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

Started 4 months ago | Photos thread
Michael Berg
Michael Berg Contributing Member • Posts: 865
Re: Fuji jpegs are lovely
2

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.

Now who's overstating their case?

What I'm saying is not that post processing is wrong or a waste of time - of course not. I'm simply saying that you won't find a raw converter that will match the output from an X-Tx camera, whether that output is to your liking or not.

There are different "looks" that you can apply to a photo. Some people tend to appreciate flat looking images where the highlights have been pulled back and the shadows pushed up. Others prefer contrasty looks. Some people prefer vivid rendering of foliage and flowers while others prefer a more muted look. Or perhaps a more stylistic rendering of saturation achieved through a LUT. People pull and tug on that tone curve until they get the look they way.

And I have no problem with people doing just that. In fact i always shoot in raw+jpeg myself to be able to fix things like white balance. I can also say I much prefer working inside Capture One than I do in Fuji's X-RAW studio because it is so flaky and because I have to run the darn thing inside a VMware.

But as OP subjetively stated, the JPEGs out of this camera are lovely which I happen to agree with. And i I wanted to supply my own experience from my years as an X-T2 and -T4 owner. Which is simply that if you prefer the look of the images out of camera, then you will have a hard time working your raw processor to give you a similar look. Too much time in my opinion. If that look is what you are after then you can get there quicker by using something like X-Raw studio. This is where my own experience has led me, that's all.

But to argue that if you want to have results barely as good as OOC jpegs then you

Whoa there Greg, I'm not talking about "goodness" whatever you mean by that. I just mean that if you are going for the style, tonality, saturation and overall look and feel of what the camera produces by itself, you will struggle if you start with the raw file and try to match that look with your raw converter.

It is just very difficult to recreate the same look - not impossible, but very time consuming which for me at least is something I want to spend less time on.

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.

Yes sure, post processing a JPEG is generally a bad idea. I'm not sure what you mean when you say that PP "beats" OOC though. I mean just out of curiosity, which types of adjustments do you typically perform in post that you wouldn't trust or prefer the camera to do?

I can tell you I have spent SO many hours doing A-B testing with the OOC jpeg and a raw converted image from Capture One. Literally a day spent in that program, getting to a look that I really liked, and when I started flipping back and forth between the two finished images, my preference drifted towards the OOC jpeg. Which has led me to the sad conclusion that I just aren't as smart as the Fuji raw converter hardware.

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

There are many adjustments where a program like Photoshop or Lightroom are obvious candidates to use. You're not being very specific in your statements there but I can say that the OOC jpegs from for example the X-T4 are very good in terms of noise, saturation and color accuracy and various other parameters. But spot removal? You're out of luck there.

I like to think of it this way. On this planet there are two teams of scientists. One team works for Lightroom, they provide the science that goes into that software. They work with multiple source camera files, aliasing technologies, bayer filters etc, and they probably need to make some generalizations and technological assumptions for that reason.

Team two works for Fuji. They don't have to work with anything but one single sensor technology, and the platform, the hardware and all the little secret wirings that nobody outside the labs know about - are known to these scientists. And these aren't noobs, they are professionals working at the heart of a company that lives or dies by its image quality. I for one have no reason to think they are not as smart as the people working for Adobe.

Objectively speaking, there is not a very strong case for saying that team one will "blow" team two out of the water. I'm speaking again on the general quality, speed and fidelity of the converted image. Why would this be a natural assumption? Should I bring up the matter of the Fuji worms here?

In any event please remember my original statement which was simply to say that it is difficult to find a raw converter which will effortlessly recreate the look and feel of Fuji OOC's. This was never a statement to the quality or general "beauty" of those images or the lack of such in general raw converters. Just a statement about the staggering effort of optimizing raw converters for a specific look.

-- hide signature --
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow