Any MF advantage once a batch of files is downsized? Re: GFX100RF

[ContaxComeBack]

My first MF camera is the new Fujifilm GFX100RF that I have now had and been using since the first supplies came into London. So I am still in the beginning stage with this format of camera though already enjoying the experience. My use is as an amateur, with occasional unpaid jobs for the fun of it, for instance family photoshoots out of doors — I have just done one over Easter and now edited and done light pp work for finished files to my satisfaction.

Like many amateurs I don't need MF but I love the look of the results from this GFX camera shot at full 102Mp (and also with the digital crops using the front control tab that you tug to the right to zoom in). Now I also use the APS-C Fujifilm system and I see a difference in the files, a sort of depth that is hard to explain. So absolutely no regrets about buying the GFX camera; I really enjoy using it, the battery life, the innovations, the design, and using a different format from the one I am used to in 35mm or APS-C.

The question that arises is when, as recently, having shot a batch of about 200 photos I need to send them on to the family just photographed. For my own records and appreciation I have saved full res copies but for the practicality of efficient transfer time and so that the family can pass them on to relatives, post on media etc I have also downsized the files to 1800 x 1350 pixels (all were shot at the 4:3 aspect ratio). Does that nullify the image quality advantage of an uncropped 102Mp file and leave it level with say an X-Pro3 or X100V 26Mp file that is downsized to the same sort of pixel size (say 1800 x 1200 as those cameras use 3:2 ratio)? Or is there still a resolution and/or aesthetic advantage to the GFX files? I find it hard to judge, don't currently have time to run comparative tests, and wonder what more experienced shooters have found when comparing this sort of thing.

Of course with software like WeTransfer I could send the full size files but the families don't typically want to go through the same process to redistribute the pictures to their friends.

 

[jerseyinHK]

FWIW....we run a small veterinary clinic and take photos during the week for social media. I shoot GFX, usually use fill flash, often on a tripod for sharpness. Our nurses overwhelmingly prefer their iphone photos, and choose those each and every time.

Either I suck as a photographer (likely true), the iphone generation is more accustomed to seeing iphone photos and prefer that look (maybe true), or there is no practical difference when it comes to downsized photos (probably true).

Putting aside any question of whether some photographers get better poses / expressions from the animals than others do, which I think is a real possibility. the preference for phone photos may be caused by the extensive computational processing / 'enhancements' that many phones supply, often by default. The phones may be doing far more processing between the raw sensor data and the phone output file than you expect, more than rarely combining more than one exposure into the final image. If you're turning over SOOC JPEGs from your GFX, then I'm not at all surprised. If you're carefully and skillfully editing the raw files from your GFX and turning over the edited files, then it may be a matter of taste / preferred degree of processing.

I agree with everything said here. One thing to add - everyone seems to like their photos the best. Each nurse only uses the photos they take on their own phones.

 

[marco1974]

FWIW....we run a small veterinary clinic and take photos during the week for social media. I shoot GFX, usually use fill flash, often on a tripod for sharpness. Our nurses overwhelmingly prefer their iphone photos, and choose those each and every time.

Either I suck as a photographer (likely true), the iphone generation is more accustomed to seeing iphone photos and prefer that look (maybe true), or there is no practical difference when it comes to downsized photos (probably true).

If they pick iphone 100% of the times, that indicates that they perceive a difference. No difference would lead to random picks = 50%.

Unless your photos truly suck (unlikely)

 

[NAwlins Contrarian]

FWIW....we run a small veterinary clinic and take photos during the week for social media. I shoot GFX, usually use fill flash, often on a tripod for sharpness. Our nurses overwhelmingly prefer their iphone photos, and choose those each and every time.

Either I suck as a photographer (likely true), the iphone generation is more accustomed to seeing iphone photos and prefer that look (maybe true), or there is no practical difference when it comes to downsized photos (probably true).

Putting aside any question of whether some photographers get better poses / expressions from the animals than others do, which I think is a real possibility. the preference for phone photos may be caused by the extensive computational processing / 'enhancements' that many phones supply, often by default. The phones may be doing far more processing between the raw sensor data and the phone output file than you expect, more than rarely combining more than one exposure into the final image. If you're turning over SOOC JPEGs from your GFX, then I'm not at all surprised. If you're carefully and skillfully editing the raw files from your GFX and turning over the edited files, then it may be a matter of taste / preferred degree of processing.

I agree with everything said here. One thing to add - everyone seems to like their photos the best. Each nurse only uses the photos they take on their own phones.

There may be an element of different people setting up their phone cameras to use 'filters' that they like, and that differ from what others like / use. Just like lips so filled that they look like the person was punched in the mouth, which some people seem to like, there's no accounting for taste.

And of course pride of authorship may make even low-skill photographers prefer their own photos.

And there may be other factors, I don't know.

 

[Jeff Biscuits]

FWIW....we run a small veterinary clinic and take photos during the week for social media. I shoot GFX, usually use fill flash, often on a tripod for sharpness. Our nurses overwhelmingly prefer their iphone photos, and choose those each and every time.

Either I suck as a photographer (likely true), the iphone generation is more accustomed to seeing iphone photos and prefer that look (maybe true), or there is no practical difference when it comes to downsized photos (probably true).

The phones may be doing far more processing between the raw sensor data and the phone output file than you expect, more than rarely combining more than one exposure into the final image. If you're turning over SOOC JPEGs from your GFX, then I'm not at all surprised. If you're carefully and skillfully editing the raw files from your GFX and turning over the edited files, then it may be a matter of taste / preferred degree of processing.

If people are viewing pictures on a phone screen, then phone processing is pretty much optimised for that medium, so for social media shots they’re as good as anything unless you want bona fide shallow depth of field or to avoid the horrors of pseudo-HDR that some people seem to love. Printing 20” portraits for the wall would likely be a different story. But even then, to risk an analogy, a well-made GFX image might be a delicious Michelin-starred plate of food when most of the great unwashed just want an oversaturated fatty cheeseburger.

 

[JNK 100]

No better than a phone camera.

 

[kciuk aka Ken60]

So that why they did not die, this steak does it need to be fillet or will rump do ?

 

[Stan Disbrow]

Hi,

I had a nice sirloin last night. No vampires so far!

Stan

 

[Stan Disbrow]

Hi,

It is more a matter of easiness. The phone is always with you, therefore so is camera.

I use several cameras in my work. Sometimes it is a cell phone cam. Mostly used to replace the old Polaroid for instrument screens. Oh I could use the GPIB to the computer, but the. cell phone cam is easier.

But the cell phone doesn't do well for fried circuitry. An old Kodak 6MP on a.copy stand with a macro lens does better. Nor is the cell phone any good on the microscope. I have an old Kodak 2MP there. Those could be something else, of course, but just making more use of what I already owned.

Although I am eyeballing a newer Nikon scope to replace the older Leica. That would use a 16 MP Nikkm scope cam that uses the same sensor in the D4 and Df.

But the GFX would be overkill.

Stan

 

[Lukacs85]

I don't understand the entire argument. Why an earth I want downsize any photo to 2MP. It's early 2000's digital imaging size.

I don't print, but I like to zooming for details on 4k monitor when I watching a landscape shot. Even on phone or tablet I'd want at least 12MP if I want zoom in, however I only use my Ipad pro view photos, and any APS-C, FF let alone MF camera completely destroy phone camera photos even on 10".

 

[Jeff Biscuits]

I don't understand the entire argument. Why an earth I want downsize any photo to 2MP. It's early 2000's digital imaging size.

I’d missed the fact that OP was actually sending out this size for final images—in my head I’d assumed they were just previews.

Yeah, that seems like really shortchanging the recipients, even when they haven’t paid A 2MP image isn’t going to print well if they want to make photobooks or calendars or anything. I downsize to larger than that for Instagram. Just how bad is your connection that you can’t reasonably upload a couple of hundred images at, say, 16-26MP? For most catalogues like Apple Photos or Lightroom it’s simply a case of sharing an album and it’ll do the uploads in the background, so even full size images aren’t a chore.

And yes, you will lose the benefits of MF. If you’re not printing big or cropping tight or demanding maximum dynamic range, then the main benefit of a large sensor is the ability to reduce depth of field, and the 100RF does away with that advantage anyway.

 

[Lukacs85]

And yes, you will lose the benefits of MF. If you’re not printing big or cropping tight or demanding maximum dynamic range, then the main benefit of a large sensor is the ability to reduce depth of field, and the 100RF does away with that advantage anyway.

I like crop mode on GR3, still at 50mm because it's only 9MP and you almost see it on pixel level the image not so good. In case of GFX100RF I'd have still insane 30MP resolution at 50mm equiv., this is a huge deal for a me who shoots exclusively in 28-50mm range. A zoom or an 50mm prime still better on FF ILCE camera, however either you have to change lens, or have to go a lot bigger zoom lens, or still bigger compact zoom, that has nowhere near the quality at wide end compared to GFX100RF at 35 (28)mm.

 

[Jeff Biscuits]

And yes, you will lose the benefits of MF. If you’re not printing big or cropping tight or demanding maximum dynamic range, then the main benefit of a large sensor is the ability to reduce depth of field, and the 100RF does away with that advantage anyway.

I like crop mode on GR3, still at 50mm because it's only 9MP and you almost see it on pixel level the image not so good. In case of GFX100RF I'd have still insane 30MP resolution at 50mm equiv., this is a huge deal for a me who shoots exclusively in 28-50mm range. A zoom or an 50mm prime still better on FF ILCE camera, however either you have to change lens, or have to go a lot bigger zoom lens, or still bigger compact zoom, that has nowhere near the quality at wide end compared to GFX100RF at 35 (28)mm.

Oh, agreed—this is why I’m waiting on a pre-order for the 100RF

 

[Doppler9000]

Even after everyone has uploaded their images to family WhatsApp group and those images have been compressed, it’s plain as day (to me) which ones were taken with the 100s.

Can you posit an explanation for this phenomenon?

 

[ContaxComeBack]

FWIW....we run a small veterinary clinic and take photos during the week for social media. I shoot GFX, usually use fill flash, often on a tripod for sharpness. Our nurses overwhelmingly prefer their iphone photos, and choose those each and every time.

Either I suck as a photographer (likely true), the iphone generation is more accustomed to seeing iphone photos and prefer that look (maybe true), or there is no practical difference when it comes to downsized photos (probably true).

I love your answer because it's so honest and not too earnest and it's light-hearted! Oddly when I take iPhone shots I find I crop most of them however carefully composed. So the 35/50/90 old-style trilogy is probably how I see things, but....

... with the 4:3 aspect ratio of the GFX the uncropped 35mm (i.e. the 28mm 'look') shots all seemed to work very successfully and I didn't feel there was any unpleasant distortion. I do tend to let my shots breathe i.e. not frame too close to the edges; that does help.

Your nurses' pictures. I suppose with the phone they don't need their subjects to wait for tripod set up, flash setting etc. You could try using your phone for a while and see if it makes any difference. The trouble with that is it could leave you disappointed whatever the result: either your phone pictures will be better, which could be really annoying, or 'suck' which is just as annoying!

 

[ContaxComeBack]

Yes, I have mixed thoughts on the 28mm look and have used 35 and 50 much more in the past. But somehow the recent 35mm GFX shots (i.e. 28mm 'look' as in 35mm photography) worked very nicely. I can only think that the slightly less taller short side of the pictures has something to do with it; also I do allow some breathing space all round i.e. not stand too close, without taking away some immediacy from the picture. So really I can only decide on the success of a shot by instinct when composing and by seeing if I like it later on.

I would actually have liked the lens to stretch out more to a 24mm look as I am used to that for some of my favourite environmental shots or pictures 'with a story'. Alan Schaller manages that superbly so I don't think wide angles for people are necessarily fettering.

Having such a high res camera that is so portable is very exciting as it means it will get used more than some other set ups, in my case anyway.

 

[ContaxComeBack]

You shouldn't compose people to edge of frame below 50mm, 85mm is the minimum safe focal length filling corner to corner without distortion. That's why using anything below 50mm for environmental portraits only. Of course you can crop with the RF, getting APSC size surface on sensor with plenty 30MP resolution, however for shooting portraits it's far better a FF ILCE with 50mm or 85mm lens or a zoom in this range.

Yes, I think I agree and by habit and/or instinct when using wider or standard focal lengths I generally leave room round the edges for 'environment' or 'story' to use those cliches or buzzwords (!) and certainly found that this leads to some pleasing shots. The portability of the new GFX100RF is a great asset but yes there were some shots I took at full crop (80mm effect i.e. 63mm in 35 format) where my short portrait lenses would have done a better job. But the grab shot factor with some careful or lucky composition on the fly ultimately got pictures that add to not detract from the overall series, most of which was shot at uncropped format or just one crop in (i.e. the lens's full 35mm (like 28mm) or 45mm (like 36mm).

 

[ContaxComeBack]

I don't understand the entire argument. Why an earth I want downsize any photo to 2MP. It's early 2000's digital imaging size.

I don't print, but I like to zooming for details on 4k monitor when I watching a landscape shot. Even on phone or tablet I'd want at least 12MP if I want zoom in, however I only use my Ipad pro view photos, and any APS-C, FF let alone MF camera completely destroy phone camera photos even on 10".

Different people will want to see the shots. These were family photos I was taking for others i.e. not my own family.

So I have the full sized files for myself to enjoy and to use for one or two large or very large frameable prints to give to the people in the photograph; the family also are sent all the pictures in the smaller 2Mp files that they enjoy and that hold up very well compared with phone shots; and they also receive even smaller files so that they can email the whole photoshoot to relatives and friends in just a few emails.

Everyone is happy and I don't have to send by WeTransfer 50 or 60 successful shots at a total volume of approx. 5-6,000 Mb each, which is prohibitive in terms of upload time and possibly in terms of the recipients' total storage. Even if the family could download them they wouldn't get round to sending them on.

And pictures are generally meant to be seen at a certain distance which depends on their size - zooming in isn't really what it's about though I understand we like to check all sorts of things out of professional pride. (I will admit to studying oil paintings through binoculars to examine the brushstrokes!)

 

[Bob Randall]

I agree about the iPhone pics. I had M11 with 28 and 50 cron, and now have Fuji GFX. I posted events/street with friends on Facebook a lot. Based on perceived appreciation, an artsy B&W from the Leica, for example would garner little interest. An iPhone pic of a sunset, over water, with a spider web with dew on it, would yield 100 to 1 more positive response. Im sure a pet is in the same category. The dynamic range, clarity and saturation will get them every time.

 

[ContaxComeBack]

And yes, you will lose the benefits of MF. If you’re not printing big or cropping tight or demanding maximum dynamic range, then the main benefit of a large sensor is the ability to reduce depth of field, and the 100RF does away with that advantage anyway.

I like crop mode on GR3, still at 50mm because it's only 9MP and you almost see it on pixel level the image not so good. In case of GFX100RF I'd have still insane 30MP resolution at 50mm equiv., this is a huge deal for a me who shoots exclusively in 28-50mm range. A zoom or an 50mm prime still better on FF ILCE camera, however either you have to change lens, or have to go a lot bigger zoom lens, or still bigger compact zoom, that has nowhere near the quality at wide end compared to GFX100RF at 35 (28)mm.

This is exactly why I am so excited by the GFX100RF; my original post and concerns about the downsizing are actually quite minor compared with the shooting point you make in your reply about the crops holding up.

And personally I prefer the prime shooting effect of these crop options in the GFX100RF rather than using a zoom lens.

And the camera is just fun to use, along with giving me the kind of pictures and success that it's helped me get so far.

Next week I am going to get some large prints done, and with that in mind I certainly don't feel I have wasted my money on an unnecessarily high spec for only outputting heavily downsized files.

In my case, like you a large percentage of my shooting is in your 28-50 range (from a Leica M film shooting background) but I really like shooting in the 85-180 range from time to time also with a different camera.

 

[ContaxComeBack]

For me (with a photographer’s eye) there is a lot more to MF than sharpness and resolution such as tonality and dynamic range as well that fall off that, as you say, is hard to explain.

I’m in the same boat as you and I actually just took a few family photos at a get-together yesterday and the files were a joy to work on - particularly because it was a blue sky day so the light was very harsh.

Now, whether or not my family members notice these factors is another question. But, even after everyone has uploaded their images to family WhatsApp group and those images have been compressed, it’s plain as day (to me) which ones were taken with the 100s.

After reading all the responses and learning quite a lot from them, your take on the downsizing is actually my feeling as well. In any case as well as the camera being great fun and somehow enhancing the way I work especially for people photography I also find it exciting to know that I can get large prints made from time to time that will hold up even with the crop options, especially the 45 and 63mm ones and to a large extent with the 80mm one too.

This camera makes me feel somehow a lot more empowered and unencumbered and i really enjoy the design.