/p/ - Photography » Searching for posts with the image hash ‘h4vXocpSejpyVrWcRxEbeg==’.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO fuji processing comparisons.jpg, 4MiB, 3000x1500

Anonymous Mon 22 Feb 2021 03:08:49 No.3825714 View View Report

Quoted By:

>>3825710
>.RAF files edited in Lightroom
pleb confirmed

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO fuji processing comparisons.jpg, 4MiB, 3000x1500

Anonymous Thu 28 Jan 2021 02:27:06 No.3806877 View View Report

Quoted By:

The worms are honestly not the worst thing about Fuji sensors. And even then, you'll only see wormy details in certain types of backgrounds, usually foliage that people aren't going to focus on anyway. When I had my X-T1, the bigger problem was how non-Fujifilm proprietary software handled details. Lightroom was (possibly still is) notorious for absolutely destroying details, so you had to convert every single file with a third party program, exponentially complicating your workflow and doubling the storage space requirements for images on your computer. I don't know if that's changed since a couple years ago, but it was a serious problem when I was working with this camera, the single biggest reason I dumped the system at the time.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO fuji processing comparisons.jpg, 4MiB, 3000x1500

Anonymous Sun 20 Dec 2020 02:27:03 No.3782592 View View Report

Quoted By:

I had the XT1, a few of the f/2 primes and some zooms, and it was cool having a tiny little weather-sealed camera, but the ergonomics were bad. I missed being able to hold a camera loosely with my middle finger hooked on the front of the grip, like I can with literally any DSLR.

Also, I really didn't like shooting with analog dials, especially when I was then using the front and rear command dials to fine-tune the exposure settings anyway.

The image quality was good once I figured out how to get rid of the worms. That plasticky XC telephoto zoom was actually sharper than the sensor could resolve.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO fuji processing comparisons.jpg, 4MiB, 3000x1500

Anonymous Wed 27 Mar 2019 00:10:35 No.3455788 View View Report

Quoted By:

>>3455771
>but the raw files look like ass
On very rare occasion, they look phenomenal.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO fuji processing comparisons.jpg, 4MiB, 3000x1500

Anonymous Mon 11 Jun 2018 21:11:55 No.3308944 View View Report

Quoted By:

>>3308937
Also, you can use Lightroom for Fuji raw files, but you need to convert the files to DNG with Iridient X-Transformer (inexpensive program) or something similar, or else Lightroom doesn't do a good job of handling the sharpness. It's an extra step, but once you take that into account, processing the files is not any different than with other cameras.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO fuji processing comparisons.jpg, 4MiB, 3000x1500

Anonymous Mon 12 Mar 2018 20:53:54 No.3257311 View View Report

Quoted By:

>>3257303
This. If you have the slightest clue what you're doing, you'll never have an issue with "Fuji worms" or whatever other boogeyman people gossip about in M43 threads.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO fuji processing comparisons.jpg, 4MiB, 3000x1500

Anonymous Tue 06 Mar 2018 22:10:26 No.3253969 View View Report

Quoted By:

>>3253960
I use manual ISO in a number of conditions, such as when I'm using the flash, or in sunny conditions, or when I'm using a tripod.

Also, even though the X-T2 and X-H1 have a way to match the auto ISO steps to 1/focal length shutter speeds, on the X-T1, it's not quite as advanced, so you do need to take control manually sometimes.

You do get pretty good detail in the high ISO range (pic related is from a processing comparison, but is still a good example of sharpness at ISO 1000), but details (also dynamic range) would always be best at base ISO. So landscapes, macro and other types of photography where you want to preserve details or make the most out of a single photo's dynamic range will look best at ISO 200. Above 3200, you really lose the fine details, at least on the X-T1.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO fuji processing comparisons.jpg, 4MiB, 3000x1500

Anonymous Sat 03 Mar 2018 03:29:24 No.3251964 View View Report

Quoted By:

Observations:

Straight out of camera JPEGs look reasonably sharp, but there's a tendency for all photos to be 1/2 stop underexposed (on average).

Processing with Lightroom alone screws up the sharpness, but you don't see "fuji worms."

Convert to DNG and then process in Lightroom looks best, but needs a bit of noise reduction to mitigate the "fuji worms."

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Verified Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Manager Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts Only Founder Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images Only Spoiler Images Only Non-Spoiler Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

Searching for posts with the image hash ‘h4vXocpSejpyVrWcRxEbeg==’. 8 results found.

On these archives

Your latest searches