The Fabulous Fuji X owners thread

We went loupey! :wacky:
 
manualfocus-g said:
toilet cleaner and a bottle of wine (not to be confused!)
Click to expand...


Probably amounts to the same stuff Mr G, if some of the rubbish I've drunk recently is anything to go by.:D
 
G.K.Jnr. said:
I see you've been playing with your toys again Toby, :whistle::D Great little shot though, nice and sharp, and well composed.(y)

George.
Click to expand...
Lol, thanks :)
 
Mr Perceptive said:
How did pixel peepers cope with variability of batches of film???
Click to expand...
Fortunately I wasn't serious about photography back then ;)

Joking aside, the only reason I post things like this (the WB comparison) is to answer questions with absolutes. In the real world I just shoot in Auto WB 99% of the time unless the image does not give a close representation to what I'm seeing with my own eyes. The slight variation in WB in post is of no concern to me, as long as it looks how I remember it and there's consistency in my shots from a particular shoot that's all that matters to me (y)
 
We've had new led streetlights fitted all around here, they are a much cooler and stronger light. Technically they are much better doing their job, but I kind of miss the old murky warmth the old streetlights gave.
 
As I understand it Raw files do not have colour balance applied at all, However the incorporated Jpeg does. and it is this that we see in our viewfinders and as thumbnails on our computer, Also as Histograms in camera. and on opening the file on a computer.
The white balance that you set is recorded as a data file, and used in your raw processor as the starting point. however all other white balances are available and can be set. Changing to them in the processor will alter the histogram appropriately .
 
Thunderbird010 said:
Love that David and the yellow tint suits it. I bet black and white would look pretty good to.
Click to expand...
rjbell said:
I think Mono would work best. Great shot though.
Click to expand...

Thank you both! Quite often I do put this kind of night shot into mono, if only to avoid WB issues. But on this occasion, the red of the phone box was too good to lose, IMO! :-) YMMV, naturally.
 
rjbell said:
Doesn't leaving on the window sill in the sun cure that? No sun for four months though:)
Click to expand...
Just to put your mind at rest, the lens is actually fine. I know some of them do develop a colour tint, but this one hasn't as far as I can tell.
 
yamahatdm900 said:
Who has used there XT2 for star trails/Milky way shots?
Never done any but do fancy having a go I do have a Fuji 14mm so hopefully that will do.
What settings on long exposure noise reduction do people use?
Click to expand...

I don't think this was answered before getting lost in other posts. I have an X-T10 and the 14mm which I bought over the 10-24 as I wanted to keep the astro option open to me (having always used my D800/14-24mm combo previously). Haven't tried it yet so would be interested in hearing views too.
 
snerkler said:
I was told the opposite at a Nikon workshop run by John Clements. He said it's good practice to choose the right WB for a given scene as it will affect tonality and luminance levels, even in RAW files. I've never actually tested it before as never questions the Nikon "guru', but just have now. Results below.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the demo, Toby. And yes, no doubt setting the WB every time is best practice in some sense, but one of the reasons we shoot RAW is to defer that creative decision until later. Maybe the take-home message is just to bear in mind that WB affects the histogram, and if you think you'll eventually be setting a WB quite different from the one you're shooting it, take extra precautions against highlight clipping, as that's usually more of an issue than blocked-up shadows/
 
Quick question - has anyone used the Lee seven5 filters with their Fuji. If so how do you rate it. Just read a very negative review on the Wex website so wondering if it's worth the money....?
 
Great service from Digital Depot, lenses arrived today instead of Monday :D
 
Rizvan said:
Great service from Digital Depot, lenses arrived today instead of Monday :D
Click to expand...
Yeah my order too! Its more down to the drivers choosing to work the weekend because its so busy at the moment for them. I asked the driver if it was upgraded to Saturday delivery it wasn't. Its annoying my toy sitting there but i'm too busy to play.
 
rjbell said:
Yeah my order too! Its more down to the drivers choosing to work the weekend because its so busy at the moment for them. I asked the driver if it was upgraded to Saturday delivery it wasn't. Its annying my toy sitting there but i'm too busy to play.
Click to expand...

Really glad I bought them at the low prices :D
 
Mr Perceptive said:
Toby, it was tongue in cheek, there's even more variables when you involve printing as well!!!

I think as long as you get a result that you are happy with, it doesn't matter how you got there :)
Click to expand...
Agreed. But I did get that your post was in jest, my response wasn't a direct reply to your message per se, just wanted to highlight to everyone that I don't obsess about these things when I'm shooting :oops: :$ I find it interesting to find out exactly what happens, but as with most if these things they mean very little in the real world (y)

dave.hallett said:
Thanks for the demo, Toby. And yes, no doubt setting the WB every time is best practice in some sense, but one of the reasons we shoot RAW is to defer that creative decision until later. Maybe the take-home message is just to bear in mind that WB affects the histogram, and if you think you'll eventually be setting a WB quite different from the one you're shooting it, take extra precautions against highlight clipping, as that's usually more of an issue than blocked-up shadows/
Click to expand...
Yeah, as above I only did that for illustrative purposes. I shoot 99% in auto WB, the slight variation in the histogram does not bother me one bit ;) If I was a jpeg shooter though it'd be a different matter obviously.
 
23mm 1.4 arrived today from Amazon, time to get me some cashback (once I've waited 30 days!)
 
Malfis said:
Hi Dave,
Which of the Pentax 50mm's is it?
I've got the FA50mm f1.7, and it's a superb lens.
Click to expand...
It's the 1.4 SMC K. The oldest post-Takumar 50 I think, and by reputation, one of the best manual 50s. But I think in practice, sample variation is probably greater than the differences between them, for the most part :). It's a lovely lens, either way!
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
As I understand it Raw files do not have colour balance applied at all, However the incorporated Jpeg does. and it is this that we see in our viewfinders and as thumbnails on our computer, Also as Histograms in camera. and on opening the file on a computer.
The white balance that you set is recorded as a data file, and used in your raw processor as the starting point. however all other white balances are available and can be set. Changing to them in the processor will alter the histogram appropriately .
Click to expand...

Yup, that's how I see it too. Minute differences aren't worth worrying about. And I believe all WB variances are indeed stored within a raw file.
 
snerkler said:
I was told the opposite at a Nikon workshop run by John Clements. He said it's good practice to choose the right WB for a given scene as it will affect tonality and luminance levels, even in RAW files. I've never actually tested it before as never questions the Nikon "guru', but just have now. Results below.





I just did a quick test this morning. Same scene, camera didn't move, exposure settings the same, just changed the WB. SHot with the XT1 and 18-55mm. Below is Auto top and Sunny bottom, both are RAW histograms and WB set to the same in post to demonstrate to those that say it doesn't matter what WB you shoot RAW in as you can just change it in post. The differences are very subtle, but there.

View attachment 90707
View attachment 90708




Whether these tiny differences are enough to worry folk that's up to the individual. I suspect that in different scenes the differences could well be more marked.


And just for completeness here are the original RAW histograms before equalising WB in post, obviously they look more different especially the higher red tones shifting further to the right.
View attachment 90709
View attachment 90710
Click to expand...

All this shows me is it really doesn't matter what WB you choose when shooting raw, as I've always thought. Minute histogram differences dint bother me, I'm certainly not perfectionist
 
No, it doesn't matter in the sense that if you shoot at (say) f/4, 1/60 and ISO200, you will get exactly the same RAW file no matter what WB you select in camera.

The only reason it *could* matter is that in extreme situations, you might be led by looking at the histogram to choose different exposure values depending on what WB you set. It would have to be an unusual situation to really make a difference, though. I'll shut up about it now :-).
 
psybear said:
I don't think this was answered before getting lost in other posts. I have an X-T10 and the 14mm which I bought over the 10-24 as I wanted to keep the astro option open to me (having always used my D800/14-24mm combo previously). Haven't tried it yet so would be interested in hearing views too.
Click to expand...
Is there any reason the 14mm is suited for astro whereas the 10-24mm isn't?
 
Nod said:
In plain sight is easiest and possibly least visible! Stick it on your body and don't make a big deal about having a new toy.
Click to expand...
Having compared the 10-24mm to my 18-55mm, I'm now not so sure that's going to be possible. There is quite a noticeable difference in girth at the front end [emoji1] [emoji85]
 
Mr Perceptive said:
F4 v F2.8, wider apertures better for Astro, generally you want wide angle with wide aperture, so Samyang 12mm F2 would probably be best overall (or even XF16mm F1.4 if that's wide enough for you)
Click to expand...
Thanks for that. I know the Samyang is a pretty popular choice for it but didn't really know why.
 
dave.hallett said:
No, it doesn't matter in the sense that if you shoot at (say) f/4, 1/60 and ISO200, you will get exactly the same RAW file no matter what WB you select in camera.

The only reason it *could* matter is that in extreme situations, you might be led by looking at the histogram to choose different exposure values depending on what WB you set. It would have to be an unusual situation to really make a difference, though. I'll shut up about it now :).
Click to expand...
Did you not see my results earlier ;) :p I showed that this is not the case (which was the point of my test as I've seen it stated time and time again that WB does not affect RAW). If you leave WB as set in camera the RAWs actually look quite different (scene depending) but even if you even out WB's in post there are still subtle differences, although (IMO) not enough to worry about or for me to change from my habit of shooting AUTO WB.
 
snerkler said:
Did you not see my results earlier ;) :p I showed that this is not the case (which was the point of my test as I've seen it stated time and time again that WB does not affect RAW). If you leave WB as set in camera the RAWs actually look quite different (scene depending) but even if you even out WB's in post there are still subtle differences, although (IMO) not enough to worry about or for me to change from my habit of shooting AUTO WB.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry, cos I said I'd shut up :-) but despite your demo, I don't believe that can be true. The RAW format records the light that hits the sensor. This is not affected by how you set the WB in camera. There's really nothing more to add. I think your subtle variations must have some other explanation, probably something to do with how the histogram is generated.
 
dave.hallett said:
I'm sorry, cos I said I'd shut up :) but despite your demo, I don't believe that can be true. The RAW format records the light that hits the sensor. This is not affected by how you set the WB in camera. There's really nothing more to add. I think your subtle variations must have some other explanation, probably something to do with how the histogram is generated.
Click to expand...
No need to apologise lol. I just like investigating stuff, I find it interesting :oops: :$ My thoughts were the same as yours, RAW are RAW. However, as I mentioned I was surprised when John Clements (who works for Nikon) said that in camera settings do have subtle effects on RAW, not only WB, but also camera profiles (landscape, portrait, standard etc). I was still on the fence but I've now seen subtle variations in both WB and camera profile. Again some scenes are different to others.

Now others may get different findings, but I've been very controlled in my testing and so happy to accept my results. My thoughts on it are that RAWs aren't truly RAW and there is some level of processing. Some manufacturers allegedly process RAW more than others, as we know with Fuji they even mess with sharpening and NR during their RAW processing (I'm sure I've seen somewhere that Sony mess with some of the A7's RAWs too). I don't profess to know that all the mechanics of how the light hitting the sensor is then transformed to produce the RAW file, but I do know that it is 'processed', otherwise why do cameras need processors ;)

Now I'm not saying I'm right, but having gathered numerous bits of info (not just John ;)) and ran some tests this is what I've come up with. But whether I'm right or wrong it matters very little as the impact (if there is any) is so minimal it's not worth giving any consideration to imo (except the Fuji NR) ;) Of course it could just be the way that software opens the image, as we know different RAW processors give slightly different results. However, if this is the case it still means that WB and other settings do alter the RAW file even if it's just the way software handles it :p

I'm all geeked out now so I'll leave it at that :LOL: And as always I'm happy to be proven wrong (and welcome it :))
 
Toby. I think you're correct. No RAW file is completely linear. It should be if we're supposed to get all the info from the sensor. Apparently the only exception is the Leica Monochrom.

(Read it somewhere)
 
Mr Perceptive said:
FAO @mickledore From this


160824 Brunner Mond, Winnington 2 sm by Mr Perceptive X100, on Flickr

to


161126 Brunner Mond Wharf 01 by Mr Perceptive X100, on Flickr
Click to expand...
Yo there @Mr Perceptive. How's life?
Looks like we may have been among the last to see the works in situ. Have you been down the other side to see if the bridge is still there, or has that gone too?

I'm just back from the land of spittle sprayers. Fog lifted like throwing a switch as soon as I crossed the Queensferry Bridge. Then it was glorious sunshine all day. Temperature was said to be minus 4 but in the sun there was no need for hat or gloves. Once the sun dipped below the hills then it went cold, very cold. But a good recce for Daves's Men or Mice meet next January. After that I went and had a bacon bap. Yes, the bap that you owe me, but your wallet was in it's cutomary triple locked deposit box!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top