The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

X20 and X100s... nice :)

V

Vivek

Guest
I appreciate Raist' s post. No one is putting Fuji down here (not me, not my intention).

The bottom line is that there are many cameras out there for the past several years with an APS-C sensor and 16mp output that are quite good.

It is nice of Show to post a link to the sad story but his understanding and others' of that differ.

I also think that it is factually incorrect to keep saying that there are no RAW processors for the X-trans sensor output. There is one and it comes with every camera.
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
I used to shoot jpeg with the S3 for a few years. Colours and contrast were great, but I lost a bit fine details, typically in hair and similar structures, due to the jpeg compression. The most important reason why I switched to RAW was the convenience of adjusting WB if needed.
 

Pelao

New member
I appreciate Raist' s post. No one is putting Fuji down here (not me, not my intention).

The bottom line is that there are many cameras out there for the past several years with an APS-C sensor and 16mp output that are quite good.

It is nice of Show to post a link to the sad story but his understanding and others' of that differ.

I also think that it is factually incorrect to keep saying that there are no RAW processors for the X-trans sensor output. There is one and it comes with every camera.
Good point about the RAW software. No doubt that for some people, and some subjects, the current conversion options have faults / limitations. But it seems to work for many people too.
 
I appreciate Raist' s post. No one is putting Fuji down here (not me, not my intention).

The bottom line is that there are many cameras out there for the past several years with an APS-C sensor and 16mp output that are quite good.

It is nice of Show to post a link to the sad story but his understanding and others' of that differ.

I also think that it is factually incorrect to keep saying that there are no RAW processors for the X-trans sensor output. There is one and it comes with every camera.
I'm afraid both you and Raist missed the point completely. The original discussion point (at least mine) was that the Fuji JPEGs were good enough (excellent really) for me to not be concerned with RAW processing and that those who were holding back because Aperture or Adobe did not have "the best" RAW solution, might think about shooting RAW + JPEG. Also, that there is so much more to image making than the technical perfection of eeking out every ounce of performance from a RAW file - we tend to forget this. I used the example of my Contax G2 photos I just got back from the lab and their, rich, textured "feel" and how I would actually have to degrade my digital photos to get that same effect.

So, my link to the Nat Geo post was simply an example of the photographer's vision and skill being enough to shoot with JPEG on a good camera platform. You both are correct that it could have been many different cameras that were used but the main concept is that it is the photographer, and shooting RAW was not a factor in his submission.

And of course everyone's mileage varies. Peter is a landscape photographer who captures lots of foliage in some of his photos so perhaps an excellent Fuji RAW solution is more critical to him. I'm not pretending to know what is best for each photographer, just making an observation and suggestion to those open to it.

I like the people here but there is an underlying current of aggressive dissent that is just unnecessary and frankly, not very enjoyable at times.

Best,
Chad
 
Last edited:
Excerpt from a post on DPR regarding a statement made by a Fuji rep about the fact Adobe has had all the formulas and details of X-Trans for over a year.

Re: Fuji hands-on at CES 2013
In reply to Fenwoodian, 8 hours ago
Fenwoodian wrote:

Chris, great report, thanks much!

Did you discuss with the Fuji guys the problem with RAW conversions using ACR and Lightroom? Did they have any encouraging news for us on that front?

Also, the sensor in the new X100S, how is the IQ expected to campare with with the IQ from the XP1?

Dave
Yes - I bought up the question around Fuji and Adobe - and the Fuji rep expressed frustration at Adobe.

He said that Adobe were given all of the X-Trans data and formulas from Fuji over a year ago, for software development. He was frustrated that people had found Adobe to be slow to market, and said that work was on-going, but that I would need to ask Adobe how it was going.

I did not ask around X100S vs X-Pro1 - I'll ask that question tomorrow
 
V

Vivek

Guest
I like the people here but there is an underlying current of aggressive dissent that is just unnecessary and frankly, not very enjoyable at times.

Best,
Chad
Chad, That came from your vigorous defense of your impressions (differing from mine) of the link story. The photo in question wasn't even an OOC Jpeg. That guy modified it and that was the root of the problem.
If you want to characterize my post as "aggressive dissent", that your your prerogative.
 
Wow, how did you know that was directed at you Vivek ;)

Sorry, I'm not going to continue this. You win, you have the last word, enjoy and savor it.
 

raist3d

Well-known member
I really don't think we differ. I didn't propose that this was Fuji's work. It clearly is not. Neither did I try to define photography, and I certainly don't feel a better camera will always make a better photographer.

I simply feel that to dismiss the camera from the taking of the image is an overstatement.
I dot think so. Even the very nation geographic exmple shows very clearly the acceptance / reject of a photo has nothing to do with the camera. There could be a very specific point of the camera as a tool. It's interesting if the photographer says "here's what I like this tool" but that's so ethi g that you can't really tell for the image. That's different. nd that's gear as tool talk, not talking a out the photograph.

If we do so, why be on forums discussing the merits of how a particular camera works better for some people, or why a particular sensor or lens performs in a certain way?
You are making that too easy to respond to ;-). Ask yourself how many people are taking *real* photographs. How many are upgrading from a perfectly good cameras they bought just a year ago (six months ago?) to "next greatest and latest" and how come their photography doesn't seem to improve.

There are other reasons why people talk about the tools all the time from reasonable interesting ones of here's why I picked this for this kind of work (and have a real portfolio of photos to back that up) to lots and lots of themes and explanations that have nothing to do with photography but more about playing with a toy, equipment collecting or solving "the puzzle" how a piece of technology behaves amongst other reasons (and hey all of these can be fine as long as they arent a bad addiction. And are not confusing it with the art of photography, IMHO )

They feel those tools help them achieve their goals. That makes the tools relevant, and reflects on the makers of those tools.
It makes the tool relevant in workflow talk. Or in tool craftsmanship talk. It doesn't make it relevant by just looking at that national geographic photo and the issues of its acceptance/rejection. Not one bit other than Trivia.

- Raist
 

raist3d

Well-known member
So, my link to the Nat Geo post was simply an example of the photographer's vision and skill being enough to shoot with JPEG on a good camera platform. You both are correct that it could have been many different cameras that were used but the main concept is that it is the photographer, and shooting RAW was not a factor in his submission.
Please keep in mind I wasn't replying to your post but the reply on Vivek and the meme that represents. That said, its understandable Giving the example just so people can see that jpegs are ok- but if you ask me it should be almost a given that a photographer with vision can make a compelling photograph with whatever.

But I understand. I used to shoot mostly in jpeg with Olympus 4/3 And got lynch attempts by the raw mob at dpreview, just by saying it was possible, ok, professional even and had shots i had made.

- raist
 

woodyspedden

New member
While I believe what you say - I will just not change my workflow because of Fuji not supporting their RAW files with any SW (like Aperture). I have invested huge amount of time to get all my images into AP and will not undergo this burden again - for no camera!

But maybe we will finally see support for the X100s and X20 in AP :confused:
Peter

I don't think the lack of support for Aperture is a Fuji problem. It is up to Apple, with help from Fuji, to develop the proper raw conversion. One of the reasons I never got on with Aperture is they have always been very slow adapting to new cameras. But I get it when Jono says the task of moving 75,000 key worded images from Aperture to another converter is just not worth it. Too much work!

Woody
 
Top