jonoslack
Active member
HI There Ario - I know what you mean, I thought I pretty much got rid of it with my settings - with a little less sharpening and a little more Chromadaptiv.
all the best
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!
Fuji X-T1 - Greens and jpg files - help please?
- Thread starter jonoslack
- Start date
all the best
Would love one but I'm currently having a visitor from down the road who thinks I already have one
X-E1 18-55OK,
I was finally able to get Capture One to open the file, thanks to Graham's help.
All that has to be done is edit out the camera name file in exif info. The only tool I could find is Exiftool. Note this is a command line in mac (not my specialty) and there is GUI for windows. It took a few tries to get the GUI to work, (all my problems) and it does the trick.
Two crops, are attached. Pretty much the same parts of the image I have worked. I did a bit more sharpening in Capture One (7.2) and then followed up with Focus Magic. Only a bit in this case as Capture One appears to render the grass blades better.
Note also the 2nd attachment showing the tree buds against the blue sky, here Capture One runs rings around LR. LR can't seem to get the tree bud/sky demarcation figured out and thus it renders this area a bit soft. Capture One did much better.
Overall, on this image I say Capture One did the best overall job, but to me the key is follow up deconvolution sharpening with Focus Magic. I use this on all my files now including Phase One.
I did not alter the color/sat/shadow/highlight etc. on any of my tests as I was only interested to see how the grass would look.
Paul C.
I was finally able to get Capture One to open the file, thanks to Graham's help.
All that has to be done is edit out the camera name file in exif info. The only tool I could find is Exiftool. Note this is a command line in mac (not my specialty) and there is GUI for windows. It took a few tries to get the GUI to work, (all my problems) and it does the trick.
Two crops, are attached. Pretty much the same parts of the image I have worked. I did a bit more sharpening in Capture One (7.2) and then followed up with Focus Magic. Only a bit in this case as Capture One appears to render the grass blades better.
Note also the 2nd attachment showing the tree buds against the blue sky, here Capture One runs rings around LR. LR can't seem to get the tree bud/sky demarcation figured out and thus it renders this area a bit soft. Capture One did much better.
Overall, on this image I say Capture One did the best overall job, but to me the key is follow up deconvolution sharpening with Focus Magic. I use this on all my files now including Phase One.
I did not alter the color/sat/shadow/highlight etc. on any of my tests as I was only interested to see how the grass would look.
Paul C.
jonoslack
Active member
HI Paul
I think that looks great . . . . it's clearly possible to do a good job - Lets hope that Apple come up with the goods as well!
Ario Arioldi
Member
Jono, the Apple support to the X-Trans files is already in my opinion pretty good, on the same league as Capture One and Iridient. I have just done a very quick test on a file from the XT-1 (after correcting with exiftool to be seen as an X100s file) and I can confirm what i was expecting. May be with the next release of Aperture 4 we will get an even better support.
Braeside
New member
I think Jono may be referring to lack of support for the XT1 in Aperture. This is making me wait too.
Edit, Ario, I appear to have misread what you wrote, I did not absorb the fact you had used exiftool, some kind of word blindness here today, must be the meds I am on (seriously)...
Edit, Ario, I appear to have misread what you wrote, I did not absorb the fact you had used exiftool, some kind of word blindness here today, must be the meds I am on (seriously)...
Last edited:
nostatic
New member
+ infinity
Almost identical, though shooting needs vary a bit (I need to grab video for projects). Ergos cannot be sorted out via the inter webs. For instance, I was ok with my EM5, but didn't really get along with the EM1. Go figure...
As for why switch it up, for me the A7(r) was an eye-opener and game changer. And one change often leads to others. Then I'll settle down for awhile. Then something will change later on. This isn't like 40 years ago when a body was pretty much a body. Moore's law is holding in cameras as well as chips.
nostatic
New member
The A7r has forced me to change the way I shoot - for the better. I pay more attention instead of spraying and praying. Could I have done it without the camera? Sure, but I'm human. Humans often need to be prodded or see an advantage on the other side to change. The files of the A7r have done that. I'm hoping that the files of the XT1 do that as they'll be different tools for different needs/wants.
greypilgrim
New member
I feel compelled to chime in on the usefulness of Jono's original question and the value I am getting out of this thread. As I am in pretty much the same situation Jono described (currently with m4/3 system, but fell in love with the x-t1 ergonomics).
This thread has been really useful for me as I had been under the impression that the watercolor effect had been mostly 'resolved', and it was useful to hear from another's perspective that there still might be issues as well as then seeing the responses as to how to work with what is still there and how to get the most out of the sensor.
I guess I would add that I am lukewarm to the EM-1 as opposed to my EM-5 and that I needed a second body. Will getting the X-t1 make me a better photographer? Nope. Does it get out of my way more than anything I have used yet? That's what I am betting on, both with my experiences of renting various x cameras recently and with what it felt like when I spent an hour or so with it at the store.
:deadhorse:
Doug
This thread has been really useful for me as I had been under the impression that the watercolor effect had been mostly 'resolved', and it was useful to hear from another's perspective that there still might be issues as well as then seeing the responses as to how to work with what is still there and how to get the most out of the sensor.
I guess I would add that I am lukewarm to the EM-1 as opposed to my EM-5 and that I needed a second body. Will getting the X-t1 make me a better photographer? Nope. Does it get out of my way more than anything I have used yet? That's what I am betting on, both with my experiences of renting various x cameras recently and with what it felt like when I spent an hour or so with it at the store.
:deadhorse:
Doug
jonoslack
Active member
Hi There Ario
how to you use exiftool to change the exif .. . . and what is the exact name of the X100s? I'd like to try!
I've installed exiftools on the mac, but I can't work out which tag to change.Perhaps you could give an example of something to type into terminal which will change the Camera to X100s for all the RAF files in a folder
nostatic
New member
I went the other direction - had the A7 first, switched to the A7r. In my case I wanted more pixels to work with. That being said, they handle differently due to the shutter. I prefer shooting the A7, but I prefer the files out of the A7r - so I put up with it. I can totally understand someone not wanting to go that direction.
I've slid out of u4/3 except for a GH3 and Panny zoom lens pair that I use for video work. If you work with the A7r files back to back with one from u4/3 - well, for many that would indicate which wasn't "making it." Of course it is a tradeoff and I need to shoot my A7r at higher shutter speeds and generally pay attention more. No free lunch...
Ok, let me ask the question a bit differently - do you see those artifacts in the crop I posted?
- Ricardo
Ok, I welcome the correction, you are right on how it started. But it really went to the other context really fast, so on that end I think the point I made stands. But thanks for pointing out it wasn't the first post, I was not my intention to mis represent that.
But yes, the thread went to the other place fast.
What this means i the aperture you are shooting at or the movement is working a bit as an AA filter. IF you are shooting a lot of cloth particular grid on an AA less bayer you will see occasional moire. So the issue is not that you may see it on every shot, but that when shooting for a client you need to make sure it doesn't show up.
But whether the aperture used is not the sharpest or some camera movement makes the AA not happen, that works. I can say right now I have seen it occasionally on the Ricoh GR when shooting in color, and it's pretty mathematical why it happens, so if it didn't happen much for you and the Leica the lens may be sharp but maybe not sharp enough at the apertures used, or the subjects you shot were not that prone to it.
I'll post some of the shots I have seen it with the Ricoh later.
Then read what I said above, but that's fine. Anyhow, the Xtrans is more resilient to color moire everything else being equal.
Well I only mention it because one of the nice things about Xtrans is that resolution (otherwise why bother removing the AA) and the dynamic range.
Many consumerist purchase things in our current society "turns on" a lot of people, yet it often looks more like an addiction. You mention getting out of the comfort zone and trying new things but frankly, I look at the photography history of the groups that are constantly upgrading because "they now found the system for their needs" and for the vast majority of them I see the same level- sometimes worse- of photography.
But yeah, if someone wants to test cameras, you certainly need to "catch 'em all" like pokemons
I mean if that's what you really want to do I can see it. Just seems to me some are caught in the illusion they are really pursuing photography. There's nothing wrong with being a collector or a camera tester, I just think it's good to be aware that these are not photography and not think that one is pursuing the art of photography that taking a 2nd or 3rd priority. I'll admit to you the shutter sound even on the A7 was a big turn off for me. But then I was just checking it out- I didn't intend to buy one.
One thing I found out that I had missed is that Sony is still using a lossy RAW format with these cameras. I honestly don't get why they are doing that.
[]
Dunno then. Seems like you already have what you really needed/wanted (u43 + Leica). Anyhow just what it looks like to me.
Well I can only go from my experience and what other professional photographers I have come in contact with advice. The only professional photographers I have seen that advice buying many cameras are those who are sponsored by the camera companies
Yes, apparently you were
Neither Jim nor me have had that problem, though there are certainly some lenses on the Pentax lineup that can be ignored. I do not want a DSLR as my main camera either but for shooting a wedding, I don't mind a DSLR, particularly a K-5 since it's so quiet in shutter and small already. It can be even better still with the OVF and the K-5ii ability to focus in -3 EV.
I, too, had a look at the two RAWs in Photo Ninja and found almost exactly the same as Paul Caldwell. The grass in the first image is perfectly sharp in the foreground area and the remainder in not fully in the field of focus. In the second image there is a hint of double imaging which is almost certainly the 18-55 IS up to its tricks but the focus is anyway clearly not on the foreground where the grass is. Ideally you should use MF and switch off image stabilisation whenever possible and I only blame myself when I do neither (which is most of the time ) and an image isn't quite focussed correctly. No AF or IS system is fully reliable though X-E1 speed aside in my case, I don't think that Fuji is significantly worse than others I have used.
My conclusion is the same as its been throughout the four + happy months I've been with the FujiX system, namely that the green smudging is simply a myth at the sensor level. You can get it a bit with JPEGS (JPEGs smudge with every camera I've ever used which is one reason for not using JPEGs when detail is important) but I suspect the worst problem is with early versions of LR. If Carl's post really is typical then no wonder many were put off TransX!
David
) and an image isn't quite focussed correctly. No AF or IS system is fully reliable though X-E1 speed aside in my case, I don't think that Fuji is significantly worse than others I have used.My conclusion is the same as its been throughout the four + happy months I've been with the FujiX system, namely that the green smudging is simply a myth at the sensor level. You can get it a bit with JPEGS (JPEGs smudge with every camera I've ever used which is one reason for not using JPEGs when detail is important) but I suspect the worst problem is with early versions of LR. If Carl's post really is typical then no wonder many were put off TransX!
David
nostatic
New member
With digital, frankly "photography" now means a lot of different things. And "professional" is a fuzzy term, and one that often is thrown around in a pejorative manner. I certainly don't get paid only for shooting pictures - but I do end up as de facto "staff photographer" and videographer. Does that make me "professional?"Many consumerist purchase things in our current society "turns on" a lot of people, yet it often looks more like an addiction. You mention getting out of the comfort zone and trying new things but frankly, I look at the photography history of the groups that are constantly upgrading because "they now found the system for their needs" and for the vast majority of them I see the same level- sometimes worse- of photography.
But yeah, if someone wants to test cameras, you certainly need to "catch 'em all" like pokemons
Well I can only go from my experience and what other professional photographers I have come in contact with advice. The only professional photographers I have seen that advice buying many cameras are those who are sponsored by the camera companies
As for chasing new gear, a week after buying the A7 I ended up having theverge.com run four of my photos online. Coincidence? Luck? Rationalization? Maybe. I'd like to think that it was a combination of having good gear and being inspired by the toys enough to concentrate a bit more on the craft. One could argue that I should have the self-discipline to do that with any piece of kit, but humans often don't work that way.
Photography (and videography) is a mix of art and science. With digital, the science part has taken on new proportions, so in some sense it isn't surprising that there is more churn. It is odd because you have a relatively old art (photography) combined with relatively new technology (digital). That counterpoint makes for some odd situations and combinations. Good glass is good glass - except when it isn't with a particular sensor and processor. And the best hardware now can be left wanting due to computer code. That dynamic didn't exist in the film days, though one could argue that film formulations and developing had some aspects of that. But we now have orders of magnitude more choices and complexity at our fingertips. And that will be confusing for many.
Others just like to check out new toys. GAS is a real thing. For some it is the only thing and that's...OK. I get it. My #1 passion is playing music and I see it all the time with music gear. And have GAS myself. I've got way more in bass guitars than I do in camera gear. But I also play over 100 gigs a year in five different bands, just released and album, and am working on the next one. So I figure I've earned my instruments. That said, I don't begrudge anyone who buys nice stuff yet isn't a "pro." Some of my students are in that category. Their money, their choices. And to their credit, one reason they're taking lessons is to get better. I view getdpi as one of my places to "get lessons" on the art of photography as well as some of the science. Since I'm knee-deep in tech for my day job I worry less about that end of my expertise. But I can always learn new tricks and get a new perspective. And if new gear leads me to those places - then it was worth the money.
Ario Arioldi
Member
Hi Jono, just type into the terminal the following:
exiftool -ext RAF -Model='X100s' <dir>
replace <dir> with the path of the folder where you have the files to be converted (or simply drag and drop the folder in replacement of <dir>.
You will have something like this:
iMac-di-Ario-Arioldi:~ arioarioldi$ exiftool -ext RAF -Model='X100s' /Users/arioarioldi/Desktop/untitled\ folder
1 directories scanned
1 image files updated
iMac-di-Ario-Arioldi:~ arioarioldi$
The original file will not be cancelled but just renamed for future use.
jonoslack
Active member
Hi Ricardo
I'm very well aware of moire and weddings - and also with lots of different cameras - to say that the 50 AA 'cron is acting as an AA filter is . . . erm - well, like saying that the Zeiss Otus acts as an AA filter.
Whatever - I've explained some of my reasons - you obviously disagree with them, but they are my motives nevertheless. Not useful for me to go on clarifying and you to go on disagreeing.
What I will say is that I consider 'being interested in kit' to be an honourable occupation, but quite a different one from 'being a good photographer' which is another honourable occupation. They aren't however, mutually exclusive.
All the best
I'm very well aware of moire and weddings - and also with lots of different cameras - to say that the 50 AA 'cron is acting as an AA filter is . . . erm - well, like saying that the Zeiss Otus acts as an AA filter.
Whatever - I've explained some of my reasons - you obviously disagree with them, but they are my motives nevertheless
. Not useful for me to go on clarifying and you to go on disagreeing. What I will say is that I consider 'being interested in kit' to be an honourable occupation, but quite a different one from 'being a good photographer' which is another honourable occupation. They aren't however, mutually exclusive.
All the best
Some of the falloff on the grass in the distance I believe is just due to the 16mp resolution and the fact that it's a pretty much solid color. Thus creating a lot color interpolation in one place even though the Fuji sensor is laid out a bit differently. The distant trees and power lines look fine to me and they much be 1/2 a mile out.
I see this effect even with Phase One at times.
The 18-55 is a good lens (all rounder), the 14mm might have done just a bit better? but I find that my 14mm is softer at ranges of F2.8 to F6.3 than my 18-55.
Paul C
I see this effect even with Phase One at times.
The 18-55 is a good lens (all rounder), the 14mm might have done just a bit better? but I find that my 14mm is softer at ranges of F2.8 to F6.3 than my 18-55.
Paul C
jonoslack
Active member
Hi Peter
Well, I've established with the dealer that the problem is there, and he is going to replace the camera . . . when he can get one from Fuji - until then I'll keep this one - it works fine, but only in matrix metering, and without AE and AF lock buttons - a hardship, but better than nothing.
All the best