Reading mode: Light Dark

Do I need to change software??

Go to last post
M

mistermejia

Senior Member
Messages
3,340
Solutions
2
Reaction score
650
I need your advice.

I just took these two photos in RAW a couple minutes ago. To me the clouds from the S5 simply look better. They just look real and nicer to me, vs the clouds from my XE1 i'm not pleased at all.

Many here have thrown it on my face that the XE1 is superior to the S5, or that I just don't know how to use the camera. I respect those opinions, but I just disagree. Now, this is the thing: Is this a "software" issue? Is it the software what could be the problem here?

The reason why I ask is because months ago i did compare LR vs Photoninja and Photoninja's output results for this sort of thing is VERY bad. I do know for a fact that all the software that is out there behaves differently, and MOST of the time when I compare my images from the S5 vs the XE1, the S5 simply wins, for what I do that is. Note that I don't pixle peep any larger than maybe 50% on this images. I don't print large. But the difference between the clouds I clearly see it.

I don't know, but I just feel that I am not seeing or getting the full potential of my XE1. Do I need to maybe invest in a Mac pc to get FULL advantage of this Xtrans sensor? This is exactly why I haven't invested in Fuji ALL THE WAY.



 
Last edited:
mistermejia said:
rmrcu said:
Hi mistermejia,

My initial response was that you should shoot with the camera whose results you prefer, but I think you're wondering why a "superior" camera is giving you results you like less than your S5.

First, to my eye the two images are very close in terms of color. The difference in the cloud rendering could easily be caused by the fact the two scenes are different, and that the clouds actually looked different.
Click to expand...
Hahahahaha!!! Come on, clouds are clouds. I took the shot with one camera, then I went to the next one.
mistermejia said:
Second, the two cameras have different internal software so they process the images differently.
Click to expand...
Yes indeed sir. They do have different internal software AND hardware.
mistermejia said:
Third, the lenses appear to be different so they would transmit light differently.
Click to expand...
So, what do you mean by this? Is the sigma lens better than the Fuji lens?
Click to expand...
Sigma? Are you not aware that lenses from different manufacturers tend to produce their own colors? Your gear list shows that among others you own/use Nikon and Rokinon lenses but from what you've written, it appears that the S5Pro photo in your OP was shot using a Sigma lens. On my Nikon bodies my Sigma lenses produce warmer colors than my Nikon lenses so I searched to see what other people think. I found one guy thought that Sigma produced cooler colors but in that thread he was quickly rebutted by a photographer that said that he was mistaken. Everyone else agreed that Sigma colors were warmer. Here are two of those :
mistermejia said:
Hmm - this isn't going to be an obvious "no brainer" like one is cheaper or one focuses faster - but the biggest distinction IMO between Sigma and Nikon or Canon lenses is that the Sigma lenses just don't render as much color or contrast. It's hard to understand this until you've used a few. The sigma's will usually yield a more yellow/orange warmer picture.
Click to expand...
http://wetpixel.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=14536

.
mistermejia said:
Every company that makes lenses has different design tendencies (goals) which often come from different decision making processes. Some of these things show up in ways that we can easily distinguish, some don’t. For example, Sigma lenses tend to use a glass that’s a little warmer in rendering colors than Nikon. Tokina lenses tend to be a little more magenta/cooler in rendering than Nikon glass. Yes, the color of the glass and coatings used in a lens is yet another factor we have to consider. Each company has its own sources for glass and its own recipe for coatings, and those factors influence what they can do in lens designs, too. One reason I don’t tend to use many third party lenses in my own kits is that they don’t always mix well color-wise. I once had a Tokina lens I really liked (it was wicked sharp), but I could spot every shot I took with it on the light table looking at slides simply from the color shift. Professional photographers use discipline to seek consistency, so I disciplined the Tokina by selling it into prosumer slavery somewhere in Michigan.
Click to expand...
http://www.bythom.com/rationallenses.htm

.

In my opinion you've been invested so long in thinking and claiming that the S5Pro's colors are the benchmark for great color that any differences you find between the S5Pro's color rendering and the colors from other cameras will have you automatically giving a thumb's up to the S5Pro's photos over the alternative. But if you've (apparently) shot with 2 or 3 or more brands of lenses on the S5Pro, have you ever been so adamant that one lens brand is rubbish because it doesn't produce the same colors as a lens from a different manufacturer?

You also don't know how to properly compare photos that are shot using different cameras/lenses. You SHOULD NOT use the same aperture, shutter speed and ISO. That may be a good starting point but if that's what you do, use the base ISO with each camera and then (if you're using Aperture Priority, for example) take at least 5 photos using small amounts of exposure compensation or shoot in Manual mode and adjust the shutter speed. Then compare the best photo for either camera with the photo shot with the other camera that produced a photo with the same/similar brightness. You should also make sure that if you're shooting on a sunny day with moving clouds that can change the lighting in a matter of seconds, that you don't let changing light wreck your comparisons, so you might have to stop shooting from time to time if the light changes.

.
mistermejia said:
mistermejia said:
However, it would take only a little manipulation of the XE1 image to make it look more like the S5 rendering--probably slightly less exposure and a bit more contrast.
Click to expand...
Maybe, but then this is the problem I keep seeing. If I decrease exposure my whole picture gets darker, then I start messing with shadows and the IQ drops. You know what I'm saying?
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, yes. As I've indicated above, you should try to get the same brightness SOOC, not by messing with shadows (or anything else) in your photo editor.

While I've got your attention, could you please change your DPR profile to allow us to download your "original" gallery photos? You haven't done that and until you do, DPR strips out most your photo's EXIF data. Make the change and in addition to the gallery Small, Medium and Large links, we'll also see an "Original" link, and that will include whatever EXIF data remained in your photos at the time they were uploaded.
 
Last edited:
John Carson said:
mistermejia said:
I need your advice.

I just took these two photos in RAW a couple minutes ago. To me the clouds from the S5 simply look better. They just look real and nicer to me, vs the clouds from my XE1 i'm not pleased at all.

Many here have thrown it on my face that the XE1 is superior to the S5, or that I just don't know how to use the camera. I respect those opinions, but I just disagree. Now, this is the thing: Is this a "software" issue? Is it the software what could be the problem here?

The reason why I ask is because months ago i did compare LR vs Photoninja and Photoninja's output results for this sort of thing is VERY bad. I do know for a fact that all the software that is out there behaves differently, and MOST of the time when I compare my images from the S5 vs the XE1, the S5 simply wins, for what I do that is. Note that I don't pixle peep any larger than maybe 50% on this images. I don't print large. But the difference between the clouds I clearly see it.

I don't know, but I just feel that I am not seeing or getting the full potential of my XE1. Do I need to maybe invest in a Mac pc to get FULL advantage of this Xtrans sensor? This is exactly why I haven't invested in Fuji ALL THE WAY.



Click to expand...
You seem to be talking about something highly subjective. The S5 has a noisy sky with obvious JPEG artifacts. The S5 foreground has less detail. As for the clouds, they have changed shape significantly from one shot to the next, affecting the patterns of light, so maybe you just like the clouds in the S5 shot.
Click to expand...
I am not talking about noise or this or that. I'm talking plainly about the reproduction of the clouds on the XE1. Yes, the clouds moved a bit, wind moves them. But this were not taken seconds apart. Again, clouds are clouds and this difference you are talking about has nothing to do with the "pattern of light".

When I saw the images I was impressed as to how fake the clouds look compared to what I was seeing when I was there. The clouds from the S5 look more real, the way I saw them when I was there. That is why I was wondering if LR is the cause of this. The XE1 is much newer and has more resolution. I think the image should look way better than the S5.

This is not an exposure thing and this is not rocket science to understand or see the difference. I think RANDY is the one that has ADD.
John Carson said:
If you play around with contrast, exposure etc. you might get something you like better. I'm not seeing any advantage for the S5.

--
john carson
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
papillon_65 said:
In my experience different lenses can play a part in this. High quality lenses often give you a bit better contrast, which might explain the difference. The clouds in the S5 shot definitely have higher contrast. You can sometimes equalise this by using software gradient filters such as the one in Lightroom. I use Nik Color Efex which has some nice gradient filters in it and can make a noticeable difference, or the tonal contrast tool which you can use selectively very easily. A graduated neutral density filter could also give you better results if this is important to you.
Click to expand...
 
mistermejia said:
When I saw the images I was impressed as to how fake the clouds look compared to what I was seeing when I was there. The clouds from the S5 look more real, the way I saw them when I was there. That is why I was wondering if LR is the cause of this. The XE1 is much newer and has more resolution. I think the image should look way better than the S5.
Click to expand...
The only way to improve the IQ of your X-E1 is to wear the same rose-coloured glasses you wear when you view your S5 images.
 
mistermejia said:
Randy Benter said:
mistermejia said:
Randy Benter said:
It seems you did the same thing in this comparison that you did last time. You shoot both cameras at the same aperture and shutter speed, but you use ISO100 on the S5 and ISO200 on the X-E1. Then you wonder why the S5 seems to have better highlight retention.

Isnt it obvious that you should equalize these settings before doing a comparison? You should either set the S5 to ISO200 or cut the X-E1 exposure time in half.
Click to expand...
I'm glad you mention this. Yes this is the second time some one tells me about not using is 100 on the Xe1. How do you select is 100 on the xe1? When I select RAW the Xe1 automatically uses is 200. Let me see if I can change that manually some how. I will look into this now. Thanks.

When i had recently purchased the Xe1 a while ago, I remember reading here that the best is setting is is 200. Is that statement false?
Click to expand...
Base ISO of the X-E1 is ISO200 and Yes, that's the best setting. That's why I suggested changing the S5 to ISO200. If you want to use both cameras at base ISO, then you can give the X-E1 half the exposure time.
Click to expand...
Okay. So the XE1 best setting is at iso 200. So this is the second time some one, including yourself, tell me to shoot my S5 at ISO 200. Why would I want to shoot my S5 at ISO 200 when I can shoot at 100??
Click to expand...
I think what the response is pointing out is that the X shot has twice the exposure of the S shot. Try exposing each sensor for the same EV and compare results
 
Randy Benter said:
mistermejia said:
When I saw the images I was impressed as to how fake the clouds look compared to what I was seeing when I was there. The clouds from the S5 look more real, the way I saw them when I was there. That is why I was wondering if LR is the cause of this. The XE1 is much newer and has more resolution. I think the image should look way better than the S5.
Click to expand...
The only way to improve the IQ of your X-E1 is to wear the same rose-coloured glasses you wear when you view your S5 images.
Click to expand...
You know what? I never thought about that. Yes it must be my rose-coloured glasses!

Thanks Randy!
 
mistermejia said:
Randy Benter said:
mistermejia said:
When I saw the images I was impressed as to how fake the clouds look compared to what I was seeing when I was there. The clouds from the S5 look more real, the way I saw them when I was there. That is why I was wondering if LR is the cause of this. The XE1 is much newer and has more resolution. I think the image should look way better than the S5.
Click to expand...
The only way to improve the IQ of your X-E1 is to wear the same rose-coloured glasses you wear when you view your S5 images.
Click to expand...
You know what? I never thought about that. Yes it must be my rose-coloured glasses!

Thanks Randy!
Click to expand...
If you took the X-E1 raw into Lightroom you could have dialed back the White slider and the Highlight slider to tone down the whites of the clouds. Not just Exposure. Or did you?
 
toomanycanons said:
mistermejia said:
Randy Benter said:
mistermejia said:
When I saw the images I was impressed as to how fake the clouds look compared to what I was seeing when I was there. The clouds from the S5 look more real, the way I saw them when I was there. That is why I was wondering if LR is the cause of this. The XE1 is much newer and has more resolution. I think the image should look way better than the S5.
Click to expand...
The only way to improve the IQ of your X-E1 is to wear the same rose-coloured glasses you wear when you view your S5 images.
Click to expand...
You know what? I never thought about that. Yes it must be my rose-coloured glasses!

Thanks Randy!
Click to expand...
If you took the X-E1 raw into Lightroom you could have dialed back the White slider and the Highlight slider to tone down the whites of the clouds. Not just Exposure. Or did you?
Click to expand...
As a matter of fact, yes I did toomanycanons! I'm glad you asked this. When I shot that scene in those settings, I had to slide the highlight bar all the way to -100 for the XE1. The S5 stayed at ZERO baby. The whites didn't help much so I left it at zero.

That's exactly my beef. If I keep touching up the S5, then the freaking S5 image still looks better. The files simply respond beautifully.

Doesn't fuji green colors or sharpness behave differently among different raw converters? Is it possible that this sort of cloud texture difference that I'm seeing be a raw converter thing as well?

I seriously doubt the "more fake" cloud look from the Xe1 has to do with exposure. I do want to try this in jpeg as Stacey suggested.

Anyway, it is what it is. Thanks.
 
mistermejia said:
papillon_65 said:
In my experience different lenses can play a part in this. High quality lenses often give you a bit better contrast, which might explain the difference. The clouds in the S5 shot definitely have higher contrast. You can sometimes equalise this by using software gradient filters such as the one in Lightroom. I use Nik Color Efex which has some nice gradient filters in it and can make a noticeable difference, or the tonal contrast tool which you can use selectively very easily. A graduated neutral density filter could also give you better results if this is important to you.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
mistermejia said:
toomanycanons said:
mistermejia said:
Randy Benter said:
mistermejia said:
When I saw the images I was impressed as to how fake the clouds look compared to what I was seeing when I was there. The clouds from the S5 look more real, the way I saw them when I was there. That is why I was wondering if LR is the cause of this. The XE1 is much newer and has more resolution. I think the image should look way better than the S5.
Click to expand...
The only way to improve the IQ of your X-E1 is to wear the same rose-coloured glasses you wear when you view your S5 images.
Click to expand...
You know what? I never thought about that. Yes it must be my rose-coloured glasses!

Thanks Randy!
Click to expand...
If you took the X-E1 raw into Lightroom you could have dialed back the White slider and the Highlight slider to tone down the whites of the clouds. Not just Exposure. Or did you?
Click to expand...
As a matter of fact, yes I did toomanycanons! I'm glad you asked this. When I shot that scene in those settings, I had to slide the highlight bar all the way to -100 for the XE1. The S5 stayed at ZERO baby. The whites didn't help much so I left it at zero.

That's exactly my beef. If I keep touching up the S5, then the freaking S5 image still looks better. The files simply respond beautifully.

Doesn't fuji green colors or sharpness behave differently among different raw converters? Is it possible that this sort of cloud texture difference that I'm seeing be a raw converter thing as well?

I seriously doubt the "more fake" cloud look from the Xe1 has to do with exposure. I do want to try this in jpeg as Stacey suggested.

Anyway, it is what it is. Thanks.
Click to expand...
Well, the White slider is what I use to tame too-white clouds with my X-A1. But I also find that exposing "differently" than with my Nikon DSLRs is key to getting exposures I want.
 
Pictures are worth a thousand words, I think it did an excellent job. Below is OOC Jpeg and then processed RAW. It has a "smart lighting" option that is awesome for fixing blown highlights. It's worth taking a look at this latest version.











--
Stacey
 
I am amazed. You took two different images in different directions at different times on a partially cloudy day in which lighting changes instantly and constantly and you are asking about software as if the images are comparable. You might as blame it on Nikon vs. Fuji lenses or some other nonsensical thing.
 
mistermejia said:
I am not talking about noise or this or that. I'm talking plainly about the reproduction of the clouds on the XE1. Yes, the clouds moved a bit, wind moves them. But this were not taken seconds apart. Again, clouds are clouds and this difference you are talking about has nothing to do with the "pattern of light".

When I saw the images I was impressed as to how fake the clouds look compared to what I was seeing when I was there. The clouds from the S5 look more real, the way I saw them when I was there. That is why I was wondering if LR is the cause of this. The XE1 is much newer and has more resolution. I think the image should look way better than the S5.
Click to expand...
Clouds don't have much fine detail (at least as seen from the ground), so resolution is largely irrelevant.

How they look has a lot to do with the way the sun illuminates them (the "pattern of light") and also with the way that the software handles light --- the level of contrast, both local and global or, more generally, the light gradient. Again, these are subtle features that may be adjusted by tweaking the controls.
 
mistermejia said:
I need your advice.

I just took these two photos in RAW a couple minutes ago. To me the clouds from the S5 simply look better. They just look real and nicer to me, vs the clouds from my XE1 i'm not pleased at all.

Many here have thrown it on my face that the XE1 is superior to the S5, or that I just don't know how to use the camera. I respect those opinions, but I just disagree. Now, this is the thing: Is this a "software" issue? Is it the software what could be the problem here?

The reason why I ask is because months ago i did compare LR vs Photoninja and Photoninja's output results for this sort of thing is VERY bad. I do know for a fact that all the software that is out there behaves differently, and MOST of the time when I compare my images from the S5 vs the XE1, the S5 simply wins, for what I do that is. Note that I don't pixle peep any larger than maybe 50% on this images. I don't print large. But the difference between the clouds I clearly see it.

I don't know, but I just feel that I am not seeing or getting the full potential of my XE1. Do I need to maybe invest in a Mac pc to get FULL advantage of this Xtrans sensor? This is exactly why I haven't invested in Fuji ALL THE WAY.



Click to expand...
Hi misterrmejia,

Not sure about RAW as I never needed to shoot RAW with my S3Pro but I have found very similar results to you when comparing my S3Pro with the X-E1 ooc jpeg's of the same scene.

The ooc jpegs's from the X-E1 are superb but I think the S3Pro Super CCD sensor delivers better quality in some circumstances still to this day.

I know this sounds crazy but I think Fuji achieved something truly remarkable with their unique S&R pixel sensor they plonked in the S3Pro and S5Pro.

:-)
 
papillon_65 said:
mistermejia said:
papillon_65 said:
In my experience different lenses can play a part in this. High quality lenses often give you a bit better contrast, which might explain the difference. The clouds in the S5 shot definitely have higher contrast. You can sometimes equalise this by using software gradient filters such as the one in Lightroom. I use Nik Color Efex which has some nice gradient filters in it and can make a noticeable difference, or the tonal contrast tool which you can use selectively very easily. A graduated neutral density filter could also give you better results if this is important to you.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
BillyInya said:
mistermejia said:
I need your advice.

I just took these two photos in RAW a couple minutes ago. To me the clouds from the S5 simply look better. They just look real and nicer to me, vs the clouds from my XE1 i'm not pleased at all.

Many here have thrown it on my face that the XE1 is superior to the S5, or that I just don't know how to use the camera. I respect those opinions, but I just disagree. Now, this is the thing: Is this a "software" issue? Is it the software what could be the problem here?

The reason why I ask is because months ago i did compare LR vs Photoninja and Photoninja's output results for this sort of thing is VERY bad. I do know for a fact that all the software that is out there behaves differently, and MOST of the time when I compare my images from the S5 vs the XE1, the S5 simply wins, for what I do that is. Note that I don't pixle peep any larger than maybe 50% on this images. I don't print large. But the difference between the clouds I clearly see it.

I don't know, but I just feel that I am not seeing or getting the full potential of my XE1. Do I need to maybe invest in a Mac pc to get FULL advantage of this Xtrans sensor? This is exactly why I haven't invested in Fuji ALL THE WAY.



Click to expand...
Hi misterrmejia,

Not sure about RAW as I never needed to shoot RAW with my S3Pro but I have found very similar results to you when comparing my S3Pro with the X-E1 ooc jpeg's of the same scene.

The ooc jpegs's from the X-E1 are superb but I think the S3Pro Super CCD sensor delivers better quality in some circumstances still to this day.

I know this sounds crazy but I think Fuji achieved something truly remarkable with their unique S&R pixel sensor they plonked in the S3Pro and S5Pro.

:-)
Click to expand...
That's for sure man!

For many other things I love the output of my XE1 as well, but for other things it just isn't. My S5 is not perfect either, for low light forget it, the XE1 smokes it. But I do admit that for most situations, the S5 is still ahead. The exposure all over the scene is just much much more balanced and it is soooooo easy to process.

Some one even told me that I have ADD. Can you believe that?! I liked that one a lot :-)

I do understand what all these folks here say regarding exposure, and I have tried it in multiple ocations. The trick and what i seem to have a hard time with is ALWAYS in situations like this. When I decrease exposure to get the clouds much better then what you see above, EVERYTHING that you see below (the landscape) darkens really bad. The result? The result is not what I was actually seeing when I was physically there, then I have to boost shadows big time, then I'm back to square one hahahahaha!!!

These Xtrans bodies, they are one tricky pony for sure and I'm having a real hard time getting used to this.

Don't get me wrong, I have seen many many drop dead gorgeous images from the XE1 and other Xtrans bodies, for example certain architectural scenes where this particular behavior with very DARK shaded areas look very cool and artistic. But dude, most of the time I just want the picture to come out the way my eyes are seeing it right there :-)

Take care. I'm done here.
 
Last edited:
mistermejia said:
BillyInya said:
mistermejia said:
I need your advice.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
:)

.
mistermejia said:
mistermejia said:
Hi misterrmejia,

Not sure about RAW as I never needed to shoot RAW with my S3Pro but I have found very similar results to you when comparing my S3Pro with the X-E1 ooc jpeg's of the same scene.

The ooc jpegs's from the X-E1 are superb but I think the S3Pro Super CCD sensor delivers better quality in some circumstances still to this day.

I know this sounds crazy but I think Fuji achieved something truly remarkable with their unique S&R pixel sensor they plonked in the S3Pro and S5Pro.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Crazy? No, not at all. For their day, the S3Pro and S5Pro had a significant DR advantage over other DSLRs of their time, up to two stops worth. Not so much today since sensors have improved, but for any doubting Thomases, read on :
mistermejia said:
Dynamic Range

The S5 Pro's marketing claim to fame is in holding dynamic range that other digital cameras can't. So the question is: are those marketing claims true? Yep, and more so than many people may think.

Basically, the expanded dynamic range generated by that extra set of photo diodes is a reliable two stops. Most DSLRs really max out around seven stops of dynamic range, but the Fujifilm easily attains nine. Depending upon how you evaluate noise in shadows, you may find that you can produce images with more than that.

Most interesting is that the expanded dynamic range all happens above middle gray, which is exactly where most DSLRs have their least capability (I've written before that most DSLRs are asymmetrical in their ability to capture values below and above middle gray). If you're dealing with wedding dresses, white bird plumage, or anything else that has detail at the top of the highlight range, the S5 Pro has the ability to pull in two more stops of that.

But it's more interesting than that. If you shoot raw files you have the ability to overexpose and recover in ways that you didn't before. Indeed, most of us shooting with the S5 Pro are starting to think like we did with negative film and intentionally overexpose. Here's why I harped on the channel histogram display before: generally you can overexpose any channel by up to two stops before you can't recover detail. Put another way, you could push exposure of the most exposed channel right up to that two stop barrier and still recover both detail and color information correctly. Go beyond that and you often can still recover detail, but you'll get uncontrollable color shifts.

Unfortunately, Fujifilm's converter only allows a one stop exposure correction. And the camera itself can't tell you the histogram of the S and R photo diodes separately (it should--then we'd be able to dial up our exposure right to the boundary or recovery).

JPEG shooters should be warned that using the expanded dynamic range will almost certainly result in the need for post processing (it's one of the reasons why the film simulations are built into the camera, I think, as they attempt to make other setting changes that bring the final photo pixels into something more "printable"; F2, for example, does a strong contrast boost, which can take out that dull look that expanded dynamic range sometimes produces. Simply put, nine stops of image capture exceeds what you can put down on paper, so you end up having to compress or restructure the dynamic range in post processing to get snappy, pleasing images in some cases. (This is where D-RANGE AUTO comes in: don't use more dynamic range capture than the scene has!)
Click to expand...
http://www.bythom.com/s5review.htm

.
mistermejia said:
For many other things I love the output of my XE1 as well, but for other things it just isn't. My S5 is not perfect either, for low light forget it, the XE1 smokes it. But I do admit that for most situations, the S5 is still ahead. The exposure all over the scene is just much much more balanced and it is soooooo easy to process.
Click to expand...
Only if you process JPEGs or do RAW PP that doesn't muck about with colors.

.
mistermejia said:
Some one even told me that I have ADD. Can you believe that?! I liked that one a lot :-)
Click to expand...
That's much milder and kinder than if someone said that you lacked critical thinking skills. You do tend to ignore some of the better information you're given, so maybe it's just that you don't pay much attention to what people say when they try to 'educate' you because you ASSUME that you know better and that they must therefore be incorrect.

.
mistermejia said:
I do understand what all these folks here say regarding exposure, and I have tried it in multiple ocations. The trick and what i seem to have a hard time with is ALWAYS in situations like this. When I decrease exposure to get the clouds much better then what you see above, EVERYTHING that you see below (the landscape) darkens really bad. The result? The result is not what I was actually seeing when I was physically there, then I have to boost shadows big time, then I'm back to square one hahahahaha!!!
Click to expand...
That's not as funny as you think it is. If wide DR is your problem there's a solution that was available before you were born. Haven't you ever heard of graduated ND filters? Clue: Many websites that post examples of their use show landscapes that have extremely wide dynamic ranges similar to your two examples, bright skies with clouds above much darker hills, valleys, nooks and crannies. Even an S5Pro can't tame extremely wide DR scenes so enter the graduated ND filter :

.
mistermejia said:
Graduated filters were used in the early twentieth century, for example for darkening skies in landscape photos.[2] One advertised brand was called the "Lifa graduated filters for sky, cloud, and landscape photography.[3] These "sky filters" were not necessarily neutral, since they were used for black-and-white photography, and sometimes used a yellow top half to darken blue skies more.[4] In a discussion at the Royal Photographic Society in 1910, some "debatants" held the use of such "graduated color screens" to be quite limited.[5]

In more modern times, the use of graduated ND filters was popularized by Galen Rowell. Singh-Ray sold them as "The Singh-Ray set of 4 Galen Rowell Graduated Neutral-Density Filters."[6]

Although its importance may have lessened with the advent of the modern digital darkroom, graduated ND filters are still an important tool for professionals because a digital sensor that is clipping ("blown out" or "washed out") captures no usable data in the clipped area, an effect which cannot be corrected with later processing because data has been lost.
Click to expand...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graduated_neutral_density_filter

.
mistermejia said:
These Xtrans bodies, they are one tricky pony for sure and I'm having a real hard time getting used to this.
Click to expand...
You also had a hard time using a flash with Fuji's X bodies and once again told everyone that the S5Pro was all good.

.
mistermejia said:
Don't get me wrong, I have seen many many drop dead gorgeous images from the XE1 and other Xtrans bodies, for example certain architectural scenes where this particular behavior with very DARK shaded areas look very cool and artistic. But dude, most of the time I just want the picture to come out the way my eyes are seeing it right there :-)
Click to expand...
Your two photos were only slightly different and I'm quite sure not at all like what your eyes saw "right there" unless your eyesight is much, much worse than most people's eyes.

.
mistermejia said:
Take care. I'm done here.
Click to expand...
You'd rather leave than learn? Color me not surprised but wow, it's your own thread that you're fleeing.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top