need experienced opinion

[DmacK1]

 Honestly I'm having trouble adjusting to Fuji GFX CMOS the files are clean but the LOOK I was expecting isn't there for me and the COLOR seems oversaturated.
 I have a credo 40 CCD I shoot with on an RZ67 proII D and it has the LOOK and COLOR I'm looking for, but its an RZ.
  I cant just buy another camera system. So before I sell the Fuji and get a Phase One XF/DF is it really only apples to oranges? Is it just one 6k camera for another?
             I appreciate your comments!

[eronald]

Honestly I'm having trouble adjusting to Fuji GFX CMOS the files are clean but the LOOK I was expecting isn't there for me and the COLOR seems oversaturated.
 I have a credo 40 CCD I shoot with on an RZ67 proII D and it has the LOOK and COLOR I'm looking for, but its an RZ.
  I cant just buy another camera system. So before I sell the Fuji and get a Phase One XF/DF is it really only apples to oranges? Is it just one 6k camera for another?
             I appreciate your comments!

This is probably 80% a postprocessing issue. You need to figure out how to process the Raws, or how to dial in the presets so they work for you. Start by using a camera built-in film simulation that is not to agressive eg. Astia.

The following link explains the built-in film simulation presets rather well.
https://fujilove.com/fujifilms-film-simulation-modes-and-what-they-are-actually-doing-to-your-images/

Edmund

[Ken]

I agree with "eronald" that it's "probably 80% postprocessing issue," but unless you've had solid film experience, I'm not so sure that starting with film simulation is the way to go. It also depends on what image processing software you're using. If you don't already have Capture One, you should download it and give it a try on your raw files. Start with the default settings.

[eronald]

I agree with "eronald" that it's "probably 80% postprocessing issue," but unless you've had solid film experience, I'm not so sure that starting with film simulation is the way to go. It also depends on what image processing software you're using. If you don't already have Capture One, you should download it and give it a try on your raw files. Start with the default settings.

Ken, AFAIK C1 doesn't work for GFX50 files, they are the competition.
Lightroom works. Photoshop does as well. One can use a tryout if necessary. But the easiest thing to do is just play with the built-in simulation profiles and tweaks and look at the camera screen.

Edmund

[DmacK1]

Yes Sir I will do just that! My film experience is close to nonexistent.
This attachment may illustrate my frustration, and though taken on two different days with different existing light both 110 mm. These images resolve quite differently in character.
Fuji LR Astia soft,adjusted exposure
Credo C1_11 no profile , changed white balance

[douglevy]

I dunno...I wonder if it's a sensor issue. To me (I've owned a P25+, Credo 40, Credo 60), the CCD files just look different. The color response is different. The 50mp CMOS files just look like higher res Nikon files to me. I've shot the Fuji a bit (rentals) and would agree with the OP.

[Ken]

This attachment may illustrate my frustration, and though taken on two different days with different existing light both 110 mm. These images resolve quite differently in character.

With hugely different light sources (direct sun low on the horizon vs highly diffused) you could go bonkers trying to make a comparison. Shoot the same subject, same light, etc.,  within a few minutes. Then examine the raw files.

I looked into the Capture One / GFX issue and Edmund was right, unfortunately. Here's a site by photographer Kelly Dun who has some interesting insights about this. http://www.kellydunphotography.com/how-to/capture-one-and-the-fujifilm-gfx-50s     

[eronald]

With hugely different light sources (direct sun low on the horizon vs highly diffused) you could go bonkers trying to make a comparison. Shoot the same subject, same light, etc.,  within a few minutes. Then examine the raw files.

I looked into the Capture One / GFX issue and Edmund was right, unfortunately. Here's a site by photographer Kelly Dun who has some interesting insights about this. http://www.kellydunphotography.com/how-to/capture-one-and-the-fujifilm-gfx-50s   

Current Phase products are also Sony based ...

I think a few days learning to use ACR would be time well spent, but if the OP is a high earner and money is no issue then Phase have some perfectly serviceable cameras

Edmund

Edmund

[MichaelEzra]

Try testing with your own DCP profile in ACR.
I don't think it is a matter of preference entirely, so the 2nd image (Credo) has a terrible color.
Give it another look and re-evaluate what you are trying to do;)
Fuji's colors seem to give more accurate starting point, based on your example, assuming that almost no adjustments have been made.

[eronald]

Try testing with your own DCP profile in ACR.
I don't think it is a matter of preference entirely, so the 2nd image (Credo) has a terrible color.
Give it another look and re-evaluate what you are trying to do;)
Fuji's colors seem to give more accurate starting point, based on your example, assuming that almost no adjustments have been made.

This is not a Fuji problem - it's an issue of learning to use software to get the colors the photographer wants. The Fuji has the same drop-in digital sensor  and therefore similar color response as a bunch of other well known and current MF cameras including some by Phase, Hassy, and Pentax.

If the OP were to ask the question again as "how do I learn to process my Fuji images when I'm used to working with C1" we might be able to advise better. There is no shame in wanting to learn to do something

Edmund

[pschefz]

C1 is pretty much the only software that cant handle GFX files and it is a very strange phase decision since they use the same sensor in their own products.....but plenty of others can read the files just fine....

[MichaelEzra]

it's an issue of learning to use software to get the colors the photographer wants.

I agree, but the desired target here is flawed, the colors in the Leaf shot better not be his goal:)

[Doug Peterson]

C1 is pretty much the only software that cant handle GFX files and it is a very strange phase decision since they use the same sensor in their own products.....but plenty of others can read the files just fine....

Phase One had a decade-plus history of supporting all major small-formal cameras and their own medium-format cameras. That policy is highly unlikely to change.

[Doug Peterson]

This is not a Fuji problem - it's an issue of learning to use software to get the colors the photographer wants. The Fuji has the same drop-in digital sensor  and therefore similar color response as a bunch of other well known and current MF cameras including some by Phase, Hassy, and Pentax.

If the OP were to ask the question again as "how do I learn to process my Fuji images when I'm used to working with C1" we might be able to advise better. There is no shame in wanting to learn to do something

This hugely underrates the difficulty of creating a natural, robust, beautiful profile for a camera.

It requires both art and science and in 11 years doing this, and working with many PHD Color scientists, industry “colorists” (color graders), photographers, retouchers and Digital Techs, I can count on one hand the number that I think really understand the process of crafting a proper color profile for a camera.

Hint: if someone thinks it’s as simple as pointing a camera at a target and throwing the result into (software x) to generate a profile, they are very sorely mistaken.

One reason to buy a modern Phase One or Leaf back is (because P1 makes both the hardware and software) the profile included in C1 is a real work of art.


To the OP: if you’re in the USA and would like to try an XF to see if fits your needs, please let me know; we would love to help you with your evaluation.

[eronald]

Doug,

 I consider C1 to be a superb piece of software, best of breed, and superior to Lightroom. It comes with a bunch of very nice profiles.

 Indeed the software is so good that Phase offered to buy profiles for various 35mm cameras from me, some years ago

 If the OP wants to use C1 because it works for him, then I guess he will just have to use a Phase back; or he could use some $1K camera 35mm system that P1 supports. I see no reason why someone with money and customers should change their established production workflow and would recommend he accept your generous offer of a demo.

 Let it be said that anyone who buys from Doug gets the famous "Doug in the Box"  night-and-day cellphone helpline which is more valuable than any other companies warranty.

Edmund

This hugely underrates the difficulty of creating a natural, robust, beautiful profile for a camera.

It requires both art and science and in 11 years doing this, and working with many PHD Color scientists, industry “colorists” (color graders), photographers, retouchers and Digital Techs, I can count on one hand the number that I think really understand the process of crafting a proper color profile for a camera.

Hint: if someone thinks it’s as simple as pointing a camera at a target and throwing the result into (software x) to generate a profile, they are very sorely mistaken.

One reason to buy a modern Phase One or Leaf back is (because P1 makes both the hardware and software) the profile included in C1 is a real work of art.


To the OP: if you’re in the USA and would like to try an XF to see if fits your needs, please let me know; we would love to help you with your evaluation.

[Doug Peterson]

Indeed the software is so good that Phase offered to buy profiles for various 35mm cameras from me, some years ago

Interesting piece of history there!

What year was that? As far as I'm aware they've done all their own color work in-house for the last decade. But I have very little personal knowledge of what they did before that.

[eronald]

Interesting piece of history there!

What year was that? As far as I'm aware they've done all their own color work in-house for the last decade.

Before the decade, when I was one of the rare people with custom written software to edit profiles

Nowadays the situation is probably different because as you know companies like Image Engineering will sell you a box that spits out a base profile in one click, and these boxes cost less than a Phase back . Once you have that base profile you can overlay any customisation. I once ran an algorithm on all the Phase back factory profiles and overlaid looks on them in a few minutes. If you want the details on how this works, as Iliah, he will be able to explain much better than me because he is much smarter. But I'm sure you have people who do the same in-house, except of course they don't reverse engineer other companies' products

I still have yellow-box, green-box white box and red-box profiles somewhere for my cameras somewhere. Of course, any resemblance to Kodak, Fuji, Ilford or Agfa films is purely accidental   I really liked those old TriX and HP5 films.

https://www.image-engineering.de/products/equipment/measurement-devices/588-camspecs-express


Edmund

[TommyWeir]

I would look to an Iridient Developer --> Capture One workflow if I was the OP.  ID is the best possible start you could give your Fuji files.

[landscapephoto]

Before the decade, when I was one of the rare people with custom written software to edit profiles

Nowadays the situation is probably different because as you know companies like Image Engineering will sell you a box that spits out a base profile in one click, and these boxes cost less than a Phase back . Once you have that base profile you can overlay any customisation. I once ran an algorithm on all the Phase back factory profiles and overlaid looks on them in a few minutes. If you want the details on how this works, as Iliah, he will be able to explain much better than me because he is much smarter. But I'm sure you have people who do the same in-house, except they don't reverse engineer other companies' products

I still have yellow-box, green-box white box and red-box profiles somewhere for my cameras somewhere. Of course, any resemblance to Kodak, Fuji, Ilford or Agfa films is purely accidental   I really liked those old TriX and HP5 films.

https://www.image-engineering.de/products/equipment/measurement-devices/588-camspecs-express

Excuse me, but that link you posted points to "camSPECS express V2 XL". That appears to be a box with illumination targets 10nm wide, so I understand it is designed to measure the colour filter array transmission curves in digital cameras.

You said you wrote custom software to edit colour profiles over 10 years ago. How did you measure the colour filter array transmission curves at the time?

[eronald]

Excuse me, but that link you posted points to "camSPECS express V2 XL". That appears to be a box with illumination targets 10nm wide, so I understand it is designed to measure the colour filter array transmission curves in digital cameras.

You said you wrote custom software to edit colour profiles over 10 years ago. How did you measure the colour filter array transmission curves at the time?

Any base profiles I needed I obtained by using a reflective target, and then I hand edited the profiles.
I had a decent monitor at the time, and an additional pair of eyes.

I don't know why it worked, but it worked. Mostly. For some cameras it just didn't, I remember the Canon 1DII as an atrocious failure. 

Thomas Knoll had a reflective target in a viewing lightbox with switchable illuminants AFAIK, and I think his illuminants were not appropriate (fluorescent, spiky?) and so his profiles ended up not so good. Some MF camera manufacturers relied on the sensor manufacturer specs for their base characterisation, others hand-tuned (Hassy) they told me.

Edmund