The Fabulous Fuji X owners thread

PaulButler said:
I have an xt2 and 16-55 lens arriving today to try out (they are on hire). Is there a neutral or flat setting available? All I have been able to see are various film simulations ... I'll be shooting raw but am assuming that like Nikon & Canon the histogram etc will be based on the processed image (i.e. jpeg) ...

Also, when I was looking at one in a local shop, the chap there said that the in camera corrections (distortion, vignetting etc) are applied to the raw files too - now maybe I misunderstood, but is this true? I know it can be done in LR etc ...
Click to expand...
STD is supposed to be neutral. And yes, you don’t have separate lens calibrations even for raw. So no need to worry about them.
 
PaulButler said:
I have an xt2 and 16-55 lens arriving today to try out (they are on hire). Is there a neutral or flat setting available? All I have been able to see are various film simulations ... I'll be shooting raw but am assuming that like Nikon & Canon the histogram etc will be based on the processed image (i.e. jpeg) ...

Also, when I was looking at one in a local shop, the chap there said that the in camera corrections (distortion, vignetting etc) are applied to the raw files too - now maybe I misunderstood, but is this true? I know it can be done in LR etc ...
Click to expand...

And the histogram is based on the JPG. I wrote some notes on processing X-Trans3 for someone who contacted me via PM earlier this week. These might be helpful, I think it's useful enough to be shared to all !!!!

As you are probably aware I've spent a lot of time playing with X-Trans3, these are my basic thoughts.

1) It's sharper out of the box than previous X-Trans
2) Shadow Recovery is very good
3) High ISO capability is a lot better than previous X-Trans.

I process mainly in Lightroom but use the NIK suite as well as Lightroom Plug-Ins, but the only two modules I really use are Silver Efex Pro for mono work and Dfine for noise reduction.

To get the best out of the sensor, you need to experiment with the following:-

1) Use the Histogram, try not to over-expose, the highlight recovery is poor (compared to the shadow recovery), but you do need to expose to the right (ETTR) to get the best out of the shadow recovery and the Higher ISO capability. Recovering shadows from an under-exposed image will result in odd artefacts, similarly an under-exposed high ISO image will be noisy when the shadows are boosted. This is critical in long exposure work as a too far to the left histogram will result in a noisy image!!

2) Don't be scared of higher ISO's, one of my settings on the Auto-ISO is 1/200 min shutter speed but ISO up to 6400, this certainly gets rid of any handshake, but my usual Auto ISO is 1/60 up to 1600.

I'm using Lightroom CC Classic.

I've started leaving the Sharpening sliders alone, leaving at the default - Amount = 25, Radius = 1.0 and Details = 25, but I do nudge the clarity a little bit, which has some sharpening effects. That's because at the moment I like my images slightly punchy. The one I posted yesterday of the Leeds Corn Exchange in the X100F thread, was just like that, as you can see its a very sharp image.


171030 Corn Exchange - Leeds by David Yeoman, on Flickr

Shadow Recovery can be amazing, but as I said to make the best of it, a correctly exposed image is required.

From this:-

Example Exposure by David Yeoman, on Flickr

To This:-

Example Recovery by David Yeoman, on Flickr

So don't be worried if your initial image looks a little dark, as long as its not over-exposed and exposed to the right, you will be fine!!

With the High ISO stuff, I usually run the image through Dfine, before applying any major edits, I usually use this in its automatic setting, but occasionally I'll add extra regions to sample. I've had excellent results up to ISO6400, and some good ones at 12800, but again the image must be exposed correctly.

If you browse my flickr feed, you'll see some of my higher ISO results, the EXIF data is usually with the image.

X-Trans3 is very very good, and when correctly exposed produces some stunning results, but you do need to get the exposure right in camera to get the best from it.

Hope the above helps.

David
 
PaulButler said:
I have an xt2 and 16-55 lens arriving today to try out (they are on hire). Is there a neutral or flat setting available? All I have been able to see are various film simulations ... I'll be shooting raw but am assuming that like Nikon & Canon the histogram etc will be based on the processed image (i.e. jpeg) ...

Also, when I was looking at one in a local shop, the chap there said that the in camera corrections (distortion, vignetting etc) are applied to the raw files too - now maybe I misunderstood, but is this true? I know it can be done in LR etc ...
Click to expand...

They are not applied to the raw files... however the correction data is attached to the raw file, so that those raw processors that can do so, can use it to make the necessary adjustments. Not all raw processors can do so. Light room does automatically apply those adjustments.
 
You can set lightroom to zero out any processing upon import. I always prefer to start processing my RAW files this way, others like a starting point across the board, I made some presets with a touch of sharpening, contrast, lowering of highlights etc ... the stuff I will almost always do. I can just copy this across all images imported if needed.
 
PaulButler said:
I have an xt2 and 16-55 lens arriving today to try out (they are on hire). Is there a neutral or flat setting available? All I have been able to see are various film simulations ... I'll be shooting raw but am assuming that like Nikon & Canon the histogram etc will be based on the processed image (i.e. jpeg) ...

Also, when I was looking at one in a local shop, the chap there said that the in camera corrections (distortion, vignetting etc) are applied to the raw files too - now maybe I misunderstood, but is this true? I know it can be done in LR etc ...
Click to expand...

The basic setting is PROVIA standard, But if you shoot raw you can change that to any other setting in the processor.
However if you open a new raw file in lightroom, you will find it has been set to Adobe standard. I almost always change that to Provia standard.
 
Twas me who asked @Mr Perceptive for advice and his informative reply was much appreciated.

Seen how people had stated that X-Trans III needs processing in a different way to the Mk II version.
For example the latter required detail to 100% in LR for best results, not the case anymore.
 
Last edited:
tijuana taxi said:
Twas me who asked @Mr Perceptive for advice and his informative reply was much appreciated.

Seen how people had stated that X-Trans III needs processing in a different way to the Mk II version.
For example the latter required detail to 100% in LR for best results, not the case anymore.
Click to expand...


I would argue that with the latest update of lightroom, Detail at 100%, is not needed for any X-Trans sensor.
Those that I have processed recently from my X30 An Xe2 have been better not doing so.
It would be interesting to hear what others have found.....?
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
I would argue that with the latest update of lightroom, Detail at 100%, is not needed for any X-Trans sensor.
Those that I have processed recently from my X30 An Xe2 have been better not doing so.
It would be interesting to hear what others have found.....?
Click to expand...

Wouldn't exactly argue with you, but the Thomas Fitzgerald presets that incorporate this feature seem to do a pretty good job.
My limited experience leads me to believe that using the masking tool is important to only sharpen specific areas
 
Quick question of my own now please

If you use a soft shutter button what shape do you find best?
I have been using convex, but wondered about the flat ones, personally not keen on the concave type
 
tijuana taxi said:
Wouldn't exactly argue with you, but the Thomas Fitzgerald presets that incorporate this feature seem to do a pretty good job.
My limited experience leads me to believe that using the masking tool is important to only sharpen specific areas
Click to expand...

I use the X trans I & II currently, and have found that in LR, I keep sharpening amount below 30 ish, with detail somewhere halfway, and use alt + masking to narrow down to the areas I want sharpened, I get good results. I have never suffered from any of these worm or artifact issues. I think people are over sharpening when they discover it mostly. If I felt the need to sharpen beyond this I would take the image to Photoshop and use selective high pass or Unsharp masking
 
Last edited:
Cagey75 said:
I use the X trans I & II currently, and have found that in LR, I keep sharpening amount below 30 ish, with detail somewhere halfway, and use alt + masking to narrow down to the areas I want sharpened, I get good results. I have never suffered from any of these worm or artifact issues. I think people are over sharpening when they discover it mostly. If I felt the need to sharpen beyond this I would take the image to Photoshop and use selective high pass or Unsharp masking
Click to expand...

Please no more wormy, artifact, watercolour discussions, X-Trans III is definitely handled better by LR6 and that will do for me
 
tijuana taxi said:
Quick question of my own now please

If you use a soft shutter button what shape do you find best?
I have been using convex, but wondered about the flat ones, personally not keen on the concave type
Click to expand...
I use concave. I find it reduces the chance of the finger slipping (off the shutter button).
 
tijuana taxi said:
Please no more wormy, artifact, watercolour discussions, X-Trans III is definitely handled better by LR6 and that will do for me
Click to expand...


We'll mention it till the cows come home so long as people keep moaning and groaning about it. This is the only reason to question processing in LR regarding Fuji files tbh. I think this X-trans III being better is nonsense, because as I just stated, I have never found the issue on the previous gen ones. See the point now?
 
Cagey75 said:
We'll mention it till the cows come home so long as people keep moaning and groaning about it. This is the only reason to question processing in LR regarding Fuji files tbh. I think this X-trans III being better is nonsense, because as I just stated, I have never found the issue on the previous gen ones. See the point now?
Click to expand...
Who moaned about it in this recent discussion?
So no I don't see the point, it was more to do with subtle differences between the two sensors and not a complaint.
Have you both to compare or is that just an assumption?
 
Cagey75 said:
We'll mention it till the cows come home so long as people keep moaning and groaning about it. This is the only reason to question processing in LR regarding Fuji files tbh. I think this X-trans III being better is nonsense, because as I just stated, I have never found the issue on the previous gen ones. See the point now?
Click to expand...


People will continue to moan about worms and detail-less leaves till the cows come home.
Or they can massively over sharpen to their hearts content.
Few of them realise that sharpening does not add detail, it only accentuates what is already there. if you over sharpen all you add are artifacts, and haloes around edges.
 
Last edited:
tijuana taxi said:
Who moaned about it in this recent discussion?
So no I don't see the point, it was more to do with subtle differences between the two sensors and not a complaint.
Have you both to compare or is that just an assumption?
Click to expand...

I never said I have both, someone mentioned the earlier X-trans sensors, I posted how I process to avoid any issues for both I & II ... simple. Since when was this an XTIII only thread? This is why I know the only-improved-for-XTIII thing is over exaggerated, because it isn't there for earlier versions if you know how to process the files correctly. And you are the only one that mentioned "watercolour". I'm one of few on here that is quick to dismiss any of those issues btw, but I'll mention them as many times as I want. Which will always be less than most others have throughout this whole thread I guarantee.

Terrywoodenpic said:
People will continue to moan about worms and detail-less leaves till the cows come home.
Or they can massively over sharpen to their hearts content.
Few of them realise that sharpening does not add detail, it only accentuates what is already there. if you over sharpen all you add are artifacts, and haloes around edges.
Click to expand...

Yup, over sharpening, as I said earlier, is the main cause. We've been reading the same thing for years now.
 
Last edited:
Did some still life today and was using peas and leaves as a type of soup. The jpeg images looked much better/greener and more true to life than the raw files. I will have a go again tonight but I use the latest version of photoshop and couple bloody recreate the colours. Probably because I'm hopeless at editing as I'm new to it but just wish they looked the same. The jpeg's were lovely.
 
Ps as it's a college course I must use the raw files and save as psd's and convert to jpegs or I'd just use the straight out of camera ones.
 
If I replaced the 55-200mm lens hood with a smaller one will I likely lose quality? It’s just so big

Matt
 
Just a simple landscape/seascape Fujigraph taken at Folkestone Kent UK from the Harbour Arm.

X-T1, 10-24mm Lens, 1/640th @ F8, ISO-200, Handheld.
Sea Front (Folkestone) (1) (C)-03035C byG.K.Jnr., on Flickr


Never seen Folkestone look so nice, reckon their tourist board should snap that one up

Brought back memories too, stayed in the Bursten and fished that beach at night, even managed to catch a few too.
 
Last edited:
FujiMatt said:
If I replaced the 55-200mm lens hood with a smaller one will I likely lose quality? It’s just so big

Matt
Click to expand...
Potentially ... but only if the smaller hood doesn't properly shade the front element in adverse lighting (usually strong light source from the side and not in frame) - then you may see a drop in contrast and possibly flaring.
 
So it’s just related to the sun mainly? I could then purchase a smaller hood and if shooting on a sunny day could put the bigger one on.

Matt
 
FujiMatt said:
So it’s just related to the sun mainly? I could then purchase a smaller hood and if shooting on a sunny day could put the bigger one on.

Matt
Click to expand...

Just use it with the hood off when it's not sunny
 
FujiMatt said:
If I replaced the 55-200mm lens hood with a smaller one will I likely lose quality? It’s just so big

Matt
Click to expand...

It will just be less efficient at shading the lens, in many circumstances it will make little or no difference. But the problem might show itself when shooting towards the light.
 
tijuana taxi said:
Just a simple landscape/seascape Fujigraph taken at Folkestone Kent UK from the Harbour Arm.

X-T1, 10-24mm Lens, 1/640th @ F8, ISO-200, Handheld.
Sea Front (Folkestone) (1) (C)-03035C byG.K.Jnr., on Flickr


Never seen Folkestone look so nice, reckon their tourist board should snap that one up

Brought back memories too, stayed in the Bursten and fished that beach at night, even managed to catch a few too.
Click to expand...


Thank you kindly Sir, sure is appreciated you takin' the time to reply.(y)

"Unfortunately as you can see in front of the Burstin Hotel at the time this snap was taken there was a whole lot of excavation work going on which kinda spoils things a bit photographically. Now that the Harbour Arm (where this shot was taken from) has been re-developed with still more work being done a lot of folk fish from there"

George.
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
A hood also protects the glass from dust rain and bangs. They are a good safety measure.
Click to expand...

True that, I often use my lenses without hoods though, just be that bit more aware. Any hood that is shorter, so long as it's not narrower, should work anyhow.
 
It states on here that the maximum size for an image to upload is 1024 x 1024. I tried 1024 x 700 odd and it was too large, then 1000 x 700 or so and same again then 900 x 600 odd and still too big. Does anyone know what size of file i can upload on here?
 
scottduffy said:
It states on here that the maximum size for an image to upload is 1024 x 1024. I tried 1024 x 700 odd and it was too large, then 1000 x 700 or so and same again then 900 x 600 odd and still too big. Does anyone know what size of file i can upload on here?
Click to expand...
I imagine the rules are both for size in pixels and probably size in kb... Tbh it's probably better to just link to Flickr or something if you can... Most forums require very high compression as well as downsizing, often resulting in a rubbish image...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top