XS1 NewSettings, New sooc pics..C/C

Started Apr 16, 2014 | Discussions
OP DANE7 Forum Member • Posts: 96
Re: Dane ...

Thank you for your comments wyjym.

Yes you are right, I have seen the sky turn almost green when shooting in high contrast scenes.

Not sure what to do in those situations

 DANE7's gear list:DANE7's gear list
Fujifilm X-E2 Fujifilm X-T2 Fujifilm FinePix HS20 EXR Sony Cyber-shot DSC-HX100V Fujifilm X-S1 +6 more
Lloydy
Lloydy Forum Pro • Posts: 19,552
PR ...
2

... Are we taking photos or measurebating ?

If you hadn't noticed, in other parts of the thread, Dane is now very happy with the output from his camera.

And, in the end, isn't that what is important ?

photoreddi wrote:

DANE7 wrote:

I use ACD PRO 6 for viewing but I opted to not change or edit any of the photos.

My thinking is that in the past I messed things up when trying to "Better" the photos and ended up

killing them, so I will concentrate on getting the best JPEGS (SOOC) I can get and then try the post

process part!

???

I'm not sure what your "???" means. If it's wondering about my comment about your photos not being SOOC JPEGs, try this the next time you take a photo. Copy it to your computer and then rename it slightly. For instance, if it's name is "DSCF1234.JPG" change it to "DSCF1234A.JPG" before using ACDC Pro to view it. Then copy the same photo to the computer and change its name to "DSCF1234B.JPG". Of course yours won't actually have "1234" as part of its name.

Then view only one of them using ACDC Pro and do all of the things with it that you usually do and then exit ACDC. If you then look at the two "A" and "B" versions of the photo, are they the same size? If not, then ACDC obviously changed it, and that might explain why your uploaded photos had such a tiny fraction of their EXIF data remaining intact. It looked to me like more than 90% of the EXIF information was stripped out. The EXIF data should have included the Dynamic Range settings, which is what I was interested in seeing. If the sizes are the same that doesn't necessarily mean that the files weren't changed by ACDC. The times/dates might have changed, but the only way to verify that the contents weren't changed would be to use a file utility to compare the file checksums, CRCs, MD5s, etc. which generate numbers that almost guarantee that no changes were made if the calculated numbers for each file is the same.

Alternatively, you could upload one of your photos (using DPR's upload tool) before using ACDC or any other app. to view it. If you do this, the uploaded photos should have their entire EXIF information included.

-- hide signature --

Cheers, Dave

Me Tarzan
Me Tarzan Senior Member • Posts: 1,392
Re: XS1 NewSettings, New sooc pics..C/C

Dane, I like images from both sets that you've posted. I agree with others that the first batch may be over cooked, but that can be toned down with post processing. Some viewers will prefer the over cooked look. As some have recommended, shoot for results that you're pleased with.

-- hide signature --

Frank

wymjym Veteran Member • Posts: 5,492
Re: Dane ...

DANE7 wrote:

Thank you for your comments wyjym.

Yes you are right, I have seen the sky turn almost green when shooting in high contrast scenes.

Not sure what to do in those situations

no, no, no

that is (high contrast shots) a portion of the blue channel blowing out rendering the cyan...I'm talking about actually influencing adjacent colors even in normal contrast.

wj

Lloydy
Lloydy Forum Pro • Posts: 19,552
Dane ...
1

... Turn the contrast down.

DANE7 wrote:

Thank you for your comments wyjym.

Yes you are right, I have seen the sky turn almost green when shooting in high contrast scenes.

Not sure what to do in those situations

-- hide signature --

Cheers, Dave

photoreddi Veteran Member • Posts: 7,973
Ll ...

Lloydy wrote:

... Are we taking photos or measurebating ?

Neither, I commented on the vast difference in the color of the inline photos vs viewing them after downloading them. Full size. No pixel peeping. No measurebating, unless your own "overcooked" comment is also measurebating. Your cheap shots continue, but that's not as bad as the way you rely on having a permanently faulty memory to make fraudulent, self serving points. See below.

Do you recall writing this the other day?

... L. No brainer. It is easy to downscale

Besides, of the five EXR cameras I own M just turns details to mush

Just my opinion of course

However, if others posit their opinion ask them to show SOOC comparisons. I find the discussion always goes mute at that point. Push the point. You will get no response

This it one kind of "dishonesty" that I'm talking about. SOOC comparisons have been previously been provided, many times, but you keep asserting this untruth (technically, a lie) many times over. I posted my SOOC comparisons soon after you wrote this, two days ago. But as usual, you ignored it. No response. It's ironic that what you accuse others of doing is actually a good description of what you engage in doing, particularly to the part that where you wrote "always goes mute at that point. Push the point. You will get no response".

I'd be very surprised if you missed my SOOC comparisons but if you did, here it is again, now two days old, in case you care to remedy your lack of a response :

I just shot several photos of fine, low contrast subjects (grass) at ISO 800, using L size and M size with two apertures for each. The HS35 was used with a long focal length to shoot at a greater distance which was assumed would show better results using M size photos. Every setting was shot multiple times and the best examples of each were compared. M size f/5.6 produced more detail than L size f/5.6 and M size f/8 photos produced more detail than L size f/8 photos. If I had shot the same subjects from a much closer distance, the L size images would probably have produced slightly more detail, but nobody that I know has ever said that M size images will always produce more detail than L size images. There are several here that go out of their way to say that L size images always produce more detail than M size images, but that's clearly just as false as Lloydy's claim :

However, if others posit their opinion ask them to show SOOC comparisons. I find the discussion always goes mute at that point. Push the point. You will get no response

Here are 100% crops from SOOC comparison photos, with absolutely no editing other than cropping.

L size

M size

L size

M size

The M size photos are as good or better than the L size photos. If you still insist that they're "mush" compared to the L size photos, that could only further worsen your credibility.

.

If you hadn't noticed, in other parts of the thread, Dane is now very happy with the output from his camera.

And, in the end, isn't that what is important ?

It's only part of what's important. He also appears to be interested in finding out answers to the strange things that happened to the first of the two sets of his photos. You should take a cue from that.

OP DANE7 Forum Member • Posts: 96
Re: Dane ...

Well... Thats the problem I was having. I would adjust in post process and most people saw them dull or not bright enough! This is my next goal! Getting better at post processing. In camera adjustments rendered same results....😫

Baby steps!

 DANE7's gear list:DANE7's gear list
Fujifilm X-E2 Fujifilm X-T2 Fujifilm FinePix HS20 EXR Sony Cyber-shot DSC-HX100V Fujifilm X-S1 +6 more
(unknown member) Contributing Member • Posts: 500
Re: Dane ...
2

DANE7 wrote:

Well... Thats the problem I was having. I would adjust in post process and most people saw them dull or not bright enough!

My advice: don't try to make other people happy. Make yourself happy. Listen to others' opinions, sure, but only insofar as they point out real problems in your photos. If you don't agree with what they say, don't worry about it.

For instance, I suggested a couple of your second set of photos looked underexposed, and needed softer shadows. Honestly, if you like them as is, you shouldn't pay one whit of attention to what I say. And I stand by that as surely as I stand by anything I say here.

De gustibus non disputandum, as the Romans said... right before going out and disputare the gusti out of some foreign nation...

Lisetta Contributing Member • Posts: 562
Re: Dane ...
1

cantanima wrote:

DANE7 wrote:

Well... Thats the problem I was having. I would adjust in post process and most people saw them dull or not bright enough!

My advice: don't try to make other people happy. Make yourself happy. Listen to others' opinions, sure, but only insofar as they point out real problems in your photos. If you don't agree with what they say, don't worry about it.

For instance, I suggested a couple of your second set of photos looked underexposed, and needed softer shadows. Honestly, if you like them as is, you shouldn't pay one whit of attention to what I say. And I stand by that as surely as I stand by anything I say here.

De gustibus non disputandum, as the Romans said... right before going out and disputare the gusti out of some foreign nation...

I agree that we shouldn't be slaves to others opinions of our pics and settings...except I don't think there was any risk of that to begin with!

If there's anything I've learned from this site (well, I've learned a lot, so this is slightly facetious), it's that when it comes to photography, there's always room for disagreement!

As for the OP, personally I love threads like this where people put up photos and ask for responses and try to tweak their settings. Even when people disagree about what they see (...like, um, always...) it's still really interesting and helpful to get that feedback--and to read that feedback.

JMO, but I wish people would do it even more often. It's so interesting to see the photos taken with "your" camera with a variety of situations and subjects and be able to -also- know the settings that were chosen. Where else can we easily do that?

When I bought the X-S1 I was worried that no one would ever be using it, talking about problems, settings, etc. Hasn't happened, fortunately --

Lisetta

OP DANE7 Forum Member • Posts: 96
Re: Dane ...
1

I get what you saying but when most people here agree on the same issue or technical error on most of my photos I think listening is the wise thing to do.

Regardless... Thank you for your honest opinion!

Before I followed Lloydys suggestions I was not very happy with the output from my XS1; now I am!

 DANE7's gear list:DANE7's gear list
Fujifilm X-E2 Fujifilm X-T2 Fujifilm FinePix HS20 EXR Sony Cyber-shot DSC-HX100V Fujifilm X-S1 +6 more
jcmarfilph Veteran Member • Posts: 7,592
Re: XS1 NewSettings, New sooc pics..C/C

DANE7 wrote:

Thanks Jeff.

I used the settings that LLoydy suggested.

Large, DR=200, Astia/Soft,Color=High (on the first batch and M-LOW on the last batch)

Sharpness=M-Hard, Highlight Tone=M-Soft,

Shadow=STD, Noise R =Low... ISO=400auto

I would set the DR to Auto so ISO is not stuck at ISO200 and sharpness and color to standard and you should be all set. These are too punchy and over-sharpened and way off to the natural colors of the subjects but overall a pleasant series of shots.

-=[ Joms ]=-

 jcmarfilph's gear list:jcmarfilph's gear list
Fujifilm X20 Fujifilm FinePix HS50 EXR +1 more
OP DANE7 Forum Member • Posts: 96
Re: XS1 NewSettings, New sooc pics..C/C

Thank you Joms but the colors on the second batch were very close to how I saw them while taking the shots. The DR on auto sounds like something I should experiment with.

 DANE7's gear list:DANE7's gear list
Fujifilm X-E2 Fujifilm X-T2 Fujifilm FinePix HS20 EXR Sony Cyber-shot DSC-HX100V Fujifilm X-S1 +6 more
PAUL TILL
PAUL TILL Veteran Member • Posts: 9,286
Re: XS1 NewSettings, New sooc pics..C/C
1

I never shoot at 12MP, always 6MP. I always have the sharpness set to soft, you can sharpen in PP.

With your settings there is to much noise, just look at the sky. Look at your image at 100% then mine shot at 6MP, you can shoot at ISO100 and DR200 or even DR400 at 6MP.

-- hide signature --

The 10% Rule:
You Must Be 10% Smarter Than The Equipment You're Operating

OP DANE7 Forum Member • Posts: 96
Re: XS1 NewSettings, New sooc pics..C/C

Soon enough I will go back to post processing my images, for now I will try to get the best images I

can get from the XS1 without destroying them with my poor P/P techniques or lack of !

The noise on my photos could also be corrected in P/P ...right?

 DANE7's gear list:DANE7's gear list
Fujifilm X-E2 Fujifilm X-T2 Fujifilm FinePix HS20 EXR Sony Cyber-shot DSC-HX100V Fujifilm X-S1 +6 more
Lisetta Contributing Member • Posts: 562
Re: XS1 NewSettings, New sooc pics..C/C

PAUL TILL wrote:

I never shoot at 12MP, always 6MP. I always have the sharpness set to soft, you can sharpen in PP.

With your settings there is to much noise, just look at the sky. Look at your image at 100% then mine shot at 6MP, you can shoot at ISO100 and DR200 or even DR400 at 6MP.

Hi Paul,

Since you're comparing, shouldn't your recommended settings and example be SOOC like Dane's? That's a nice photo, but it looks processed.

Also, I've read before about people using "sharpening at soft". Could someone explain the thinking behind it? It seems so counterintuitive.

Lisetta

OP DANE7 Forum Member • Posts: 96
Re: XS1 NewSettings, New sooc pics..C/C

This one I just processed and took some noise out...nothing else! (I hope not too much)

The colors on this batch were very close to how vibrant they looked as I was taking the shots...

 DANE7's gear list:DANE7's gear list
Fujifilm X-E2 Fujifilm X-T2 Fujifilm FinePix HS20 EXR Sony Cyber-shot DSC-HX100V Fujifilm X-S1 +6 more
photoreddi Veteran Member • Posts: 7,973
Re: XS1 NewSettings, New sooc pics..C/C
1

Lisetta wrote:

PAUL TILL wrote:

I never shoot at 12MP, always 6MP. I always have the sharpness set to soft, you can sharpen in PP.

With your settings there is to much noise, just look at the sky. Look at your image at 100% then mine shot at 6MP, you can shoot at ISO100 and DR200 or even DR400 at 6MP.

Hi Paul,

Since you're comparing, shouldn't your recommended settings and example be SOOC like Dane's? That's a nice photo, but it looks processed.

Also, I've read before about people using "sharpening at soft". Could someone explain the thinking behind it? It seems so counterintuitive.

Setting sharpening to soft gives you images with the least amount of processing. More sharpening never adds more detail, it just makes the images appear to have more detail if you don't examine the images closely enough. It does this by darkening the edges of subjects, making them easier to notice. Take a nice, sharp, full page photo of a face from a high quality magazine and it will look great when viewed up close. Look at it from 50 feet away and it won't appear quite as impressive. But if you "sharpen" it by using an Ultra Fine Sharpie to outline the borders of the face, eyes, lips, etc., the photo will look, uh, sharper. But then walk back to look at the photo from a distance of only a few feet and it will look much worse than before it was marked with the Sharpie.

That's essentially what sharpening does, and if too much sharpening is used, you tend to get artifacts called halos which make the photos look even worse, and when the sharpening is applied by the camera, it can't be undone, real detail is lost due to the destructive effect of the halos and/or by the edge enhancement.

The least amount of sharpening preserves all the detail that the camera is capable of producing even though it may not be obvious. Those photos generally need some more sharpening to make them look better unless you've making small prints or web size photos. If sharpening is needed it can be done much more effectively with a photo editor, because the amount of sharpening applied isn't fixed, but varies, depending on the final viewing or print size.

You also want to apply sharpening locally, not across the frame, because some areas like blue skies should not be sharpened. That only makes the sky look grittier than it should be if you look too close.

Lloydy
Lloydy Forum Pro • Posts: 19,552
Dane ...

DANE7 wrote:

Soon enough I will go back to post processing my images, for now I will try to get the best images I

can get from the XS1 without destroying them with my poor P/P techniques or lack of !

The noise on my photos could also be corrected in P/P ...right?

... The answer is yes. Dependent upon what editor you have, and also what techniques you use.

Just by way of example, I downloaded your image and masked the sky. Then I used Blur/Average in Photoshop to smooth out the sky noise. Next, I inverted the selection to sharpen, other than sky. This way, you reduce noise but also get an overall sharper image.

See below.

By the way, it's best to keep on the path you're on and get SOOC images you are happy with.

-- hide signature --

Cheers, Dave

OP DANE7 Forum Member • Posts: 96
Re: Dane ...

Dave thanks for that P/P demo!

You are right in that I will not run before I can walk.

So far I am liking what the XS1 is giving me (besides the fun factor); photos I like.

 DANE7's gear list:DANE7's gear list
Fujifilm X-E2 Fujifilm X-T2 Fujifilm FinePix HS20 EXR Sony Cyber-shot DSC-HX100V Fujifilm X-S1 +6 more
Dash29 Senior Member • Posts: 1,330
Re: XS1 NewSettings, New sooc pics..C/C

My XS1 settings are

Iso - Auto 400

Image - 3:2

Image quality - F + Raw

Dynamic range - 200%

Film simulation - STD

WB shift - R+2 Ye-2

Colour - M-low

Sharpness - Hard

Highlight tone - M-soft

Shadow tone - M-soft

noise reduction - Low

Flash - -2/3

Metering - Multi or spot

Dave

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads