Some X trans simulations make UGLY photos

[guitarjeff]

Having just ordered two X-E1's and two lenses, lenses still not here yet, I have been looking at hundreds and hundreds of X trans photos from the various lenses, and saw a huge variety of good and bad that had me confused, thinking some lenses are horrible or some of the photogs are horrible, UNTIL I realized that many of these pics look horrible not because the lenses are bad but because shooters are using some of these horrible looking simulations, like muted color and film grain so thick it looks like a photo stored in a a wet attic for 40 years.

In other words, I seem to only like the standard Provia color scheme, and the nice vivid velvia, but man oh man, some of these others just look horrible and literally ruin many of the sample photographs people post.

So what sim modes do you folks like and use? To me, black and white is nice, provia and velvia, and I don't feel like I want to touch any of the others. I know one thing, if you are in the market to move to X trans some of these horrible looking old photo look images can sure have you thinking that something is wrong with many of these lenses and bodies.

 

[baobob]

"de gustibus non est disputendum" = about colors and taste ..

I always use standard with color -1

You can use other simulations and slightly correct

For BW I use either the PS layer which is very good or the plug in Silver Efex

In standard mode I find colors are beautiful espec ially with color -1 It is a always possible in PP to slightly boost colors according to needs and taste If you develop RAW in C1 7 E you can even go deeper in the color rendition work

 

[redsim74]

I shoot Astia 99% of the time. Just a personal preference.

 

[madeinxyz]

A matter of taste. It's hard to call anything "ugly" in this world, when you know everything existing in this world tried really hard to just be there and exist in the first place.

My two cents. =)

 

[Tom Schum]

I use pro neg hi with color set to -1.

--
Tom Schum

 

[ZTJ]

All of this complaining and not a single example of a problem or "ugly" result.

Each of the "film simulations" are just situational color settings like any other camera has. Velvia is vivid, Provia is "normal", Astia is "soft", the two Pro-neg are for portraits in two classes of situations (depends on lighting). None of them add grain.

When used in the correct scenario, they all produce great results and none of those settings have any impact on the RAW files. So if you don't like the post-processing done by the camera, you don't have to use it.

 

[Keit ll]

I couldn't agree more - the misuse of inappropriate colour schemes is very off-putting & must deter many prospective buyers of these cameras. There is a growing trend which appears to support the idea that any odd alterations to colours is artistic & therefore justified ?

 

[57LowRider]

The in-camera JPG simulations are pretty tame compared to what I might do in PP in LR with VSCO, for example. It's all down to personal preference.

Here's a throwaway example of something wrecked in PP; I dumped it because of elements in the composition rather than the colours and tones I'd got, but I bet you dislike those in particular -




X-E1 and pancake, cropped and abused

 

[bowportes]

I couldn't agree more - the misuse of inappropriate colour schemes is very off-putting & must deter many prospective buyers of these cameras. There is a growing trend which appears to support the idea that any odd alterations to colours is artistic & therefore justified ?

Okay... so I'll bite.

Which simulation(s) -- which is what this thread is about -- give the "inappropriate colour schemes" to which you refer? The OP favored Provia and Velvia. Astia is a softer scheme, but fairly natural. Pro-Neg Standard is the most neutral scheme of all and Pro-Neg High is similar in tonality but boosts contrast. Those are the only simulations unless you add the B&W filter variations or sepia.

So which simulations give the inappropriate, "odd alterations" to which you refer? The closest I can think of for many situations is Velvia, but that simulation is favored by the original poster. And since you "couldn't agree more," I assume by you as well.

In fact, the X-E1 and X-Pro 1 are notable for their lack of any "creative filters" (odd alterations) such as the ones being touted by Olympus and other manufacturers. Such artificial color filters, being popular, have been added to the X-M1, X-A1, and most recently, the X-E2, but they have nothing to do with the film simulations referenced by the OP.

So again I ask which film simulations, in your view, give the off-putting, inappropriate color schemes that must deter many buyers?

 

[bowportes]

Having just ordered two X-E1's and two lenses, lenses still not here yet, I have been looking at hundreds and hundreds of X trans photos from the various lenses, and saw a huge variety of good and bad that had me confused, thinking some lenses are horrible or some of the photogs are horrible, UNTIL I realized that many of these pics look horrible not because the lenses are bad but because shooters are using some of these horrible looking simulations, like muted color and film grain so thick it looks like a photo stored in a a wet attic for 40 years.

In other words, I seem to only like the standard Provia color scheme, and the nice vivid velvia, but man oh man, some of these others just look horrible and literally ruin many of the sample photographs people post.

So what sim modes do you folks like and use? To me, black and white is nice, provia and velvia, and I don't feel like I want to touch any of the others. I know one thing, if you are in the market to move to X trans some of these horrible looking old photo look images can sure have you thinking that something is wrong with many of these lenses and bodies.

Which X-E1 simulation gives the thick "film grain"? I'd be curious exactly what you find objectionable about Astia, Pro Neg High, and Pro Neg Standard, which are the only "others" that exist. What is it that is horrible about them, ruining the photos people post? Maybe you could post an Astia or Pro Neg High shot from your own X-E1, accompanied by Provia of the same shot, to demonstrate how the former ruin the shot.

Rather than thinking of some simulations as good and others, bad, I tend to think that each has its purposes. It's worth exploring to discover the situations where each one works for you. The longer I've shot with the X-E1, the more I've ventured from my standard simulations of Provia and Astia to Pro Neg High and Velvia when a particular image calls for it. But Provia and Astia are still my standards, since you asked.

 

[MrFresno]

Having just ordered two X-E1's and two lenses, lenses still not here yet, I have been looking at hundreds and hundreds of X trans photos from the various lenses, and saw a huge variety of good and bad that had me confused, thinking some lenses are horrible or some of the photogs are horrible, UNTIL I realized that many of these pics look horrible not because the lenses are bad but because shooters are using some of these horrible looking simulations, like muted color and film grain so thick it looks like a photo stored in a a wet attic for 40 years.

In other words, I seem to only like the standard Provia color scheme, and the nice vivid velvia, but man oh man, some of these others just look horrible and literally ruin many of the sample photographs people post.

So what sim modes do you folks like and use? To me, black and white is nice, provia and velvia, and I don't feel like I want to touch any of the others. I know one thing, if you are in the market to move to X trans some of these horrible looking old photo look images can sure have you thinking that something is wrong with many of these lenses and bodies.

The images you have seen processed in this manner were likely done with 3rd party filters/presets and not the in-camera film simulations. These types of filters can be applied to images from any camera, but they do seem a bit more popular with Fuji users. The in-camera options are relatively mild compared to film simulations from VSCO and NIK. Velvia is the boldest in-camera setting, so if you like that, then there is no need to worry about the others.

 

[guitarjeff]

Having just ordered two X-E1's and two lenses, lenses still not here yet, I have been looking at hundreds and hundreds of X trans photos from the various lenses, and saw a huge variety of good and bad that had me confused, thinking some lenses are horrible or some of the photogs are horrible, UNTIL I realized that many of these pics look horrible not because the lenses are bad but because shooters are using some of these horrible looking simulations, like muted color and film grain so thick it looks like a photo stored in a a wet attic for 40 years.

In other words, I seem to only like the standard Provia color scheme, and the nice vivid velvia, but man oh man, some of these others just look horrible and literally ruin many of the sample photographs people post.

So what sim modes do you folks like and use? To me, black and white is nice, provia and velvia, and I don't feel like I want to touch any of the others. I know one thing, if you are in the market to move to X trans some of these horrible looking old photo look images can sure have you thinking that something is wrong with many of these lenses and bodies.

The images you have seen processed in this manner were likely done with 3rd party filters/presets and not the in-camera film simulations. These types of filters can be applied to images from any camera, but they do seem a bit more popular with Fuji users. The in-camera options are relatively mild compared to film simulations from VSCO and NIK. Velvia is the boldest in-camera setting, so if you like that, then there is no need to worry about the others.

I agree. I reaqlize now that the X-E1 may not have the culprit sims. Is it the X-M1 that has the "Mute color", "Toy Camera" Miniature" stuff? And i agree, many of these ugly sims come from lightroom as well. Doesn't everyone at one time or anotherbring a pic up in lightroom and go through a bunch of presets on the left and look atsome of the horrible attempts to make photos look vintage, when much of the time all they do is ruin the contrast, sharpness and colors of a perfectly fine photo]

So I will change my statement to something more general.

I have never researched a system on the net when considering getting in to it where I have seen such a large portion of the sample images that have had an attempt to make them old looking by passing them through digital effects plugs. I have seen more good photos ruined (at least in my opinion) by terrible looking attempts to make them look like they have been sitting in trunks for 50 years or something. Selective color, miniature, muted color, toy camera....and on and on. Yes, these folks get these sims from vareious programs and not just the cameras, lightroom is loaded with them.

As for showing examples, no way would I post links or photos of some individual so that I could denigrate their photos, that's why I am explaining this in general terms. When I was researching the 5D2, I saw no where near the percentage of samples having these old-photo digital effects applied to them. For me, it interferes with the research in to the system by looking at thousands of examples.

 

[madeinxyz]

Why don't you relax a little bit and have a cup of tea. To each their own. But hey, I wouldn't be the one stopping you from expressing your personal opinion. It's just I am worried you might waste too much of your time and energy by being angry at muted colors and wannabe vintage photos. Why don't you just look the other way, whenever you come across an image you don't like.

Actually, I would like to know why you detest those, you know, those who must not be named, images so much?

Cheers!

 

[madeinxyz]

Btw.

Maybe pixel-peeper.com can help you with your research. I use that service to figure out which lenses to buy (after reading reviews, test articles and videos).

 

[LincolnB]

Having just ordered two X-E1's and two lenses, lenses still not here yet, I have been looking at hundreds and hundreds of X trans photos from the various lenses, and saw a huge variety of good and bad that had me confused, thinking some lenses are horrible or some of the photogs are horrible, UNTIL I realized that many of these pics look horrible not because the lenses are bad but because shooters are using some of these horrible looking simulations, like muted color and film grain so thick it looks like a photo stored in a a wet attic for 40 years.

In other words, I seem to only like the standard Provia color scheme, and the nice vivid velvia, but man oh man, some of these others just look horrible and literally ruin many of the sample photographs people post.

So what sim modes do you folks like and use? To me, black and white is nice, provia and velvia, and I don't feel like I want to touch any of the others. I know one thing, if you are in the market to move to X trans some of these horrible looking old photo look images can sure have you thinking that something is wrong with many of these lenses and bodies.

Photos don't come from lenses or cameras; they come from photographers. Some cameras make it easier for photographers to make bad decisions, that's about it. Bad photos come from bad decisions. Everybody makes bad photos from time-to-time. Some people make more bad photos than others. Some people have never taken a good photo, even with a good camera. Some photographers can take stunning photos with the least likely of cameras. As Ansel Adams once said, you don't take a photograph, you make a photograph.

It's entirely possible that bad photographers are more likely to use certain filters than other photographers. It's entirely possible that bad photographers are drawn to certain types of cameras, with certain features, more so than other cameras. It's entirely possible that certain features encourage certain bad photography habits. The fault lies not in the cameras or their filters per se.

 

[guitarjeff]

Why don't you relax a little bit and have a cup of tea. To each their own. But hey, I wouldn't be the one stopping you from expressing your personal opinion. It's just I am worried you might waste too much of your time and energy by being angry at muted colors and wannabe vintage photos. Why don't you just look the other way, whenever you come across an image you don't like.

Actually, I would like to know why you detest those, you know, those who must not be named, images so much?

Cheers!

I am relaxed, where are you getting that I am angry? I simply said that going through sample images from the X system you might get thrown off by all the use of digital effects to try and simulate various things. I simply found a much higher percentage of these type shots and it makes sense because there are probably more new people to photography buying these smaller cameras, and when you give them tons of these effects, people have a tendency to try them out, and it can make for some fairly ugly examples of using an effect because it's there.

I simply pointed out that it's easy to get foole if you don't keep in mind that many of these shots have these effects applied to them, no anger about it, no need for tea (Coffee is better anyway).

 

[guitarjeff]

Having just ordered two X-E1's and two lenses, lenses still not here yet, I have been looking at hundreds and hundreds of X trans photos from the various lenses, and saw a huge variety of good and bad that had me confused, thinking some lenses are horrible or some of the photogs are horrible, UNTIL I realized that many of these pics look horrible not because the lenses are bad but because shooters are using some of these horrible looking simulations, like muted color and film grain so thick it looks like a photo stored in a a wet attic for 40 years.

In other words, I seem to only like the standard Provia color scheme, and the nice vivid velvia, but man oh man, some of these others just look horrible and literally ruin many of the sample photographs people post.

So what sim modes do you folks like and use? To me, black and white is nice, provia and velvia, and I don't feel like I want to touch any of the others. I know one thing, if you are in the market to move to X trans some of these horrible looking old photo look images can sure have you thinking that something is wrong with many of these lenses and bodies.

Photos don't come from lenses or cameras; they come from photographers. Some cameras make it easier for photographers to make bad decisions, that's about it. Bad photos come from bad decisions. Everybody makes bad photos from time-to-time. Some people make more bad photos than others. Some people have never taken a good photo, even with a good camera. Some photographers can take stunning photos with the least likely of cameras. As Ansel Adams once said, you don't take a photograph, you make a photograph.

It's entirely possible that bad photographers are more likely to use certain filters than other photographers. It's entirely possible that bad photographers are drawn to certain types of cameras, with certain features, more so than other cameras. It's entirely possible that certain features encourage certain bad photography habits. The fault lies not in the cameras or their filters per se.

Yep, you nailed it. More newish people to photography are buying these smaler cameras as their mid-range next step up and when all these effects are there to be played with people have a tendency to playwith them. It was just surprising how many of these type photos you see in the samples of the various X trans bodies and I'm sure many are presets in raw developers, there are certainly some ugly presets in lightroom.