Very pleasant color here at Petapixel (https://petapixel.com/2017/01/20/fujifilm-medium-format-gfx-50s-first-impressions/)
The author Adrian Murray is called Lightroom expert but I wonder also GFX makes good job in color.
Nice photos, but too saturated and dark for my taste. I am sure we will see many comparisons in the next weeks. I would like to see, side-by-side comparison of the X1D and the GFX.I agree, too saturated but I see something beautiful in those. I also wait for real comparisons and tests.
Helpful, but what I would most appreciate is the virtues and differences between Hasselblad color and Fuji still-camera color.
Color depends on the profile used and Raw converter preferences. Both cameras can be made to look similar.
Cheers,
Bart
They both have the same sensor as I understand it, but how has the sensor in each been tweaked.
I am glad that they can be made to look the same, but what is the "same," or do you mean each can emulate to the other?
I want purchase one of these, and am leaning toward the GFX, but not if it has "inferior" color, however that word might apply to standard MF images. I realize that I am asking the world, here, but some hints may be Enough. If they both are great, good. Would hate to purchase one and find that everyone feels the other has better color, etc.
Color has always been IMHO the strongest area of Fuji digital offerings, that and lenses look.
Hassy has been focsing on color a lot also, my bet would be that it will be a matter of preference.
If you use LR you may not see that much difference at all.
Cheers,
Bernard
Personnally I find the Fuji the superior option.
The support of HC lenses fixed the only concern I had with it.
Cheers,
Bernard
Well, my concern, as mentioned is color between the two cameras. Any thoughts on that please?Exactly. There is good colour and there is correct colour. Correct colour is the only acceptable result if doing art reproduction, product and fashion. Here Hasselblad excels with Phocus.
Exactly. There is good colour and there is correct colour. Correct colour is the only acceptable result if doing art reproduction, product and fashion. Here Hasselblad excels with Phocus.
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’.”
...
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.
Hi Michael,
I think Ming Thein's observations are reasonable, but they do not take custom profiles into account. Camera manufacturers do add a specific 'look' to the images, but it doesn't have to stop there.
Cheers,
Bart
| Lightroom | Capture One | |
| P45+ | (http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/OLS_OnColor/SimpleCase/20150107-CF046070_AdobeStandard_vsmall.jpg) | (http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/OLS_OnColor/SimpleCase/20150107-CF046070_C1_vsmall.jpg) |
| Sony Alpha 99 | (http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/OLS_OnColor/SimpleCase/20150107-_DSC6397_AdobeStandard_vsmall.jpg) | (http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/OLS_OnColor/SimpleCase/20150107-_DSC6397_C1_vsmall.jpg) |
Bart,
What you are suggesting is that the more "vivid" style of Fuji, if it exists, can be entirely removed by a custom profile? And that, with a profile, I could back off the saturation (or whatever) and attain the less vivid Hasselblad style?
Hi,
Probably yes.
Keep in mind a raw file has no colour, it has normally four monochrome channels, these are either clipped or not. An image that contains clipped data is overexposed.
So, with a correctly exposed image we have four unclipped channels that are just numbers.
The colour is carried in the colour profile, at least as long as you use the Adobe processing pipeline. The profile contains the recipe for calculating colour. So, as long you work with raw files all the colour info is generated in the raw processor.
So talking about saturated or clipped colour in the raw file is pure nonsense. The colour profile can generate saturated colour channels.
OK, I understand. Given a carefully made profile I can ignore or not-use whatever penchant Fuji has for over-saturation and just do my own thing.
I always and only shoot raw, so that should good.
Yes,
That is true. But, there are differences between colour sensors that cannot be handled by profiles.
Is this true even through both the X1D and the GFX use the same sensor... and I am shooting raw?
Hi,
It could be that Hasselblad and Fuji use different CFA designs, with different spectral responses. That would still be possible to handle by profiles, mostly.
The example I posted, I shot both with P45+, that has a quiet extreme CFA design from Kodak and with the Sony Alpha 99 which has a typical Sony CFA. The processing in Lightroom was very close, while Capture One produced very different results. It is an example that profiles are more important than sensors and CFAs.
Best regards
Erik
Color science and camera profiling are not, to put it mildly, my areas of expertise. However, two things occur to me. First, I would think it is very difficult to get the color you get out of the GFX to look exactly like the color from files from the X1D. In order to make them "the same", I would think you would have to use camera profiling software to profile the two cameras in the same raw converter and change the profiles of both of them to look the same. That's very different from making the Fuji file look exactly like the Hasselblad file. Moreover, what if the beautiful color of the Hasselblad files you want to emulate is from files processed in Phocus, not Lightroom?
Second, the "look" of a file from a Hasselblad file and any other file is not just about color. Isn't there a lot of secret sauce (e.g., the tone curve) that goes into tuning a CAmera profile beyond adjustments to the "color" by using an X Rite color checker to create a profile? I am sure that when Phase One develops the base profiles for its digital backs in Capture One, they are doing a lot more than just breaking out an X Rite color checker. Same for Hasselblad with Phocus.
This may be true...and it may be a CCD vs. CMOS discussion, but I shoot D4/5/810 Credo. Recently my Credo 40 broke, and was replaced with a 60. In the window where I was without a back, I had to shoot a job to match a previous job shot with the Credo. Same lighting, same room, same raw converter - drastically different look. I'm certainly not an expert, but in trying to match using both C1 and LR, I just couldn't do it.
Remember the GFX will not be x-trans. Profiling should similar if not the same for any Bayer pattern sensor.
Paul Caldwell
This may be true...and it may be a CCD vs. CMOS discussion, but I shoot D4/5/810 Credo. Recently my Credo 40 broke, and was replaced with a 60. In the window where I was without a back, I had to shoot a job to match a previous job shot with the Credo. Same lighting, same room, same raw converter - drastically different look. I'm certainly not an expert, but in trying to match using both C1 and LR, I just couldn't do it.
I hear you, but I don't know what that means. I am trying to pull together all the various feedback from this topic. Here is where I am folks.
Both the X1D and the GFX share the same sensor, HOWEVER each may (and probably does) put their own spin on it. How is that done if it is raw?
I originally thought that if I shot raw, that I would be safe and could set my own profile and get exactly what I want. But now I understand that, even with raw, the companies can push it this way or that. What I don't want is to have it pushed to be anything but neutral, meaning: not unnaturally vivid.
Basically, only the Bayer CFA could be a bit different, but they are usually quite similar in their transmission characteristics. The Out of Camera (OOC) color is a choice but with a manually made profile they can be made to look just like you prefer (within limits, because color based on just 3 channels is a huge problem to solve for human observers). A tool like DCAMprof, see here (http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=100015.msg954993#new), can assist in synchronizing between different cameras, or create a user preferred color response.
Yes, each other, or both the same, or both to a personal flavor.
I expect the image quality of both to be good (after profiling), but do also look at supporting software options and lens options, and features that may be unique for a model. The articulating LCD is e.g. very useful for some of the macro work you do.
Cheers,
Bart
If Fuji has tweaked the CFA then the two cameras are different, fullstop.
Just like the Phase One IQ250 profile works quite well on the Nikon D800 and D810.
Sometimes better than the standard P1 Nikon profile.
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.
"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.
"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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
...and C1 won't support competing MF cameras, but DCamProf does support Lightroom/ACR DCP-profiles.
At the risk of repeating something that may well have been pointed out before: Iridient also supports ACR/LR DCP profiles - Input Profiles are under the 'color' tab.
My entire post here is about color, so that put me right back in the quandary again.Once you have been here for a while you will realise that the subject has little to do with the discussion after the first page and turns into a points contest about something irrelevant and hypothetical.
It sounds like we don't have that assertion at this point.
Once you have been here for a while you will realise that the subject has little to do with the discussion after the first page and turns into a points contest about something irrelevant and hypothetical.
Here's a really fast, quick and dirty B&W conversion I did in Silver Efex Pro 2 with the Acros preset....that will go at 30,000ft over most peoples' head.
that will go at 30,000ft over most peoples' head.
Here's a really fast, quick and dirty B&W conversion I did in Silver Efex Pro 2 with the Acros preset....
Open the file in Photoshop and check the effect of different profiles.
Does anyone have profiles for Photoshop available? I have a set made by Ming Thein that includes a variety of cameras, including the D810, and they seem very good.
Checked out the raw files without any profile. It's hard to tell any major difference with pictures made with the X1D (the ones I can find anyway). Besides the profiles that will be shipped soon with ACR/LR, the lenses should have a much bigger effect on overall colors and scene rendition
Hi,
I developed a few of the samples using RawTherapee using a dcp profile I extracted rom Hasselblad X1D and A7rII images exported as DNG.
The first image was using a DCP profile exported by Phocus, it is just ColourMatrix really:
(http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/etcetera/GFXX1D.jpg)
The second one is a Sony A7rII DCP profile exported by Lightroom, a much more complex profile, with LUT-tables and all matrices:
(http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/etcetera/GFXa7rII.jpg)
I also tested with a profile for the IQ250 and the P45+. There was very little difference. That was a great surprise.
For my taste, the skin tones are a bit pink, but it may depend on the white balance.
Best regards
Erik
Hi,
I developed a few of the samples using RawTherapee using a dcp profile I extracted rom Hasselblad X1D and A7rII images exported as DNG.
I also tested with a profile for the IQ250 and the P45+. There was very little difference. That was a great surprise.
There is an obsession with colour (spelt correctly) that is irrelevant when viewed on my Toshiba laptop. So consider the audience and the medium. Preciousness is for the obsessive.
Please tell me how and on what I should view these images to appreciate them.
There is an obsession with colour (spelt correctly) that is irrelevant when viewed on my Toshiba laptop. So consider the audience and the medium. Preciousness is for the obsessive.
Please tell me how and on what I should view these images to appreciate them.
"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.
- N.
As the OP, what Bart said is correct. I have to choose either the X1D or the GFX without being able to have both cameras side-by-side, which would mean paying for both of them, even for a time. I can't afford that. So, of course, with that kind of investment on the line, I would like to determine if the two cameras are roughly equivalent. Perhaps others will do this and I can learn from them.
They say patience is a virtue, you know. So why not be patient and rent them side-by-side?
As the OP, what Bart said is correct. I have to choose either the X1D or the GFX without being able to have both cameras side-by-side, which would mean paying for both of them, even for a time. I can't afford that. So, of course, with that kind of investment on the line, I would like to determine if the two cameras are roughly equivalent. Perhaps others will do this and I can learn from them.
I think you can do this exercise without having both cameras side by side at the same time. That would be ideal, but not necessary in my view to do the evaluation. My expectation is that the two cameras will NOT be roughly equivalent if you compare the files from the GFX in LR/ACR using the supplied profiles versus the files from the X1D in Phocus using the supplied profiles. Can YOU develop a LR profile for the GFX that gets you close to what you like? Can pay someone else to figure out what you like and develop an excellent LR profile for you that matches your aesthetic tastes? I don't know, but do you want to buy an expensive camera system based upon that supposition?
They say patience is a virtue, you know. So why not be patient and rent them side-by-side?
Hi,
The pictures often presented as samples are often taken by some famous photographer, shooting a famous model with excessive makeup and complex illumination.
Those images doesn't make it easy to judge colour rendition. What you probably need is a well illuminated test subject with pretty standard studio light, a model without a lot of makeup and a colour checker or a grey card.
Light modifiers can easily change light a few hundred Kelvins, so you need that colour checker for white balance.
Best regards
Erik
I wholeheartedly agree with Erik, but this is not our first rodeo, either. I have gone through this kind of bleeding-edge stage many, many times before. Therefore, I know that somehow we will get though this, gather enough data until we have what we feel we need, and make our decisions on purchase or not. And it is clear, this is not one simple conclusions, but many types of photographers, each with their list to be checked off.
Agreed, but it would certainly help developing some degree of confidence about the ability to develop a more natural rendition of color and tone with the GFX if Fuji did not market the camera with such garish imagery: http://www.fujifilm.com/products/digital_cameras/gfx/fujifilm_gfx_50s/pdf/index/gfx_catalogue_01.pdf
If that's what the camera was configured to produce, no thanks. that's not my idea of beautiful tone and color.
LOL. In Big Rapids, Michigan, where I live, we are on the edge of 900,000 acres of national forest. No place to rent them here, AND I have orders in for both cameras, and the X1D should be along fairly soon, since I ordered fairly early. Obviously, I am not being clear enough, but patience I have already had pleanty of.
I agree with Paul - tough crowd! I completely get the desire for such accuracy when doing commercial portrait and product photography. As a photographer who does mostly landscapes and seascapes I don't require that level accuracy. My experience shooting Canon and Leica, then Nikon and now Phase One, I always have to adjust the color to my liking. Part of it is I tend to like slightly under-saturated colors and I am often going for a specific look. I forgot who said it earlier but we all perceive color slightly differently. I would guess some of that is biological and some of it based on our visual experience. Speaking for myself, I'm sure either Fuji or Hasselblad with profiles will be fine. I would be focusing my energy on other factors. One mans opinion.
Better said than by me but I agree 100% Phase One color out of the camera is most terrible unless I am shooting on bright day. Tons of time go into getting the image where I want it, and I often shoot a reference with my X-T2 as color out of that camera is much more accurate. Phase One WB is a mystery I have yet to figure out since 2008. I had hoped that with the CMOS tech P1 would make it easier, but IMO it's just as tough as CCD.
Paul Caldwell
LOL. In Big Rapids, Michigan, where I live, we are on the edge of 900,000 acres of national forest. No place to rent them here, AND I have orders in for both cameras, and the X1D should be along fairly soon, since I ordered fairly early. Obviously, I am not being clear enough, but patience I have already had pleanty of.
You can rent both cameras when available from LensRentals.com or BorrowLenses.com and do an comprehensive side by side comparison for yourself. Both companies will ship the camera to your home and make shipping back straightforward and easy. Problem solved.
I am a bit perplexed by the film simulation modes available. Presumably these are only relevant for jpegs and are not "burnt" into the Raw files in camera. Who is really going to buy this camera to shoot jpegs? Presumably the only purpose is to produce a jpeg with a certain look that you can use as a reference to develop the Raw file or am i missing something? Or is it intended that the film simulation modes will be made available within LR or other developers to act upon a neutral Raw file? Or, as I have already said, am I missing something obvious?Film simulation modes are already available for Lightroom, to be applied on RAW files.
Michael, you might want to read this post from Sator comparing and contrasting the GFX vs the X1D....
GFX compared to X1D (https://plus.google.com/116458677975033889029/posts/NdVHsqGuKJa?sfc=false)
Reading the entire post is well worth it as he goes through an extensive evaluation of the pros and cons of each system.
Michael, you might want to read this post from Sator comparing and contrasting the GFX vs the X1D....So if you buy a Hasselblad you aren't buying "a work tool for the pro to earn money from, but a fashion accessory to be shown off on your yacht".
GFX compared to X1D (https://plus.google.com/116458677975033889029/posts/NdVHsqGuKJa?sfc=false)
Reading the entire post is well worth it as he goes through an extensive evaluation of the pros and cons of each system.
Michael, you might want to read this post from Sator comparing and contrasting the GFX vs the X1D....
GFX compared to X1D (https://plus.google.com/116458677975033889029/posts/NdVHsqGuKJa?sfc=false)
Reading the entire post is well worth it as he goes through an extensive evaluation of the pros and cons of each system.
"But just profile the camera then!" Yes, I'd certainly do that, I always do, but if you ask me I only know of one software available to the public out there that makes a good attempt at making *general-purpose* profiles, and that's DCamProf...
As we get into these conflicting, more technical facts, and when there are alternate truths beings thrown around, I have no way of knowing what is real or not. Usually facts are facts, etc.
It seems that the GFX is a much better workhorse camera, and more modern in a number of ways. The X1D seems to be being reduced to a minimalist travel camera, with perhaps better color right out of the camera, but otherwise already dated.
And this whole idea of waiting for a global shutter in some years from now leaves me cold. How does that affect either the GFX or the X1D?
Anyway, I have to decide, to give up my place in line for the X1D, which should be coming soon. And they are booked up for a year or whatever. I know some of you more experienced in MF must be working this out, so please continue to share your views and to debunk what deserves debunking, etc.
Historically speaking, I always found that Basiccolor Input worked well as a generall-purpose camera profiler - but you really should use it with a Colorchecker DC or equivalent. There is also, I think free software from Xrite, and some software from Adobe that determines DCP primaries and even lets you edit them. And there is even a one-shot measuring devices from Image Engineering.
Of course, I would agree that DCamProf is a serious effort - but is it really necessary? :) There is only really ONE sensor per major camera generation at the moment, the Sony one, and as you argue so eloquently it would be enough that somebody measure the primaries or spectral response and publish them once and for all. Tone curves etc are a different story.
They both have the same sensor as I understand it, but how has the sensor in each been tweaked. I am glad that they can be made to look the same, but what is the "same," or do you mean each can emulate to the other? I wantto purchase one of these, and am leaning toward the GFX, but not if it has "inferior" color, however that word might apply to standard MF images. I realize that I am asking the world, here, but some hints may be Enough. If they both are great, good. Would hate to purchase one and find that everyone feels the other has better color, etc.
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?
In addition, if you're using Windows, you have no real color management, and unless the image is in sRGB, you won't be seeing it correctly anyway.
Could you explain what you mean by that? My current workstation is a 256GB Dell 7910/AMD W8000/NEC PA322UHD-SV running Win 10. All the calibrations work fine. Images in CIELab, PPRGB, sRGB, etc all display fine and spectrophotometric measurements are fine.
Previous Win 7 systems also were fine. There were some color management issues with Vista.
Jim
I'm going to assume that everyone here has a high quality, fairly new, well calibrated graphics monitor capable of doing Adobe RGB. Otherwise, any statements on how good online photos look are meaningless. In addition, if you're using Windows, you have no real color management, and unless the image is in sRGB, you won't be seeing it correctly anyway. You can't count on the browsers.
So just keep this in mind when viewing. You need to know if an image is anything other than sRGB.
Yes please explain the part about Windows and a lack of color management? I guess you know more about it than I do along with NEC, eye one, Epson and Adobe combined.
I love these kind of total BS generalizations.
Windows has excellent color management.
Period
Paul Caldwell
I just have reservations based upon Fuji's apparent belief that what sells cameras (and film before that) was a certain look that emphasizes high contrast and heavy saturation.
The camera should allow you to select sRGB or Adobe RGB. Select Adobe RGB. That's all you need to do for jpeg. But for RAW, it doesn't matter, as all the gamut the sensor is capable of delivering will appear in the RAW.
This is quite the thread in terms of the the amount of blatantly inaccurate information.Pretty normal actually.
Could you explain what you mean by that? My current workstation is a 256GB Dell 7910/AMD W8000/NEC PA322UHD-SV running Win 10. All the calibrations work fine. Images in CIELab, PPRGB, sRGB, etc all display fine and spectrophotometric measurements are fine.
Previous Win 7 systems also were fine. There were some color management issues with Vista.
Jim
Raw files don't have gamut in any meaningful sense. The first reason is that the data in a raw file is not encoded as colors. The second is that the range of colors obtainable from a raw file depends on subsequent processing. The raw developer performs conversion of that data to approximate (or not) the colors of the original scene. The gamut of colors in the converted image is limited by signal-to-noise ratio criteria, color accuracy requirements, and other things not inherent in the raw image. Given those limiting factors, the skirt characteristics of the CFA filters which is inherent in the raw image, plays a role.
Jim
Yes please explain the part about Windows and a lack of color management? I guess you know more about it than I do along with NEC, eye one, Epson and Adobe combined.
I love these kind of total BS generalizations.
Windows has excellent color management.
Period
Paul Caldwell
Windows does not have a built-in system wide color management system that is turned on by default, because it is very buggy, and will cause problems with other color managed software that wasn't designed to work with a system wide color managed Windows system. There was a color management system for Win 7, but it was never used, because of serious problems.
It needs to be realized that Microsoft has no reason to care about this. Only a small fraction of Windows users work with managed color. On the other hand, Apple is very involved, because a large percentage of their much smaller sales are involved in this.
I really don't want to argue with you on this, but you are wrong.
There has been no built-in color management in Windows previous to 10. In 10, it's turned off because of serious flaws, and difficulty of integration. Software that needed color management needed to implement it itself, such as Photoshop.
The problem with that approach is that you can't view a color managed file, other than sRGB, outside of color managed software. Windows, and Android, both assume a file to be sRGB. Therefore, those files, whether or not they have a profile, will be viewed correctly in any software. But anything else will not be.
Most of us can adjust any RAW file these days too please ourselves. Isn't that what it's all about anyway?
Spot on, and if you want to apply that to commercial photography you can replace "ourselves" with "our clients".Hallelujah!
Sometimes getting the closest representation of reality is the goal, but that is such a tiny niche in the market that the people that really need it already have a comprehensive set of tools and a tried and true workflow.
The Fuji and the Hasselblad are two different tools that just happen to have the same sensor. Will they be able to match in colour? Maybe. Will the tiny differences really matter at the end of the day for almost all uses? Nah.