin tones?
In reply to wyldberi, 7 months ago

wyldberi wrote:

... 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.

No it was not, it "arrived" with the X100s and the X-E2 and now also present in the X-T1 (perhaps even more:

according the last couple posts in this thread:

http://www.fujix-forum.com/index.php/topic/18475-x100-owner-disppointed-with-x100s-says-good-bye/page-2

It's related to the EXR II. The X-Pro1 and the X-E1 had the EXR Pro processor.

-- hide signature --

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

Lyle From Canada
Senior MemberPosts: 1,356
Re: Who is at fault for the waxy skin tones?
In reply to seukel, 7 months ago

this back when i shot film nonsense is as rediculous as comparing cars to horses. Its 2014, and the current cameras dont have as good jpeg output as the previous models, simple as that. Thats a step back and its a step in the wrong direction. I dont care if you shot film, watch black and white tv, still use a coal fired furnace, or ride a horse to work.

-- hide signature --

Fuji x-pro1 with 14, 18, 23, 35, 60, 55-200, fuji x100s and WA adapter, fuji x10

John Carson
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,053Gear list
Re: Who is at fault for the waxy skin tones?
In reply to Les Lammers, 7 months ago

Les Lammers wrote:

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

There are some logical leaps being made here. What was actually said in the interview was this:

-- hide signature --

Do your customers in different countries ask for different things?

Yes. For example in asian counties we have more female customers, certainly in Japan, and they tend to take different pictures - more dreamlike, softer focus, lower contrast. That’s something that some western photographers don’t really understand. Asian customers also seem more keen on social networking and sharing their pictures.

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/5988185050/fujifilm-interview-the-only-way-is-to-keep-innovating

-------------------------------------------------------

Observe first that he is answering a question about what people ask for. He says NOTHING about what has been implemented.

Second, note that what is actually being discussed (complained about) in these threads is noise reduction at high ISO. On the other hand, the cameras give very detailed rendering of skin at low ISO.

If the aim is to produce "more dreamlike, softer focus, lower contrast" images, then why is this only happening at high ISO?

--
john carson

 John Carson's gear list:John Carson's gear list
Fujifilm X-E2 Fujifilm XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS Fujifilm XF 55-200mm F3.5-4.8 R LM OIS
taz98spin
Contributing MemberPosts: 507Gear list
Defeat
In reply to TThorne, 7 months ago

TThorne wrote:

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

I did not say that JPEG is the new pro standard. I said I know many professionals that shoot JPEG.

It's impressive that you know more than 400 professional photographers & that you're the head of photography! If you're such an influential person in photography, I guess I should feel honored that you're even responding to me & take your word as the truth?

How do you even have the time to spend on the forums, I can't imagine how busy you must be to manage 400 photographers!

& as for the high end celebrity photographers and great wedding photographers in California, maybe you can connect me to some of them, so I too can make a pretty penny. Maybe then, I'll be able to walk away from my 90k + job and shoot RAW too!

Oh and also, good for you that you got to win in a forum discussion or should I saw argument? Must be a great achievement for 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
Rudi
Contributing MemberPosts: 614
Re: Who is at fault for the waxy skin tones?
In reply to mistermejia, 7 months ago

Nonsense ! - It´s just the requests of certain users which want more high ISO values. High ISO values tend to bring more noise with it and that has to be removed. Noise removing leads to a loss in sharpnes and details and this loss has to be compensated for. So the images must be resharpened. In other words : you get more flat regions without texture (texture cancelled by NR) and sharpend outlines of these regions. The result is some kind of water color or "waxy" appearance of your digital photographs.

Try it by shooting RAW and You can find that out for Yourself.

-- hide signature --

..be aware of all these fools around.
Rudi.

John Carson
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,053Gear list
Re: Now it is clear as light
In reply to nixda, 7 months ago

nixda wrote:

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

It is not clear. If that is the motivation, why not also do it at low ISO?

-- hide signature --

john carson

 John Carson's gear list:John Carson's gear list
Fujifilm X-E2 Fujifilm XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS Fujifilm XF 55-200mm F3.5-4.8 R LM OIS
John Carson
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,053Gear list
Re: Who is at fault for the waxy skin tones?
In reply to Dorkington, 7 months ago

Dorkington wrote:

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.

I don't see where it says that this is a technology introduced with the X-E2 or even that is it associated with the X series.

-- hide signature --

john carson

 John Carson's gear list:John Carson's gear list
Fujifilm X-E2 Fujifilm XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS Fujifilm XF 55-200mm F3.5-4.8 R LM OIS
whtchocla7e
Contributing MemberPosts: 927Gear list
Re: Who is at fault for the waxy skin tones?
In reply to mistermejia, 7 months ago

mistermejia wrote:

Who is at fault for the waxy skin tones?

Probably someone who doesn't know how to postprocess.

wyldberi
Senior MemberPosts: 2,540Gear list
Re: Who is at fault for the waxy skin tones?
In reply to seukel, 7 months ago

seukel wrote:

wyldberi wrote:

... 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.

No it was not, it "arrived" with the X100s and the X-E2 and now also present in the X-T1 (perhaps even more:

according the last couple posts in this thread:

http://www.fujix-forum.com/index.php/topic/18475-x100-owner-disppointed-with-x100s-says-good-bye/page-2

It's related to the EXR II. The X-Pro1 and the X-E1 had the EXR Pro processor.

-- hide signature --

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

Well, as I said, the presence of the overdone noise reduction in JPEG's produced by the original X-Pro1 and X-E1 was reported to me by numerous professional photographers who continue to use the same cameras on a daily basis quite successfully. For the life of me I can't come up with a single reason why these people would lie to me.

But since you seem to know so much about it, why don't you explain to me what the problem is, and just what the EXR-2 does to introduce the phenomenon into the JPEG's it produces. I don't want generalizations; I'd like to have specifics.

Tell me what the Fuji engineers changed that caused the problem to begin. If you can document the date when that problem was first introduced into the EXR-2, that would be good.

unknown member
(unknown member)
Re: You Are Kidding Me
In reply to BillyInya, 7 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!!!!!!

As per my comment, you can indeed shoot at ISO 1600 and above and get correct skin tones, it all just depends on the light and exposure

seukel
Regular MemberPosts: 465Gear list
Re: Who is at fault for the waxy skin tones?
In reply to wyldberi, 7 months ago

wyldberi wrote:

seukel wrote:

wyldberi wrote:

... 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.

No it was not, it "arrived" with the X100s and the X-E2 and now also present in the X-T1 (perhaps even more:

according the last couple posts in this thread:

http://www.fujix-forum.com/index.php/topic/18475-x100-owner-disppointed-with-x100s-says-good-bye/page-2

It's related to the EXR II. The X-Pro1 and the X-E1 had the EXR Pro processor.

-- hide signature --

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

Well, as I said, the presence of the overdone noise reduction in JPEG's produced by the original X-Pro1 and X-E1 was reported to me by numerous professional photographers who continue to use the same cameras on a daily basis quite successfully. For the life of me I can't come up with a single reason why these people would lie to me.

But since you seem to know so much about it, why don't you explain to me what the problem is, and just what the EXR-2 does to introduce the phenomenon into the JPEG's it produces. I don't want generalizations; I'd like to have specifics.

Tell me what the Fuji engineers changed that caused the problem to begin. If you can document the date when that problem was first introduced into the EXR-2, that would be good.

Dear Wyldberi, I am not an engineer, but if you do not know the history of Fuji X sensor and processors and its relation ship you can catch up on it here:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51700689

or here:

http://fujifilm-x.com/development_story/en/processor/

You can also follow the discussion on this thread (why not start with Jin Radcliffe's excellent summary at the end):

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3627423?page=7#forum-post-53164863

There's enough material for an entire conference on this theme

-- hide signature --

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

nixda
Senior MemberPosts: 1,876Gear list
Re: You Are Kidding Me
In reply to BillyInya, 7 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!!!!!!

I know you don't read every response in threads, so you may have missed something important here.

The issues with the latest Fuji cameras are with its JPEG engine, not with the sensor. If Fuji went back to the way it dealt with high-ISO images the way the X-Pro1 or X-E1 deals with them, the problem would go away. You can also shoot raw and avoid the issues.

 nixda's gear list:nixda's gear list
Fujifilm X-E1 Fujifilm XF 14mm F2.8 R Fujifilm XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS Fujifilm XF 55-200mm F3.5-4.8 R LM OIS Fujifilm XF 27mm F2.8
nixda
Senior MemberPosts: 1,876Gear list
Re: Now it is clear as light
In reply to John Carson, 7 months ago

John Carson wrote:

nixda wrote:

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

It is not clear. If that is the motivation, why not also do it at low ISO?

-- hide signature --

john carson

Sorry, my comment was tongue-in-cheek. But what you suggest, many celebrity, magazine, and fashion photographers do every day.

 nixda's gear list:nixda's gear list
Fujifilm X-E1 Fujifilm XF 14mm F2.8 R Fujifilm XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS Fujifilm XF 55-200mm F3.5-4.8 R LM OIS Fujifilm XF 27mm F2.8
Lakeview Man
Regular MemberPosts: 252Gear list
Re: Who is at fault for the waxy skin tones?
In reply to nonicks, 7 months ago

nonicks wrote:

Shoot Raw. Or tune down the noise reduction to -2 for Jpeg.

-2 noise reduction for JPEG doesn't help if high ISO. Shooting raw is the only solution in that case

-- hide signature --
 Lakeview Man's gear list:Lakeview Man's gear list
Canon EOS 7D Fujifilm X-T1 Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM +10 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads