Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Fujifilm test  (Read 1262 times)
armand
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 900



« on: December 16, 2013, 08:05:05 PM »
ReplyReply

Can you see any significant difference between these 2 shots?
Both from Fuji X-E1, one is a jpeg that I started developing thinking it was the raw  (I still shoot jpeg+raw) and the other is the raw.
Logged
DanielStone
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 558


« Reply #1 on: December 16, 2013, 11:49:45 PM »
ReplyReply

top one has more contrast, darker tones are darker than in the bottom shot
bottom one has lower midtone contrast(assuming this is the RAW file)? I prefer this one personally, it has more delicacy, and less "crunch". Just my opinion of course Wink

I've found that for 80% of my shooting on my X100S, jpeg in Fine mode does perfectly fine for my needs(usually 4x6's or the occasional 8x10/12), and the in-camera processing usually closely matches my tweaking(which I finalize in Capture 1 when shooting RAW)

Since I still shoot my serious stuff on my 5x7 or on my GX680, both onto film, my X100S remains my "walkaround"/p&s camera(which it excels at both btw Smiley!)

-Dan
Logged
PhotoEcosse
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 615



« Reply #2 on: December 17, 2013, 03:06:38 AM »
ReplyReply

Can you see any significant difference between these 2 shots?
Both from Fuji X-E1, one is a jpeg that I started developing thinking it was the raw  (I still shoot jpeg+raw) and the other is the raw.

Actually, they are both Jpeg. Not sure why you think that two low-res Jpegs, one presumably processed in-camera and the other one on a computer, should be indicative of anything when viewed over the internet on a computer monitor.
Logged

************************************
"Reality is an illusion caused by lack of alcohol."
Alternatively, "Life begins at the far end of your comfort zone."
snoleoprd
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 425



WWW
« Reply #3 on: December 17, 2013, 09:29:27 AM »
ReplyReply

Well as noted the first one has more contrast, I suspect that is the out of camera jpeg, and the bottom one is the raw, as it has less contrast and probably that is result of the highlight recovery. Not sure what point you are trying to make......

Alan
Logged

Alan Smallbone
Orange County, CA
armand
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 900



« Reply #4 on: December 17, 2013, 09:42:47 AM »
ReplyReply

Actually, they are both Jpeg. Not sure why you think that two low-res Jpegs, one presumably processed in-camera and the other one on a computer, should be indicative of anything when viewed over the internet on a computer monitor.

Yes, you cannot pixel peep. However the physical size of the posted image on my monitor is about 12.5x8.5 which is a decent sized print.  I guess the monitor quality could approximate the print viewed from a normal distance, so if cannot see a significant difference between them chances are you will not see it in print either (again, from a normal viewing distance).

The point I discovered is that jpegs might be closer to good enough than I thought.

001 - raw, 002 - jpeg



Logged
Telecaster
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 814



« Reply #5 on: December 17, 2013, 03:08:29 PM »
ReplyReply

I always use the in-camera JPEG version of a photo for online posting unless my intent is to compare different RAW processors or somesuch. They're not as malleable as the RAWs but are more malleable than many RAW-only folks think.

-Dave-
Logged
David Sutton
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 890


WWW
« Reply #6 on: December 17, 2013, 03:43:24 PM »
ReplyReply

Yes, you cannot pixel peep. However the physical size of the posted image on my monitor is about 12.5x8.5 which is a decent sized print.  I guess the monitor quality could approximate the print viewed from a normal distance, so if cannot see a significant difference between them chances are you will not see it in print either (again, from a normal viewing distance).

The point I discovered is that jpegs might be closer to good enough than I thought.

001 - raw, 002 - jpeg

When I began making prints from digital files some years ago, the out-of-camera jpegs from my Canon were terrible. Even without small adjustments you would get banding and all sorts of odd artefacts.
But the jpegs from the Fuji X-E2 are very good. Most times they are malleable enough to make serious changes in Lightroom without visibly affecting a 12 inch print. I haven't tried it on larger sizes. As long as you set up the camera leaving some room for manoeuvring (no over-sharpening or boosting saturation) you can go a long way with the jpegs, as Telecaster says. I hear the same applies to the new Sony A7.
« Last Edit: December 17, 2013, 03:45:09 PM by David Sutton » Logged

Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad