Color with the Fuji GFX as Compared to the Hasselblad X1D

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

If Fuji has tweaked the CFA then the two cameras are different, fullstop.

IF.

And IF they did, they will still be close. Whether they are different, remains to be seen. It would take two separate production lines which would drive up cost.

As Anders has demonstrated, a Sony image (if I remember well) can be made to look like a Hasselblad image and vice versa. Most formulations of modern Bayer CFAs are pretty close (also has to do with available materials).

So even if there were different, the profiles will more likely than not make it a non-issue.

Cheers,
Bart

[Paul2660]

Just like the Phase One IQ250 profile works quite well on the Nikon D800 and D810.

Sometimes better than the standard P1 Nikon profile.

Paul Caldwell

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Just like the Phase One IQ250 profile works quite well on the Nikon D800 and D810.

Sometimes better than the standard P1 Nikon profile.

Absolutely, and that's even before tweaking the profile, just by using one made for a different sensor.

I also tried a profile that one of the participants in the DCamProf thread made, compared it with one that Capture One provided, and the tweaked profile improved the image quality (not only the color was good, but also shadow-noise was better because Anders designed a bit more 'restraint' in the extreme luminance ranges).

Now that was with Capture One, and C1 won't support competing MF cameras, but DCamProf does support Lightroom/ACR DCP-profiles.

Cheers,
Bart

[Stephen Scharf]

For me, the handling of color is more important than most of the rest of the physical differences between the X1D and the GFX, this early out. Although he is now an ambassador for Hasselblad, that is relatively recent, and I have followed Ming Thein for years. He has always been clear and unflinching in his reviews and comments, so I trust him as much as any online-authority I am aware of. Ming Thein is critical of all equipment, so if he uses Hasselblad, it is because he likes what it does. When I asked him on his blog about the Hasselblad vs. the Fuji approach to color, here is what he said.

MT: “Color: most of the world likes saturation to the nines; I can’t stand it because it makes processing very difficult, and getting accurate color for product work near-impossible. Hasselblad color is natural/accurate as opposed to pleasing: the cameras require the least profiling I’ve experienced, and they’re near-identical in color profile across the entire range (CCD included). You can saturate a Hasselblad file easily and control the peaks/rolloffs, but you can’t desaturate a ‘consumer’ file without it looking odd – the channels may well have clipped.”

ME: I then asked Ming Thein something to the effect that since you are also familiar with the Fuji color approach, do you feel that the GFX color will be as manageable as Hasselblad?

MT: “If they [Fuji] stick to the same color profile as their other cameras, honestly, no: the blues always run cyan, and the shadows block up quickly to extend highlights. This may be different on the GFX sensor, but I don’t think it’s going to solve the cyan shift since that seems to be part of the family ‘look’.”

What he says adds up to the other feedback I am getting from experts like Alan Lesheim, that there are “family” differences between the two companies approach to color. Which color-family we choose is up to our preference. I, for one, don’t care for HDR or any trace of that style, so that leans me toward working with the X1D rather than the GFX, unless (and until) I see physical proof in photos to the contrary. If the GFX leans toward “vivid,” then I won’t like that. My problem is that I cannot afford to have both cameras on-hand, and I have put in orders for each. I will get (now I’m guessing) the X1D first and have to keep it or return it before I get ahold of the GFX.

I hope these comments are helpful. Please don’t bother to disparage Ming Thein’s comments just because he is loosely associated with Hasselblad. With some folks, bias may be true, but I don’t believe it is true in Thein’s case. I read what he says. Either Fuji has blues which tend to run cyan, etc. or not.

I agree with you, Michael, that Ming is one of the finest reviewers I've read. He is very intelligent (as we all know), thinks more meaningfully about "photography"  than almost anyone I can think of, and his reviews are thorough and objective. Regardless, his comments at this point about how the GFX will render color compared to his experiences in the past with Fuji X-trans files is strictly supposition. Personally, I've found there to be more variability in color shifts due to the raw processor used than anything else. Iridient Developer, ACR/LR, and C1 all render colors somewhat differently, and Ming does not use Iridient or Capture One, only ACR. I've personally noted that Iridient renders blues less cyan than LR/ACR for example. As such, one cannot make infererences without Fuji color profiles without taking the raw processor into account because there is an interaction between the image processing engine, the RAW file and RAW processor. Also, I don't agree with his comments of Fuji blocking up to extend highlights; that certainly is not the case with the X-T2, and AFAIK, he has not shot with the X-T2 or any X-trans III camera yet. As much as I respect Ming, and I very much do, his comments have to moderated with they are based on past experience and not based on actual data from the GFX. As I gather more and more data from using my X-T2, the amount of dynamic range I am getting from it borders on the ridiculous, and the GFX is going to have even wider dynamic range.

[Michael Erlewine]

Of course, this is an interesting thread, but while I am learning, I still am no the wiser as to whether I should be satisfied with the X1D, if only because I have seen enough Hasselblad images to know that the color is good. It looks like we all have to wait and see and can't make predictions based on earlier Fuji cameras. Unfortunately, since I have to take one camera or the other, probably with the X1D (maybe) coming along sooner than the GFX, I still don't know what is my best option. I can't afford to buy them both.

Over time, I have gradually relinquished the idea of the X1d  as what I want, although originally I saw it as being a relatively small system that I can carry in a smallish bag and still do first-class work. That was where I started. However, with all the confusion as to the X1D delivery and even the status of the mother company, it gives me pause.

The GFX does all of the things I want a small MF camera to do, with the exception that I can't count on the color of Fuji, if for some reason they prefer a more saturated or vivid color space, unless I can profile what I need into the camera.

But I am beginning to believe that perhaps the GFX can use different profiles that we come up with. Since I don['t know this technology, I appreciate the help of folks here in educating me. If Fuji delivers the GFX with a profile embedded, how do we change that to a profile of our own liking? Can we do such a thing or will some member at a forum like this, who has the know-how come up with one, and share it.

I still see the beauty in both cameras, but my history with cameras would prefer the GFX, for practical reasons, provided the color is pristine.

SO, I hope this thread marches on and we gradually work through the issues.

I can't speak to Ming Thein's experience with Fuji, but over years he has been an inspiration for me, especially working through all the permutations and lenses of the Nikon D810. And in personal exchanges, he has been exemplary and I know of NO blogger who tries harder to answer each question put to him.

[ndevlin]

"Colour" is not a reason to select or reject either of these cameras.  Both will give you the raw materials to produce virtually any result you are able to achieve in your chosen post-pro workflow.  The Hasselblad *may* need Phocus to extract the best from the file.  But even then I am skeptical if that makes much difference. 

The Fuji will almost certainly have better 'in-camera' colours if you shoot jpeg, and these may to some extent carry-over into post of raw files, depending on your workflow.  But again, nothing you can't do in post with just a good raw.

- N.

[Michael Erlewine]

"Colour" is not a reason to select or reject either of these cameras.  Both will give you the raw materials to produce virtually any result you are able to achieve in your chosen post-pro workflow.  The Hasselblad *may* need Phocus to extract the best from the file.  But even then I am skeptical if that makes much difference. 

The Fuji will almost certainly have better 'in-camera' colours if you shoot jpeg, and these may to some extent carry-over into post of raw files, depending on your workflow.  But again, nothing you can't do in post with just a good raw.

- N.

Well, that is music to my ears. However, I shoot only raw, and not JPG. So, if I can work with raw using either camera, with perhaps the addition of a profile, that would be great. How do we install the profile in the camera. I imagine, easily, but I have never done it, except in post. Or, is post, when we do it?

[Paul2660]

I can't speak to Ming T, as I don't read his blog, however from what has been posted on other sites, he is a Hasselblad ambassador,  privy to early releases of their products and thus I read his bias as pro Hasselblad. Period.  I don't blame him either.  But there are plenty of short comings to the X1D IMO that seem to have been overlooked by him. 

I personally don't find current Fuji color spaces provided by either LR or C1 to be over saturated.  Fuji provides a series of Film profiles, that can be applied in camera to jpgs, which are to represent their old classic films, like Provia, Chrome etc.  These can be applied in LR however they are Adobe attempts to obtaining the similar in camera effect done by Fuji. I don't use them.  I rely on the base color profile either in C1 or LR and then work from there and so far I have been pleased with the Fuji images, as have thousands of other photographers.  These base profiles work for my style of work.

As for the comments on the Fuji blocking highlights, et all, again, Fuji would have to go out of their way to do this.  The chip being used here is the same one that dates back to 2014 and Phase One IQ250, its not any different.  The range of that chip always has been impressive.   This  has been shown by the few photographers that have received X1D's and from the thousands of photographers that have owned or shot with a  IQ250, 150 or 350 and or the Hasselblad 50c.  All again share the same chip, and all have provided excellent results in overall dynamic range, wonderful highlight recovery and or shadow push with amazing color.

My only concern with the Fuji GFX was that Fuji would attempt to use X-Trans on it, and they did not.  In the long run I feel this will be a huge asset to the camera as the x-trans tech is not fully understood by most raw converters and thus they provide a less than stellar end result.  Exceptions to this would be C1, however C1 most likely will not support the GFX due to P1's continued blinder approach to other MF platforms. 

The color of both of these cameras will be excellent, mainly due to Phocus on the Hasselblad and LR, or Iridient provided profiles.  Don't count too much on Fuji's relationship with Silkypix for a useable profile.  I expect to see the Phocus profile to the X1D as closer to perfect based on Hasselblad's previous color production on their other products.  The Fuji color will possibly not be as perfect but for most it will be close enough and if exact color is needed then a custom color profile could be developed and used.  LR allows you to load a custom camera profile so should ACR and tools are out there to develop one. 

For me the decision is much more based on the technology delivery on the camera, as I prefer the pixel depth of both the EVF and LCD on the Fuji, the fact that Fuji found a way to deliver both EFC and ES on a sensor that no one else has been able to, the ability to tilt the LCD to allow for better control of low level work, macro work and perspective control, a remote port, and a focal plane shutter which allows for a lot more non Fuji lens support over time.

However if it's all about color and it being totally exact, I guess the X1D would still have to get the better vote in that regard. 

Hopefully also Fuji has a more informed product planning process and they will be able to start delivery of their product in the late Feb 2017 time frame.

Paul Caldwell

[BobShaw]

"Colour" is not a reason to select or reject either of these cameras.  Both will give you the raw materials to produce virtually any result you are able to achieve in your chosen post-pro workflow.  The Hasselblad *may* need Phocus to extract the best from the file.  But even then I am skeptical if that makes much difference. 

Have you actually used the Reproduction Mode in Phocus? It certainly beats anything I have seen. Not that the Hasselblad Natural Colour Solution was "off" anyway.

[Michael Erlewine]

However if it's all about color and it being totally exact, I guess the X1D would still have to get the better vote in that regard. 

Paul Caldwell

I appreciate your detailed answer, and I followed along saying yes, yes, and yes... and then you get the the final line, which I quote above. My entire post here is about color, so that put me right back in the quandary again. What I need to hear is not that the X1D has the better color (it might since it is out and is Hasselblad's), but that we will be able to (someone among us or Fuji) come up with a profile that will equate the two cameras as far as color goes.

It sounds like we don't have that assertion at this point.

[BernardLanguillier]

Michael,

You are not concerned by the non apochromatic lenses of these 2 systems?

Chances that the Otii on the D810 will still deliver the cleaner file in terms of lack of color aberrations. Of course we may be able to mount the Otii on the Fuji, which would probably be pretty amazing. I am glad to own the Nikon version with an aperture ring.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Stephen Scharf]

The GFX does all of the things I want a small MF camera to do, with the exception that I can't count on the color of Fuji, if for some reason they prefer a more saturated or vivid color space, unless I can profile what I need into the camera.

Michael, having shot with Fuji cameras extensively for over four years, personally, I find that the assumption that Fuji prefers a more saturated or vivid is not an accurate one. That may be the view of folks that tend to use the Velvia preset, but that is not my experience with Fuji RAW files at all. I find their RAW files to be very neutral, and their Auto White Balance is unerringly accurate.

I would say if there is any manufacturer you can count on the color from, it's Fuji.

[Stephen Scharf]

I personally don't find current Fuji color spaces provided by either LR or C1 to be over saturated.  Fuji provides a series of Film profiles, that can be applied in camera to jpgs, which are to represent their old classic films, like Provia, Chrome etc.  These can be applied in LR however they are Adobe attempts to obtaining the similar in camera effect done by Fuji. I don't use them.  I rely on the base color profile either in C1 or LR and then work from there and so far I have been pleased with the Fuji images, as have thousands of other photographers.  These base profiles work for my style of work.

Paul Caldwell

Agreed.

[Stephen Scharf]

I appreciate your detailed answer, and I followed along saying yes, yes, and yes... and then you get the the final line, which I quote above. My entire post here is about color, so that put me right back in the quandary again. What I need to hear is not that the X1D has the better color (it might since it is out and is Hasselblad's), but that we will be able to (someone among us or Fuji) come up with a profile that will equate the two cameras as far as color goes.

It sounds like we don't have that assertion at this point.

It's going to depend to a significant extent on the RAW convertor used.

[Michael Erlewine]

Michael, having shot with Fuji cameras extensively for over four years, personally, I find that the assumption that Fuji prefers a more saturated or vivid is not an accurate one. That may be the view of folks that tend to use the Velvia preset, but that is not my experience with Fuji RAW files at all. I find their RAW files to be very neutral, and their Auto White Balance is unerringly accurate.

I would say if there is any manufacturer you can count on the color from, it's Fuji.

Thanks Stephen! That's what I need to hear.

And Bernard: Yes, it worries me that I won't have APO lenses on either camera, but I am hoping that all of the positive attributes produces something I will find useful. And I will use my Otus lenses (when an adapter shows up) on the GFX if I purchase that. Since I do close-up work, they all should do somethng of use. And I would like to get an adapter for the GFX for the Cambo Actus, as well.

I am not stopping using the D810, for which I have a lot of exotic lenses that I love. I just feel that small MF cameras are not just a fad, but are here to stay, big time.

[Michael Erlewine]

It's going to depend to a significant extent on the RAW convertor used.

I use ACR at this point, but am open to do whatever has to be done to get a superior result.

[Stephen Scharf]

I use ACR at this point, but am open to do whatever has to be done to get a superior result.

LR/ACR does a "workmanlike" job with Fuji X-trans files, but Iridient Developer is superior to LR/ACR on X-Trans files for resolving detail, noise reduction, as well as recovering shadows or pulling down highlights. For example, the Brightness Highlights, Highlights (Neighborhood Adaptive) and Extreme Highlight Recovery controls of Iridient quite simply blows ACR/LR into the weeds. The nice thing is that Iridient can be run as a plug-in within LR, and an "out and back" to do a RAF conversion only takes only about 30 seconds.

Capture One 10 is also really, really good. While Capture One probably decide not to support GFX RAF files, I've read that on Ivan Joshua Loh's blog that Fujifilm has written a "bridge software" that allows on to tether and open files in Capture One. One of the early videos showing aJapanese pro using a very early prototype show his tethering, capturing and files with Capture One. This is still a "rumor" but I am very confident that Fujifilm understand the importance of, and need by, pros to be able to use Capture One. Time will tell.

[Michael Erlewine]

LR/ACR does a "workmanlike" job with Fuji X-trans files, but Iridient Developer is superior to LR/ACR on X-Trans files for resolving detail, noise reduction, as well as recovering shadows or pulling down highlights. For example, the Brightness Highlights, Highlights (Neighborhood Adaptive) and Extreme Highlight Recovery controls of Iridient quite simply blows ACR/LR into the weeds. The nice thing is that Iridient can be run as a plug-in within LR, and an "out and back" to do a RAF conversion only takes only about 30 seconds.

Does Iridient have a plug-in for Photoshop, which is what I use. I have LR too, but it is too slow for me.

[Stephen Scharf]

Does Iridient have a plug-in for Photoshop, which is what I use. I have LR too, but it is too slow for me.

I don't think so because PS opens ACR when you open a RAW file, but you can batch process images in Iridient and then export to Photoshop. Just as one might with Capture One.

[Michael Erlewine]

I don't think so because PS opens ACR when you open a RAW file, but you can batch process images in Iridient and then export to Photoshop. Just as one might with Capture One.

I am downloading Iridient as a demo now.