What is this waxy look people are talking about?

GodSpeaks said:

Vincent AF said:

I am on my cell phone now, but look at this kid's portrait from the Ken Rockwell review of the X-T2.

http://kenrockwell.com/fuji/x-t2.htm

Click to expand...

Sorry, but that is definitely NOT a waxy look.

I have seen 'waxy' looks before. Some say Canon cameras produce it by default, but I have seen no evidence of that either. What I have seen is over processed images that smooth out skin (blemishes) too much. All too often such images look artificial or waxy.

Click to expand...

KariP said:

KalleAnka said:

colombiano said:

There is waxyness in X-T1 jpeg files when ISO is 3200 and higher. One example of 100% crop from OOC jpeg at ISO6400, NR-2, sharpening 0. It's quite bad and I tend to not shoot people above ISO 2500 (where waxyness is not yet there).

Click to expand...

The T1 has an X-trans II sensor, for which the wax is discussed at length. The OP was about the T-20, which is an X-trans II sensor.

Click to expand...

Does the sensor produce the wax ? If it is the sensor the waxiness should be visible in RAW FILES ! Not just in jpegs.

"Waxyness" is probably a style decision (raw processing settings inside the camera) for jpegs - they in Fujifilm laboratories think it looks better than the noise. The models have not complained too much. Shooting RAW is easy if the wax disturbs.

Click to expand...

Batdude said:

Batdude said:

Alan Brown said:

Batdude said:

Vincent AF said:

herc182 said:

Vincent AF said:

Haikoman said:

It has more to do with any of the 16mp X-trans 2 cameras. Not x-trans 1 and 3. If you use the search engine you'll find enough threads about it to have to clear your schedule for the next week.

Basically it was over-aggressive noise reduction on the jpegs specifically, once you started to go higher in iso and with no option of switching it off. It did not affect Raw files.

The xt20 is x-trans 3 I believe so it shouldn't have that problem.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Emile15 said:

Mmm... Since Rockwell always photographs his kids when reviewing cameras what about the images of Ryan made by the Nikon D750 here: http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d750.htm or the D810 here: http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d810.htm

Taste plays an important role in photography but good skin colour is good skin colour and I'll have the Fuji's anytime (in fact Rockwell has claimed on numerous occasions that he prefers the Fuji's because of the way they render skin colour, but that is by the by).

Click to expand...

KalleAnka said:

colombiano said:

There is waxyness in X-T1 jpeg files when ISO is 3200 and higher. One example of 100% crop from OOC jpeg at ISO6400, NR-2, sharpening 0. It's quite bad and I tend to not shoot people above ISO 2500 (where waxyness is not yet there).

Click to expand...

The T1 has an X-trans II sensor, for which the wax is discussed at length. The OP was about the T-20, which is an X-trans II sensor.

Click to expand...

Vincent AF said:

John Motts said:

Vincent AF said:

RA40 said:

As a potential X-T2 or X-T20 buyer seeing this come up brought more curiosity. Pics of youthful types often skew my perceptions of skin smoothness. Their pores and lack of life/scars are almost ideal. Often I see that these lighter tones get blown to some extent by jpeg files, they seem very smooth. The Fuji term waxiness I could grasp. If using the film emulation this may also alter the contrast on such tones.

Would like to see more though maybe with males who often these days have that unshaved look then we get an idea of contrasting facial hair on skin.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Derek49 said:

herc182 said:

Hi

I just got the xt20 and see a lot of reports on the forum and elsewhere about waxy jpeg.

Question - what does that look like? Is it Iso sensitive and does it appear in raw? Basically not sure what the fuss is about. Thanks

Click to expand...

Well, it now 13 hours since the OP posted the question - strange no-one has yet provided a convincing sample despite all the fuss about this subject.

Click to expand...

JS Burnie said:

X-T20 is xtrans III.

Click to expand...

britcam said:

How about this - ISO 6400 JPG for waxy look.

For comparison, second pic converted from RAW





--
Regards
Rich S in Brittany (britcam)

Derek49 said:

herc182 said:

Hi

I just got the xt20 and see a lot of reports on the forum and elsewhere about waxy jpeg.

Question - what does that look like? Is it Iso sensitive and does it appear in raw? Basically not sure what the fuss is about. Thanks

Click to expand...

Well, it now 13 hours since the OP posted the question - strange no-one has yet provided a convincing sample despite all the fuss about this subject.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

herc182 said:

Vincent AF said:

herc182 said:

Peter Foiles said:

This is a good example of why people were asking for examples because seeing the same image people see different things. What I see is an image of a young person with a smooth complexion, nothing waxy at all. You clearly perceive it differently.

Click to expand...

I agree. I saw nothing there but a good photo and a kid with smooth skin!

Click to expand...

You know, if you don't see it in this shot, you will be just fine and shouldn't have any worries for your portrait photography. Just keep noise reduction at -2 and use as low an iso as you can. I notice not a lot of people percieve the issue like I do.

And for the record, I love my Fuji's and have no problem leaving my Nikon kit at home on travels and such. Just for professional portrait work, I prefer my Nikon, as I percieve that to give a more natural look that I like more.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

herc182 said:

herc182 said:

--
https://www.instagram.com/vincent__af/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/archetypefotografie/
http://www.archetypefotografie.nl

Click to expand...

And that's totally fine. Photography is so subjective and if for whatever reason something doesn't work in your eyes, that's fine. I was just curious about this waxy issue, and couldn't spot it. I actually wouldn't have bought the camera had I read into it in more detail on here, but glad I did!

Click to expand...

Threaded said:

Batdude said:

Member said:

Alan Brown said:

Batdude said:

Vincent AF said:

herc182 said:

Vincent AF said:

Haikoman said:

It has more to do with any of the 16mp X-trans 2 cameras. Not x-trans 1 and 3. If you use the search engine you'll find enough threads about it to have to clear your schedule for the next week.

Basically it was over-aggressive noise reduction on the jpegs specifically, once you started to go higher in iso and with no option of switching it off. It did not affect Raw files.

The xt20 is x-trans 3 I believe so it shouldn't have that problem.

--
Haig

Click to expand...

I disagree, I have seen this problem with alle three generations and there are reports it has to do with the x-trans sensor layout. It seems that at high iso's the waxy look is more pronounced, but I notice it also at low iso's. I am, besides Fujifilm, a Nikon user and an ex Olympus 4/3 user and I can say the Olympus was best at rendering realistic skin tones, the Nikons second and the Fuji third. Of course, it is also a matter of taste. I know some of my photography friends agree that the Fuji has a waxi look, but they like it, because it doesn't show all skin imperfections as much. For true portrait photography, I myself choose my Nikons though. It seems that at high iso's the waxy look is more pronounced, but I notice it also at low iso's.

--
https://www.instagram.com/vincent__af/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/archetypefotografie/
http://www.archetypefotografie.nl

Click to expand...

Do you have an example? Thanks

Click to expand...

I am on my cell phone now, but look at this kid's portrait from the Ken Rockwell review of the X-T2.

http://kenrockwell.com/fuji/x-t2.htm

--
https://www.instagram.com/vincent__af/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/archetypefotografie/
http://www.archetypefotografie.nl

Click to expand...

I too just shot some photos of my kid at home at only iso 3200 with 100% natural light and I was in shock to see a very pronounced plasticky look on the skin in jpeg, NR set to -3.

Click to expand...

Will be good to see these shots. I'm glad somone is actually going to put something fresh up.

Appreciate that.

Click to expand...

I'm so sorry Alan I don't have those photos. I was playing with the XT2 and returned it, then I erased those photos to use the SD card. i didn't even save them in my hard drive because they were just random shots.

How about if other plenty of XTrans III owners post some samples at those isos? I'm sure they must have plenty of samples.

Member said:

Member said:

I think that the only cameras that don't do that are the Xtrans I models.

Click to expand...

--
There is a very fine line between 'hobby' and 'mental illness.' :'!':

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Back when the new sensor appeared more than a year ago in the X-Pro2 there were plenty such samples being posted, and it was well established that the high ISO form of waxiness was history.

Now we're expected to accept that conclusion was wrong because you alone saw the evidence when you purchased the XT2 and then returned it (according to your other thread) - but it didn't occur to you to keep the pictures?

Click to expand...

Vincent AF said:

Emile15 said:

Mmm... Since Rockwell always photographs his kids when reviewing cameras what about the images of Ryan made by the Nikon D750 here: http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d750.htm or the D810 here: http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d810.htm

Taste plays an important role in photography but good skin colour is good skin colour and I'll have the Fuji's anytime (in fact Rockwell has claimed on numerous occasions that he prefers the Fuji's because of the way they render skin colour, but that is by the by).

Click to expand...

I know Rockwell likes the skin rendering best of the Fuji. And to be honoust, I am not impressed with the skin rendering in these examples of the Nikons. It seems like the aggressive noise reduction is largly to blame for the effect in these examples. They too look quite waxy to me. Maybe the old digital camera's like the Olympus, didn't have this aggressive noise reduction and therefore rendered skin more realistic. For me the differences are mostly noticeable at low iso though. I will try to do a comparison of skin rendering with low iso on my Nikon and Fuji camera's.

Click to expand...

Touraine said:

I had the same problem when I did a pro shoot of Becks and Posh in Madame Tussauds. David Beckham looked well waxy. But Posh looked less waxy than she does in real life. !!! Fuji sensor problem ?? No idea. Anyway, I got paid.

Another DP Review dumb thread.

Click to expand...

Batdude said:

Threaded said:

Batdude said:

Batdude said:

Alan Brown said:

Batdude said:

Vincent AF said:

herc182 said:

Vincent AF said:

Haikoman said:

It has more to do with any of the 16mp X-trans 2 cameras. Not x-trans 1 and 3. If you use the search engine you'll find enough threads about it to have to clear your schedule for the next week.

Basically it was over-aggressive noise reduction on the jpegs specifically, once you started to go higher in iso and with no option of switching it off. It did not affect Raw files.

The xt20 is x-trans 3 I believe so it shouldn't have that problem.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...