Reading mode: Light Dark

Looking to buy into Fujifim, one slight problem

Go to last post
R

RayGreen

New member
Messages
6
Reaction score
1
Looking to get back in to photography, and the form factor of the Fujifilm cameras and the prime lenses are calling me. However, the problem I have is image quality, and this was shown in the recent X-T3 review.

I always thought RAW produced the best images, but something's wrong. A few of the shots are in pairs, a camera jpeg and a RAW conversion, and comparing both shows the RAW is the poorer image. Look at the out of focus area behind the persons hair.

https://www.dpreview.com/sample-galleries/5370103067/fujifilm-x-t3-sample-gallery/5362671578

https://www.dpreview.com/sample-galleries/5370103067/fujifilm-x-t3-sample-gallery/4417667918

Is it because it's a beta version of Adobe Camera Raw, or the photographer who "edited it to taste"

Thanks,

Ray
 
Last edited:
More detail and more noise in the "edited to taste" raw file. The jpeg looks too smooth and the subject's face has very little definition. Perhaps the shot was somewhat underexposed and in-camera noise reduction was too high. I wouldn't be put off by this sample. That said, I don't usually use ISO higher than 1600 - or 3200 in a pinch (for my X-E3).
 
At least older Fujifilm cameras by default apply too heavy noise reduction to JPGs. On a glance and especially scaled down it may first seem like a better photo, but IMO often looks smudgy. On my X-T10, I have it permanently set to -2 (=lowest), and do the nr myself if I feel I need it.

On the 'Raw edited to taste' it says Adjustments limited to exposure parameters, color and contrast. Sharpening set to 25%. So there is no nr done on those, and at 6400ISO you should expect some noise.

Apart from smudgy nr, the 'problem' with Fuji JPGs is that they are usually so good that it will take lots of time and skill to match them from RAF. I nearly always end up liking the JPGs better.
 
Last edited:
ninjagowoo said:
Yep, depends on how you edit the raw file. That said, a lot of people like Fuji cameras specifically because of how good their jpgs are... So much so that Fuji actually released a tool (for your computer) that let's you process raws using the in camera engine: http://www.fujifilm.com/support/digital_cameras/software/x_raw_studio/mac/
Click to expand...
Yes Fuji jpegs are really good but other camera manufacturers have also improved drastically as well.

I haven't watched all videos regarding what X raw studio does but I saw this one and it clearly shows that most raw convertors (Lightroom in this case) produces just as good images and if there are differences sometimes they are insignificant and you will probably not see them specially if you are not blowing up your images at 100% or higher.

 
Hi,

I have a X-T2 and have no problem with sharpness with RAW files, even using Lightroom. If you use primes or the higher end zooms, than there is no real problem.

Check:

robert doeleman photography

Hi my name is Robert Doeleman. My photography ranges from landscape with sunrise and sunset photos mostly taken with long exposure times for "motion" capture, to nature and wild animals, wildlife. Man made objets fascinate me as well, architecture and urbex or urban exploring are also part
www.robertdoeleman.com www.robertdoeleman.com



Hope this helps

8d4968bf4c754a1f813415cc6fea7508.jpg



122e403d709a4129843d1c197dcf41eb.jpg



9c5ae09453854220a3cb55f8514b2bc6.jpg
 
Don't be concerned. I didn't see that review, but Fuji IQ is superb. RAW is better than OOC JPEG always. You know this. Carry on. You are worried about nothing.

Greg Johnson, San Antonio, Texas

Greg Johnson’s albums | Flickr

www.flickr.com www.flickr.com
 
Batdude said:
ninjagowoo said:
Yep, depends on how you edit the raw file. That said, a lot of people like Fuji cameras specifically because of how good their jpgs are... So much so that Fuji actually released a tool (for your computer) that let's you process raws using the in camera engine: http://www.fujifilm.com/support/digital_cameras/software/x_raw_studio/mac/
Click to expand...
Yes Fuji jpegs are really good but other camera manufacturers have also improved drastically as well.
Click to expand...
Absolutely. I prefer editing raws myself.
Batdude said:
I haven't watched all videos regarding what X raw studio does but I saw this one and it clearly shows that most raw convertors (Lightroom in this case) produces just as good images and if there are differences sometimes they are insignificant and you will probably not see them specially if you are not blowing up your images at 100% or higher.

Click to expand...
All X Raw Studio does (basically) is give you access to the in-camera jpg processing. So, say, if you had your camera set to shoot raw only, you can use the program to process jpgs the exact same way the camera would output to a memory card if you had set it to shoot jpg. Its controls/options are limited to the controls that you would find in-camera. It's probably more aimed at people who don't want to bother with in-depth editors like lightroom and similar... or maybe those who want to mess around with the film sims and the like to figure out their jpg settings. It's not really meant to compete with lightroom and other raw editors (or at least I hope it isn't). If someone is happy with in-camera jpgs though, it'll save them the hassle of buying/using lightroom or it's alternatives.
 
Thanks for all your replies. Looks like I'm already bought into the system, my Olympus OM to Fuji adaptor just turned up. X-E3 next.

Cheers,

Ray
 
RayGreen said:
Looking to get back in to photography, and the form factor of the Fujifilm cameras and the prime lenses are calling me. However, the problem I have is image quality, and this was shown in the recent X-T3 review.

I always thought RAW produced the best images, but something's wrong. A few of the shots are in pairs, a camera jpeg and a RAW conversion, and comparing both shows the RAW is the poorer image. Look at the out of focus area behind the persons hair.
Click to expand...
Look at any magazine article from the beginning of digital and the unsharpened basic RAW image without any work done by the user always looks a mess compared to the JPEG image. RAW is just a start point for the user to produce their own JPEG under their personal control. I cannot be bothered with doing it myself but in expert hands it is probably the only way to get optimum results.
RayGreen said:
https://www.dpreview.com/sample-galleries/5370103067/fujifilm-x-t3-sample-gallery/5362671578

https://www.dpreview.com/sample-galleries/5370103067/fujifilm-x-t3-sample-gallery/4417667918

Is it because it's a beta version of Adobe Camera Raw, or the photographer who "edited it to taste"

Thanks,

Ray
Click to expand...
 
ninjagowoo said:
Yep, depends on how you edit the raw file. That said, a lot of people like Fuji cameras specifically because of how good their jpgs are... So much so that Fuji actually released a tool (for your computer) that let's you process raws using the in camera engine: http://www.fujifilm.com/support/digital_cameras/software/x_raw_studio/mac/
Click to expand...
There is something very ironic about processing RAW files using a simulator of the camera's engine.

Could save a lot of time just taking JPGs in the camera :-)
 
Hive Mind said:
ninjagowoo said:
Yep, depends on how you edit the raw file. That said, a lot of people like Fuji cameras specifically because of how good their jpgs are... So much so that Fuji actually released a tool (for your computer) that let's you process raws using the in camera engine: http://www.fujifilm.com/support/digital_cameras/software/x_raw_studio/mac/
Click to expand...
There is something very ironic about processing RAW files using a simulator of the camera's engine.

Could save a lot of time just taking JPGs in the camera :-)
Click to expand...
RAW just gives the image taker the fun of thinking they can do better and making a mess of it apart from the few experts at the craft but how many of those are there? I imagine a lot less than those that imagine they are.

However you process RAW which always seems to be medium rare when it comes out of the camera when people talk in depth is just tweaking some sort of processing engine wherever it is done.
 
Last edited:
KeepCalm said:
Hive Mind said:
ninjagowoo said:
Yep, depends on how you edit the raw file. That said, a lot of people like Fuji cameras specifically because of how good their jpgs are... So much so that Fuji actually released a tool (for your computer) that let's you process raws using the in camera engine: http://www.fujifilm.com/support/digital_cameras/software/x_raw_studio/mac/
Click to expand...
There is something very ironic about processing RAW files using a simulator of the camera's engine.

Could save a lot of time just taking JPGs in the camera :-)
Click to expand...
RAW just gives the image taker the fun of thinking they can do better and making a mess of it apart from the few experts at the craft but how many of those are there? I imagine a lot less than those that imagine they are.

However you process RAW which always seems to be medium rare when it comes out of the camera when people talk in depth is just tweaking some sort of processing engine wherever it is done.
Click to expand...
Are you saying your OOC beats my LR? 😎
 
Unfortunately, if you are using Lightroom alone (without Iridient X-Transformer), at least in terms of fine detail, SOOC jpegs are indeed better.
 
Hive Mind said:
There is something very ironic about processing RAW files using a simulator of the camera's engine.

Could save a lot of time just taking JPGs in the camera :-)
Click to expand...
Previewing different JPG options on a big monitor has its benefits!
 
RayGreen said:
Looking to get back in to photography, and the form factor of the Fujifilm cameras and the prime lenses are calling me. However, the problem I have is image quality, and this was shown in the recent X-T3 review.

I always thought RAW produced the best images, but something's wrong. A few of the shots are in pairs, a camera jpeg and a RAW conversion, and comparing both shows the RAW is the poorer image. Look at the out of focus area behind the persons hair.

https://www.dpreview.com/sample-galleries/5370103067/fujifilm-x-t3-sample-gallery/5362671578

https://www.dpreview.com/sample-galleries/5370103067/fujifilm-x-t3-sample-gallery/4417667918

Is it because it's a beta version of Adobe Camera Raw, or the photographer who "edited it to taste"
Click to expand...


It was shot at a high ISO of 6400, so a little more care is needed when converting the RAW file.

I downloaded the RAW and this is how I would of edited it in Lightroom...



3c014733c31e49d29728a0ea97f04f63.jpg



--
flic.kr

1 year with Fuji

Explore this photo album by Pete Oliver on Flickr!
flic.kr flic.kr
 
There's no way to sugar coat it. Working with Fuji RAW files is an absolute pain and it ultimately led to me selling my Fuji X-E3. As some will point out, using different post processing applications can help a bit but I enjoy post processing too much to have the camera annoy me this much.

If the X-T3 had a bayer sensor I'd have a couple of them by now. Ultimately Fujii is heading in that direction, we just need to hold out.
 
kiwi2 said:
It was shot at a high ISO of 6400, so a little more care is needed when converting the RAW file.

I downloaded the RAW and this is how I would of edited it in Lightroom...
Click to expand...
This is very impressive. Is this a pure Lightroom conversion? Could you explain how you achieved such a good conversion.

Thanks!
 
RayGreen said:
kiwi2 said:
It was shot at a high ISO of 6400, so a little more care is needed when converting the RAW file.

I downloaded the RAW and this is how I would of edited it in Lightroom...
Click to expand...
This is very impressive. Is this a pure Lightroom conversion? Could you explain how you achieved such a good conversion.
Click to expand...
Yes with Lightroom only. My main focus was achieving a more pleasing color and light. The original camera jpg looked a bit too cool and flat to me. Her dark clothing was a bit too lost in shadow as well. The RAW edit from the reviewer was too washed out with her skin and background becoming slightly too bright.

Here are a couple of screenshots to show my settings rather than talking through each one...



a0f9fb92ad754f02ba5fe005941754d9.jpg



328cde4556b44becba6762c4fd14eac9.jpg



Yes that is the 'adobe landscape' color profile I selected, as I liked what it did best for this particular image.

The only other thing I did what isn't shown, is decreasing luminance of the green color channel in order to darken the background forest a bit more as well.

--
flic.kr

1 year with Fuji

Explore this photo album by Pete Oliver on Flickr!
flic.kr flic.kr
 
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