Old Skin Tone Formula vs Today's Skin Tone Formula

absquatulate wrote:

Erik Baumgartner wrote:

absquatulate wrote:

Erik Baumgartner wrote:

absquatulate wrote:

Erik Baumgartner wrote:

While the SOOC jpeg results do vary a bit from generation to generation, It doesn't look the film sims themselves change much, but some of the ancillary processing does. With some tweaking of the jpeg settings (saturation, highlights, shadows etc) you should be able to get close. Even more important, you may have to play with the Auto-WB shift and Exposure Compensation to really dial in the look.

With RAW files, the Camera matching profiles (in Lightroom, anyway) can vary significantly from from one model camera to another (the X-T3 being more different than the others). Any of them can be tweaked and saved as a new profile to closely match any of the other camera/profile combos with a little know-how. If you want your X-H1 (or whatever) files to look more like what you get with your older cameras, it's absolutely doable - especially if you're just try to match another Fuji.

If you can make a Sony look like a Fuji, you can make one Fuji look like another Fuji.

A Sony RAW with a custom profile to match the X-T2 (Classic Chrome)

They don't look the same to me, the Fuji profile has more vibrant colour.

Close enough, nothing a tiny slider tweak wouldn’t take care of. If you shot this scene a couple of years apart with two Fuji cameras it wouldn’t look exactly the same either.

Personally I don't buy it, all different sensors have a different colour response, you may get close, but there are always differences, especially when you start shooting in the real world, as opposed to consistent controlled studio lighting.

I've processed Fuji and Sony files shot together from a wedding in all sorts of mixed lighting and they were very close - close enough that no one would ever notice that they weren't shot with a single camera.

Low incandescent light, very high ISO and still in the ballpark.

I can easily spot a difference,

Well, I can spot a difference too - not especially surprising as this is an APS-C camera vs. a full-frame camera at ISO 12800. but they still could easily have come from the same camera (IMO).

I can easily spot bigger differences between the X-T3 and X-T4 at base ISO with the same profile.

normal people don't care about such things, they're happy with a smartphone. The point really is that, as I said previously, different sensors render colour differently, some dramatically so, others not so much. Ultimately it's pointless buying a brand to try and make it look like another, just stick to the one you like and save yourself the pain of this fruitless task. Colour is always a subjective, and consequently a controversial topic, because we all see colours slightly differently anyway, and have our own bias for certain hues, in my experience, even cameras from the same brand are different, this thread pretty much proves the point.

In my experience, with the right custom profiles, RAW files from almost any camera can be made to look pretty much however you want them to, right from the get-go - including if you want them to all look like the Fuji Provia sim (or whatever you prefer). Whether I'm shooting with a Fuji, a Sony, or a Nikon, I made simple custom matching profiles for each that deliver great and consistent looking results from any of them - not to match any particular camera, just to deliver the color I want. There isn’t inherently wrong with Sony’s RAW color potential (Sony makes Fuji’s sensors) but, for whatever reason, most of Adobe's greenish/yellowish Sony profiles look pretty awful to my eye and are best avoided entirely.

I enjoyed seeing your photos.  I think some of the differences can be explained by a number of factors. For instance, the first photos of the gentleman have haze or flair in the 18-55 photo that affected contrast. I think this has more to do with the difference in look than sensor/processor.

Also the Canon comparison was taken in two different lighting situations.

I do like the look of older generations of Fuji and sought out the X-E1 for that reason. I do think there is a different look between my X-E1 and X-E3, but it is subtle and what differences there are can  be largely eliminated with post processing if desired.

I've got lots of projects and I'm not a big fan of performing tests, but I would like to do a test where I take photos of my X-Rite Color Checker with the X-E1, X-E2s, X-E3, X-H1 and maybe even my Canon 5D2 and analyze the results.  The problem with doing the test is it will be tedious to do in a way that would eliminate variables.

There's a consistency to the OP's posts. They tend to be negative. Things change.  The X-E1 and the X-E4 are very different cameras. It is unrealistic to believe everyone will greet every change with open arms.

I guess it is easier to post complaints here than figure out how to adapt to the changes.  It is also easier to complain than to analyze if Fuji is really suited to your needs and perhaps look to another system that may suit those needs better.  There's an aphorism regarding a pot that comes to mind.

bobogdan78 wrote:

Some people say Batdude has got this recurrent theme or gripe about the most hyped cameras in the business. One way or another he is clearly dissatisfied and maybe for a good reason. I only want to bring to your attention a few side by side comparisons between various cameras and Fuji S3/5 and I won't say anything more, You can do if you like.

The color differences here have as much to do with white balance and exposure as they do with "color science", much of which could be compensated for in-camera. I have little doubt you could reproduce the same look from either RAW file (if that's what you really want, it certainly isn't "natural' looking, IMO), it's not hard to get in the ballpark just using the jpeg...

I don't care for that skin tone at all.  On the magenta side.  Needs more yellow.  The whole photo has blue cast.

absquatulate wrote:

I can easily spot a difference, normal people don't care about such things, they're happy with a smartphone. The point really is that, as I said previously, different sensors render colour differently, some dramatically so, others not so much. Ultimately it's pointless buying a brand to try and make it look like another, just stick to the one you like and save yourself the pain of this fruitless task. Colour is always a subjective, and consequently a controversial topic, because we all see colours slightly differently anyway, and have our own bias for certain hues, in my experience, even cameras from the same brand are different, this thread pretty much proves the point.

That's one way to look at it.  However, I don't try to make one brand look like another.  I have a look that I want and I make both brands look like what I want.  I'm not going after a Canon, Fujifilm, Nikon, Sony, or any other look.

If one's goal is to have straight out of camera jpegs look like what they want with virtually no processing, then sure, you'll have to find a brand whose out of camera color you like.

Personally, I've never seen the big deal with Fujifilm colors.  I've bought Fujifilm cameras because I like the way they operate.

Erik Baumgartner wrote:

bobogdan78 wrote:

Some people say Batdude has got this recurrent theme or gripe about the most hyped cameras in the business. One way or another he is clearly dissatisfied and maybe for a good reason. I only want to bring to your attention a few side by side comparisons between various cameras and Fuji S3/5 and I won't say anything more, You can do if you like.

The color differences here have as much to do with white balance and exposure as they do with "color science", much of which could be compensated for in-camera. I have little doubt you could reproduce the same look from either RAW file (if that's what you really want, it certainly isn't "natural' looking, IMO), it's not hard to get in the ballpark just using the jpeg...

Thanks for your answer and attempt. I'm aware this is a quick jpeg post and the change in WB and exposure seems to even things out, however to my eyes the Fuji S3 manages somehow to deliver some rich tonality in skin tones and an overall interesting look which is not the case for X-Trans. Indeed, Fuji S3 doesn't look accurate but that's the beauty of it.