Back to Fuji - First photos X-T4 and 16-55

Started 4 months ago | Photos thread
Greg7579
Greg7579 Forum Pro • Posts: 11,247
Re: Fuji jpegs are lovely
3

Michael Berg wrote:

Congratulations on your new camera, I'm about 2 months ahead of you here

How do you like the 16-55? I was so close to getting that over the traditional 18-55 but was somewhat turned off by the bulk and weight of that lens. Especially for travelling.

As for the jpegs you'll eventually find out, like I have, that there just isn't a raw converter in existence that will give results like those straight out of the camera. In my experience the closest you'll get is with Capture One 20, of which the free "Express" version for Fuji is free to use and does the film simulations accurately enough. Even then you'll struggle to get results that are as pleasing as the internal raw converter. It's not impossible, just takes a disproportionate amount of time.

Try Fuji X-Raw Studio. It's a free software sidekick to the camera available from Fuji, which allows you to basically use the Raw conversion features inside the camera in a more conventional "desktop" workflow experience. You plug in the camera with a USB cable and the software talks to the camera and uses it's internal engine for raw conversions. All of your cameras controls for exposure, film simulation, highlight/shadow, clarity, color chrome etc, are available in the interface, and although the software is a bit clunky to use there is no arguing with the results. If you want to get anything just barely as good as those jpegs, you'll be spending a lot of time in Lightroom or Capture One - so why not just use the camera, after all this is what you paid the big bucks for.

Anyway, happy shooting and by the way nice doggo ..

Michael,

That is a well written and crafted post, and I have no issue with your choice of C1 for PP, which is a great program.  I also agree that even though I don't shoot jpeg, Fuji film simulations and OOC jpeg capability is a big attraction for many people and something Fuji really excels at.

But I totally disagree with your statements that are bolded and underlined above.  It is simply not true and hugely misleading.  You way aver-stated your case Michael.

The choice to shoot OOC jpegs is a great tool to have and a sound option for many photographers, but it is nowhere near as powerful as shooting raw and even cursory time spent in post.  Not even close.

There are many great photographers who occasionally shoot OOC jpegs to try the various film sims and the results are impressive.  Chris Dodkins does it sometimes and so does the Great Jonas Rask.  The big reviewers do it so they can discuss the OOC jpeg capability and comment on the film sims.

But to argue that if you want to have results barely as good as OOC jpegs then you have spend a lot of time in post, is just simply not true.  PP beats OOC jpeg in every situation and you have immensely more latitude with the raf file in post than you do working w an OOC jpeg.

In fact, the opposite is true.  Post processing of the raf files in any program blows away OOC jpeg almost 100% of the time.  Not 95%.  I don't say "all" the time.  I  said almost all the time because I guess there is some case somewhere where a Fuji camera produced an OOC jpeg with a film sim and the in-camera settings were such that it just hit the magic point on that shot where it would might match or beat the developed raf in post.  I doubt it ever happens but I guess you never say never.

I did not say any of that to belittle the OOC jpeg option.  It is a powerful tool to have.  But OOC jpeg rarely if ever beats a raw that has been through even some pp.

-- hide signature --
 Greg7579's gear list:Greg7579's gear list
Leica Q2 Fujifilm GFX 50R Fujifilm GFX 100 Fujifilm GF 32-64mm F4 Fujifilm 120mm F4 Macro +7 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow