Back to Fuji - First photos X-T4 and 16-55

Started 4 months ago | Photos
Mike Arledge Senior Member • Posts: 1,748
Back to Fuji - First photos X-T4 and 16-55
11

I was an original early adopter of the X100 when it came out, and have owned the X-Pro1 and the original primes back when.  I had to regrettably sell those back when my daughter arrived in 2014.  Since then through changes I ended up being in Pentax land (still own a K-1 and KP) and the past 2.5 years I had gotten into M43 (Oly and Panny bodies and pro lenses).  However, I was never really satisfied with the resolution of the M43 sensor - even though the bodies and lenses are really impressive.  So, with the Olympus sale I decided to cash in on my M43 gear and move back to Fuji.  I grabbed the Silver X-T4 and the 16-55 in shop and have the Zeiss Touitt 32 1.8 on order.  So far I have mostly just updated the firmware and snapped around the house while setting it up.  But here is the obligatory "first shots" with the color profile I wanted and once I had my head wrapped around the dial placements.  The body and lens are both amazing, but its the Fuji Colors that just made me sure this was the right move.  No other manufacturer comes close to having a jpg setting that can capture my dog as I see her - that liver and white combo just gave M43 fits no matter what so I was always shooting in Raw to correct.  I can totally live with Fuji jpgs when just snapping, and the RAWs are easier to handle in Lightroom than I remember.  I look forward to posting more in this forum again

 Mike Arledge's gear list:Mike Arledge's gear list
Pentax K-1 Pentax KP Fujifilm X-T4 Pentax smc DA 15mm F4 ED AL Limited Pentax smc DA* 50-135mm F2.8 ED (IF) SDM +5 more
Comment & critique:
Please provide me constructive critique and criticism.
Fujifilm X-T4
If you believe there are incorrect tags, please send us this post using our feedback form.
Bob Tullis
MOD Bob Tullis Forum Pro • Posts: 39,792
Re: Back to Fuji - First photos X-T4 and 16-55
1

Silver!!????

Well, at whatever it takes, I  suppose  [g].

Welcome,  and welcome back. That  X-T4 is nice, isn't it?  

-- hide signature --

"Well, sometimes the magic works. . . Sometimes, it doesn't."
------ Chief Dan George, Little Big Man
@ bobtullis.com & flickr.com/photos/bobtullis
.
My opinions are my own and not those of DPR or its administration.

 Bob Tullis's gear list:Bob Tullis's gear list
Fujifilm X100F Fujifilm X-Pro2 Fujifilm X-T2 Fujifilm X-T4
OP Mike Arledge Senior Member • Posts: 1,748
Re: Back to Fuji - First photos X-T4 and 16-55
1

Bob Tullis wrote:

Silver!!????

Well, at whatever it takes, I suppose [g].

Welcome, and welcome back. That X-T4 is nice, isn't it?

Have you seen this newer silver finish?  Its drool-worthy sexy.  I honestly was planning on black, but in person I was like, yeah, silver is rad.  And yes, the X-T4 is really, really nice.  It will take a few weeks to understand it all I am sure, but so far, it left nothing on the table to my previous G9.  And resolution is much improved.

 Mike Arledge's gear list:Mike Arledge's gear list
Pentax K-1 Pentax KP Fujifilm X-T4 Pentax smc DA 15mm F4 ED AL Limited Pentax smc DA* 50-135mm F2.8 ED (IF) SDM +5 more
Bob Tullis
MOD Bob Tullis Forum Pro • Posts: 39,792
Re: Back to Fuji - First photos X-T4 and 16-55
5

Mike Arledge wrote:

Bob Tullis wrote:

Silver!!????

Well, at whatever it takes, I suppose [g].

Welcome, and welcome back. That X-T4 is nice, isn't it?

Have you seen this newer silver finish? Its drool-worthy sexy. I honestly was planning on black, but in person I was like, yeah, silver is rad. And yes, the X-T4 is really, really nice. It will take a few weeks to understand it all I am sure, but so far, it left nothing on the table to my previous G9. And resolution is much improved.

I started with black, and prefer it in general, though the sliver finish is nice. Black also keeps my wife from realizing a new body is in residence, until it's not quite new anymore (joking -at least, at this point in time that's not necessary any longer [g] ).

-- hide signature --

"Well, sometimes the magic works. . . Sometimes, it doesn't."
------ Chief Dan George, Little Big Man
@ bobtullis.com & flickr.com/photos/bobtullis
.
My opinions are my own and not those of DPR or its administration.

 Bob Tullis's gear list:Bob Tullis's gear list
Fujifilm X100F Fujifilm X-Pro2 Fujifilm X-T2 Fujifilm X-T4
OP Mike Arledge Senior Member • Posts: 1,748
Re: Back to Fuji - First photos X-T4 and 16-55
1

Bob Tullis wrote:

Mike Arledge wrote:

Bob Tullis wrote:

Silver!!????

Well, at whatever it takes, I suppose [g].

Welcome, and welcome back. That X-T4 is nice, isn't it?

Have you seen this newer silver finish? Its drool-worthy sexy. I honestly was planning on black, but in person I was like, yeah, silver is rad. And yes, the X-T4 is really, really nice. It will take a few weeks to understand it all I am sure, but so far, it left nothing on the table to my previous G9. And resolution is much improved.

I started with black, and prefer it in general, though the sliver finish is nice. Black also keeps my wife from realizing a new body is in residence, until it's not quite new anymore (joking -at least, at this point in time that's not necessary any longer [g] ).

I have to assume for most of us, choosing Fuji has a strong tie to the aesthetic of the system as much as the tech specs of the gear. IDK

 Mike Arledge's gear list:Mike Arledge's gear list
Pentax K-1 Pentax KP Fujifilm X-T4 Pentax smc DA 15mm F4 ED AL Limited Pentax smc DA* 50-135mm F2.8 ED (IF) SDM +5 more
Greg7579
Greg7579 Forum Pro • Posts: 11,271
Re: Back to Fuji - First photos X-T4 and 16-55
1

Nice shots.  Nothing beats the 16-55.  What a great lens.

Keep shooting and have fun.  You have a great camera and a greater lens.

-- hide signature --
 Greg7579's gear list:Greg7579's gear list
Leica Q2 Fujifilm GFX 50R Fujifilm GFX 100 Fujifilm GF 32-64mm F4 Fujifilm 120mm F4 Macro +7 more
Michael Berg
Michael Berg Contributing Member • Posts: 865
Fuji jpegs are lovely
2

Congratulations on your new camera, I'm about 2 months ahead of you here

How do you like the 16-55? I was so close to getting that over the traditional 18-55 but was somewhat turned off by the bulk and weight of that lens. Especially for travelling.

As for the jpegs you'll eventually find out, like I have, that there just isn't a raw converter in existence that will give results like those straight out of the camera. In my experience the closest you'll get is with Capture One 20, of which the free "Express" version for Fuji is free to use and does the film simulations accurately enough. Even then you'll struggle to get results that are as pleasing as the internal raw converter. It's not impossible, just takes a disproportionate amount of time.

Try Fuji X-Raw Studio. It's a free software sidekick to the camera available from Fuji, which allows you to basically use the Raw conversion features inside the camera in a more conventional "desktop" workflow experience. You plug in the camera with a USB cable and the software talks to the camera and uses it's internal engine for raw conversions. All of your cameras controls for exposure, film simulation, highlight/shadow, clarity, color chrome etc, are available in the interface, and although the software is a bit clunky to use there is no arguing with the results. If you want to get anything just barely as good as those jpegs, you'll be spending a lot of time in Lightroom or Capture One - so why not just use the camera, after all this is what you paid the big bucks for.

Anyway, happy shooting and by the way nice doggo ..

-- hide signature --
Makingtrax Contributing Member • Posts: 937
Re: Back to Fuji - First photos X-T4 and 16-55

Mike Arledge wrote:

I was an original early adopter of the X100 when it came out, and have owned the X-Pro1 and the original primes back when. I had to regrettably sell those back when my daughter arrived in 2014. Since then through changes I ended up being in Pentax land (still own a K-1 and KP) and the past 2.5 years I had gotten into M43 (Oly and Panny bodies and pro lenses). However, I was never really satisfied with the resolution of the M43 sensor - even though the bodies and lenses are really impressive. So, with the Olympus sale I decided to cash in on my M43 gear and move back to Fuji. I grabbed the Silver X-T4 and the 16-55 in shop and have the Zeiss Touitt 32 1.8 on order. So far I have mostly just updated the firmware and snapped around the house while setting it up. But here is the obligatory "first shots" with the color profile I wanted and once I had my head wrapped around the dial placements. The body and lens are both amazing, but its the Fuji Colors that just made me sure this was the right move. No other manufacturer comes close to having a jpg setting that can capture my dog as I see her - that liver and white combo just gave M43 fits no matter what so I was always shooting in Raw to correct. I can totally live with Fuji jpgs when just snapping, and the RAWs are easier to handle in Lightroom than I remember. I look forward to posting more in this forum again

Be careful with the silver camera. I had the X100F in silver and put it in my pocket, not realising there was a key in there. When I took it out it had 3 scratches on the top which always annoyed me The coating seemed very soft. When I got the XT3 I bought black, which so far after quite a bit of use is immaculate still.

-- hide signature --

Steve

 Makingtrax's gear list:Makingtrax's gear list
Fujifilm X-T3 Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R Fujifilm XF 56mm F1.2 R Fujifilm XF 16mm F1.4 R WR Fujifilm XF 100-400mm F4.5-5.6 OIS WR
Bob Tullis
MOD Bob Tullis Forum Pro • Posts: 39,792
Re: Back to Fuji - First photos X-T4 and 16-55

Mike Arledge wrote:

Bob Tullis wrote:

Mike Arledge wrote:

Bob Tullis wrote:

Silver!!????

Well, at whatever it takes, I suppose [g].

Welcome, and welcome back. That X-T4 is nice, isn't it?

Have you seen this newer silver finish? Its drool-worthy sexy. I honestly was planning on black, but in person I was like, yeah, silver is rad. And yes, the X-T4 is really, really nice. It will take a few weeks to understand it all I am sure, but so far, it left nothing on the table to my previous G9. And resolution is much improved.

I started with black, and prefer it in general, though the sliver finish is nice. Black also keeps my wife from realizing a new body is in residence, until it's not quite new anymore (joking -at least, at this point in time that's not necessary any longer [g] ).

I have to assume for most of us, choosing Fuji has a strong tie to the aesthetic of the system as much as the tech specs of the gear. IDK

IMO a great part of the appeal is it being a bit different than most PASM style cameras.   It's all subjective anyways, and all cameras are more than a sum of their features/parts.  I quite appreciate the choices we're offered.    

-- hide signature --

"Well, sometimes the magic works. . . Sometimes, it doesn't."
------ Chief Dan George, Little Big Man
@ bobtullis.com & flickr.com/photos/bobtullis
.
My opinions are my own and not those of DPR or its administration.

 Bob Tullis's gear list:Bob Tullis's gear list
Fujifilm X100F Fujifilm X-Pro2 Fujifilm X-T2 Fujifilm X-T4
OP Mike Arledge Senior Member • Posts: 1,748
Re: Fuji jpegs are lovely

Michael Berg wrote:

Congratulations on your new camera, I'm about 2 months ahead of you here

How do you like the 16-55? I was so close to getting that over the traditional 18-55 but was somewhat turned off by the bulk and weight of that lens. Especially for travelling.

As for the jpegs you'll eventually find out, like I have, that there just isn't a raw converter in existence that will give results like those straight out of the camera. In my experience the closest you'll get is with Capture One 20, of which the free "Express" version for Fuji is free to use and does the film simulations accurately enough. Even then you'll struggle to get results that are as pleasing as the internal raw converter. It's not impossible, just takes a disproportionate amount of time.

Try Fuji X-Raw Studio. It's a free software sidekick to the camera available from Fuji, which allows you to basically use the Raw conversion features inside the camera in a more conventional "desktop" workflow experience. You plug in the camera with a USB cable and the software talks to the camera and uses it's internal engine for raw conversions. All of your cameras controls for exposure, film simulation, highlight/shadow, clarity, color chrome etc, are available in the interface, and although the software is a bit clunky to use there is no arguing with the results. If you want to get anything just barely as good as those jpegs, you'll be spending a lot of time in Lightroom or Capture One - so why not just use the camera, after all this is what you paid the big bucks for.

Anyway, happy shooting and by the way nice doggo ..

The 16-55 is big, but having a FF Pentax rig, its about the same as the K-1 and the DFA 50 I have.  Thanks for the feedback. I have used Lightroom forever, even with first gen X-trans, so I will just stick with it. I shoot RAW+ taking advantage of the dual card slots, so I can have it both ways, although reading about the TIF option intrigues me. I still have to decide the AF and drive mode settings I want. As the review here states the face AF is iffy. But otherwise it is solid.

 Mike Arledge's gear list:Mike Arledge's gear list
Pentax K-1 Pentax KP Fujifilm X-T4 Pentax smc DA 15mm F4 ED AL Limited Pentax smc DA* 50-135mm F2.8 ED (IF) SDM +5 more
OP Mike Arledge Senior Member • Posts: 1,748
Re: Back to Fuji - First photos X-T4 and 16-55
1

Makingtrax wrote:

Mike Arledge wrote:

I was an original early adopter of the X100 when it came out, and have owned the X-Pro1 and the original primes back when. I had to regrettably sell those back when my daughter arrived in 2014. Since then through changes I ended up being in Pentax land (still own a K-1 and KP) and the past 2.5 years I had gotten into M43 (Oly and Panny bodies and pro lenses). However, I was never really satisfied with the resolution of the M43 sensor - even though the bodies and lenses are really impressive. So, with the Olympus sale I decided to cash in on my M43 gear and move back to Fuji. I grabbed the Silver X-T4 and the 16-55 in shop and have the Zeiss Touitt 32 1.8 on order. So far I have mostly just updated the firmware and snapped around the house while setting it up. But here is the obligatory "first shots" with the color profile I wanted and once I had my head wrapped around the dial placements. The body and lens are both amazing, but its the Fuji Colors that just made me sure this was the right move. No other manufacturer comes close to having a jpg setting that can capture my dog as I see her - that liver and white combo just gave M43 fits no matter what so I was always shooting in Raw to correct. I can totally live with Fuji jpgs when just snapping, and the RAWs are easier to handle in Lightroom than I remember. I look forward to posting more in this forum again

Be careful with the silver camera. I had the X100F in silver and put it in my pocket, not realising there was a key in there. When I took it out it had 3 scratches on the top which always annoyed me The coating seemed very soft. When I got the XT3 I bought black, which so far after quite a bit of use is immaculate still.

Good to know, we shall see I guess, will just have to be careful.

 Mike Arledge's gear list:Mike Arledge's gear list
Pentax K-1 Pentax KP Fujifilm X-T4 Pentax smc DA 15mm F4 ED AL Limited Pentax smc DA* 50-135mm F2.8 ED (IF) SDM +5 more
notchy
notchy Contributing Member • Posts: 506
Re: Back to Fuji - First photos X-T4 and 16-55

Mike Arledge wrote:

Bob Tullis wrote:

Mike Arledge wrote:

Bob Tullis wrote:

Silver!!????

Well, at whatever it takes, I suppose [g].

Welcome, and welcome back. That X-T4 is nice, isn't it?

Have you seen this newer silver finish? Its drool-worthy sexy. I honestly was planning on black, but in person I was like, yeah, silver is rad. And yes, the X-T4 is really, really nice. It will take a few weeks to understand it all I am sure, but so far, it left nothing on the table to my previous G9. And resolution is much improved.

I started with black, and prefer it in general, though the sliver finish is nice. Black also keeps my wife from realizing a new body is in residence, until it's not quite new anymore (joking -at least, at this point in time that's not necessary any longer [g] ).

I have to assume for most of us, choosing Fuji has a strong tie to the aesthetic of the system as much as the tech specs of the gear. IDK

And why not? {{ deity }} preserve us from cameras that are "merely tools"

 notchy's gear list:notchy's gear list
Fujifilm X-Pro2 Fujifilm X-H1 Fujifilm X-T3
OP Mike Arledge Senior Member • Posts: 1,748
Re: Back to Fuji - First photos X-T4 and 16-55

notchy wrote:

Mike Arledge wrote:

Bob Tullis wrote:

Mike Arledge wrote:

Bob Tullis wrote:

Silver!!????

Well, at whatever it takes, I suppose [g].

Welcome, and welcome back. That X-T4 is nice, isn't it?

Have you seen this newer silver finish? Its drool-worthy sexy. I honestly was planning on black, but in person I was like, yeah, silver is rad. And yes, the X-T4 is really, really nice. It will take a few weeks to understand it all I am sure, but so far, it left nothing on the table to my previous G9. And resolution is much improved.

I started with black, and prefer it in general, though the sliver finish is nice. Black also keeps my wife from realizing a new body is in residence, until it's not quite new anymore (joking -at least, at this point in time that's not necessary any longer [g] ).

I have to assume for most of us, choosing Fuji has a strong tie to the aesthetic of the system as much as the tech specs of the gear. IDK

And why not? {{ deity }} preserve us from cameras that are "merely tools"

Couldn’t agree more, especially as a hobbyist/enthusiast and not a “working pro”

 Mike Arledge's gear list:Mike Arledge's gear list
Pentax K-1 Pentax KP Fujifilm X-T4 Pentax smc DA 15mm F4 ED AL Limited Pentax smc DA* 50-135mm F2.8 ED (IF) SDM +5 more
jhorse Veteran Member • Posts: 4,185
Re: Back to Fuji - First photos X-T4 and 16-55
1

Mike Arledge wrote:

Great choice. I have the same combo and really enjoy it.

Love this shot - just wish I could read her mind when she sees another new camera or lens come into the house!

-- hide signature --
 jhorse's gear list:jhorse's gear list
Fujifilm X-E3 Fujifilm X-T4 Fujifilm XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS Fujifilm XF 55-200mm F3.5-4.8 R LM OIS Fujifilm XF 27mm F2.8 +6 more
Greg7579
Greg7579 Forum Pro • Posts: 11,271
Re: Fuji jpegs are lovely
3

Michael Berg wrote:

Congratulations on your new camera, I'm about 2 months ahead of you here

How do you like the 16-55? I was so close to getting that over the traditional 18-55 but was somewhat turned off by the bulk and weight of that lens. Especially for travelling.

As for the jpegs you'll eventually find out, like I have, that there just isn't a raw converter in existence that will give results like those straight out of the camera. In my experience the closest you'll get is with Capture One 20, of which the free "Express" version for Fuji is free to use and does the film simulations accurately enough. Even then you'll struggle to get results that are as pleasing as the internal raw converter. It's not impossible, just takes a disproportionate amount of time.

Try Fuji X-Raw Studio. It's a free software sidekick to the camera available from Fuji, which allows you to basically use the Raw conversion features inside the camera in a more conventional "desktop" workflow experience. You plug in the camera with a USB cable and the software talks to the camera and uses it's internal engine for raw conversions. All of your cameras controls for exposure, film simulation, highlight/shadow, clarity, color chrome etc, are available in the interface, and although the software is a bit clunky to use there is no arguing with the results. If you want to get anything just barely as good as those jpegs, you'll be spending a lot of time in Lightroom or Capture One - so why not just use the camera, after all this is what you paid the big bucks for.

Anyway, happy shooting and by the way nice doggo ..

Michael,

That is a well written and crafted post, and I have no issue with your choice of C1 for PP, which is a great program.  I also agree that even though I don't shoot jpeg, Fuji film simulations and OOC jpeg capability is a big attraction for many people and something Fuji really excels at.

But I totally disagree with your statements that are bolded and underlined above.  It is simply not true and hugely misleading.  You way aver-stated your case Michael.

The choice to shoot OOC jpegs is a great tool to have and a sound option for many photographers, but it is nowhere near as powerful as shooting raw and even cursory time spent in post.  Not even close.

There are many great photographers who occasionally shoot OOC jpegs to try the various film sims and the results are impressive.  Chris Dodkins does it sometimes and so does the Great Jonas Rask.  The big reviewers do it so they can discuss the OOC jpeg capability and comment on the film sims.

But to argue that if you want to have results barely as good as OOC jpegs then you have spend a lot of time in post, is just simply not true.  PP beats OOC jpeg in every situation and you have immensely more latitude with the raf file in post than you do working w an OOC jpeg.

In fact, the opposite is true.  Post processing of the raf files in any program blows away OOC jpeg almost 100% of the time.  Not 95%.  I don't say "all" the time.  I  said almost all the time because I guess there is some case somewhere where a Fuji camera produced an OOC jpeg with a film sim and the in-camera settings were such that it just hit the magic point on that shot where it would might match or beat the developed raf in post.  I doubt it ever happens but I guess you never say never.

I did not say any of that to belittle the OOC jpeg option.  It is a powerful tool to have.  But OOC jpeg rarely if ever beats a raw that has been through even some pp.

-- hide signature --
 Greg7579's gear list:Greg7579's gear list
Leica Q2 Fujifilm GFX 50R Fujifilm GFX 100 Fujifilm GF 32-64mm F4 Fujifilm 120mm F4 Macro +7 more
OP Mike Arledge Senior Member • Posts: 1,748
Re: Back to Fuji - First photos X-T4 and 16-55

jhorse wrote:

Mike Arledge wrote:

Great choice. I have the same combo and really enjoy it.

Love this shot - just wish I could read her mind when she sees another new camera or lens come into the house!

Yes, but I fear for what I might find out if I ever read her mind, she is a bit of a puppy jerk still.  Oh well, she will grow out of it I am sure

 Mike Arledge's gear list:Mike Arledge's gear list
Pentax K-1 Pentax KP Fujifilm X-T4 Pentax smc DA 15mm F4 ED AL Limited Pentax smc DA* 50-135mm F2.8 ED (IF) SDM +5 more
Michael Berg
Michael Berg Contributing Member • Posts: 865
Re: Fuji jpegs are lovely
2

The 16-55 is big, but having a FF Pentax rig, its about the same as the K-1 and the DFA 50 I have.

That's what I read too: If you come from a FF setup with a 2.8 70-200 for example, the 16-55 will be nothing special.

For some people who specifically go after a mirrorless solution because of the reduced size and weight of that platform the 16-55 may be too much.

Thanks for the feedback. I have used Lightroom forever, even with first gen X-trans, so I will just stick with it. I shoot RAW+ taking advantage of the dual card slots, so I can have

Yeah, also there's the whole DAM aspect of it so I totally get why people stick with Lightroom.

I thought I would mention XRaw specifically because it isn't a raw converter by itself, just a kind of remote way of using the camera's built in raw converter. It's unusual and not something I've seen in other brands and just something I think all fuji owners should be aware of

it both ways, although reading about the TIF option intrigues me. I still have to decide the AF and drive mode settings I want. As the review here states the face AF is iffy. But otherwise it is solid.

Yes the T4 can output in Tiff-8 as well as Tiff-16. The files will be huge, though, so only do that if you want to start with a "raw-converted" image and finalize the editing work on your computer. It just avoids having to re-save jpegs which isn't usually a good idea.

-- hide signature --
DarnGoodPhotos Forum Pro • Posts: 10,280
Re: Back to Fuji - First photos X-T4 and 16-55
2

Mike Arledge wrote:

Bob Tullis wrote:

Mike Arledge wrote:

Bob Tullis wrote:

Silver!!????

Well, at whatever it takes, I suppose [g].

Welcome, and welcome back. That X-T4 is nice, isn't it?

Have you seen this newer silver finish? Its drool-worthy sexy. I honestly was planning on black, but in person I was like, yeah, silver is rad. And yes, the X-T4 is really, really nice. It will take a few weeks to understand it all I am sure, but so far, it left nothing on the table to my previous G9. And resolution is much improved.

I started with black, and prefer it in general, though the sliver finish is nice. Black also keeps my wife from realizing a new body is in residence, until it's not quite new anymore (joking -at least, at this point in time that's not necessary any longer [g] ).

I have to assume for most of us, choosing Fuji has a strong tie to the aesthetic of the system as much as the tech specs of the gear. IDK

That's why I like my graphite X-Pro2 more than my previous black one.

Welcome back to Fuji.

-- hide signature --

www.darngoodphotos.com

 DarnGoodPhotos's gear list:DarnGoodPhotos's gear list
Fujifilm X100V Fujifilm XF 18mm F2 R Fujifilm XF 55-200mm F3.5-4.8 R LM OIS Fujifilm XF 27mm F2.8 Fujifilm XC 16-50mm F3.5-5.6 OIS +2 more
OP Mike Arledge Senior Member • Posts: 1,748
Re: Back to Fuji - First photos X-T4 and 16-55
1

DarnGoodPhotos wrote:

Mike Arledge wrote:

Bob Tullis wrote:

Mike Arledge wrote:

Bob Tullis wrote:

Silver!!????

Well, at whatever it takes, I suppose [g].

Welcome, and welcome back. That X-T4 is nice, isn't it?

Have you seen this newer silver finish? Its drool-worthy sexy. I honestly was planning on black, but in person I was like, yeah, silver is rad. And yes, the X-T4 is really, really nice. It will take a few weeks to understand it all I am sure, but so far, it left nothing on the table to my previous G9. And resolution is much improved.

I started with black, and prefer it in general, though the sliver finish is nice. Black also keeps my wife from realizing a new body is in residence, until it's not quite new anymore (joking -at least, at this point in time that's not necessary any longer [g] ).

I have to assume for most of us, choosing Fuji has a strong tie to the aesthetic of the system as much as the tech specs of the gear. IDK

That's why I like my graphite X-Pro2 more than my previous black one.

Welcome back to Fuji.

I almost came back to Fuji JUST for the graphite x-pro2, but for whatever reason held off haha. A lovely looking camera.

 Mike Arledge's gear list:Mike Arledge's gear list
Pentax K-1 Pentax KP Fujifilm X-T4 Pentax smc DA 15mm F4 ED AL Limited Pentax smc DA* 50-135mm F2.8 ED (IF) SDM +5 more
Michael Berg
Michael Berg Contributing Member • Posts: 865
Re: Fuji jpegs are lovely
2

But I totally disagree with your statements that are bolded and underlined above. It is simply not true and hugely misleading. You way aver-stated your case Michael.

The choice to shoot OOC jpegs is a great tool to have and a sound option for many photographers, but it is nowhere near as powerful as shooting raw and even cursory time spent in post. Not even close.

Now who's overstating their case?

What I'm saying is not that post processing is wrong or a waste of time - of course not. I'm simply saying that you won't find a raw converter that will match the output from an X-Tx camera, whether that output is to your liking or not.

There are different "looks" that you can apply to a photo. Some people tend to appreciate flat looking images where the highlights have been pulled back and the shadows pushed up. Others prefer contrasty looks. Some people prefer vivid rendering of foliage and flowers while others prefer a more muted look. Or perhaps a more stylistic rendering of saturation achieved through a LUT. People pull and tug on that tone curve until they get the look they way.

And I have no problem with people doing just that. In fact i always shoot in raw+jpeg myself to be able to fix things like white balance. I can also say I much prefer working inside Capture One than I do in Fuji's X-RAW studio because it is so flaky and because I have to run the darn thing inside a VMware.

But as OP subjetively stated, the JPEGs out of this camera are lovely which I happen to agree with. And i I wanted to supply my own experience from my years as an X-T2 and -T4 owner. Which is simply that if you prefer the look of the images out of camera, then you will have a hard time working your raw processor to give you a similar look. Too much time in my opinion. If that look is what you are after then you can get there quicker by using something like X-Raw studio. This is where my own experience has led me, that's all.

But to argue that if you want to have results barely as good as OOC jpegs then you

Whoa there Greg, I'm not talking about "goodness" whatever you mean by that. I just mean that if you are going for the style, tonality, saturation and overall look and feel of what the camera produces by itself, you will struggle if you start with the raw file and try to match that look with your raw converter.

It is just very difficult to recreate the same look - not impossible, but very time consuming which for me at least is something I want to spend less time on.

have spend a lot of time in post, is just simply not true. PP beats OOC jpeg in every situation and you have immensely more latitude with the raf file in post than you do working w an OOC jpeg.

Yes sure, post processing a JPEG is generally a bad idea. I'm not sure what you mean when you say that PP "beats" OOC though. I mean just out of curiosity, which types of adjustments do you typically perform in post that you wouldn't trust or prefer the camera to do?

I can tell you I have spent SO many hours doing A-B testing with the OOC jpeg and a raw converted image from Capture One. Literally a day spent in that program, getting to a look that I really liked, and when I started flipping back and forth between the two finished images, my preference drifted towards the OOC jpeg. Which has led me to the sad conclusion that I just aren't as smart as the Fuji raw converter hardware.

In fact, the opposite is true. Post processing of the raf files in any program blows away OOC jpeg almost 100% of the time. Not 95%. I don't say "all" the time. I said almost all

There are many adjustments where a program like Photoshop or Lightroom are obvious candidates to use. You're not being very specific in your statements there but I can say that the OOC jpegs from for example the X-T4 are very good in terms of noise, saturation and color accuracy and various other parameters. But spot removal? You're out of luck there.

I like to think of it this way. On this planet there are two teams of scientists. One team works for Lightroom, they provide the science that goes into that software. They work with multiple source camera files, aliasing technologies, bayer filters etc, and they probably need to make some generalizations and technological assumptions for that reason.

Team two works for Fuji. They don't have to work with anything but one single sensor technology, and the platform, the hardware and all the little secret wirings that nobody outside the labs know about - are known to these scientists. And these aren't noobs, they are professionals working at the heart of a company that lives or dies by its image quality. I for one have no reason to think they are not as smart as the people working for Adobe.

Objectively speaking, there is not a very strong case for saying that team one will "blow" team two out of the water. I'm speaking again on the general quality, speed and fidelity of the converted image. Why would this be a natural assumption? Should I bring up the matter of the Fuji worms here?

In any event please remember my original statement which was simply to say that it is difficult to find a raw converter which will effortlessly recreate the look and feel of Fuji OOC's. This was never a statement to the quality or general "beauty" of those images or the lack of such in general raw converters. Just a statement about the staggering effort of optimizing raw converters for a specific look.

-- hide signature --
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads