Reading mode: Light Dark

Is it just Fuji color science? X-Trans? Film presets? What is that look?

Go to last post
KAAMBIC

KAAMBIC

Leading Member
Messages
999
Reaction score
1,210
Typically im a portrait guy, so color has been important. Older Nikons were good like my D700, newer ones not so much, to my eye. Olympus is good, Canon too. Not so impressed with Sony or Pentax with skin tones. I have my first Fuji as of this last week and it's what i was hoping for, great color but lots of adjustment options for jpeg output. I've yet to shoot a single raw photo on my XT30.

But i noticed something, the same special look im seeing in the color output, im also seeing in B&W. Im not even using Fuji glass so it has to be something in-camera. Im sure long time Fuji owners are used to this but what do you think, that look people talk about, that IQ advantage, is it due to the CFA being different?

Im using film presets and almost always shoot in film bracketing. Eterna for most skin tones, Provia in case i want more color for other subjects, and Astia for my B&W. I just notice that same "magic" that i see in color, it's in the Astia B&W too. It's hard to put my finger on it, it's like super smooth tonal changes, it makes tone and color gradations very smooth and pleasing.

Am i crazy? Anybody else see this and know what to call it? Just a few shots so far im pleased with, they are pretty much pure OOC, with an occasional exposure adjustment or crop using ACR.



a65213bbdf5b4c48a6cdbeea88623ef9.jpg



36feba35603642cc8793eb3a83b60185.jpg



b2c6757a2f7746849f127fc027ec5a7d.jpg



ed38f03a945d4ddfa41691cf60d2b7b0.jpg



--
"You taught me hate, I'll teach you fear" -
 
Welcome to the wonderful world of computational photography. Gone are the days where a lens focuses the light on the film and that image is what you get. After an image is captured by the sensor, it is processed by the camera. Lens and color profiles are applied. Fuji's film simulations are color profiles that are formulated to look like some of there films and a delight to use. Some of the magic in your images is coming form this. Your 85mm f1.8 lens has a nice personality with reasonable bokeh and that is helping as well. If you were using a Fuji lens a lens profile would also be applied that would address distortion and CA. The Fringer adapter also has lens profiles though I don't know exactly what they do besides aid focus. If you like what you are seeing with that 85mm, the Fuji 90mm takes it to another level.

Morris
 
As someone who still shoots with film, and also uses cameras with a foveon sensor, I think the foveon and X-trans sensors, which are different to bayer sensor cameras, handle the transition from mid-tones to highlights more naturally, more in line with negative film ( Though to be honest my SD Quattro is more like slide film ). In the case of Fuji cameras, they obviously put a lot of thought in, in terms of colour science, to mimick film. Fuji are also very good at maximising the dynamic range available by using clever algorithms to balance the exposure of any given scene using the various DR settings, the result is a very film like rendering. I don't claim to fully understand all the nuances involved, but that's what I see and my interpretation of it.
 
Last edited:
'that look' is the Fuji look. Remember, long before Fuji ever started making cameras they were making film. I really think that they pride themselves on their history, and respect the traditions that they uphold.

They made their name with colour science, and it still really shows.

You could make a strong case that they're still just an imaging company, who just so happen to make very, very good cameras.
 
I don't know what it is about the Fuji colour processing in the camera, but I realised this morning that some photos that I took yesterday of the clouds in the night sky, when I opened them in RAW Power (a RAW file editor using Apple's built-in RAW processing libraries in MacOS / iOS), I couldn't possibly manage to reproduce the beautiful colours that I got out of the camera (using Astia film simulation).
 
Heinz said:
Nice images. Astia is actually a color simulation. Do you mean Acros? Imo the look comes from sensor and processing (also simulations) and to a lesser extend from the lenses. The images have depht and gentle highlight rolloff, so they look less digital than others.
Click to expand...
Acros yep lol, always get those mixed up. I do like the way it renders HL, perhaps it's shadows too. I've also been using the DR setting, usually DR400, that may be helping as i prefer a flatter profile.
 
absquatulate said:
As someone who still shoots with film, and also uses cameras with a foveon sensor, I think the foveon and X-trans sensors, which are different to bayer sensor cameras, handle the transition from mid-tones to highlights more naturally, more in line with negative film ( Though to be honest my SD Quattro is more like slide film ). In the case of Fuji cameras, they obviously put a lot of thought in, in terms of colour science, to mimick film. Fuji are also very good at maximising the dynamic range available by using clever algorithms to balance the exposure of any given scene using the various DR settings, the result is a very film like rendering. I don't claim to fully understand all the nuances involved, but that's what I see and my interpretation of it.
Click to expand...
I've been thinking about the DR settings, i think they look great. I don't think i will ever shoot base ISO again, they really do make the HL roll off look nice. I was really hoping the jpegs would end up nice enough that for the first time in any system, i wouldn't want to shoot raw, and it's happening. It's SOOOO nice to not have to edit raws for every shot now.
 
William Loney said:
'that look' is the Fuji look. Remember, long before Fuji ever started making cameras they were making film. I really think that they pride themselves on their history, and respect the traditions that they uphold.

They made their name with colour science, and it still really shows.

You could make a strong case that they're still just an imaging company, who just so happen to make very, very good cameras.
Click to expand...
Funny, as i was reading through this thread, i was also listening to an XS10 review video by Adorama. They explain that the very people who designed the film stocks were the ones who designed the film sims in these cameras. That's pretty cool.
 
Morris0 said:
Welcome to the wonderful world of computational photography. Gone are the days where a lens focuses the light on the film and that image is what you get. After an image is captured by the sensor, it is processed by the camera. Lens and color profiles are applied. Fuji's film simulations are color profiles that are formulated to look like some of there films and a delight to use. Some of the magic in your images is coming form this. Your 85mm f1.8 lens has a nice personality with reasonable bokeh and that is helping as well. If you were using a Fuji lens a lens profile would also be applied that would address distortion and CA. The Fringer adapter also has lens profiles though I don't know exactly what they do besides aid focus. If you like what you are seeing with that 85mm, the Fuji 90mm takes it to another level.

Morris
Click to expand...
Thanks Morris! I really do like the Fuji style, makes sense they'd be the last brand i try :-D I do have another issue now though, im debating on selling off my XT30 (that i just bought) along with my EM1-II and getting an XS10, but perhaps that's best for a whole nother thread.
 
KAAMBIC said:
absquatulate said:
As someone who still shoots with film, and also uses cameras with a foveon sensor, I think the foveon and X-trans sensors, which are different to bayer sensor cameras, handle the transition from mid-tones to highlights more naturally, more in line with negative film ( Though to be honest my SD Quattro is more like slide film ). In the case of Fuji cameras, they obviously put a lot of thought in, in terms of colour science, to mimick film. Fuji are also very good at maximising the dynamic range available by using clever algorithms to balance the exposure of any given scene using the various DR settings, the result is a very film like rendering. I don't claim to fully understand all the nuances involved, but that's what I see and my interpretation of it.
Click to expand...
I've been thinking about the DR settings, i think they look great. I don't think i will ever shoot base ISO again, they really do make the HL roll off look nice. I was really hoping the jpegs would end up nice enough that for the first time in any system, i wouldn't want to shoot raw, and it's happening. It's SOOOO nice to not have to edit raws for every shot now.
Click to expand...
It was one of the reasons I came back to Fuji, and they have several more film presets than when I last shot with it, and the colour on my X-S10 is just better than what the X-T1 I had produced, not to mention the auto-focusing is much improved. Processing many raw files is just so tiresome and time consuming. Some shots do benefit more from it but many don't, I much prefer to get it right in camera if I can, Fuji make it easier than anyone else to do this.
 
KAAMBIC said:
I've been thinking about the DR settings, i think they look great. I don't think i will ever shoot base ISO again, they really do make the HL roll off look nice. I was really hoping the jpegs would end up nice enough that for the first time in any system, i wouldn't want to shoot raw, and it's happening. It's SOOOO nice to not have to edit raws for every shot now.
Click to expand...
About the DR settings, I believe that I see a bigger differences in photos with the DR in my Fuji, than with the comparable setting on my Canon ("Highlight tone priority").
 
While Fuji’s jpeg processing is excellent and probably the best around, there really isn’t magic color there that can’t be reproduced (or improved upon) using the RAW files. It’s great that Fuji provides so many options for customizing the jpeg output to satisfy the creative vision of those who prefer to not (or to minimally) post process, but better results (IMO), in terms of both color and fine detail rendering, can still be achieved by going RAW.
 
Erik Baumgartner said:
While Fuji’s jpeg processing is excellent and probably the best around, there really isn’t magic color there that can’t be reproduced (or improved upon) using the RAW files. It’s great that Fuji provides so many options for customizing the jpeg output to satisfy the creative vision of those who prefer to not (or to minimally) post process, but better results (IMO), in terms of both color and fine detail rendering, can still be achieved by going RAW.
Click to expand...
While I have to agree, I don't possess that degree of color finessing skill after seventeen years of trying, and suspect many other people don't possess it either. But the Fuji jpegs take me there quickly and easily.
 
Papa48 said:
Erik Baumgartner said:
While Fuji’s jpeg processing is excellent and probably the best around, there really isn’t magic color there that can’t be reproduced (or improved upon) using the RAW files. It’s great that Fuji provides so many options for customizing the jpeg output to satisfy the creative vision of those who prefer to not (or to minimally) post process, but better results (IMO), in terms of both color and fine detail rendering, can still be achieved by going RAW.
Click to expand...
While I have to agree, I don't possess that degree of color finessing skill after seventeen years of trying, and suspect many other people don't possess it either. But the Fuji jpegs take me there quickly and easily.
Click to expand...
Yes this is the crux of it all. I hear a lot of people argue for any brand due to this idea, we can get any color from any camera ect. True, maybe, but if it takes next to forever to get there, is it worth it? And each shot is different, the PP for one may be totally different than the next.

I don't want to do that anymore, it's one reason i won't look at Sony, i don't like their colors typically OOC.
 
KAAMBIC said:
Papa48 said:
Erik Baumgartner said:
While Fuji’s jpeg processing is excellent and probably the best around, there really isn’t magic color there that can’t be reproduced (or improved upon) using the RAW files. It’s great that Fuji provides so many options for customizing the jpeg output to satisfy the creative vision of those who prefer to not (or to minimally) post process, but better results (IMO), in terms of both color and fine detail rendering, can still be achieved by going RAW.
Click to expand...
While I have to agree, I don't possess that degree of color finessing skill after seventeen years of trying, and suspect many other people don't possess it either. But the Fuji jpegs take me there quickly and easily.
Click to expand...
Yes this is the crux of it all. I hear a lot of people argue for any brand due to this idea, we can get any color from any camera ect. True, maybe, but if it takes next to forever to get there, is it worth it? And each shot is different, the PP for one may be totally different than the next.

I don't want to do that anymore, it's one reason i won't look at Sony, i don't like their colors typically OOC.
Click to expand...
 
Erik Baumgartner said:
While Fuji’s jpeg processing is excellent and probably the best around, there really isn’t magic color there that can’t be reproduced (or improved upon) using the RAW files. It’s great that Fuji provides so many options for customizing the jpeg output to satisfy the creative vision of those who prefer to not (or to minimally) post process, but better results (IMO), in terms of both color and fine detail rendering, can still be achieved by going RAW.
Click to expand...
And that's why I shoot raw and convert with X Raw studio. Just about everything gets shot initially with Pro Neg Hi, and then occasionally gets switched to another jpeg sim with XRC, as I desire. Still awesome Fuji jpegs, but with the added adjustment latitude of raw.
 
William Loney said:
Erik Baumgartner said:
While Fuji’s jpeg processing is excellent and probably the best around, there really isn’t magic color there that can’t be reproduced (or improved upon) using the RAW files. It’s great that Fuji provides so many options for customizing the jpeg output to satisfy the creative vision of those who prefer to not (or to minimally) post process, but better results (IMO), in terms of both color and fine detail rendering, can still be achieved by going RAW.
Click to expand...
And that's why I shoot raw and convert with X Raw studio. Just about everything gets shot initially with Pro Neg Hi, and then occasionally gets switched to another jpeg sim with XRC, as I desire. Still awesome Fuji jpegs, but with the added adjustment latitude of raw.
Click to expand...
This is interesting to me. I personally put XRAW Studio in a different class than other RAW converters. You are using FUJI’s engine to process directly in the camera exactly if you had applied the settings in RAW STUDIO. Therefore making the JPEG processed in XRAW an SOOC JPEG. I like to shoot in bracketed SIM on my XT2, but can’t wait to try it on the new X100v.
 
William Loney said:
Erik Baumgartner said:
While Fuji’s jpeg processing is excellent and probably the best around, there really isn’t magic color there that can’t be reproduced (or improved upon) using the RAW files. It’s great that Fuji provides so many options for customizing the jpeg output to satisfy the creative vision of those who prefer to not (or to minimally) post process, but better results (IMO), in terms of both color and fine detail rendering, can still be achieved by going RAW.
Click to expand...
And that's why I shoot raw and convert with X Raw studio. Just about everything gets shot initially with Pro Neg Hi, and then occasionally gets switched to another jpeg sim with XRC, as I desire. Still awesome Fuji jpegs, but with the added adjustment latitude of raw.
Click to expand...
I’ve thought of trying that. It probably surpasses the in-camera raw conversion, which I’ve occasionally done on those small camera LCDs.
 
Papa48 said:
William Loney said:
Erik Baumgartner said:
While Fuji’s jpeg processing is excellent and probably the best around, there really isn’t magic color there that can’t be reproduced (or improved upon) using the RAW files. It’s great that Fuji provides so many options for customizing the jpeg output to satisfy the creative vision of those who prefer to not (or to minimally) post process, but better results (IMO), in terms of both color and fine detail rendering, can still be achieved by going RAW.
Click to expand...
And that's why I shoot raw and convert with X Raw studio. Just about everything gets shot initially with Pro Neg Hi, and then occasionally gets switched to another jpeg sim with XRC, as I desire. Still awesome Fuji jpegs, but with the added adjustment latitude of raw.
Click to expand...
I’ve thought of trying that. It probably surpasses the in-camera raw conversion, which I’ve occasionally done on those small camera LCDs.
Click to expand...
You quickly get to scroll your image through all of the sims, adjust exposure, shadows highlights, sharpness, etc, on a big screen.

Personally, and I'm not trying to start a war here, but to me, it's easily the best converter out there for Fuji files. Why wouldn't it be? They designed it, after all.
 
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