Fuji dropped the ball big time on JPEGS? Locked

set no internal changes to shadow and highlights and all that mess

manually set DR to 100%

Use the correct metering pattern (generally speaking)

Do not let camera pick AF points if that is even an option

Use standard Provia, Astia or ProNeg Low I think but to compare

Use flash if you needed, even a $6000 Nikon D5 is not magical.  There is still crafting the image.  It is very easy to do one and one without flash.  If you are dead set against it bracketing exposure is always good.

Shoot RAW and JPEG that RAW file can save the day

HP1999 wrote:

set no internal changes to shadow and highlights and all that mess

manually set DR to 100%

Use the correct metering pattern (generally speaking)

Do not let camera pick AF points if that is even an option

Use standard Provia, Astia or ProNeg Low I think but to compare

Use flash if you needed, even a $6000 Nikon D5 is not magical. There is still crafting the image. It is very easy to do one and one without flash. If you are dead set against it bracketing exposure is always good.

Shoot RAW and JPEG that RAW file can save the day

But if the OP does that, then he won't have any need to complain....where is the fun in that?

The Davinator wrote:

HP1999 wrote:

set no internal changes to shadow and highlights and all that mess

manually set DR to 100%

Use the correct metering pattern (generally speaking)

Do not let camera pick AF points if that is even an option

Use standard Provia, Astia or ProNeg Low I think but to compare

Use flash if you needed, even a $6000 Nikon D5 is not magical. There is still crafting the image. It is very easy to do one and one without flash. If you are dead set against it bracketing exposure is always good.

Shoot RAW and JPEG that RAW file can save the day

But if the OP does that, then he won't have any need to complain....where is the fun in that?

Let the good times roll...

Batdude wrote:

What has happened to Fuji JPEGS?

I'm pretty happy with them. Here's one from today using the X-T20 and 50-140mm f2.8 - SOOC using Astia and color +1.

Contrast that with SOOC jpeg from a Nikon (D3 with 70-200mm f2.8) in portrait picture mode.

On my computer the Fuji jpeg is hard to beat using the raw file, whereas the Nikon requires work on the raw file to get rid of the green.

fcracer wrote:

Seems rather counterintuitive to say Fuji has dropped the ball on jpeg when you’ve gone and modified the standard jpeg settings. Perhaps you’ve dropped the ball?

I will agree that once a person starts adjusting the shadows and highlights they're changing the Fuji in-camera JPEG processing algorithms and shouldn't blame Fuji for the out of camera result.

A +3 shadow setting will darken the shadows creating a harsher appearance to the image. For portraits, Fuji recommends pro neg high for outdoors and pro neg standard for indoors.

I've owned a Fuji since about a month after the X-E1 was introduced and although I agree Pro neg standard is one of the film simulations recommended for portraits, Provia is also recommended.

Have to admit I've never heard that pro neg high is recommended for outdoor portraits and pro neg standard is recommended for indoors.  Must have missed that.

I use Provia for all portraits but that's just a personal choice and because I post process every image I intend to keep my choice may not be as important as it would be for a person who didn't post process their images.

Try following Fuji’s advice and see if the image is still not to your liking. I’d also humbly suggest taking into consideration titles for your future posts. Imagine being a colour engineer at Fujifilm and seeing your headline.

I know this is a touchy subject and many people will disagree with me but as much as I like Fuji I do think their JPEG processing has suffered, over the years, and skin tones just don't look quite as good as they did with the original X-Trans processor (X-Pro1/X-E1).

That's not to say the newer cameras aren't "better" but I do think the JPEG engine isn't quite as good.

-- hide signature --

Personal photo blog: www.fcracer.com
Instagram: fcracer
Flickr: fcracer

Batdude wrote:

TEAS wrote:

I agree ---- I seems that this is another case of user error - and blaming the camera.

I'm responding to your two previous posts above and in my explanation I very clearly said: "Did I do something really wrong with my XH1 settings??" so why on earth would I have to "admit" to you that I screwed up? And I "blamed" the camera? You make no sense bro.

Again, you just want to play this childish "hurt my feelings" game because of some dumb tittle that you didn't like.

If you already read above I asked Jerry if he would change it and he said no to just leave it the way it is. I didn't and don't have a single problem in "correcting" the tittle.

In the end I don't have to admit anything to you, this ain't court.

I agree with you.

Too many kids and immature people here who get their feelings hurt about almost anything.

I do think your settings may have been the problem with your images but I don't think there was anything particularly wrong with your post.

Just the same, it's the Internet and no matter what you post or how you say it, someone is going pick apart your every comment and try to make you look like you're an idiot.

Batdude wrote:

celestialemissary wrote:

Charles2 wrote:

Is this better? Lightened shadows, shifted white balance slightly warmer and tint toward green away from magenta - all things that can be set in the camera.

See original size

It's still bad.

I agree. Their skin tones simply do not look like that in real life and it still look unpleasant. Maybe by me setting it to +3 shadow tone and Provia Standard simply destroyed the photo from the begining?

I did import the photo in LR and also tried adjusting the warmth and WB and other color sliders, and It just didn't come out right. For the kind of tan skin tone the girls have something went very wrong, either those setting or as other people already said, using Provia Standard. They were under a very nice amount of shade and was expecting much better results. The skin tones here look very plasticky and fake and plain unpleasant. I might as well shoot RAW from the very beginning because it makes no sense to spend so much time with jpegs like this trying to fix them. Unpleasant stuff like this is exactly what I was getting with the old Nikon D7000 years ago.

I will try something else another day before my family leaves, they are only visiting for a few more days

Okay, if people are making adjustment.

I'm sitting here on a small laptop so may not be getting a good rendition of this image but decided to lighten the shadows and turn the color down just a bit.

Doesn't look all that bad to me.