ferider
Veteran
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.
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
Veteran
No interest for these snapshots ?
BTW, this is not barrel distortion in the 1st picture, the hand-rails are bent.
BTW, this is not barrel distortion in the 1st picture, the hand-rails are bent.
xayraa33
rangefinder user and fancier
Beautiful photographs Roland!
Nice work.
Nice work.
pechelman
resu deretsiger
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
Veteran
Thanks, guys.
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.
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
Member
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
resu deretsiger
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.
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
Veteran
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
Member
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.