Who is at fault for the waxy skin tones? Locked

Started 9 months ago | Discussions
This thread is locked.
Joel Stern
Forum ProPosts: 10,429Gear list
Re: Now it is clear as light
In reply to nixda, 9 months ago

nixda wrote:

Joel Stern 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.

What about the claims by others that NR is being allied to RAW at all ISO settings?

As far as I understand, the demosaicing algorithm with it's interpolation and associated averaging automatically leads to some sort of noise reduction. There does not seem to be any active noise reduction on top of it. There mud be a similar effect for demosaicing the Bayer CFA, but perhaps less than for the X-Trans CFA.

To be honest I notice in when I compare images in the DPR comparison tool, when I am processing images it hardly seems to be an issue. I wonder what they are using for their RAW files, the representation of the Fuji Xtrans is terrible.

-- hide signature --

If i am typing on my iPad, please excuse any typos.

Joel Stern
Forum ProPosts: 10,429Gear list
Sal and others Re: Fuji just needs to be made aware...
In reply to Sal Baker, 9 months ago

Sal Baker wrote:

Joel Stern wrote:

Tapper123 wrote:

mistermejia wrote:

Is it Fuji itself ??

Yes, and I think it's on purpose. Having read that recent interview it was said that Fuji had many female customers in Asia who prefer "dreamy" soft/smooth looking portraits, which is opposite what Western customers prefer.

Fuji is very good at responding to customer needs, so we just have to find a way to let Fuji know that options for much less or even no NR at high ISO is highly desirable to their Western markets.

For a start, sites like DPreview and others need to use their contacts with Fuji to communicate this on behalf of the user base.

I'm pretty sure a firmware update could resolve this complaint pretty effectively. Just a matter of adding more NR options really. And Fuji is king of firmware updates.

What about the presence of NR in RAW files? Why do they do this?

I don't know that they do, I haven't seen it. Could you please post some examples of what you're talking about?

Sal

Sal, just go to the comparison tools and pick 4 cameras and have them show them in RAW (in DPR of course), you will see what I am talking about, the lowest to the highest ISO's)

Here are two links, one for XE1, the other for XE2

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/studio-compare?utm_campaign=internal-link&utm_source=mainmenu&utm_medium=text&ref=mainmenu

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison?utm_campaign=internal-link&utm_source=mainmenu&utm_medium=text&ref=mainmenu

This will show you what I mean.

-- hide signature --

If i am typing on my iPad, please excuse any typos.

Lyle From Canada
Senior MemberPosts: 1,373
Re: Sal and others Re: Fuji just needs to be made aware...
In reply to Joel Stern, 9 months ago

fwiw i shot 16 weddings in 2013, all in jpeg, all with 2 canon 6d's and fuji xpro1

-- hide signature --

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

Sal Baker
Veteran MemberPosts: 7,832Gear list
Re: Sal and others Re: Fuji just needs to be made aware...
In reply to Joel Stern, 9 months ago

Joel Stern wrote:

Sal Baker wrote:

Joel Stern wrote:

Tapper123 wrote:

mistermejia wrote:

Is it Fuji itself ??

Yes, and I think it's on purpose. Having read that recent interview it was said that Fuji had many female customers in Asia who prefer "dreamy" soft/smooth looking portraits, which is opposite what Western customers prefer.

Fuji is very good at responding to customer needs, so we just have to find a way to let Fuji know that options for much less or even no NR at high ISO is highly desirable to their Western markets.

For a start, sites like DPreview and others need to use their contacts with Fuji to communicate this on behalf of the user base.

I'm pretty sure a firmware update could resolve this complaint pretty effectively. Just a matter of adding more NR options really. And Fuji is king of firmware updates.

What about the presence of NR in RAW files? Why do they do this?

I don't know that they do, I haven't seen it. Could you please post some examples of what you're talking about?

Sal

Sal, just go to the comparison tools and pick 4 cameras and have them show them in RAW (in DPR of course), you will see what I am talking about, the lowest to the highest ISO's)

Here are two links, one for XE1, the other for XE2

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/studio-compare?utm_campaign=internal-link&utm_source=mainmenu&utm_medium=text&ref=mainmenu

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison?utm_campaign=internal-link&utm_source=mainmenu&utm_medium=text&ref=mainmenu

This will show you what I mean.

All this shows is how RAW files look after being converted to jpegs in Adobe Camera RAW.  It doesn't reflect on whether or not RAW files have baked-in NR.  What was the NR and sharpness settings in the RAW converter?  The notes only say "standard development."  Did they adjust the cameras to look the same or did they just rely on Adobe defaults?

Quite frankly, I don't know how anyone would prove or disprove that any RAW file has baked-in processing as you can't see RAW, only converted RAW.  The DPS samples could be adjusted in the RAW converter to look identical by minute changes in the NR and/or sharpness sliders, but which one is the "correct" one?  

Sal

 Sal Baker's gear list:Sal Baker's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark II Canon EOS 350D Fujifilm X-E2 Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM +5 more
Chris Dodkin
Veteran MemberPosts: 6,066Gear list
*** MOD NOTE ***
In reply to mistermejia, 9 months ago

As with the other thread - you all need to back it down, keep it civil, lay off the personal attacks, stay on topic.

Many thanks,

Chris.

-- hide signature --

http://f-sunny.com
The future is just a click away...

 Chris Dodkin's gear list:Chris Dodkin's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix X100 Canon EOS 5D Mark II Canon EOS-1D Canon EOS-1D Mark II Canon EOS 30D +34 more
Midwest
Forum ProPosts: 13,979
Re: Who is at fault for the waxy skin tones?
In reply to TThorne, 9 months ago

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.

Exactly. It's like buying a $1000 Cuisinart mixer to make whip cream. JPG's should be good of course but if it's worth spending $$$ on a really good camera - to get great photos - then it's worth a bit of PP'ing to make sure the white balance etc. are perfect for the subject, which is something the camera can't always ascertain.

mistermejia
Senior MemberPosts: 2,913Gear list
Midwest and TThorne...
In reply to Midwest, 9 months ago

Midwest 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.

Exactly. It's like buying a $1000 Cuisinart mixer to make whip cream. JPG's should be good of course but if it's worth spending $$$ on a really good camera - to get great photos - then it's worth a bit of PP'ing to make sure the white balance etc. are perfect for the subject, which is something the camera can't always ascertain.

... It is not ALWAYS necessary to shoot raw to get nice photos. I'm talking about "everyday photos" like family, friends, vacation, the dog, you know, whatever.

I don't want to shoot raw for photos of my 5 year old running around naked, what for!??

Again, the issue is that fuji is known for their GREAT jpegs, specially the more natural look of people's skins, so why mess that up??

I mean, RAW is already there for people to make the skin look as much plasticky as they want, but why mess up something so precious as "almost perfect SOOC jpegs"?? Only fuji has this, so why would fuji be STUPID enough to mess their own reputation on this??? Heck, even better, let this be an OPTION for one to turn noise reduction On/Off.

RAW is just an option to get all creative and to do WHATEVER one feels like doing with their photos, and for repairing a photo as well, but i personally wish not to shoot raw all the time

In the end, this is why i got the XE1 to begin with. If i'm going to HAVE to shoot raw then i rather get the 24MP Pentax K3 or a Canon with their awesome video.

 mistermejia's gear list:mistermejia's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix S5 Pro Fujifilm X-E1 Rokinon 85mm F1.4 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G Fujifilm XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS +4 more
BillyInya
Senior MemberPosts: 1,336Gear list
Re: Who is at fault for the waxy skin tones?
In reply to TThorne, 9 months ago

TThorne wrote:

BillyInya wrote:

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.

Typical Billy. Gets into a corner and starts repeating some mantra without addressing anything in the post. You are so predictable.

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.

I am not convinced you are a photographer of any sort, nor that you own any cameras. There, I said it.

That's the way. You are caught out yourself so what do you do ... say it back. Hmmm, very original.

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.

Actually, you seem to be the one who is misrepresenting the conversation. I am not discussing the merits so much of the camera so much as I am saying that an 8 bit jpeg container does not hold the information that a raw file does, and that is an irrefutable fact.

The irony here is that you will argue against that fact, and then turn around and start pumping out drivel about how a few PDAF pixels reduce resolution in new X series cameras and make the older models superior. You are the laughing stock of this forum.

Not in the slightest. This is all about you lecturing us on the merits of a camera you do not own, you have not used and have no idea about. And you have been caught out big time.

You don't know that when you compare a jpeg out of an S3Pro or S5Pro with a processed RAW file, the difference can in some instances be so minimal there is little reason to labour away with shooting RAW at all. You have no idea of the absolutely sublime jpeg quality that is possible out of the S3Pro or S5Pro because you have not experienced it, yet, you feel qualified to "tell" us and "argue" points. It is both hilarious and sad at the same time.

I am sorry but you are way out of your depth if you think you can lecture me or the community on the S3Pro or S5Pro without ever owning or using one. I suspect many will agree with me on this.

So, may I makje a polite suggestion, pause for a moment and think before jumping in and embarrassing yourself in the future.

 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
Joel Stern
Forum ProPosts: 10,429Gear list
Re: Sal and others Re: Fuji just needs to be made aware...
In reply to Sal Baker, 9 months ago

Sal Baker wrote:

Joel Stern wrote:

Sal Baker wrote:

Joel Stern wrote:

Tapper123 wrote:

mistermejia wrote:

Is it Fuji itself ??

Yes, and I think it's on purpose. Having read that recent interview it was said that Fuji had many female customers in Asia who prefer "dreamy" soft/smooth looking portraits, which is opposite what Western customers prefer.

Fuji is very good at responding to customer needs, so we just have to find a way to let Fuji know that options for much less or even no NR at high ISO is highly desirable to their Western markets.

For a start, sites like DPreview and others need to use their contacts with Fuji to communicate this on behalf of the user base.

I'm pretty sure a firmware update could resolve this complaint pretty effectively. Just a matter of adding more NR options really. And Fuji is king of firmware updates.

What about the presence of NR in RAW files? Why do they do this?

I don't know that they do, I haven't seen it. Could you please post some examples of what you're talking about?

Sal

Sal, just go to the comparison tools and pick 4 cameras and have them show them in RAW (in DPR of course), you will see what I am talking about, the lowest to the highest ISO's)

Here are two links, one for XE1, the other for XE2

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/studio-compare?utm_campaign=internal-link&utm_source=mainmenu&utm_medium=text&ref=mainmenu

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison?utm_campaign=internal-link&utm_source=mainmenu&utm_medium=text&ref=mainmenu

This will show you what I mean.

All this shows is how RAW files look after being converted to jpegs in Adobe Camera RAW. It doesn't reflect on whether or not RAW files have baked-in NR. What was the NR and sharpness settings in the RAW converter? The notes only say "standard development." Did they adjust the cameras to look the same or did they just rely on Adobe defaults?

Quite frankly, I don't know how anyone would prove or disprove that any RAW file has baked-in processing as you can't see RAW, only converted RAW. The DPS samples could be adjusted in the RAW converter to look identical by minute changes in the NR and/or sharpness sliders, but which one is the "correct" one?

Sal

Thanks Sal, and that is the point, what is DPR doing here.  Strange.

-- hide signature --

If i am typing on my iPad, please excuse any typos.

forpetessake
Senior MemberPosts: 3,870
Re: Fuji just needs to be made aware...
In reply to Joel Stern, 9 months ago

Joel Stern wrote:

Tapper123 wrote:

mistermejia wrote:

Is it Fuji itself ??

Yes, and I think it's on purpose. Having read that recent interview it was said that Fuji had many female customers in Asia who prefer "dreamy" soft/smooth looking portraits, which is opposite what Western customers prefer.

Fuji is very good at responding to customer needs, so we just have to find a way to let Fuji know that options for much less or even no NR at high ISO is highly desirable to their Western markets.

For a start, sites like DPreview and others need to use their contacts with Fuji to communicate this on behalf of the user base.

I'm pretty sure a firmware update could resolve this complaint pretty effectively. Just a matter of adding more NR options really. And Fuji is king of firmware updates.

What about the presence of NR in RAW files? Why do they do this?

It's a part of demosaicing algorithm.

Joel Stern
Forum ProPosts: 10,429Gear list
Re: Fuji just needs to be made aware...
In reply to forpetessake, 9 months ago

forpetessake wrote:

Joel Stern wrote:

Tapper123 wrote:

mistermejia wrote:

Is it Fuji itself ??

Yes, and I think it's on purpose. Having read that recent interview it was said that Fuji had many female customers in Asia who prefer "dreamy" soft/smooth looking portraits, which is opposite what Western customers prefer.

Fuji is very good at responding to customer needs, so we just have to find a way to let Fuji know that options for much less or even no NR at high ISO is highly desirable to their Western markets.

For a start, sites like DPreview and others need to use their contacts with Fuji to communicate this on behalf of the user base.

I'm pretty sure a firmware update could resolve this complaint pretty effectively. Just a matter of adding more NR options really. And Fuji is king of firmware updates.

What about the presence of NR in RAW files? Why do they do this?

It's a part of demosaicing algorithm.

Saw that, so it is the program you use...

-- hide signature --

If i am typing on my iPad, please excuse any typos.

TThorne
Senior MemberPosts: 2,608Gear list
Re: Don't Argue with TThorne, he's an industry established head of photography <nt>
In reply to taz98spin, 9 months ago

taz98spin wrote:

TThorne wrote:

taz98spin wrote:

forpetessake 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?

Yes, how many? Do you have any statistical data? Are we all just rehashing our limited experiences? In my limited experience I haven't seen a single wedding photographer shooting raw. If you ask them you get an obvious answer: time is money!

-- hide signature --

Real mature. You should go around telling people how much you wish you made some more.

-- hide signature --

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

What's wrong? You are head of photography, are you not?

I am. This is true. But it has no bearing on whether or not someone should argue or give their opinion in any matter. You wanted to count off some pros that shoot jpeg, and tell us how you know. I did the exact same thing, and told you how I know. Now you seem to want to turn around and poke fun at it.

Then you decide to turn around and advertise your earnings to everyone here as if they were something to brag about.

I did you a favor and advised forpetessake not to argue with you.

Or do you want to argue and get another "win" to boost your ego?

You are just being sore about the entire thing, and yes, you do want to carry on about how jpeg is some pro standard. Another member clearly posted a great example of how jpegs are used professionally, and I totally agree. I even said that I would love to be a jpeg shooter myself, but it just doesn't work out for the best that way with everything, and that a great majority of pros feel the same way.

That wasn't good enough for you, so it begs the question, what is? Well, like I said, you set out to make it look like jpeg is some pro standard, and it is not. You implied incorrectly, and now you are acting out because it is your only out. Bravo.

-- 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
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 III Leica M Typ 240 Sony Alpha 7S Leica M-Monochrom Leica Summilux-M 21mm f/1.4 Asph +7 more
TThorne
Senior MemberPosts: 2,608Gear list
Re: Who is at fault for the waxy skin tones?
In reply to BillyInya, 9 months ago

BillyInya wrote:

TThorne wrote:

BillyInya wrote:

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.

Typical Billy. Gets into a corner and starts repeating some mantra without addressing anything in the post. You are so predictable.

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.

I am not convinced you are a photographer of any sort, nor that you own any cameras. There, I said it.

That's the way. You are caught out yourself so what do you do ... say it back. Hmmm, very original.

Caught doing what? Telling people that Raw files contain more data than jpeg? Okay, you got me Billy.

I never said I own an S5, but you may be in for a little surprise here in the very near future. Just because I can.

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.

Actually, you seem to be the one who is misrepresenting the conversation. I am not discussing the merits so much of the camera so much as I am saying that an 8 bit jpeg container does not hold the information that a raw file does, and that is an irrefutable fact.

The irony here is that you will argue against that fact, and then turn around and start pumping out drivel about how a few PDAF pixels reduce resolution in new X series cameras and make the older models superior. You are the laughing stock of this forum.

Not in the slightest. This is all about you lecturing us on the merits of a camera you do not own, you have not used and have no idea about. And you have been caught out big time.

Again, caught doing what exactly? Did I say at the time that I owned one? Or did I ACCURATELY say that one of the merits of the camera was it's awesome highlight recovery in Raw.

Hey, guess what? As a Porsche 911 Turbo guy, I do not own a Ferarri 458 Italia, so is it wrong for me to say that it has been tested to run 0-60 in 3 seconds?

You don't know that when you compare a jpeg out of an S3Pro or S5Pro with a processed RAW file, the difference can in some instances be so minimal there is little reason to labour away with shooting RAW at all. You have no idea of the absolutely sublime jpeg quality that is possible out of the S3Pro or S5Pro because you have not experienced it, yet, you feel qualified to "tell" us and "argue" points. It is both hilarious and sad at the same time.

So which points were hilarious and sad Billy?

1) Raw files contain more data than jpeg?

2) S5 Highlight recovery from a Raw file exceeds that of the jpeg?

Funny, because these points have been made countless times all over the internet, and they can be linked too for days, but because I have not owned the camera, I am not qualified to discuss these points? So I won't find you out there on DPR talking about the merits of the XT1, or Leica, or any other camera then that you have not "claimed" to own yet? I'm sure a simple search will turn up some good answers to that question.

The only thing hilarious and sad is that you claim one can not discuss the merits of the camera based on countless reviews over years and tons of photographers who have used the S5/S3. I will happily point out from now on when you discuss the merits of cameras that you do not "claim" to own, since that seems to be a rule for you.

I am sorry but you are way out of your depth if you think you can lecture me or the community on the S3Pro or S5Pro without ever owning or using one. I suspect many will agree with me on this.

Great, lets find someone then Billy.

So, may I makje a polite suggestion, pause for a moment and think before jumping in and embarrassing yourself in the future.

You are the only embarrassing thing on this forum, and more and more people are saying it. Even a DPR staff member talks with me about it in PM.

The S5/S3 has better DR in jpegs than most any other camera out there, even today, but once it's blown, you will not get the leniency that you will from the Raw file. That is a FACT.

-- 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
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 III Leica M Typ 240 Sony Alpha 7S Leica M-Monochrom Leica Summilux-M 21mm f/1.4 Asph +7 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads