danielsterno
making soup from mud
All:
Purchased a x100 a month ago- best money I ever spent, the camera has a soul. As a recent digital convert from film first digital ive owned (besides iPhoneograhy), I am shooting fine JPEG & using iPhoto now for simple PP tweaking (saturation/contrast/sharpness/definition/cropping/straightening and highlight).
Questions on PP on x100:
1-Can anyone touch on what you are using for PP software with the x100?
2-Your impression of the debate of shooting RAW versus OOC JPEG post processing
3-Last- any of you using Siver Efex Pro for additional B&W?
Thank you in advance-Dan
Purchased a x100 a month ago- best money I ever spent, the camera has a soul. As a recent digital convert from film first digital ive owned (besides iPhoneograhy), I am shooting fine JPEG & using iPhoto now for simple PP tweaking (saturation/contrast/sharpness/definition/cropping/straightening and highlight).
Questions on PP on x100:
1-Can anyone touch on what you are using for PP software with the x100?
2-Your impression of the debate of shooting RAW versus OOC JPEG post processing
3-Last- any of you using Siver Efex Pro for additional B&W?
Thank you in advance-Dan
edge100
Well-known
1. Lightroom 4.2
2. RAW, all the way. The SOOC JPEGs are very, very good. But I just don't want to give up the flexibility of processing the RAWs. This is mainly to maintain maximal control over white balance and highlight retention.
3. I've used it on occasion, but not enough to consider myself fluent. Its presets produce excellent conversions. Personally, I use VSCO for all of my B&Ws. First, because I like the results, and second, because it works non-destructively on the RAWs. But SEP2 is a great program, and a lot of people swear by it. FWIW, I did a quick comparison here between SEP2, Alien Skin 4, and VSCO based on their out-of-the-box Tri-X preset on an X100 RAW. My conclusion was that VSCO = SEP2 > ASE4, and that the trade-off between VSCO and SEP2 is the ability to work on the RAW (with VSCO) vs. fine control (with SEP2).
stompyq
Well-known
rbelyell
Well-known
i find lightroom very very good, not only for PP, but also for organization.
the camera takes such great images that i have found absolutely no advantage in shooting RAW. the OOC jpegs have great headroom for virtually any and all PP i want to do, including heavy cropping, keeping detail in highlight/shadow adjustment and adjusting WB. just no reason to waste the space.
in very lowlight situations at iso 3200 i do shoot RAW+jpeg and shoot my jpegs in b&w. i more often end up keeping the b&w jpeg and deleting the RAW color!
tony
the camera takes such great images that i have found absolutely no advantage in shooting RAW. the OOC jpegs have great headroom for virtually any and all PP i want to do, including heavy cropping, keeping detail in highlight/shadow adjustment and adjusting WB. just no reason to waste the space.
in very lowlight situations at iso 3200 i do shoot RAW+jpeg and shoot my jpegs in b&w. i more often end up keeping the b&w jpeg and deleting the RAW color!
tony
mwooten
light user
For me Lightroom is leagues ahead of iphoto. Both for classification and for processing.
I usually shoot both jpeg & raw. Import the raw into Lightroom, and use the jpegs sometimes. I don't own Silver Efex, but I may buy it later.
I usually shoot both jpeg & raw. Import the raw into Lightroom, and use the jpegs sometimes. I don't own Silver Efex, but I may buy it later.
JonasYip
Well-known
Not that I'm adding any different info, but:
1) Lightroom
2) RAW
1) Lightroom
2) RAW
Ariefb
Established
Same with the others. Lightroom is the way to go, for both organizing and editing. Free presets are abundant. The very good ones are not expensive. VSCO is probably the best film emulation out there. I haven't try VSCO, but i love the look of images it produces. I'm pretty sure several LR presets with additional tweaking can produce similar results.
I think you already know the benefits of raw over jpeg, so it's really up to your preference. Files are big but memory is cheaper by the day. Just get several fast cards and shoot raw.
I think you already know the benefits of raw over jpeg, so it's really up to your preference. Files are big but memory is cheaper by the day. Just get several fast cards and shoot raw.
SausalitoDog
Well-known
I guess it depends on how much you shoot.
I've never warmed up to LR - Photoshop with lots of plugins (most of which work with LR as well) for me
RAW IS the only way to go.
Silver Efex 2 is utterly fantastic
I've never warmed up to LR - Photoshop with lots of plugins (most of which work with LR as well) for me
RAW IS the only way to go.
Silver Efex 2 is utterly fantastic
Darthfeeble
But you can call me Steve
I'm a PSE di-hard I find that I like it best. Any are good and the one that you learn first will be your favorite in most cases. I shoot RAW for two reasons, if you post process a OOC jpeg you are loosing lots of pixels. First in the camera when the file is compress there and then again when you save unless perhaps you are saving in Tiff or some un-compressed file format. Secondly you are giving up something called head room which will allow you to perhaps recover some of a blown out highlight or shadow detail. The camera takes exquisite image quality, use all of it. S
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
Just to add a little variety: I see there are several Lightroom fans here. I process on my iMac and MacBook, using Aperture. I've been very happy with Aperture, not only for my X100, but also for my X10, D700, D-Lux 3, etc. This doesn't mean that I wouldn't like Lightroom, just that I haven't got it. Some time ago, one of the stores was blowing out a version of Lightroom that was being replaced by the subsequent version; I let that bargain get away. I haven't used Lightroom, so don't know what I might be missing; yet with Aperture, I feel like I have almost all the control I need. If only it would do perspective correction! I keep PSE on hand for that.
I shoot RAW most of the time. I shoot JPegs with the X10, because Aperture doesn't have the RAW converter for it, yet the X10 JPEGS are excellent anyhow. I shoot JPEGS with the D-Lux sometimes, for minor neighborhood shots, just to save some file space.
I shoot RAW most of the time. I shoot JPegs with the X10, because Aperture doesn't have the RAW converter for it, yet the X10 JPEGS are excellent anyhow. I shoot JPEGS with the D-Lux sometimes, for minor neighborhood shots, just to save some file space.
SausalitoDog
Well-known
PSE would be a good start - if it's all you need, you're set.
The main thing is the plugins and ACR. ACR has improved so much in the last 5 years! You can go back and re-convert old raw files and get GREATLY improved results with today's software
The main thing is the plugins and ACR. ACR has improved so much in the last 5 years! You can go back and re-convert old raw files and get GREATLY improved results with today's software
Jamie Pillers
Skeptic
Apple's Aperture works well with the X100 files. And I much prefer the user interface of Aperture over Lightroom. A great thing about Aperture is that the original RAW file is always there... always in the background behind any post-processing you do.
jordanatkins
Established
As a former owner of an X100, I will say that the OOC jpegs were so good that I stopped shooting raw early on. If you set DR to auto and auto ISO, the camera gets the shot perfect every time. Also, the camera's jpeg processing is so good that I found that I can't duplicate the fine noise reduction job and the color that the camera exhibits. No need to fiddle with raw files.
I miss that beautiful little camera, but I got angry at the "fix one thing, break other things" that Fuji was doing with every subsequent firmware update, and the fixed focal length. Might have to get me an X-Pro 1 one of these days...
I miss that beautiful little camera, but I got angry at the "fix one thing, break other things" that Fuji was doing with every subsequent firmware update, and the fixed focal length. Might have to get me an X-Pro 1 one of these days...
crispy12
Well-known
I always shoot raw, as it gives me the option of doing proper edits in LR. Once you realise how much detail you can recover in RAW you'll never go back. If I really need JPEG, then I'll shoot RAW + JPEG. Changing white balance in jpeg is also a PITA.
Silver Efex Pro also works much better with RAW files. I ditched iPhoto ages ago, LR was a difficult step to learn well but well worth the effort. I'm trying to learn more about photoshop now, even more powerful but much harder to learn.
This image is taken using the x100 and PPed in LR with some Silver Efex Pro. I've also dodged and burned some areas that were exposed badly.
japan by chrisongtj, on Flickr
Silver Efex Pro also works much better with RAW files. I ditched iPhoto ages ago, LR was a difficult step to learn well but well worth the effort. I'm trying to learn more about photoshop now, even more powerful but much harder to learn.
This image is taken using the x100 and PPed in LR with some Silver Efex Pro. I've also dodged and burned some areas that were exposed badly.
japan by chrisongtj, on Flickr
crispy12
Well-known
Lightroom is no different, the RAW file is unaffected too. My experience is contrary, I found the workflow in LR much more intuitive. This was compared to an older version of aperture, I'm not sure if anything has changed since then.
willie_901
Veteran
As many before mentioned, raw and Lightroom are a great combination. Fuji raws seem to withstand highlight recovery extremely well. If you switch to raw you may want to err on the side of overexposure.
LR has an Adobe lens correction profile for the X100 that corrects for the small amount of barrel distortion and vignetting present in the Fujinon 23/2 lens.
I find that LR can recover about two stops of under exposure with X100 raw data. If you push the exposure too high you may see banding in the deepest shadows.
Remember, if you shoot raw, set DR=100. Otherwise you are automatically under exposing. Also, the electronic ISO amplification ends at ISO 1600. This means if you shoot raw you can intentionally under expose by up to two stops and increase the exposure in LR. In raw mode (and jpeg mode) Fuji digitally multiplies the data in-camera to simulate ISOs > 1600.
LR has an Adobe lens correction profile for the X100 that corrects for the small amount of barrel distortion and vignetting present in the Fujinon 23/2 lens.
I find that LR can recover about two stops of under exposure with X100 raw data. If you push the exposure too high you may see banding in the deepest shadows.
Remember, if you shoot raw, set DR=100. Otherwise you are automatically under exposing. Also, the electronic ISO amplification ends at ISO 1600. This means if you shoot raw you can intentionally under expose by up to two stops and increase the exposure in LR. In raw mode (and jpeg mode) Fuji digitally multiplies the data in-camera to simulate ISOs > 1600.
rbelyell
Well-known
shooting raw or jpeg is always a matter of some debate. obviously raw records more data, that is simply a fact. whether that data is necessary in a given situation is subjective. as i and admittedly only one other person has stated here, the x100 provides jpegs with ample headroom for preserving great detail for cropping, shadow/highlight recovery and white balance adjustment.
my suggestion is to experiment shooting raw + jpeg and see for yourself. then note how much time you spend in PP getting your jpeg file where you want it. spend the same amount of time trying to PP your raw image. my personal experience was i could not get the raw image to look as good as the jpeg without loads of PP time. my conclusion was that unless one is a professional photographer who needs to tease every mb out of every frame, or one is a software wonk who enjoys spending more time PPing than actually shooting, raw was not necessary in shooting with the x100. you, and others may draw a different conclusion.
tony
my suggestion is to experiment shooting raw + jpeg and see for yourself. then note how much time you spend in PP getting your jpeg file where you want it. spend the same amount of time trying to PP your raw image. my personal experience was i could not get the raw image to look as good as the jpeg without loads of PP time. my conclusion was that unless one is a professional photographer who needs to tease every mb out of every frame, or one is a software wonk who enjoys spending more time PPing than actually shooting, raw was not necessary in shooting with the x100. you, and others may draw a different conclusion.
tony
edge100
Well-known
At the risk of seriously diverting the trajectory of this thread, I would argue that if you're going to invest the time and money in shooting with a fine instrument such as the X100, then leaving processing decisions up to the camera seems a little strange.
Ultimately, we all shoot in Raw. The question is whether you find the camera's interpretation of your Raw files to be adequate, given the specific conditions under which you are shooting. I don't, but as you say, others may draw different conclusions.
rbelyell
Well-known
edge, shooting jpeg does not preclude making PP decisions. it simply puts you at a different point on the PP curve. its not all or nothing. part of what makes the x100 such a 'fine instrument' is that its 'first cut' at PP is fabulous and leaves enough headroom for further 'processing desicions' on the part of the photographer. some folks like spending gobs of time PPing, thats great. others dont mind spending some time PPing, but simply draw a line in a different place. some folks feel their work merits teasing every possible mb out of every image, others have different needs/wants. finally, different folks just see things differently. my point, as it always is in this debate, is there is no one definitive way of analysing this issue, and imo the RAW guys do tend to thinking their's is the only way.
tony
tony
jordanatkins
Established
Actually, if you're going to spend the money on a fine instrument like the X100, it's strange to NOT leave some of the processing decisions up to the camera, since it has a unique jpeg engine.
Why are people in here are acting like fine adjustments are taboo on OOC jpegs. :bang:
rbelyell has the right idea.