What is this waxy look people are talking about?

[Bilbo_bobbins]

I must admit, I have seen it. I shoot with a XT10, jpg only and notice it with high iso...but only sometimes. I have no idea what causes it, but it's not very often. I also shoot with a Canon 5d mkii.

 

[DarnGoodPhotos]

On the XT10, it happens when the ISO is over 1600 for in-camera JPGs.

 

[Bilbo_bobbins]

On the XT10, it happens when the ISO is over 1600 for in-camera JPGs.

 

[georgehudetz]

On the XT10, it happens when the ISO is over 1600 for in-camera JPGs.

--
www.darngoodphotos.com

ah ok, thanks for the info. I've just bought a XT20, its not the same with that is it?

That's what this entire thread is about. Most don't see it in the new sensor, others do. Take some shots and decide for yourself. Just don't crank the color to +4.

--
http://georgehudetzphotography.smugmug.com/
My Flikr stream: http://flic.kr/ps/Ay8ka

 

[DarnGoodPhotos]

On the XT10, it happens when the ISO is over 1600 for in-camera JPGs.

ah ok, thanks for the info. I've just bought a XT20, its not the same with that is it?

I have the NR on my Pro2 set to -3 and I rarely see it. You couldn't turn it off on the X-T10.

 

[Travelshooter]

I previously started a similar thread here . The problem I got was a very different one that most people have experienced, where in my case, I get skin detail pretty much wiped out and looking literally like a mannequin even with NR and sharpening to the minimum levels. It happened on every Fuji X camera I've owned and tried, ranging from the X30 to my X-Pro 1 and 2, as well as the X-T1 and X-T10.

After spending about 8 months experimenting around, I learnt that this only happens with indoor lighting, generally fluorescent or flash (doesn't seem to happen with proper tungsten lights, and it happens the moment skin tones are overexposed (even if just slightly). As a result, I generally shoot something like 1/3 to half stop underexposed to try to avoid the problem as much as possible, but it can still happen.

If you look at the picture below and zoom in, the girl had her face smoothed out to an unnatural degree, while the guy is less affected, and this was shot on my new X-Pro 2. I don't know of any way to really fix the problem, but this was a fairly minor case, so I just added some grain into the shot to make her face look less unnaturally smooth. If you look at the picture in the link above, you'll see a far more extreme example.

Downloaded and blew it up. I don't see the smoothing you are talking about but do see quite a bit of lens distortion. Glad I never bought that one.

--
www.MartinDareff.com

 

[DarnGoodPhotos]

I previously started a similar thread here . The problem I got was a very different one that most people have experienced, where in my case, I get skin detail pretty much wiped out and looking literally like a mannequin even with NR and sharpening to the minimum levels. It happened on every Fuji X camera I've owned and tried, ranging from the X30 to my X-Pro 1 and 2, as well as the X-T1 and X-T10.

After spending about 8 months experimenting around, I learnt that this only happens with indoor lighting, generally fluorescent or flash (doesn't seem to happen with proper tungsten lights, and it happens the moment skin tones are overexposed (even if just slightly). As a result, I generally shoot something like 1/3 to half stop underexposed to try to avoid the problem as much as possible, but it can still happen.

If you look at the picture below and zoom in, the girl had her face smoothed out to an unnatural degree, while the guy is less affected, and this was shot on my new X-Pro 2. I don't know of any way to really fix the problem, but this was a fairly minor case, so I just added some grain into the shot to make her face look less unnaturally smooth. If you look at the picture in the link above, you'll see a far more extreme example.

Downloaded and blew it up. I don't see the smoothing you are talking about but do see quite a bit of lens distortion. Glad I never bought that one.

I have never had a photo turn out like that with my Pro2. It looks like NR and sharpening have been increased well above 0. maybe your flash has something to do with it.

Not sure what is going on with the Pro1 photo in the linked thread but waxy skintones are an in-camera jpg issues, but not on the X-Trans1 cameraas (Pro1 or XE1). It looks like there was some subject movement or camera blur which could be doing it. Also, since it was a LR raw conversion it opens up the discussion to a poor conversion.

--
www.darngoodphotos.com

 

[BobsYourUncle]

Never ceases to amaze me how much discussion there is about the phenomenon and how much anger the discussions can produce.

If you look at the Weekly Photo Thread this week, my set of somewhat bad images illustrate how waxy an "X" photo can get. However, that was the look I wanted. You can see them here:

Waxy Fuji X Photos

Cheers,

Bob

 

[ChrisTW]

Nice polished images.

Chris

 

[Travelshooter]

I previously started a similar thread here . The problem I got was a very different one that most people have experienced, where in my case, I get skin detail pretty much wiped out and looking literally like a mannequin even with NR and sharpening to the minimum levels. It happened on every Fuji X camera I've owned and tried, ranging from the X30 to my X-Pro 1 and 2, as well as the X-T1 and X-T10.

After spending about 8 months experimenting around, I learnt that this only happens with indoor lighting, generally fluorescent or flash (doesn't seem to happen with proper tungsten lights, and it happens the moment skin tones are overexposed (even if just slightly). As a result, I generally shoot something like 1/3 to half stop underexposed to try to avoid the problem as much as possible, but it can still happen.

If you look at the picture below and zoom in, the girl had her face smoothed out to an unnatural degree, while the guy is less affected, and this was shot on my new X-Pro 2. I don't know of any way to really fix the problem, but this was a fairly minor case, so I just added some grain into the shot to make her face look less unnaturally smooth. If you look at the picture in the link above, you'll see a far more extreme example.

Downloaded and blew it up. I don't see the smoothing you are talking about but do see quite a bit of lens distortion. Glad I never bought that one.

I have never had a photo turn out like that with my Pro2. It looks like NR and sharpening have been increased well above 0. maybe your flash has something to do with it.

Not sure what is going on with the Pro1 photo in the linked thread but waxy skintones are an in-camera jpg issues, but not on the X-Trans1 cameraas (Pro1 or XE1). It looks like there was some subject movement or camera blur which could be doing it. Also, since it was a LR raw conversion it opens up the discussion to a poor conversion.

--
www.darngoodphotos.com

if it's a raw conversion there are opportunities for all sorts of possibly not correct settings.

--
www.MartinDareff.com

 

[Thermidor]

I have never had a photo turn out like that with my Pro2. It looks like NR and sharpening have been increased well above 0. maybe your flash has something to do with it.

Not sure what is going on with the Pro1 photo in the linked thread but waxy skintones are an in-camera jpg issues, but not on the X-Trans1 cameraas (Pro1 or XE1). It looks like there was some subject movement or camera blur which could be doing it. Also, since it was a LR raw conversion it opens up the discussion to a poor conversion.

 

[Threaded]

I guess my takeaway from this thread is that you can find waxiness in any Fuji jpeg if you look hard enough; but having owned and shot JPEGs on both the first and second generation X-Trans extensively, its obvious to me that it's the second gen with the big problem. I seriously wonder whether anyone would really be talking about wax if X-Trans II hadn't happened, and I suspect it's the worst of those x-trans II excesses that have overly sensitivitised some people to what they perceive as wax in the earlier and later bodies.

Personally, while I've been horrified at times with what my X-E2 or XT1 have produced at high ISO (so much so that I actually bought and sold two X-E2s before finally learning to live with it in the XT1), I've never been less than impressed with the very different output from my X-Pro1 in the exact same situations. 6400 ISO on a 2012 camera is never going to be the optimum setup for maximum detail in portraits, but in all the examples I've seen including the ones in this thread, I find the output perfectly acceptable. Whether or not you can see every wrinkle that should be there, they still look perfectly natural, whereas X-Trans II JPEGs in those situations simply do not; in those you can literally see the smearing, as if someone has just smudged the faces with a wet fingertip.

From what I've seen of the X-Trans III images, I believe they've reset things back to X-Pro1 levels, and I'm happy with that. In the most literal sense I don't see a problem, and I've yet to see anything head to head to convince me that a different camera would do a better job. I certainly don't see the wet finger of X-Trans II, and that makes me happy; as ever YMMV.

 

[Thermidor]

I previously started a similar thread here . The problem I got was a very different one that most people have experienced, where in my case, I get skin detail pretty much wiped out and looking literally like a mannequin even with NR and sharpening to the minimum levels. It happened on every Fuji X camera I've owned and tried, ranging from the X30 to my X-Pro 1 and 2, as well as the X-T1 and X-T10.

After spending about 8 months experimenting around, I learnt that this only happens with indoor lighting, generally fluorescent or flash (doesn't seem to happen with proper tungsten lights, and it happens the moment skin tones are overexposed (even if just slightly). As a result, I generally shoot something like 1/3 to half stop underexposed to try to avoid the problem as much as possible, but it can still happen.

If you look at the picture below and zoom in, the girl had her face smoothed out to an unnatural degree, while the guy is less affected, and this was shot on my new X-Pro 2. I don't know of any way to really fix the problem, but this was a fairly minor case, so I just added some grain into the shot to make her face look less unnaturally smooth. If you look at the picture in the link above, you'll see a far more extreme example.

Downloaded and blew it up. I don't see the smoothing you are talking about but do see quite a bit of lens distortion. Glad I never bought that one.

--
www.MartinDareff.com

You don't see the smoothing because I deliberately added grain effect to the image to mitigate it. But the fact is it happens, and not just at high ISO. That shot was taken at ISO 200 with flash compensation set at -1 2/3 EV. It's at least one of the examples where I can more or less still work with the image.

If you click on the linked photo in the other thread I opened, you'll see a much more extreme example, and unlike this image, I couldn't fix it.

 

[Thermidor]

I guess my takeaway from this thread is that you can find waxiness in any Fuji jpeg if you look hard enough; but having owned and shot JPEGs on both the first and second generation X-Trans extensively, its obvious to me that it's the second gen with the big problem. I seriously wonder whether anyone would really be talking about wax if X-Trans II hadn't happened, and I suspect it's the worst of those x-trans II excesses that have overly sensitivitised some people to what they perceive as wax in the earlier and later bodies.

Personally, while I've been horrified at times with what my X-E2 or XT1 have produced at high ISO (so much so that I actually bought and sold two X-E2s before finally learning to live with it in the XT1), I've never been less than impressed with the very different output from my X-Pro1 in the exact same situations. 6400 ISO on a 2012 camera is never going to be the optimum setup for maximum detail in portraits, but in all the examples I've seen including the ones in this thread, I find the output perfectly acceptable. Whether or not you can see every wrinkle that should be there, they still look perfectly natural, whereas X-Trans II JPEGs in those situations simply do not; in those you can literally see the smearing, as if someone has just smudged the faces with a wet fingertip.

From what I've seen of the X-Trans III images, I believe they've reset things back to X-Pro1 levels, and I'm happy with that. In the most literal sense I don't see a problem, and I've yet to see anything head to head to convince me that a different camera would do a better job. I certainly don't see the wet finger of X-Trans II, and that makes me happy; as ever YMMV.

Curiously enough, I've never experienced the kind of NR smearing you mentioned, but I have seen it happen to my friends' X100 models that I was legitimately wary about such issues, and instead got something else altogether.

Now that I've shot with a proper Fuji X-mount camera for nearly a year, I'm more or less able to pinpoint the conditions that cause the weird plasticky skin textures, and I'm generally able to work my way around them. But due to the X-Pro 2's clunky Auto ISO system that prevents direct control of the ISO unless I actually move the silly dial, it leaves me with a lot less control. Yes, I could just dial in exposure compensation, but on the X-Pro 1 I could just dial in the proper ISO to get my shot while avoiding the kind of overexposure that leads to this problem.

I still love shooting with a Fuji X system, no doubt. I just need to take more precautions with exposure that I wouldn't need to with my Nikon.

 

[Turlututu]

Have a look at this thread

 

[georgehudetz]

I previously started a similar thread here . The problem I got was a very different one that most people have experienced, where in my case, I get skin detail pretty much wiped out and looking literally like a mannequin even with NR and sharpening to the minimum levels. It happened on every Fuji X camera I've owned and tried, ranging from the X30 to my X-Pro 1 and 2, as well as the X-T1 and X-T10.

After spending about 8 months experimenting around, I learnt that this only happens with indoor lighting, generally fluorescent or flash (doesn't seem to happen with proper tungsten lights, and it happens the moment skin tones are overexposed (even if just slightly). As a result, I generally shoot something like 1/3 to half stop underexposed to try to avoid the problem as much as possible, but it can still happen.

If you look at the picture below and zoom in, the girl had her face smoothed out to an unnatural degree, while the guy is less affected, and this was shot on my new X-Pro 2. I don't know of any way to really fix the problem, but this was a fairly minor case, so I just added some grain into the shot to make her face look less unnaturally smooth. If you look at the picture in the link above, you'll see a far more extreme example.

Downloaded and blew it up. I don't see the smoothing you are talking about but do see quite a bit of lens distortion. Glad I never bought that one.

--
www.MartinDareff.com

You don't see the smoothing because I deliberately added grain effect to the image to mitigate it. But the fact is it happens, and not just at high ISO. That shot was taken at ISO 200 with flash compensation set at -1 2/3 EV. It's at least one of the examples where I can more or less still work with the image.

Didn't you say the lack of detail was due to overexposure? If so, that is a much different problem than what is being discussed in this thread, and is of course independent of ISO, CFA, sensor, etc.

If you click on the linked photo in the other thread I opened, you'll see a much more extreme example, and unlike this image, I couldn't fix it.

Yes but that was with some very strong in-camera adjustments for shadows & color. I'd hardly consider that example definitive proof of a problem with X-trans III sensors, other than when you jack up the color in a high ISO shot.

--

George Hudetz Photography

Powered by SmugMug

georgehudetzphotography.smugmug.com

My Flikr stream: http://flic.kr/ps/Ay8ka

 

[Thermidor]

use I deliberately added grain effect to the image to mitigate it. But the fact is it happens, and not just at high ISO. That shot was taken at ISO 200 with flash compensation set at -1 2/3 EV. It's at least one of the examples where I can more or less still work with the image.

Didn't you say the lack of detail was due to overexposure? If so, that is a much different problem than what is being discussed in this thread, and is of course independent of ISO, CFA, sensor, etc.

Yes, but I had already dialed in a negative exposure compensation and shooting at ISO 200. so technically the shot wasn't terribly overexposed, and only at the girl's face. If you look at the other textures in the frame, they turned out fine and didn't appear to be artificially smoothed out.

If you click on the linked photo in the other thread I opened, you'll see a much more extreme example, and unlike this image, I couldn't fix it.

Yes but that was with some very strong in-camera adjustments for shadows & color. I'd hardly consider that example definitive proof of a problem with X-trans III sensors, other than when you jack up the color in a high ISO shot.

I leave the colour saturation at 0 for all my shots, and shadow contrast at +1, while highlight contrast is -1. The problem here isn't colours to begin with. That's something I can fix in the raw files. The problem is her facial detail was completely smoothed out,

If I know how to replicate this problem on any Fuji camera, and am not getting the same issue on my Nikon, then I'd say it's a sensor issue. Granted, there are specific lighting conditions required to cause this, but flash and green fluorescent are common enough lighting sources that it's hard to avoid them.

Just because I've learnt to mostly avoid the issue doesn't mean it doesn't pop up every now and then. And this essentially means at times I need to shoot 1-2 stops underexposed, then do some serious pushing to get my shot looking right. Which is fine with a low ISO shot. But at ISO 3200 or 6400, I don't have much latitude left to push.