Fuji Look? Lack of interesting color/richness on Xpro?

[zwarte_kat]

It is still a new camera, and maybe some more people who are actually skillful haven't started using it, but I often find images from the Xpro online a bit lackluster.
They are very sharp and detailed for sure, bit it seems to be just that: cold quality, no atmosphere.
I am using the X100 myself and I always thought this look was caused by the 23mm lens on crop, but I see it on the Xpro with other lenses now as well.

I also have a GXR M-mount, and the images it produces with my zeiss/voightlander/minolta lenses creates a much smoother images. Maybe it's an unfair comparison, but even these kind of lenses with adapter loose some of their charm on the Xpro.
I am not talkng about corner sharpness or color vignetting. I actually don't care about that (seriously, what's people's obsession with these corners?) I am talking about the overel color and structure of the image, the look.

Can anyone show me Xpro images shot with zeiss lenses that have as nice colors as the GXR or digital Ms?

Can anyone show me Xpro images shot with Leica/Rokkor lenses those nice Leica colors or summicron look I see from digital M's?

Can anyone show me some nice smooth creamy BW images?

I am not so interested in flowers and stone objects, which I see are being posted a lot. More street/reportage/documentary/portrait kind of work.

It is not my intention to trash the Xpro. I want it to be nice and work well with M-lenses. I am sure in the future (Fuji's M mount) manual focussing will be taken care of, and again, I don't care about that corner stuff, so it is the look (and cost I admit) that is keeping me with the GXR. The GXR is an odd combination with my X100 though, and soon the 2nd hand price of the Xpro will start sinking. That's why I really want to Xpro to be something that it maybe isn't.

 

[Keith]

I must admit I was a little disappointed with my X100 colour images when I had one and kept comparing them to the results I get with my D700 and 35mm ZF Distagon ...to my eye they were worlds apart which is probably being a little harsh on the Fuji as I've been working with my Nikon's files for a couple of years now and know pretty well what's required to make them look the way I want.

In time I may have mastered the Fuji files but the slow AF in bad light was the killer for me so the camera only had a temporary stay!

 

[gavinlg]

Part of the problem is that everyone shoots them in aperture priority and they overexpose pretty easily. With all digital cameras you gotta expose for the highlights to create density in color and shadows. Overexposed they become very 'thin'.

I've shown these all before here, and to be honest they're under sharpened so look 'flatter' than they should, but I think these demonstrate what I mean about exposing for the highlights and looking more 'dense'. They're all straight out of cam too.

 

[jarski]

there is Adobe DNG Profile Editor, for those who want to modify color representation of their RAW's. works only in Photoshop/Lightroom environment ofcourse.

 

[noimmunity]

It is still a new camera, and maybe some more people who are actually skillful haven't started using it, but I often find images from the Xpro online a bit lackluster.
They are very sharp and detailed for sure, bit it seems to be just that: cold quality, no atmosphere.
I am using the X100 myself and I always thought this look was caused by the 23mm lens on crop, but I see it on the Xpro with other lenses now as well.

I also have a GXR M-mount, and the images it produces with my zeiss/voightlander/minolta lenses creates a much smoother images. Maybe it's an unfair comparison, but even these kind of lenses with adapter loose some of their charm on the Xpro.
I am not talkng about corner sharpness or color vignetting. I actually don't care about that (seriously, what's people's obsession with these corners?) I am talking about the overel color and structure of the image, the look.

Can anyone show me Xpro images shot with zeiss lenses that have as nice colors as the GXR or digital Ms?

Can anyone show me Xpro images shot with Leica/Rokkor lenses those nice Leica colors or summicron look I see from digital M's?

Can anyone show me some nice smooth creamy BW images?

I am not so interested in flowers and stone objects, which I see are being posted a lot. More street/reportage/documentary/portrait kind of work.

It is not my intention to trash the Xpro. I want it to be nice and work well with M-lenses. I am sure in the future (Fuji's M mount) manual focussing will be taken care of, and again, I don't care about that corner stuff, so it is the look (and cost I admit) that is keeping me with the GXR. The GXR is an odd combination with my X100 though, and soon the 2nd hand price of the Xpro will start sinking. That's why I really want to Xpro to be something that it maybe isn't.

Have you tried looking here? http://www.flickr.com/photos/25805910@N05/sets/72157629380067295/

 

[zwarte_kat]

hmmm

hmmm

Have you tried looking here? http://www.flickr.com/photos/25805910@N05/sets/72157629380067295/

I looked at them again, though I saw them a while ago.
They are great photos, but they kind of confirm my concerns. If you look at the shots from Indonesia, I mean, it's INDONESIA, a country with gorgeous colors. They photos are taken by a very skillful person, but they lack the colors that I like to see from Leica or Zeiss.

Maybe if he could just shoot with some of those lenses I'd be convinced, but now, no.

 

[zwarte_kat]

Part of the problem is that everyone shoots them in aperture priority and they overexpose pretty easily. With all digital cameras you gotta expose for the highlights to create density in color and shadows. Overexposed they become very 'thin'.

I've shown these all before here, and to be honest they're under sharpened so look 'flatter' than they should, but I think these demonstrate what I mean about exposing for the highlights and looking more 'dense'. They're all straight out of cam too.

Nice pictures.
Well I am sure that helps a bit, but would the same problem be there with the GXR? Maybe Fuji X series just have a different look, they DO have a completely different sensor.

Often I even see the nice Zeiss colors on the nex cameras.

 

[BobYIL]

I do not have an XP1, nor the X100, however as far as I was able to note the OOC Jpegs of Fujifilm are the most impressive ones I have seen from any camera and better than the Olympus which is known for its Jpeg quality. Regarding the Raws, could it be due to Silkypix? (Why Fuji did not cooperate with some top processing authority like Adobe for example?! Many users are not pleased with Silkypix as I heard..)

 

[Archiver]

It's funny you should say this because I am noticing something similar. This afternoon I spent a good 30 minutes taking a lot of sample photos in varying light conditions in and outside my dealer. I'm looking at the sample images now and I'm seeing exactly what you are - a flatness that kind of bugs me.

I saw this before with the X100 but I found that putting the raws through Lightroom and giving them a bit of a custom preset to beef up the saturation, 'depth' and contrast has given them a great look. My GXR-M and M9 also come out as very rich through Lightroom, and my X100 does as well.

I am just waiting for Adobe Camera Raw to support the X-Pro 1. When it does, I'll convert today's samples and adjust them in Lightroom.

Gavin, that's a good tip about correct exposure. I usually shoot the X100 with a bit of underexposure, sometimes a lot. To the other poster who said that the X100 files are kind of plastic, I agree wholeheartedly. The Sigma DPx and Leica M8/9 files are the most natural looking that I've seen from a digital camera. The GXR files are not exactly natural, they are very dense, sharp and saturated, but still not in the 'plasticky' way that the X100's are.

 

[gavinlg]

One of the other things I've noticed about the x100 files is that they have a huge dynamic range, and they are very low noise. So put those two together and you get a rather flat photograph. Especially if you choose to use extended or 'auto' DR options, the output can look very flat in soft light/shadows as the camera is boosting shadows and pulling highlights, making everything grey and soft. My advice is to turn auto DR off most of the time unless the light is SUPER contrasty and harsh, and use ASTIA preset which is contras tier than provia.

Another big thing is that the built in nd filter WILL reduce the contrast in images, especially the cam is shot wide open. That extra contrast reduction is pretty significant.

I've found (since the photos above) that adding a 'touch' of grain and applying an 'S' curve in PP makes a big difference to the giving the files more snap/grit/life.

 

[rbelyell]

One of the other things I've noticed about the x100 files is that they have a huge dynamic range, and they are very low noise. So put those two together and you get a rather flat photograph. Especially if you choose to use extended or 'auto' DR options, the output can look very flat in soft light/shadows as the camera is boosting shadows and pulling highlights, making everything grey and soft. My advice is to turn auto DR off most of the time unless the light is SUPER contrasty and harsh, and use ASTIA preset which is contras tier than provia.

Another big thing is that the built in nd filter WILL reduce the contrast in images, especially the cam is shot wide open. That extra contrast reduction is pretty significant.

I've found (since the photos above) that adding a 'touch' of grain and applying an 'S' curve in PP makes a big difference to the giving the files more snap/grit/life.

absolutely on point! plus, i have two other questions: are we really comparing output from a $1000 cam/lens combination to multi thousand dollar cam/lens combos? the only cam memtioned in this thread so far that we can realistically compare to the x100 is the gxr, the others, m8s-9s are just silly comparisons.

next, where are all those forum members who defend the 'flatness' of the new M9M output as exactly what they want? as i recall post after post on that thread, the thought was DR and resolution were most important, and that 'flatness' was properly dealt with by the photographer in PP, and shouldnt be 'imposed' by the camera...(btw, i didnt buy that POV, but just wondering why the argument only applies to absurdly priced leica products).

at the end of the day, i'm wondering if the issue here is the pesence of an AA filter on the x100, and its abscence on the other cams...it is this issue alone that has re-piqued my interest in the gxr.
tony

 

[jsrockit]

I don't think they lack anything... I always see Fuji as having Fuji colors and Leica as having Kodak colors. They are just different.

Perhaps super clean digital is just not your thing?

 

[j.scooter]

I am actually surprised at this thread. I have always like the colors out of the X100 and the same goes for the XP1.
These are SOOC jpegs from the XP1

 

[noimmunity]

I looked at them again, though I saw them a while ago.
They are great photos, but they kind of confirm my concerns. If you look at the shots from Indonesia, I mean, it's INDONESIA, a country with gorgeous colors. They photos are taken by a very skillful person, but they lack the colors that I like to see from Leica or Zeiss.

Maybe if he could just shoot with some of those lenses I'd be convinced, but now, no.

I thought I could follow what you mean until I read this response. It's all so subjective. If you don't like it, just follow your heart.

There have been some advances seen in XP1 color as beta programs for RAW conversion emerge. I'm sure this will get better. This has been the case for some of the photos that are in that flickr collection above, and no doubt it will continue.

To make a final judgment about M mount lenses on the XP1, I suggest waiting until the official Fuji adapter is released.

OT: Subjective associations with color are part of the operative social fantasy known as "Orientalism". Now I've lived in Asia for 25 years, Europe for 2, and North America for about 23. The association of particular countries with "color" is a well-documented function of exoticism and "othering". Although I grew up in an environment where everybody saw things in this way, I discovered long ago that it is just a way of viewing that can easily be applied to any country. Of course, if you go to highly normalized disciplined places like factories, schools, prisons, army barracks, offices, banks, etc, the color you will find is going to be just that, highly normalized. But even that could be exoticized, just as photographers once did with Maoist China. It really tells us more about the viewer than about what is being viewed. I know exoticism turns a lot of people on, but it's not for me. Color is everywhere and nowhere!

 

[v_roma]

+1 from me too. I don't have an Xpro but I have no complaints about the colors and punch of my X100 photos shooting RAW. Take advantage of the dynamic range and add some contrast, as needed. My X100 is with Fuji for repair (dropped it on the floor :bang🙂 so I had to fall back to my old Canon dSLR. Talk about dull colors.

absolutely on point! plus, i have two other questions: are we really comparing output from a $1000 cam/lens combination to multi thousand dollar cam/lens combos? the only cam memtioned in this thread so far that we can realistically compare to the x100 is the gxr, the others, m8s-9s are just silly comparisons.

next, where are all those forum members who defend the 'flatness' of the new M9M output as exactly what they want? as i recall post after post on that thread, the thought was DR and resolution were most important, and that 'flatness' was properly dealt with by the photographer in PP, and shouldnt be 'imposed' by the camera...(btw, i didnt buy that POV, but just wondering why the argument only applies to absurdly priced leica products).

at the end of the day, i'm wondering if the issue here is the pesence of an AA filter on the x100, and its abscence on the other cams...it is this issue alone that has re-piqued my interest in the gxr.
tony

 

[jsrockit]

OT: Subjective associations with color are part of the operative social fantasy known as "Orientalism". Now I've lived in Asia for 25 years, Europe for 2, and North America for about 23. The association of particular countries with "color" is a well-documented function of exoticism and "othering". Although I grew up in an environment where everybody saw things in this way, I discovered long ago that it is just a way of viewing that can easily be applied to any country. Of course, if you go to highly normalized disciplined places like factories, schools, prisons, army barracks, offices, banks, etc, the color you will find is going to be just that, highly normalized. But even that could be exoticized, just as photographers once did with Maoist China. It really tells us more about the viewer than about what is being viewed. I know exoticism turns a lot of people on, but it's not for me. Color is everywhere and nowhere!

Interesting. I've always been more attracted photographically to the dead pan and common... the stuff people tend to walk past daily without ever paying attention to. That said, perhaps the common in my area is exotic to someone else (which we kind of know is). Interesting.

 

[PatrickCheung]

I don't have a Fuji Xpro, though I do have an X100. Iunno what you think of these images, though I've enjoyed the results I get with a little processing, with regards to both BW and Colour.

apologies if this isn't what you're looking for, I like my S curves steep and I'm a little colour blind (red-green) XD

 

[noimmunity]

Interesting. I've always been more attracted photographically to the dead pan and common... the stuff people tend to walk past daily without ever paying attention to. That said, perhaps the common in my area is exotic to someone else (which we kind of know is). Interesting.

Some of my favorite photographers/photographs do pretty much just that.

 

[back alley]

the eye of the beholder?

 

[f16sunshine]

Everyone is always begging for higher dynamic range. When a camera starts to deliver it and folks begin to "develop" their images using wide DR. We can not complain when they look flat or plasticy. Like Gavin points out, a slight under exposure or exposing for highlights gives a denser and richer look. It's really just a shorter DR giving a lower black point in effect and more contrast. Sort of the Zeiss philosophy of lens Contrast.