X100 raw vs. jpeg

Day Hiker

Forum Pro
Messages
11,113
Solutions
14
Reaction score
6,556
Location
Summit County, CO, US
I continue to be impressed with the photos I see from the X100. The current $999 USD price is very attractive.

My question:

I'm a raw shooter using Lr. Do I have to engage in jpeg shooting in order to get the very best image quality from the X100? I'm concerned that bypassing the X100 jpeg engine might defeat the best part of the Fuji image processing path.

What say you all?

Jim Pilcher
Bonita Springs, Florida, USA
 
Why not shoot RAW+JPG and see how you think the camera JPGs compare to your LR conversions?
 
I continue to be impressed with the photos I see from the X100. The current $999 USD price is very attractive.

My question:

I'm a raw shooter using Lr. Do I have to engage in jpeg shooting in order to get the very best image quality from the X100? I'm concerned that bypassing the X100 jpeg engine might defeat the best part of the Fuji image processing path.

What say you all?
The raws are fantastic as well. No worries with Lightroom.
 
I shoot both. The jpeg engine is really nice. The best OOC jpegs I've seen, but I can still get better from the RAW files. Not always that much better and for the most part I'm happy with 90% of the jpegs I get. So it's more like saving yourself the trouble by shooting jpeg+raw since you only have to deal with raw when you need to.

Just make sure you buy a fast 95mb/s card.
 
All JPEGs, in all digital cameras ever made, begin as RAW. In the end, it is which is more skilled—the camera or the photographer who is processing them.

--
larry!
http://www.larry-bolch.com/
 
To follow up on Jims question- what about in B&W? Any perceived difference than in color?
 
To follow up on Jims question- what about in B&W? Any perceived difference than in color?
Nope, in ACR's HSL tab, you have great control of eight channels to darken the sky, lighten the forest and so on while creating the monochrome version you want. Extremely versatile.

I found an unexpected bonus with B&W with the X-Pro1. I bought a Hoya R72 infrared filter, and by switching to monochrome settings, I get an accurate preview. IR has always been a tad unpredictable, so the next step was setting up film bracketing, so it would do a red, yellow and green filtered version. Shooting RAW+JPEG. RAW is not monochrome, and is about the colour of a colour negative, though with a positive image. Conversion to monochrome as above is no problem. Unfortunately, the X100 is not much sensitive in the infrared region.

--
larry!
http://www.larry-bolch.com/
 
The JPEGs of the X100 are excellent 98% of the time
In fact there are however a few cases where RAW is an asset :

1/- you need a big file to crop so here the biggest is the best (convert RAW to uncompressed TIFF

2/- you want to work in PP in BW THe RAW file will give you more latitude in the settings of your BW conversion avoiding some posterization effects
That said I found that the BW produced OOC were very good most of the time

3/-you want to get some more details (architecture, landscape with cropping) than in JPEG ; the limits here are however the only 12 megapix even if the combo lens + sensor is definitly excellent
--
Good judgment comes from experience
Experience comes from bad judgment
 
In my experience the X100 raw files only suffer when you intentionally underexpose by more than about 2 stops. I occasionally do this to keep shutter speeds up in extremely low light. The result of drastic under exposure is banding when you increase the exposure slider or lift the shadows.

Otherwise the raw files are a joy. Compared to the D700 raw, the X100 retains more highlight information and less shadow information. So I use slightly different exposure methods for each camera.

I have never been disappointed in a X100 raw file that was reasonably exposed. I use LR4.

I can't comment on jpegs as I never recorded a jpeg image with my X100.
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top