Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Mirrorless Cameras => Topic started by: bernie west on May 23, 2017, 12:57:45 am
-
I've just bought into the fujifilm x system (x100t and xpro2) and am starting to wrap my head around the issue of raw vs jpg. Normally this wouldn't be a hard decision for me as I've always shot raw only. But with the renown of the fuji jpegs, and the amount of customisation available, the jpg option looks enticing. For the next 6 months or so I will be doing travel/street photography mainly, so arguably don't really need the highlight recovery and shadow boosting of raw in most cases. Anyone got any thoughts on raw vs jpg in the fuji system? And if you shoot jpgs any settings that you love that you'd like to share?
I've also just discovered, just to make the decision a bit harder, that you can do jpg conversion of the raws in-camera. But then, does anyone actually do this for anything other than the odd image? I can't imagine wanting to do this for 100+ shots a day while travelling, say.
-
Just to add... I've given the Iridient X-Transformer beta raw converter a quick go and I'm really happy with it and being able to integrate into my LR workflow. So that's a tick for raw. I've also assigned a jpg<->raw switch on one of my function buttons, so I can shoot jpg as default and switch to jpg+raw if I think the scene is going to require the extra information. So that's a tick for jpg only (predominantly).
-
So i just went out for a bit of a test shoot, and confirmed what I'd found on my first outing. That LR fuji profiles don't seem to matchup to the fuji jpgs very well. I assumed I made a mistake the first time, but got the same poor results just now. Colours are pretty close, I guess, but the tonality is out by a fair bit. Anyone else finding this?
-
I find Lr's Camera Calibration Profiles do correspond pretty well to the in-camera JPEGs, especially colours - that's their job. But that customisation means many other in-camera settings can make the camera-generated JPEGs look very different from the raw files - the dynamic range setting is the most obvious one.
Personally, with my XT2 I always shoot Raw+JPEG onto different cards and rarely import or look at the JPEGs. Switching doesn't appeal to me - sooner or later I'll leave it on the wrong setting. The in-camera conversion strikes me as a triviality and I've never used it in a real world situation.
John
-
I had everything zero'ed for the in-camera jpgs, but perhaps not DR. I haven't got to that part of the manual yet, so I don't know what it does or whether the setting I have it on (DR100) is normal unmanipulated dynamic range. Perhaps that's the reason for the different tonality.
-
There are many variables in producing "tonality", however you define it. Adobe's default sharpening, for instance, will be different from Fuji's default which is used in the JPEG. LR's various exposure sliders are "adaptive" too. You shouldn't expect the JPEGs' "tonality" to be the same as the raw files.
-
I'm going to agree with John. I find the Lr (latest CC) does a reasonable job emulating the film simulations on my X-T2.
Also, like John, I like to shoot RAW+JPEG but for a different reason. I like to see in the EVF and LCD what the various simulations look like before pressing the shutter, especially B&W films. I have customized a number of the Q menus to reflect some very nice B&W recipes that others have shared online. Seeing in B&W is a real boon for me. It even informs how I shoot orchids in the nearby Botanical Garden's conservatory and street photography.
Here's just one sample of a person sharing some tweaked simulations.
http://petetakespictures.com/blog/filmandvision
-
The linked pictures are worth looking at. thx.
I still like my x100; Fuji jpegs are the modern equivalent of 35mm film.
E.
I'm going to agree with John. I find the Lr (latest CC) does a reasonable job emulating the film simulations on my X-T2.
Also, like John, I like to shoot RAW+JPEG but for a different reason. I like to see in the EVF and LCD what the various simulations look like before pressing the shutter, especially B&W films. I have customized a number of the Q menus to reflect some very nice B&W recipes that others have shared online. Seeing in B&W is a real boon for me. It even informs how I shoot orchids in the nearby Botanical Garden's conservatory and street photography.
Here's just one sample of a person sharing some tweaked simulations.
http://petetakespictures.com/blog/filmandvision
-
I'm going to agree with John. I find the Lr (latest CC) does a reasonable job emulating the film simulations on my X-T2.
Also, like John, I like to shoot RAW+JPEG but for a different reason. I like to see in the EVF and LCD what the various simulations look like before pressing the shutter, especially B&W films. I have customized a number of the Q menus to reflect some very nice B&W recipes that others have shared online. Seeing in B&W is a real boon for me. It even informs how I shoot orchids in the nearby Botanical Garden's conservatory and street photography.
Here's just one sample of a person sharing some tweaked simulations.
http://petetakespictures.com/blog/filmandvision
I think this is a great feature (being able to "see" in black and white while composing images). I do produce some black and white, but predominantly work in colour. It would be an interesting learning exercise to head out for a day on the street and shoot (and view) only in black and white. I might try and do that one day.
-
(B&W in viewfinder) I did that last summer by mistake and turned out I had a wonderful time. Totally different photographing experience.
Dave S
-
Anyone got any thoughts on raw vs jpg in the fuji system? And if you shoot jpgs any settings that you love that you'd like to share?
I shoot both Raw+JPEG. Normally I process the raw files in Lightroom CC, but sometimes I just use the JPEG files. My settings are Astia color profile, -1 noise reduction, +1 sharpening, and then in general I shoot aperture priority with auto-ISO.
-
Probably a dumb question but could someone explain why you delve into jpeg when you can shoot raw and then assign the film profile in Lightroom? This lets you look at a myriad of effects non destructively. What am I missing?? Thanks!
-
Probably a dumb question but could someone explain why you delve into jpeg when you can shoot raw and then assign the film profile in Lightroom? This lets you look at a myriad of effects non destructively. What am I missing?? Thanks!
Try it and see.
Dave S
-
Probably a dumb question but could someone explain why you delve into jpeg when you can shoot raw and then assign the film profile in Lightroom? This lets you look at a myriad of effects non destructively. What am I missing?? Thanks!
When you set the camera to a film simulation you see the film simulation in the EVF and LCD. If you shoot B&W this most likely will be a revelation to actually see in B&W.
-
That makes sense. I look at the profiles all the time but apply them to raw in LR
Thanks Ron!
-
Sorry I wasn't clear when I said "try it and see" as I meant just that. Try it and see how the profile/effect will look before you shoot. The EVF does a very good job of showing what the jpeg effect will be like - especially for B&W. Quite a different experience for me.
Dave S
-
I was wondering if the effect applied in LR on RAW was somehow different. Or, if the in-camera demosaic was so much better - that it was worth locking in the effect at time of shooting.
I can understand how using the viewfinder in BW could be an advantage, but dont see why we would want to make a commitment to a specific film profile via jpeg - when its so easy to toggle them in LR and see the result on a big, calibrated, screen?
-
I was wondering if the effect applied in LR on RAW was somehow different. Or, if the in-camera demosaic was so much better - that it was worth locking in the effect at time of shooting.
I can understand how using the viewfinder in BW could be an advantage, but dont see why we would want to make a commitment to a specific film profile via jpeg - when its so easy to toggle them in LR and see the result on a big, calibrated, screen?
There are sometimes differences. If you shoot RAW+JPG and you like the tonalities of the JPG better you have the option of tweaking the RAW to match in LR. If you don't shoot RAW+JPG then you only have Adobe's word that they did a good job on the film simulations in LR.
You can also find a lot of recipes online for tweaks in camera to the film simulations. Some of them are excellent. I use some and when I do I always shoot RAW+JPG so I can season the RAW to what I got from the JPG if it turns out nice.
-
I was wondering if the effect applied in LR on RAW was somehow different. Or, if the in-camera demosaic was so much better - that it was worth locking in the effect at time of shooting.
I can understand how using the viewfinder in BW could be an advantage, but dont see why we would want to make a commitment to a specific film profile via jpeg - when its so easy to toggle them in LR and see the result on a big, calibrated, screen?
It's a matter of previsualisation and workflow
You either shoot a 100 jpgs and 90 of them look pleasing out-of-the-box,
Or you shoot a 100 raw and you need to toggle 90 of them in an editor before even deciding to bin them.
And the fact that the viewfinder shows the result is perhaps helpful, but you still need to decide upfront whether a certain scene fits a certain preset. Otherwise you might still end up toggling 90 of those images in the field for testing the look, which obv is impossible during streetphotography.
-
Thanks guys. For my workflow I have Provia assigned to all my images from my XT-2 and XT20 but after I pic an image that deserves my attention in LR, I always toggle through a few profiles to see what the changes look like. I don't have the skill or the memory to know accurately which one I will settle on before looking at the changes in post.
I may try doing some B&W shooting with the viewfinder set to a BW profile. That does seem really interesting!
Best,
Paul
-
Good luck, Paul. Please report back on how you like seeing in B&W.
-
Probably a dumb question but could someone explain why you delve into jpeg when you can shoot raw and then assign the film profile in Lightroom? This lets you look at a myriad of effects non destructively. What am I missing?? Thanks!
I'm finding the LR profiles to be a not very good match to the jpegs.
-
I'm finding the LR profiles to be a not very good match to the jpegs.
Bernie, could you elaborate? In what ways do they deviate from the JPEGs?
-
Mainly tonality. The highlights and shadows are noticeably different. The colours aren't too bad.
-
Have you tweaked the JPEG settings in camera or are they all standard (zero)?
-
I've since changed my jpg settings. When I get some time I'll do some careful test shots to check again. The first bunch of images I took when I noticed the problem I was still very green with the camera settings. I've since got a handle on all the various jpg settings, so should run the test again.
-
There's more to the in camera JPEGs than you might think, the Fuji engineers have baked in some grain, the curves applied respond to light levels, the highlights falloff in the Acros setting is always graceful, those little files are remarkable I think.
Now like everyone here I use my RAWs mainly... but... I shoot RAW+JPEG, I have set a few settings I like per simulation and mapped these to various presets in the Q menu. I love the Acros+Y filter when I am shooting landscapes and flip between it and the Chrome for events. It is wonderful to see a monochrome viewfinder when I am shooting. I have a most RAW like preset set up (ProNeg Std with things turned off) for when I'm shooting a portrait or particularly color sensitive shots.
For one off images I work on the RAW but If I shoot an event for someone, nine times out of ten, I send them the JPEGs straight from the camera. The prospect of editing a couple of hundred RAWs after a night at a show or simply selecting the JPEGs and uploading them, the JPEGs win every time.
-
I've found these film simulations for my X-T2 to be quite nice. I don't use them all and I may tweak them from time to time to suit my taste but they're pretty well thought out. Especially nice with the latest firmware where you can name the custom settings.
http://petetakespictures.com/blog/filmandvision
-
At very high ISO I find the in-camera noise handling of jpegs very difficult to duplicate, let alone improve upon in raw processing. I shoot raw + jpeg and use the jpegs as "targets to better" in my raw post processing. The jpegs are DARN GOOD. For many quotidian fun shots, I often just give small tweaks to the jpeg and call it good.
Here's an example:
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Still-Life/Flowers/i-kJMCHbJ/0/3ecfca86/XL/_DSF0079-2-Edit-XL.jpg)
Rand
-
Hi,
There are couple of decent videos worth watching of other talking about their FujiX settings, including film simulation related settings.
Kevin Mullins: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CXh6WgoukeY
Bert Stephani: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=soBXQmV8GcY&t
I normally shoot Raw, but the JPGs are good enough that everyone so often I like to set up some film settings and go shoot JPG for the day.
Regards,
Andy.
-
Typically I shoot RAW + JPEG but I am continually surprised at how the JPEGs are often more than good enough. I keep both and I will have the RAW for future "development" should major improvements in processing come about.
Dave S