Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Digital Image Processing => Topic started by: Gordon Buck on February 12, 2018, 09:09:54 pm
-
Just to satisfy my curiosity, in the past six months I rented a Fuji X100F, X-Pro2 and Canon 6D. I was especially interested in the Fuji "rangefinder" ergonomics. To my complete surprise, the .jpg images from the Fujis were outstanding. In fact, I could not duplicate the Fuji jpgs from the Fuji RAW files much less from the Canon 6D RAW files. Perhaps my failure to duplicate is an indication of my Photoshop skills but, even so, I've been doing this for a while (in fact, years) now. I also compared to my Canon 7D and 70D.
I'm very tempted to get one of the Fujis and simply shoot jpg (well, probably RAW+jpg) - that's how impressed I am. Even the X videos were OK for me.
Anyone else noticed this? What is the magic tweak/settings to replicate the Fuji jpgs?
-
Fuji brought their decades of experience in color and B&W films to create the in camera processing for those JPGs. They put a lot of effort into that.
They did work with Adobe so that Lightroom calibrations got close to what they do in camera with the film simulations. Close but no cigar.
Love my Fuji X cameras.
-
If you enjoy Fuji JPEGs you might consider this:
https://store.thomasfitzgeraldphotography.com/product/fuji-jpegs-shooting-processing-guide-ebook/?utm_source=TFP+Store&utm_campaign=2dd22f23a1-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2018_02_13&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_2c77a355b6-2dd22f23a1-220112605&mc_cid=2dd22f23a1&mc_eid=b0e1ec8acd
-
Just to satisfy my curiosity, in the past six months I rented a Fuji X100F, X-Pro2 and Canon 6D. I was especially interested in the Fuji "rangefinder" ergonomics. To my complete surprise, the .jpg images from the Fujis were outstanding. In fact, I could not duplicate the Fuji jpgs from the Fuji RAW files much less from the Canon 6D RAW files. Perhaps my failure to duplicate is an indication of my Photoshop skills but, even so, I've been doing this for a while (in fact, years) now. I also compared to my Canon 7D and 70D.
I'm very tempted to get one of the Fujis and simply shoot jpg (well, probably RAW+jpg) - that's how impressed I am. Even the X videos were OK for me.
Anyone else noticed this? What is the magic tweak/settings to replicate the Fuji jpgs?
To try and offer any meaningful tweak/settings suggestions it would be helpful to see an image or two of exactly the same subject raw from your Canon and the JPEG from the Fuji.
Is it possible to either post a link to a couple of examples for comparison e.g. Dropbox - pm if pref.
If the Adobe profiles are not very close to the particular camera profiles then it is rare to find an image file that cannot be manipulated to mimic that certain 'look'. This may be by either making a preset or even a new camera profile - just a thought
-
What is the magic tweak/settings to replicate the Fuji jpgs?
find a software developer... ask him to get synthetic target (a lot of patches to get decent LUT) into Fuji raw / or you can shot any target yourself, but synthetic is better - you simply can't get enough patches from a real world target ... even something like CCSG or CCDC are not good enough to get a precise vs rough replica/... develop to JPG using Fuji software (in camera / off camera)... convert patches RGB numbers from sRGB* or AdobeRGB (whatever you get) to say Lab .... now use tool of your choice (dcamprof) to create a camera profile for your raw converter using the raw with synthetic target + target description (using those Lab values)... or if you have raw converter like RPP that can output non color transformed data - you can create icc/icm profile to apply in Photoshop...
something like this
-
Here are some LUTs that do a pretty good job. They can be used by several raw editors,
https://blog.sowerby.me/fuji-film-simulation-profiles/
Alan
-
Just to satisfy my curiosity, in the past six months I rented a Fuji X100F, X-Pro2 and Canon 6D. I was especially interested in the Fuji "rangefinder" ergonomics. To my complete surprise, the .jpg images from the Fujis were outstanding. In fact, I could not duplicate the Fuji jpgs from the Fuji RAW files much less from the Canon 6D RAW files. Perhaps my failure to duplicate is an indication of my Photoshop skills but, even so, I've been doing this for a while (in fact, years) now. I also compared to my Canon 7D and 70D.
I'm very tempted to get one of the Fujis and simply shoot jpg (well, probably RAW+jpg) - that's how impressed I am. Even the X videos were OK for me.
Anyone else noticed this? What is the magic tweak/settings to replicate the Fuji jpgs?
I agree they are outstanding. I've made 17 inch prints off Fuji jpegs. Not something I would have dreamed of doing on files from other camera brands.
The Fuji jpegs are also more "malleable", meaning I can do some work on them directly in Photoshop without getting artefacts. I don't know why this should be so.
I haven't seen any raw converters match the original jpegs. I think Fuji are doing more than "moving sliders".
That said, I still use the raw files 95% of the time, and I've heard some photographers have found the jpegs can have a little colour bleed on light areas from nearby saturated colours. If you look closely.
David
-
Here are some LUTs that do a pretty good job. They can be used by several raw editors,
https://blog.sowerby.me/fuji-film-simulation-profiles/
Alan
Alan thanks for the link. I tried a few out in Affinity and they work quite well. As you bring them up on an adjustment layer you can tame them down a bit by adjusting the opacity of the layer.
Dave
-
Alan thanks for the link. I tried a few out in Affinity and they work quite well. As you bring them up on an adjustment layer you can tame them down a bit by adjusting the opacity of the layer.
Dave
You are most welcome, they do work well and also work with Luminar and Darktable and anything else that can use LUTs.
Here is a link to some ICC profiles that can be used in C1 and how to install them:
https://blog.thomasfitzgeraldphotography.com/blog/2017/2/how-to-download-and-install-fuji-colour-profiles-for-capture-one
Alan
-
I have been a fan of Fuji ever since I tried their film in my 35mm. Even more when I bought my little EXR. And still more after acquiring Iridient Raw Developer, which is basically one click and done.
-
A dream of mine is for one of those Fuji developers to strike out on his/her own and develop Lightroom presets that closely replicate the camera film modes.
-
Lightroom 7.3 has Fuji film “profiles” you’d see in the camera so you should be happy. Previous versions replicated Fuji film simulations but probably not as well.
-
I shoot Fuji. I use the RAW files almost exclusively. I do use PS.
My advice:
Download the free trial of Capture One and load your Fuji RAW files.
Don't try this if you are not willing to buy Capture One.
You have been warned.
-
If you're interested in getting the most out of details in Fuji RAF (RAW) files and you're not satisfied with what can be accomplished in this regard in the Adobe universe I highly recommend Iridient Developer or Iridient X-Transformer. The later is designed to play well with Lightroom.
-
I shoot Fuji. I use the RAW files almost exclusively. I do use PS.
My advice:
Download the free trial of Capture One and load your Fuji RAW files.
Don't try this if you are not willing to buy Capture One.
You have been warned.
I've done exactly this. Completely unimpressed, given the hype I've read on several Fuji-dedicated sites. I find the C1 user interface obtuse, and I achieve better results using X-Transformer plug-in via LR.
The truth is, there is no magic bullet for RAF files. Adobe have been slowly (as in glacially) improving RAF conversion for the last couple of years (and my guess is will be paying even more attention as Fuji market-share grows). As long as one knows to disable any LR detail panel defaults via preset on ingestion, the last remaining sub-optimal LR conversion attributes are eliminated. Sharpening of RAF is "it's own thing" and there is lots of useful information around on useful approaches. Typically lots of masking, high detail amounts, and "easy as you go" on amount are in order. Radius is image frequency dependent, as always. One significant sharpness robber in LR default is the color noise default. Most of the time it is way too much. I can often zero that slider out completely, or start there and only add very small increments to eliminate any color noise.
As to the OP's original question . . . there's an obvious answer there, sir! :-) And you might find this video interesting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHvCkRTK4_g One of the discoveries I made early on was that no matter what technique, or plug-in, or whatever I used... I could not get better high ISO noise handling in my RAF files than Fuji did with its jpegs processed in-camera. Made me grumpy, actually, since I have this monster computer on my desk that "has to be better" than whatever processing power the little camera has internally... WRONG. In fact, now Fuji has this program that allows you to process your RAFs via your computer, using the camera's processing. Talk about counter-intuitive. But it works and is VERY powerful in terms of results. This is one of the reasons I'm not tempted to move to the Sony "silver-bullet da jour" craze. Fuji isn't just about sensor size, quality of glass, etc., there's a lot more going on and available in the Fuji ecosphere than is immediately apparent, and to my way of thinking, Fuji does a really poor job in explaining / marketing this aspect of their system.
Rand
-
I've done exactly this. Completely unimpressed, given the hype I've read on several Fuji-dedicated sites. I find the C1 user interface obtuse, and I achieve better results using X-Transformer plug-in via LR.
The truth is, there is no magic bullet for RAF files. Adobe have been slowly (as in glacially) improving RAF conversion for the last couple of years (and my guess is will be paying even more attention as Fuji market-share grows). As long as one knows to disable any LR detail panel defaults via preset on ingestion, the last remaining sub-optimal LR conversion attributes are eliminated. Sharpening of RAF is "it's own thing" and there is lots of useful information around on useful approaches. Typically lots of masking, high detail amounts, and "easy as you go" on amount are in order. Radius is image frequency dependent, as always. One significant sharpness robber in LR default is the color noise default. Most of the time it is way too much. I can often zero that slider out completely, or start there and only add very small increments to eliminate any color noise.
As to the OP's original question . . . there's an obvious answer there, sir! :-) And you might find this video interesting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHvCkRTK4_g One of the discoveries I made early on was that no matter what technique, or plug-in, or whatever I used... I could not get better high ISO noise handling in my RAF files than Fuji did with its jpegs processed in-camera. Made me grumpy, actually, since I have this monster computer on my desk that "has to be better" than whatever processing power the little camera has internally... WRONG. In fact, now Fuji has this program that allows you to process your RAFs via your computer, using the camera's processing. Talk about counter-intuitive. But it works and is VERY powerful in terms of results. This is one of the reasons I'm not tempted to move to the Sony "silver-bullet da jour" craze. Fuji isn't just about sensor size, quality of glass, etc., there's a lot more going on and available in the Fuji ecosphere than is immediately apparent, and to my way of thinking, Fuji does a really poor job in explaining / marketing this aspect of their system.
Rand
Yes