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

[Landshark99]

or this one

 

[mobilexile]

I am very happy with the Fuji files even this JPEG seems very cool to me

I tend to agree, the X-Pro1 produces lovely results.

Great shots, btw.

 

[willie_901]

If images will ultimately run on press RAW files are a must.

I agree completely.

 

[gavinlg]

Update: I feel like I've unlocked a bit more potential in the fuji X files - I now feel shooting RAW is a must, as the jpegs are too 'smooth' and flat. I'm now adding a touch of 'grain' to the raw files amongst a few other little tricks and to my eye, they're much richer and more 'real' looking. It's all in the processing (assuming you expose correctly to begin with - underexpose if in doubt)

 

[ColinMichael]

Personally, I'm a ex-Pro 400h shooter so I love the X-Pro1 files. Compared to my 5DII, files are richer, have better skin tones and the color pallet is a bit more pastel... sort of like the film I love so much. Shooting manually as I find A mode to be a bit unpredictable.

Here's a couple from a recent engagement session. All Jpeg, set to standard. Note I'm now shooting in the Pro Neg Std mode:

Open shade details:

Here's a comparison vs. the 5DII file (I'll let you guess):

 

[ColinMichael]

I am very happy with the Fuji files even this JPEG seems very cool to me

Nicely done!

 

[johannielscom]

Still, it's a thread on comparing cows to airplanes.

Nobody's even bothered to tell what monitor and calibration software they are using!

I like the shots I'm seeing in the last few posts, but have no way of being sure that what I'm seeing on my SpyderExpress calibrated HP LED screen is anywhere near close to what the original poster intended with the shot...

In-camera JPEGs in B&W seem to lack DR in skylights in some shots but again, no way of knowing for sure. And, I'd never shoot in-camera JPEGs in B&W anyway when I can have RAW.

Interesting camera to use my M and LTM glass on. More so than the Oly which I held last week, it's too small for me and the all-electronic EVF is good but still not a true VF.
This X-Pro1 might prove itself a winner to me over time when the price comes down...😱

 

[mobilexile]

I like the shots I'm seeing in the last few posts, but have no way of being sure that what I'm seeing on my SpyderExpress calibrated HP LED screen is anywhere near close to what the original poster intended with the shot...

Regardless of what the original poster intended you're never going to see the same result on your end. That's like comparing images from a 1975 consumer Polaroid and a Leica M9 – they will never be the same. A FEW reasons include file compression, interwebs, two machines in different environments that aren't calibrated to match, more than likely two different monitor makes and models, etc. Sure, you can get a reasonable sense but they'll differ.

 

[semilog]

RAW conversion with RPP64 4.5.0 Beta 61 and post-conversion adjustments in LR 4.1. Lens is the XF 18/2.


DSCF0257-2 by Semilog, on Flickr

 

[Benjamin Marks]

Well, I think you got some color richness there Semilog. ;-)

One thing I noticed: the jpgs out of the box, factory default settings are more saturated than the Silkypix converstions to TIFF out of the box, with its factory default settings. But this is to be expected, no?

 

[semilog]

....and some rich local color ;-)

 

[jsrockit]

RAW conversion with RPP64 4.5.0 Beta 61 and post-conversion adjustments in LR 4.1. Lens is the XF 18/2.


DSCF0257-2 by Semilog, on Flickr

Nice one. 🙂