Fuji's colors vs. other maunfacturer's cameras

[Antone]

Are people who make this argument about not liking Fuji due to colors mainly referring to out-of-camera JPEGs? Some of the arguments I've heard include comments regarding skin colors not appearing correctly, and perhaps having a certain slight color cast to them (ie. making them not look natural).

Every camera is a compromise of some kind. Overall, I think Fuji's X-Trans sensor is really good. The only cameras I like better are Sigma's Foveon sensors, and then only in bright sunlight and low ISO.

 

[third son]

These were developed as RAW in LR using the associated color profiles. I happen to like both systems for their colors. The sun was dodging me that day so you will see that in the first two images.

In each pair you gave the Fuji a higher exposure, which will improve colour response.

Why wasn't the Olympus at base ISO?

The sun was gone and I was in a dark part of the woods. I doubt very much the difference between 200 and 400 would affect color, These were snapshots and not posted for their technical acuity, The color differences are there.

In the second Olympus shot, I didn't bother to change the ISO after the first image was taken.

--
-Paul

 

[FingerPainter]

These were developed as RAW in LR using the associated color profiles. I happen to like both systems for their colors. The sun was dodging me that day so you will see that in the first two images.

In each pair you gave the Fuji a higher exposure, which will improve colour response.

Why wasn't the Olympus at base ISO?

The sun was gone and I was in a dark part of the woods.

But you had plenty of shutter speed to work with.

I doubt very much the difference between 200 and 400 would affect color,

It will reduce colour sensitivity by about one bit.

These were snapshots and not posted for their technical acuity,

So they are of less utility for comparing colour than people might think.

The color differences are there.

In the second Olympus shot, I didn't bother to change the ISO after the first image was taken.

--
-Paul

 

[third son]

These were developed as RAW in LR using the associated color profiles. I happen to like both systems for their colors. The sun was dodging me that day so you will see that in the first two images.

In each pair you gave the Fuji a higher exposure, which will improve colour response.

Why wasn't the Olympus at base ISO?

The sun was gone and I was in a dark part of the woods.

But you had plenty of shutter speed to work with.

I doubt very much the difference between 200 and 400 would affect color,

It will reduce colour sensitivity by about one bit.

These were snapshots and not posted for their technical acuity,

So they are of less utility for comparing colour than people might think.

The color differences are there.

In the second Olympus shot, I didn't bother to change the ISO after the first image was taken.

 

[FingerPainter]

Perhaps you could post some of your examples that show what you are talking about. ... I went to look at your gallery but alas you have no photos uploaded. If you can see a one bit difference in color I would love to see an example so that I could learn something new today....ok?

Not going to happens I use an alias and don't post any of my own images here for reasons of privacy - lessons learned after an incident of privacy violation on another website.

 

[captura]

I'm partial to the 14/2.5, my copy just "pops." It's a phenomenon.

Perhaps you were replying to another user? The discussion I was engaged with was about color response of the sensor, not a lens.

 

[third son]

Perhaps you could post some of your examples that show what you are talking about. ... I went to look at your gallery but alas you have no photos uploaded. If you can see a one bit difference in color I would love to see an example so that I could learn something new today....ok?

Not going to happens I use an alias and don't post any of my own images here for reasons of privacy - lessons learned after an incident of privacy violation on another website.

Fair enough. I can't take any of your comments seriously then. I hope you understand.

--
-Paul

 

[captura]

... For a more objective evaluation, you need to do tests where the same subject is photographed under the same light on many brands of camera, and then have the output evaluated by people with a background evaluating images, without them knowing which brand took which image. I only know of one such test. It was conducted about a year ago by The Camera Store. Default JPEG colours were evaluated using a portrait, a landscape and a studio shot that included a colour checker. Fuji finished fourth of eight. The Fuji body used in the test was the X-T2.
...

This must be the video from The Camera Store you were referring to.

The Great JPEG Shootout! (Canon, Nikon, Sony, Fuji, iPhone, Pentax, Olympus, Panasonic)

Yes, that's the one.

Looks like Canon won this one.

Nope, Nikon edged Canon out. Go to the 17:33 mark of the video to get the final overall rankings.

Yes, I was going by memory. There are some good reasons why the old standby DSLR's keep on going and going in popularity.

 

[Eoanthropus]

If anything, I'd say Fuji's colors are better than everyone else's,

Of course you would say that. You bought a Fuji and you bought it because of what you read/heard/thought about its colour performance.

In fact, most Fuji owners probably think Fuji produces the best colours. If they didn't why did they buy Fuji? If they bought it and found they didn't like the colours why would they keep it?

For a more objective evaluation, you need to do tests where the same subject is photographed under the same light on many brands of camera, and then have the output evaluated by people with a background evaluating images, without them knowing which brand took which image. I only know of one such test. It was conducted about a year ago by The Camera Store. Default JPEG colours were evaluated using a portrait, a landscape and a studio shot that included a colour checker. Fuji finished fourth of eight. The Fuji body used in the test was the X-T2.

though my experience is primarily related to JPEG. I bought the X-T2 because of the Fuji colors and the film simulations. With all other cameras I've owned, RAW processing was necessary with every single image in order to achieve satisfactory results. With Fuji, I usually use the JPEG (as long as I got it with the right film simulation).

The idea of color differences in RAW between brands I'd say is pretty far fetched. With RAW you can use film simulation software like RNI and pretty much achieve whatever color you want.

I agree that colour output evaluation is pretty much limited to default JPEG output. Most cameras let you adjust JPEG output from the deftult settings, an dRAW offers even more flexibility.

Right!

Without a blind objective test it's all just a bunch of babbling noise.

My experience is that Fuji users (same for other users) can't even pick out their Fuji colors in a blind test. If you can't tell them apart when looking at them what is that you like so much in what you can't identify?

Here's a blind test:

photo1

photo2

photo3

photo4

photo5

photo6

photo7

photo8

photo9

photo10

photo11

photo12

photo13

photo14

photo15

Easy, there's nothing better than the Fuji film simulations. Sort them out in the above 15 photos and make sure you also reject any images from other brand cameras if you see any. ;-)

 

[grazuncle]

I would not dare to pick anything out of your list..

all i know is what i like.. don't care about the source.. I saw some images i recently rescued for a friend's dad. a P&S Olympus

fabulous colours and skins.. I wanted one! I doubt it would have been so good in poor light but you live with what things do, not what they don't

I liked my Nikons and with some work (easily) got what i wanted... Many pros are working with a variety of brands and models.. they can't all be wrong to use them and not Fuji can they.

 

[FingerPainter]

Perhaps you could post some of your examples that show what you are talking about. ... I went to look at your gallery but alas you have no photos uploaded. If you can see a one bit difference in color I would love to see an example so that I could learn something new today....ok?

Not going to happens I use an alias and don't post any of my own images here for reasons of privacy - lessons learned after an incident of privacy violation on another website.

Fair enough. I can't take any of your comments seriously then. I hope you understand.

Most people who read my posts can tell whether I know what I'm talking about without having to see any pictures I have taken. If you are unfamiliar with my contributions, then you may not have enough evidence to make a judgement.

Just as a good photographer doesn't necessarily need a good camera to take a good photo, one doesn't necessarily need good technical knowledge to take some good pictures. After all, the technical merits of a photo are not usually what make it a great photo. Conversely, you don't have to be able to play piano at all to hear when the pianist hits a wrong note. Having a basic familiarity with music and functional ears will suffice. It is quite possible to have extensive technical knowledge about photography without having the artistry to be a good photographer.

So frankly, what you might see in my photos tells you nothing useful about whether you should take my comments seriously when my comments are of a technical nature, as they are in this subthread.

I do understand that some people feel otherwise.

 

[Eoanthropus]

I would not dare to pick anything out of your list..

all i know is what i like.. don't care about the source.. I saw some images i recently rescued for a friend's dad. a P&S Olympus

fabulous colours and skins.. I wanted one! I doubt it would have been so good in poor light but you live with what things do, not what they don't

I liked my Nikons and with some work (easily) got what i wanted... Many pros are working with a variety of brands and models.. they can't all be wrong to use them and not Fuji can they.

Of course not.

--
There is a very fine line between 'hobby' and 'mental illness.' :'!':

 

[georgehudetz]

These were developed as RAW in LR using the associated color profiles. I happen to like both systems for their colors. The sun was dodging me that day so you will see that in the first two images.

In each pair you gave the Fuji a higher exposure, which will improve colour response.

Why wasn't the Olympus at base ISO?

The sun was gone and I was in a dark part of the woods. I doubt very much the difference between 200 and 400 would affect color, These were snapshots and not posted for their technical acuity, The color differences are there.

Yes they are, but are the color differences an artifact of the default camera profiles, or is there an actual difference in the color response of the sensor? A flat curve would help shine light on that.

 

[third son]

It is answers like this that make me want to step aside and avoid any form of interaction with this forum. Too many self proscribed experts that have no skin in the game. So I will take my own advice and bid adieu.

 

[captura]

It is answers like this that make me want to step aside and avoid any form of interaction with this forum. Too many self proscribed experts that have no skin in the game. So I will take my own advice and bid adieu.

 

[stevo23]

I sometimes hear people talking about Fuji, saying they don't like the Fuji colors, and prefer to go with X camera (Sony, Panasonic, etc).

This may seem a bit obvious to some,but I just want some clarification here... if you're shooting RAW, isn't this not as much of an issue, since in your photo editors, you can adjust color. As I understand it, a RAW file records color information, but that information can be modified in post processing to adjust for luminance, saturation, hue, etc (ie. HSL)...?

Are people who make this argument about not liking Fuji due to colors mainly referring to out-of-camera JPEGs? Some of the arguments I've heard include comments regarding skin colors not appearing correctly, and perhaps having a certain slight color cast to them (ie. making them not look natural).

(I guess I never really asked anyone to clarify.)

Even down to Raw images, each sensor and system approaches color a bit differently. I don't take much care about color - it is what it is and it can't be too whacked out or they wouldn't sell many cameras.

I've had Canon, Olympus, Nikon, Sony, Samsung and Fuji. I never once thought any of them were perfect. Nor did I once think any of them were anything but generally good at color.

 

[michaeladawson]

And, while the colors in these shots are obviously different, they have been processed with two different profiles - as you say, the associated default camera body profiles. This affects the colors. It would be interesting to see these images again but processed with the same profile - you can pick the XT-20 profile, or the Oly profile - and apply it to all images. Doing so would remove an important variable. You could even pick a "neutral" profile from another manufacturer - a Nikon D3s, for example.

I'd love to know how you're going to do that.

Also, the shadows are heavier in the Fuji shots - particularly the first pair. Not sure if that's a function of the profile or the exposure. If it's exposure then of course the perception of the colors is affected.

Not sure if you care enough to do this test or not, but I do feel it would be interesting.

Thanks for posting either way!

[edit] another way to take the body profile variable out is to go with a "flat" or "linear" curve. Capture One has this option, but I'm not sure if LR does.

 

[georgehudetz]

And, while the colors in these shots are obviously different, they have been processed with two different profiles - as you say, the associated default camera body profiles. This affects the colors. It would be interesting to see these images again but processed with the same profile - you can pick the XT-20 profile, or the Oly profile - and apply it to all images. Doing so would remove an important variable. You could even pick a "neutral" profile from another manufacturer - a Nikon D3s, for example.

I'd love to know how you're going to do that.

It's quite easy in Capture One. You simply pick the profile you want to apply to the image. After all, a profile is a profile is a profile. It's just data.

Now, the validity of using this approach to determine the color "signature" of each system depends on the nature of these profiles. If each profile is intended to bring it's target camera to be in alignment with some color standard or another, then of course applying the profile for body A to body B won't mean much. I suppose at some level it must be intended to do just that, but if so then there is way more color variation system to system than I would expect, based on what I see when I apply various body profiles to any given image. In the end we don't really know how rigorous the creation of such profiles are, so it's probably not a good way to understand how the systems differer from a color standpoint.

That's why I suggest (below) using a linear or flat profile to both images. That should take any subjectivity/error out of it, although it would result in a boring image. But at least we could see how the color response of the two systems differ.

Also, the shadows are heavier in the Fuji shots - particularly the first pair. Not sure if that's a function of the profile or the exposure. If it's exposure then of course the perception of the colors is affected.

Not sure if you care enough to do this test or not, but I do feel it would be interesting.

Thanks for posting either way!

[edit] another way to take the body profile variable out is to go with a "flat" or "linear" curve. Capture One has this option, but I'm not sure if LR does.

 

[stevo23]

And, while the colors in these shots are obviously different, they have been processed with two different profiles - as you say, the associated default camera body profiles. This affects the colors. It would be interesting to see these images again but processed with the same profile - you can pick the XT-20 profile, or the Oly profile - and apply it to all images. Doing so would remove an important variable. You could even pick a "neutral" profile from another manufacturer - a Nikon D3s, for example.

I'd love to know how you're going to do that.

It's quite easy in Capture One. You simply pick the profile you want to apply to the image. After all, a profile is a profile is a profile. It's just data.

Now, the validity of using this approach to determine the color "signature" of each system depends on the nature of these profiles. If each profile is intended to bring it's target camera to be in alignment with some color standard or another, then of course applying the profile for body A to body B won't mean much. I suppose at some level it must be intended to do just that, but if so then there is way more color variation system to system than I would expect, based on what I see when I apply various body profiles to any given image. In the end we don't really know how rigorous the creation of such profiles are, so it's probably not a good way to understand how the systems differer from a color standpoint.

That's why I suggest (below) using a linear or flat profile to both images. That should take any subjectivity/error out of it, although it would result in a boring image. But at least we could see how the color response of the two systems differ.

I don't know how valid it would be. I can pick any profile in Iridient and apply it to any camera. But it's hard to imagine it would be truly eliminating a variable. If anything, it introduces yet another. I have no idea if the color space is well represented when applying other manufacturers' profiles.

 

[michaeladawson]

And, while the colors in these shots are obviously different, they have been processed with two different profiles - as you say, the associated default camera body profiles. This affects the colors. It would be interesting to see these images again but processed with the same profile - you can pick the XT-20 profile, or the Oly profile - and apply it to all images. Doing so would remove an important variable. You could even pick a "neutral" profile from another manufacturer - a Nikon D3s, for example.

I'd love to know how you're going to do that.

It's quite easy in Capture One. You simply pick the profile you want to apply to the image. After all, a profile is a profile is a profile. It's just data.

Not in Lightroom, which is what the poster of the comparison uses.

On top of that, are you absolutely sure that the different profiles in C1 aren't actually specific to the camera body sensor?

Now, the validity of using this approach to determine the color "signature" of each system depends on the nature of these profiles. If each profile is intended to bring it's target camera to be in alignment with some color standard or another, then of course applying the profile for body A to body B won't mean much. I suppose at some level it must be intended to do just that, but if so then there is way more color variation system to system than I would expect, based on what I see when I apply various body profiles to any given image. In the end we don't really know how rigorous the creation of such profiles are, so it's probably not a good way to understand how the systems differer from a color standpoint.

That's why I suggest (below) using a linear or flat profile to both images. That should take any subjectivity/error out of it, although it would result in a boring image. But at least we could see how the color response of the two systems differ.

Also, the shadows are heavier in the Fuji shots - particularly the first pair. Not sure if that's a function of the profile or the exposure. If it's exposure then of course the perception of the colors is affected.

Not sure if you care enough to do this test or not, but I do feel it would be interesting.

Thanks for posting either way!

[edit] another way to take the body profile variable out is to go with a "flat" or "linear" curve. Capture One has this option, but I'm not sure if LR does.