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

or this one
PLlayerssm.jpg
 
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)

tumblr_m1j42kkreQ1r5w50to8_r1_1280.jpg
 
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:

san-luis-obispo-01.jpg



Open shade details:

X-Pro-1-Sample-Image-3.jpg



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

san-luis-obispo-06.jpg
 
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...:eek:
 
buzzardkid said:
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...
Click to expand...

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.
 
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?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom