/p/ - Photography » Thread #2580559

[67 / 8 / ?]

Anonymous Mon 11 May 2015 10:58:48 No.2580559 View View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>2580571 >>2580687 >>2581497

>Open some Fuji camera/lens review
>this is the worst shit ever. Shit raw files with shit details and shit blown highlights and soft photos.
>Open another Fuji review but of same product
>omg best sharpness, best colors, best camera COTY 2012 / 2013 / 2014
Is Fuji the Apple of photography?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 11 May 2015 11:21:29 No.2580571 Report

Quoted By: >>2580684

>>2580559
It depends if the cucks who made the review did used the proper stuff to develop the raws.
X-trans is different from bayer and takes a bit of time to figure out which sw to use and the optimal settings. At first I was disappointed too with my XE1 but now I'm just amazed. Also the in camera jpeg engine is shit at noise suppression and the best results are obtained with sharpness -1 and noise -2.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 11 May 2015 11:22:33 No.2580573 Report

Quoted By: >>2580693

In my opinion there's 4 types of reviews:

>Shit reviewers / sites making shit reviews about anything that they get to use for free.

>Regular photographers making raving reviews about their sponsors (Steve Huff kind of people).

>Regular / good photographers making honest and critical reviews from their perspective (like Ming Thein).

>Professional review organizations reviewing every useful and useless detail about lenses - except how they actually work in practice.

I personally really like what I'm able to do with Fuji. I've never seen or had any issues with dynamic range, out of focus and softness though. The only thing that you have to watch out for is processing with ACR/LR where you can completely fuck up the processing by for example setting noise reduction to 40, sharpening to 30, radius to 1 and leaving detail at the default.
If you lower noise reduction, set sharpening to detail = 100, add some masking so you don't amplify noise, you get nice looking files.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 11 May 2015 15:53:29 No.2580684 Report

Quoted By:

>>2580571
what software do you use?

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 2015-05-11 11_56_16-Lightroom.jpg, 462KiB, 2012x1138

Anonymous Mon 11 May 2015 15:57:31 No.2580687 Report

Quoted By: >>2580701 >>2580712

>>2580559
PhotoNinja on the left, Lightroom on the right. Same photo, same file.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 11 May 2015 16:10:43 No.2580693 Report

Quoted By: >>2581527

>>2580573
which one is ken?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 11 May 2015 16:29:28 No.2580701 Report

Quoted By: >>2581082

>>2580687
(The left image from PN has been eddited to add contrast, and slightly raise the blacks, so the loss of shadow detail isn't from the program, it was an aesthetic choice)

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 2015-05-11 12_31_37-Lightroom.jpg, 274KiB, 2008x1164

Anonymous Mon 11 May 2015 16:35:45 No.2580703 Report

Quoted By: >>2580711 >>2580712 >>2581280 >>2581288 >>2582691

Another example.
Again, PhotoNinja on the left, Lightroom on the right.

Exact same editing parameters this time.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 11 May 2015 16:46:56 No.2580711 Report

Quoted By: >>2580714 >>2580724

>>2580703
If they're the same files with the same exact editing what's causing the big difference?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 11 May 2015 16:47:16 No.2580712 Report

Quoted By:

>>2580687
>>2580703
That's... Dramatic, to say the least.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO _DSF1191_v1.jpg, 429KiB, 1002x1500

Anonymous Mon 11 May 2015 16:50:48 No.2580714 Report

Quoted By: >>2580716 >>2580991 >>2581105

>>2580711
Adobe doesn't handle RAF files well. It's well documented. In Adobe, the files come with noise reduction "baked in", and it's pretty damned aggressive. But in PhotoNinja, you can take it back out. I don't know the mechanics behind it, but I know that it's substantial.

Here's the full photo, to give an impression of the (100%) crop.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 11 May 2015 16:53:09 No.2580716 Report

Quoted By: >>2580719 >>2581325

>>2580714

Thanks I'll keep that in mind. I'm using the original x100 with Lightroom 4.4. Your editing is nice!

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 11 May 2015 16:54:53 No.2580717 Report

Quoted By: >>2580719 >>2580726

Post some Capture One Pro examples pls.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 11 May 2015 16:58:54 No.2580719 Report

Quoted By: >>2580911

>>2580716
>Your editing is nice!
Thanks. It's a bit dark for my tastes, so I might bring up the mids some more, but it shows the point of detail/highlight loss between Adobe and other applications well as it is.

>>2580717
I don't have C1P unfortunately. I'm sorry. Just Lightroom for my Canon files, and PhotoNinja for my Fuji files.

I process for detail in PN, and then export out to an uncompresed TIFF, which I work with in Lightroom for color, tones, and output sharpening.

isi !ePGHMxQmE2

isi !ePGHMxQmE2 Mon 11 May 2015 17:04:13 No.2580724 Report

Quoted By:

>>2580711
the quality of the demosaicing process. all raw converters are not created equally.

For most cameras, there's a better option than Adobe. In Fuji's case the difference between the worst (adobe) and the best (photoninja) editing is very stark, with other manufacturers the difference is generally less stark, but Capture One is nevertheless better for many cameras than Adobe much in the way Photoninja is for Fuji files.

Part of it also comes down to noise reduction; Fuji doesn't allow you to completely turn off color noise reduction in-camera, and Adobe doesn't have the ability to swap it off in the raw either. Photoninja can disable all of the color NR, however. If you're shooting in black and white, that color noise equates to a lot of information.

isi !ePGHMxQmE2

isi !ePGHMxQmE2 Mon 11 May 2015 17:06:32 No.2580726 Report

Quoted By: >>2580738

>>2580717
No C1 to play with, but Photoninja is superior to C1 for X-Trans files. Nothing tops PN in that regard.

The original X100 however performs better in C1 to my knowledge.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 11 May 2015 17:33:12 No.2580738 Report

Quoted By:

>>2580726
Ill try PN now. Any ideas if it can apply/handle incamera classic chrome profile fuji on raws?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 11 May 2015 21:02:40 No.2580911 Report

Quoted By: >>2581764

>>2580719
I tried that and it seems to work fairly well. The difference in detail is nowhere near what was in your comparison but I noticed that Lightroom forces the lens profile correction on you with Fuji lenses. I couldn't find a way to disable it and I only found out about it when I used PN to process the RAF to a full sized .tif and then opened that in LR.

New catalog time, oh well...

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 11 May 2015 22:21:05 No.2580988 Report

Quoted By: >>2580989

Is /p/ the most polite of all the threads on 4chins?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 11 May 2015 22:22:37 No.2580989 Report

Quoted By:

>>2580988

No.

Try posting some of your photos that you hold dear and see how polite we are.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 11 May 2015 22:25:02 No.2580991 Report

Quoted By: >>2581017 >>2581028 >>2581054

>>2580714
Now how about you post some color comparisons? This isn't the 1800s anymore.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 11 May 2015 23:23:14 No.2581017 Report

Quoted By:

>>2580991
Well since you asked so nicely, I'm sure he'll get right on it...

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 11 May 2015 23:34:18 No.2581026 Report

Quoted By:

Fucking adobe

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 11 May 2015 23:43:36 No.2581028 Report

Quoted By:

>>2580991
Fuji's have have been known for some pretty damn good colour rendering, so there's no point in doing that.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 May 2015 00:25:42 No.2581054 Report

Quoted By: >>2581062

>>2580991
I don't generally get upset about lack of fine detail in my color photos, because I think they get distracting very quickly, with too much information in the scene. I prefer a softer "film" look to them. Right or wrong, this leads me to the point that I don't really have a color workflow through PN, and I doubt it would look very good. I'll take a crack at it for you anyways, so you can see the default processing differences though. hang on.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 2015-05-11 20_35_30-Lightroom.jpg, 259KiB, 2019x1174

Anonymous Tue 12 May 2015 00:37:55 No.2581062 Report

Quoted By: >>2581064 >>2581661

>>2581054
PhotoNinja on the left, Lightroom on the right
100% crops

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 May 2015 00:39:07 No.2581064 Report

Quoted By: >>2581065

>>2581062

fucking wow. why are you so shit, adobe?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 May 2015 00:40:40 No.2581065 Report

Quoted By:

>>2581064
It seems as though aberrations are more appropriately dealt with in Lightroom, but that's the only advantage that I can see.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 May 2015 01:09:39 No.2581082 Report

Quoted By: >>2581083

>>2580701
well it's a pretty fucking pointless comparison photo then isn't it
jesus fucking christ

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 2015-05-11 21_12_40-Lightroom.jpg, 410KiB, 2024x1178

Anonymous Tue 12 May 2015 01:13:28 No.2581083 Report

Quoted By:

>>2581082
"jesus fucking christ" indeed
Take a deep breath.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 May 2015 02:14:07 No.2581105 Report

Quoted By: >>2581129

>>2580714
That sounds more like a problem with the RAW format than with ACR.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 May 2015 02:56:35 No.2581129 Report

Quoted By: >>2581130

>>2581105
No, it doesn't.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 May 2015 02:57:12 No.2581130 Report

Quoted By: >>2581132

>>2581129
It really does.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 May 2015 03:00:49 No.2581132 Report

Quoted By:

>>2581130
Clearly all the information is there, and it's easy to pull out with other software. It's an issue with ACR.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1429017174423.jpg, 23KiB, 400x267

Anonymous Tue 12 May 2015 09:03:43 No.2581276 Report

Quoted By: >>2582741

Adobe is like the wealthiest of all the camera software makers. How the fuck do they manage only to hire monkeys to do the fucking job???

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 May 2015 09:10:11 No.2581280 Report

Quoted By: >>2581281 >>2581387

>>2580703
i first thought that /p/ was noob too
fuck off with that bullshit lol

isi !ePGHMxQmE2

isi !ePGHMxQmE2 Tue 12 May 2015 09:11:08 No.2581281 Report

Quoted By: >>2581387

>>2581280
Please drown yourself.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 May 2015 09:18:43 No.2581283 Report

Quoted By: >>2581285 >>2581289

Anyone has any comparisons with acr and C1P ? I heard its a little better than photoninja?

isi !ePGHMxQmE2

isi !ePGHMxQmE2 Tue 12 May 2015 09:34:31 No.2581285 Report

Quoted By: >>2581289 >>2581326

>>2581283
Generally speaking, it is.
For Fujifilm files, Photoninja is the top raw editor by a good little margin, although it has some peculiarities as well to watch out (it's a good idea to leave color recovery options off in photoninja for example, it likes to shift colors)

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 May 2015 09:38:43 No.2581288 Report

Quoted By: >>2582691

>>2580703
Just to be clear, having the same parameters in different software doesn't necessarily mean that you have the algorithm working in the same way on both programs, so a 5 on photoninja might correspond to a 35 on LR, or nothing at all as the algorithm used is actually different and you can only get some approximation , which has to be done qualitatively. Not saying that there isn't any truth to adobe not processing those raws correctly , but you shouldn't expect the same result just by matching the parameters

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 May 2015 09:39:07 No.2581289 Report

Quoted By: >>2581303

>>2581283
>>2581285
one of the most important things i noticed when editing fuji's raws with Capture one is that you have to disable any lens corrections. It tends to fuck up the sharpness and blurs the details. This is the mistake many do.

isi !ePGHMxQmE2

isi !ePGHMxQmE2 Tue 12 May 2015 09:58:57 No.2581303 Report

Quoted By:

>>2581289
No one's saying Capture One isn't also a good Fuji option.
It's been well established for about a year now, though, that PhotoNinja edges out everything else purely on the amount of info it pulls out of the files. There are comparisons out there, if you care to google.

Capture One is the better overall piece of software, but PN is unrivaled for Fuji. It is not, however, a good stand-alone editor.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 May 2015 11:48:07 No.2581325 Report

Quoted By:

>>2580716
The X100 has a normal bayer sensor, not a X-Trans. Adobe should be fine.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 May 2015 11:49:27 No.2581326 Report

Quoted By: >>2581361

>>2581285
Don't forget Iridient developer, which is on par with the ninja, if not a smidge better.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 May 2015 12:56:42 No.2581361 Report

Quoted By: >>2581373

>>2581326
>tfw had to install virtual machine with MacOs on my PC just for Irident.
>tfw got so used to it that I always have to boot to macos for my photography editing.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 May 2015 13:15:45 No.2581373 Report

Quoted By:

>>2581361
kek I've done the same

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 May 2015 13:46:06 No.2581387 Report

Quoted By:

>>2581280
What?

>>2581281
What is he talking about?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 May 2015 16:02:45 No.2581473 Report

Quoted By: >>2581475

what's the best raw editor for nikon NEF?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 May 2015 16:04:13 No.2581475 Report

Quoted By: >>2581476

>>2581473
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=best+raw+editor+for+NEF
Also, Fuji thread! C'mon man.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 May 2015 16:05:43 No.2581476 Report

Quoted By: >>2581531

>>2581475
ty :-)

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 May 2015 16:42:04 No.2581497 Report

Quoted By: >>2581502

>>2580559
Yep, speaking of...
http://petapixel.com/2015/05/11/fujifilm-x100t-review-your-best-friend-with-a-lens/

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 May 2015 16:44:52 No.2581502 Report

Quoted By:

>>2581497
>Man writing a love note to a camera as if it were a person, asking if it remembers things, and apologizing for other things...
>Yep, that's Petapixel
Why are photographers such faggots so often?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 May 2015 17:14:21 No.2581521 Report

Quoted By:

Ffs, thanks god that I read this thread. I was curious about Photoninja and fuck, Lightroom fucking blows. I like a lot LR but sometimes I thought that the images looked pretty bad, whatever I done, and tried PN, along with some 6400, 12800, and 16000 ISO images (Camera is a Sony NEX 3N) and fuckkkkkkkk, the noise reduction is just godly, the LR one is a turd in comparison. The workflow and all that stuff is better for me in LR, along chromabs correction and things like that, but, fixing highlights, shadows, and noise, PN just kills LR:

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 May 2015 17:34:20 No.2581527 Report

Quoted By: >>2581533

>>2580693
Ken is my hero, it seems like negativity slides right off him, but he falls somewhere between 1 and 2. I see his website more as a fact gathering source with excellent SEO.

Ken's site is the sort of stuff camera sales people either rave about or he tries to debunk their salespitches. Photography-wise he's utter shit of course, so more towards #1 than #2.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 May 2015 17:38:12 No.2581531 Report

Quoted By:

>>2581476
you mispelled :^)

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 May 2015 17:40:44 No.2581533 Report

Quoted By: >>2581965 >>2581967

>>2581527
thing awesome about Ken he is not a pixel-peeper. He looks at the whole picture and experience, not just fucking MTF charts. Also, as crazy as it might sound, he supports his growing family through that website.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 May 2015 20:44:46 No.2581661 Report

Quoted By: >>2581663

>>2581062
wow man, x-trans are so great

shame i only have a x-a1 :( , which RAW software should i use for the bayer sensor ?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 May 2015 20:52:24 No.2581663 Report

Quoted By:

>>2581661
In all reality, switching to the PN workflow has only brought my results back up to where I felt I already was with my 5Dmk2. Though there are more megapixels with the 5D I guess that's impressive, but I don't feel it's anything earth-shattering.

For Bayer stuff, I've never found the abilities of ACR to be lacking, but just google "Best RAW editor for X file type" and you'll get your answer. Be prepared to have a very inconvenient workflow for the sake of a negligible gain in detail however. Bayer is handled really well.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 May 2015 23:35:38 No.2581764 Report

Quoted By:

>>2580911
>photoninja
so what's even the proper workflow if i want to demosaic my rafs in PN and postprocess in LR? can you do some auto conversion of all .raf to .tif, and then just delete the .rafs? or do you do selected ones individually? what parts of pp do you do in PN? it sounds like this will take up quite a bit of extra time, but i'm tired of the shitty lightroom results. LR sharpness, paintstroke effect and chromabs are a pain.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 13 May 2015 06:03:29 No.2581965 Report

Quoted By:

>>2581533
And it certainly is growing.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 13 May 2015 06:09:22 No.2581967 Report

Quoted By: >>2582090

>>2581533
>Ken he is not a pixel-peeper

You don't know ken. He uses a microscope when using film to test for sharpness. He doesn't however make a big deal about. He doesn't do MTF because he can't and doesn't believe they add anything constructive. Things for him are either noticeably sharp or too close to matter. He rather test things in the field and say how they perform.

Ken is the messiah of photography.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 13 May 2015 11:35:42 No.2582090 Report

Quoted By:

>>2581967
Well, on digital hes not peeping because theres no poin to actually. Look at all the sensors from 2014. NEarly all of the flagshiips dropped the AA filter. Sharpness is not an issue anymore. But many reviewers out there are still very based on MTF and other sharpness tests. I remember reading Steve Huff's review of X-T1. He cropped out 1:1 foliage of tree with a fucking Lightroom and was bitching about it for half of his review. Fuck him.

Ken is love, Ken is life.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 14 May 2015 12:23:21 No.2582691 Report

Quoted By: >>2582714

>>2580703
Yeah right, what the fuck is this? I guess this is also the same with Canon RAW?

>>2581288
Also this seems logical...

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 2015-05-14 09_32_47-Lightroom.jpg, 366KiB, 2029x1183

Anonymous Thu 14 May 2015 13:33:52 No.2582714 Report

Quoted By: >>2582881

>>2582691
>I guess this is also the same with Canon RAW?
No visible improvement of detail, slightly different rendition of color.

CR2 file from 5Dmk2
Lightroom on the left, PN on the right.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 14 May 2015 14:05:22 No.2582741 Report

Quoted By:

>>2581276
They don't care about the market segment that uses Fuji, so they don't devote nearly as much time or effort to it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 14 May 2015 17:41:17 No.2582881 Report

Quoted By: >>2582883

>>2582714
PN file looks a LOT better.

Seriously what the fuck??

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 14 May 2015 17:44:39 No.2582883 Report

Quoted By:

>>2582881
It looks a little brighter, and a little warmer. Both are very easy to do in LR. The detail looks the same.

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

On these archives

Your latest searches