2 nights in Japan with the X100s

[ferider]

Too short to do much photography, really.

Co-workers SatoSan, EbiharaSan and PuSan.

And killing time before my return in Kawasaki's Daishi temple:

Still not sure about exposure and post-processing with this camera - but slowly getting there. Comments and tips welcome of course.

Roland.

PS: 03/13, thread moved to X100 forum.

 

[ferider]

No interest for these snapshots ?

BTW, this is not barrel distortion in the 1st picture, the hand-rails are bent.

 

[xayraa33]

Beautiful photographs Roland!

Nice work.

 

[pechelman]

Still not sure about exposure and post-processing with this camera - but slowly getting there. Comments and tips welcome of course.

.

for a biz trip, with a few photos on the side, nice job.

For post processing the fuji's, I generally shoot jpg only. Pick a color film profile you like, generally either astia or pro-neg hi for example, set the highlights and shadows to -1 or -2, NR to -2, DR100, and that's it. That little adjustment will hold a bit more in the shadows and highlights of the already surprisingly malleable fuji jpgs. Only time Ive ever really felt the need for a RAF is when shooting difficult WB (night lights) or infrared.

Develop in lightroom with whatever small adjustment is needed to get back the contrast while retaining the detail you want. A bit of clarity or tweak to vibrance can sometimes help as well, but more than about ~10-20 on either, and i start to notice too much.

For black and white I use silver efex after doing gary tyson's workflow of flattening the image prior to and adding contrast after going into silver efex. Starting with a color image allows you to tweak the color filters if you like.

 

[ferider]

Thanks, guys.

For post processing the fuji's, I generally shoot jpg only. Pick a color film profile you like, generally either astia or pro-neg hi for example, set the highlights and shadows to -1 or -2, NR to -2, DR100, and that's it.

Given the generally good feedback on Fuji colors, I was debating if I should use it for jpg only. Thanks for your encouragement, P., I will try this for a few weeks and see what comes back.

Roland.

 

[gnome chompski]

if you go jpeg only, realize that Fuji bakes in noise reduction at higher iso that in my opinion can make the files unusable. This is a different NR than what you can dial in or out. This may or may not be a deal breaker for some. For me, I was spending too much time adding noise back to get rid of that waxy smearing look it produces so I just said forget it and shoot RAF only.

 

[pechelman]

Good luck, Roland.

And I sometimes agree with gnome about the high ISO (being ~3200-6400 on the x100s). Most of the time, it isnt a big deal and is overplayed a bit, just like the watercolor effect. It's there and can happen, but isnt a big deal most of the time.

Skin tones are predominantly susceptible to this, however, I have also struggled with it at times when shooting at night or dusk in that the fuji jpg will just turn a scene into a mushy blur of color. RAF's have helped me only a little bit there. Sharpening a RAF in those challenging light situations can also become another issue to keep in mind. Its a bit of whether you prefer fighting a bit of NR or a difficult image to sharpen outside of the fuji jpg engine or other programs like capture1 (that i dont have). Just like some other cameras, I generally have better luck at shooting a little lower iso and underexposing for very low light and bringing it up a tad in post, but leaving it more on the dark, contrasty, typical night photograph.

As I noted originally, jpgs are good for me most of (~90-95%) of the time. After a bit of shooting you'll know when it wont be, and then can easily switch it over to RAF shooting. Have a couple of examples I can share with you via pm if you're interested in what sort of times I've needed or wish I had used a RAF.

 

[willie_901]

if you go jpeg only, realize that Fuji bakes in noise reduction at higher iso that in my opinion can make the files unusable. This is a different NR than what you can dial in or out. This may or may not be a deal breaker for some. For me, I was spending too much time adding noise back to get rid of that waxy smearing look it produces so I just said forget it and shoot RAF only.

This is true.

I always use raw, so I don't remember the ISO parameter where the high noise filtering kicks in.

I do know above ISO 1600 the data stream switches from electronic amplification to digital multiplication to increase global brightness after the shutter closes (a.k.a. ISO). So I will speculate the agressive in-camera JPEG filtering starts above ISO 1600.

 

[gnome chompski]

yea, I dont remember what ISO it starts to be an "issue". And I agree, many people make it into a bigger deal that it really is, but its important to at least understand its something you might end up having to deal with. That said, the Jpegs I have used, when the light is good and the exposure is generally correct have been great.