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!

The X1 Chat Box

W

wblynch

Guest
I am anxious to see the X1.

My greatest disappointment with every digital camera I've owned is the pictures out of the camera are never good enough and I have to spend way too much time editing them in Photoshop or other tools.

I have thousands of digital pictures that are stuffed away on CDs or hard drives that no one will ever see because I don't have time to adjust them all. I have printed thousands of digital pictures as well and they are also in piles in a cabinet.

In my film days I never messed around in the darkroom. I took pictures, got them developed and printed. As long as I used a good camera, good film and a good lab I got great pictures back.

I am expecting the X1 to produce pictures that can be printed straight out of the camera without spending hours in Photoshop just to make them good enough.

The time savings there alone can make the X1 worth the dough.

I hope the X1 can deliver that one thing.
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
... I don't know which dlsrs you have Godfrey but I can't get anything near my lowly Fuji S5 quality from the GH1, love to see some samples, maybe I'm doing something wrong.
I'd hardly call a Fuji S5 as "lowly". It was lauded by several people as being one of the finest cameras for people photography made, particularly for its ability to render skin tones. So if that's your beef, I doubt you'll find much better than that.

Yes, I can vary the colors with processing too but I don't seem to get any decent skin tones, no matter what, specially black skin, do you have any good dark skin samples to post?
I have a whole shoot of a black couple's first baby shower, but unfortunately I cannot post that work without their explicit permission.

I find both my 14-140 and 7-14 zooms too slow as well, specially since I find them useless wide open. I almost never use tripods so iso 400 and above is the reality for me when using the current micro 4/3rd zooms. I'm curious about what you're comparing your 14-45 IQ to. I'm asking these questions hoping to be proven wrong, I very much want to like the GH1, for a lot reasons!
I work with Panasonic/Leica and Olympus FourThirds SLR lenses a good bit of the time, including the Summilux-D 25mm f/1.4 ASPH, the Olympus ZD 50-200/2.8-3.5, ZD 35mm f/3.5 Macro, and ZD 11-22/2.8-3.5. I also use a bevy of other fine performing lenses (Nikkor 20mm f/3.5 AI, Pentax-M 50mm f/1.4, Olympus Pen F G.Zuiko 40mm f/1.4, G.Zuiko 70mm f/2).
 
V

Vivek

Guest
I must admit to having been much keener on the IQ of the micro 4/3rds before getting one, but its debatable now. I'm struggling with my GH1, I don't see the IQ anywhere near APS quality of my dlrs, if anything its closer to my none Fuji P&S cameras. I must even admit that as much as I hated the dp1 its IQ was head and shoulders above the Panasonic. I'm having hell of a time with skin tones, specially with black skin. DR is limited or at least that's how I see it using PS and iso 400 is my acceptable limit for screen and even lower for print.
David, I agree with your assessment on the DR, quality and such. Closer to a P&S cam than any average APS-C DSLR.

The one and the only reason I like (and use) the G1 is the versatility. That plus non use of the Pana/Oly zooms and the very limited use of the 17/2.8.
 

barjohn

New member
I am anxious to see the X1.

My greatest disappointment with every digital camera I've owned is the pictures out of the camera are never good enough and I have to spend way too much time editing them in Photoshop or other tools....
I'm not sure where you are getting your expectations from since a major weakness on the M8, M8.2 and from what I have seen the M9 is their poor JPG quality and the great deal of work that is required in LR or C1 to get skin tones right. Hence the numerous threads on LUF with various profiles by guys like Jamie Roberts and others.

The best and most natural skin tones I have seen straight out of the camera are on the Olympus E-P1. Their JPGs are ready to print in 9 out of 10 cases. I found I could not take the RAW files and improve on them much above the JPGs right out of the camera. I have had two M8s, the G1, the E-P1 and the GF1, Nikon D90, Canon G7, Leica D-Lux3 to name just a few. I have never owned the FUji SS so I can't comment on its performance.

This is not to say that it may be possible to get very good pictures out of the X1 with some PP work.
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
JPEGs? Oh, I thought you guys were talking about what the camera can do, not what some dinky little in-camera image processor can do.

Sorry.
 

barjohn

New member
wblynch is talking about NOT having to spend hours in Photoshop or other tools. I would consider having to make profiles and various adjustments in PS or LR or C1 as working with RAW files. Seems like the E-P1's little in camera image processor can do it just fine. Are you suggesting a $2K camera's or an $7K cameras processor should be less capable?
 
D

ddk

Guest
David, I agree with your assessment on the DR, quality and such. Closer to a P&S cam than any average APS-C DSLR.

The one and the only reason I like (and use) the G1 is the versatility. That plus non use of the Pana/Oly zooms and the very limited use of the 17/2.8.
Thanks for getting back Vivek, your confirmation is very helpful! :salute:

actually it was your image of the Korean performers with the Angenieux lens that first turned me on to this format. I get decent results with my Zeiss lenses which is really good enough for my intended use for this camera, which is basically family snaps and videos. I was really hoping to get away with using Panasonic zooms and AF for this purpose but I can't live with them for stills...
 
W

wblynch

Guest
Thanks John and Godfrey,

..and yes, I expect a $2,000 or $7,000 camera to do the processing work for me. What would I be spending that kind of money for otherwise?

A digital camera is just another computer and imagine if you had to program your desktop computer everytime you wanted to sit down and read your email.

Macintosh and Windows were invented and made their developers into billionaires just so people wouldn't have to type arcane commands into a text interface.

I think digital is still crap compared to film if I have to spend several minutes to an hour for every picture on post processing.

I just want to dump the card at my local photo processor and come back to pick up perfect photos !! I hope the X1 can deliver that one thing.

John, perhaps the EP1 is what I need after all.

But I'm still excited by the X1 until proven otherwise :)

Thanks, Bill L.

I'm not sure where you are getting your expectations from since a major weakness on the M8, M8.2 and from what I have seen the M9 is their poor JPG quality and the great deal of work that is required in LR or C1 to get skin tones right. Hence the numerous threads on LUF with various profiles by guys like Jamie Roberts and others.

The best and most natural skin tones I have seen straight out of the camera are on the Olympus E-P1. Their JPGs are ready to print in 9 out of 10 cases. I found I could not take the RAW files and improve on them much above the JPGs right out of the camera. I have had two M8s, the G1, the E-P1 and the GF1, Nikon D90, Canon G7, Leica D-Lux3 to name just a few. I have never owned the FUji SS so I can't comment on its performance.

This is not to say that it may be possible to get very good pictures out of the X1 with some PP work.
JPEGs? Oh, I thought you guys were talking about what the camera can do, not what some dinky little in-camera image processor can do.

Sorry.

wblynch is talking about NOT having to spend hours in Photoshop or other tools. I would consider having to make profiles and various adjustments in PS or LR or C1 as working with RAW files. Seems like the E-P1's little in camera image processor can do it just fine. Are you suggesting a $2K camera's or an $7K cameras processor should be less capable?
 
V

Vivek

Guest
David, The only way I get away with decent prints is through my workflow (which has become real simple after having spent a lot of time). Technique with holding the camera (which has become a natural thing now) also helps a lot.

Yes, it was simply astonishing for me to use the Angenieux 25/0.95 and the like, able to nail the focus and such. Something that was one of those real advantages of a range finder, up until the G1/live-view showed up.

After all that excitement (and the feeling that I was being very "clever" in finding and making use of various esoteric lenses), an objective comparison with a simple D40x snap drove home the reality.

It is an exciting concept with lots of potential but it isn't there yet for broader use.

I look forward to Sony/Nikon/Pentax etc to come up with mirrorless cams with short registry that would offer dramatic improvement when it comes to picture quality.
 
D

ddk

Guest
I just want to dump the card at my local photo processor and come back to pick up perfect photos !! I hope the X1 can deliver that one thing.
No problem, you'll end up with the same great quality prints as you did when you dropped off your film at your local One Hour Lab! :D

Great prints from film always took a lot of work too, from what I'm reading one of the Fuji cameras with their great jpg quality is what you should look at. An S3, S5 or even one of their bridge or p&s cameras will give amazing jpgs straight from the camera. We use and love them!
 
D

ddk

Guest
David, The only way I get away with decent prints is through my workflow (which has become real simple after having spent a lot of time). Technique with holding the camera (which has become a natural thing now) also helps a lot.

Yes, it was simply astonishing for me to use the Angenieux 25/0.95 and the like, able to nail the focus and such. Something that was one of those real advantages of a range finder, up until the G1/live-view showed up.

After all that excitement (and the feeling that I was being very "clever" in finding and making use of various esoteric lenses), an objective comparison with a simple D40x snap drove home the reality.

It is an exciting concept with lots of potential but it isn't there yet for broader use.

I look forward to Sony/Nikon/Pentax etc to come up with mirrorless cams with short registry that would offer dramatic improvement when it comes to picture quality.
I see it exactly how you're describing it Vivek, and you're the king of micro 4/3rds for me! We might get lucky if Fuji gets in the game, at least the DR and tonality issues should be taken care of, I doubt that any of the others can bring anything special to the table at this time.
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
wblynch is talking about NOT having to spend hours in Photoshop or other tools. I would consider having to make profiles and various adjustments in PS or LR or C1 as working with RAW files. Seems like the E-P1's little in camera image processor can do it just fine. Are you suggesting a $2K camera's or an $7K cameras processor should be less capable?
No, I'm not.

I'm relating that my comments and experience is based on my usage of these cameras, which is 100% RAW capture. I've never once looked at the JPEG rendering output of any of my cameras unless a) the camera only produced JPEG files, or b) I was explicitly doing testing.

Just like my work with film cameras, I see my task when making exposures is to expose properly, focus properly, and frame what I want to capture. I don't expect the camera to know how I want to render the scene. That is what the photofinisher did when I sent work out, or what I did when I did my own processing and printing.

No digital camera will deliver 100% of its potential performance in rendering JPEG images, if you are looking to obtain everything that the camera can deliver in terms of recording the scene and presenting the data for you to use. If obtaining *finished* JPEG images is your goal, then you're evaluating a cameras on a different set of criteria from mine.

That's why I said "I'm sorry." It was my mistake that you were evaluating a camera on the same criteria I was.

Olympus has a long tradition of producing some of the best JPEG rendering in-camera in the business ... The C8080WZ (despite being an utter pain to use), the E-1, and the E-P1 all show this long tradition.

I hope the X1 might prove pleasing, but I don't buy a camera based on how good or bad its capabilities for delivering JPEGs might be. JPEG files are an end product format for finished image display and distribution, not what I use for rendering, printing and archiving.

When evaluating a camera, I concern myself with how well it captures the image data I want to work with, not how it renders it to a finished product.
 
W

wblynch

Guest
I do appreciate the sarcasm but truthfully, for 40 years, the prints I got from film always looked great and without post processing on my part. Even this year I shot $4 Fuji and $8 Portra with great results and gorgeous prints.

My digital prints have always looked poor. -Flat and lifeless- without post.

I would have never invested in so many versions of software like Photoshop & Lightroom, bigger and better computers, bigger and better monitors, "bigger" and better digital cameras, lenses and on and on, if my digital prints came from the camera as good as a typical 35mm slr.

Maybe Fuji has the answer. I've never owned a Fuji camera.

I was thinking Leica would be that magic bullet, but perhaps not :(

-Bill L.

No problem, you'll end up with the same great quality prints as you did when you dropped off your film at your local One Hour Lab! :D

Great prints from film always took a lot of work too, from what I'm reading one of the Fuji cameras with their great jpg quality is what you should look at. An S3, S5 or even one of their bridge or p&s cameras will give amazing jpgs straight from the camera. We use and love them!
 
D

ddk

Guest
I do appreciate the sarcasm but truthfully, for 40 years, the prints I got from film always looked great and without post processing on my part. Even this year I shot $4 Fuji and $8 Portra with great results and gorgeous prints.

My digital prints have always looked poor. -Flat and lifeless- without post.

I would have never invested in so many versions of software like Photoshop & Lightroom, bigger and better computers, bigger and better monitors, "bigger" and better digital cameras, lenses and on and on, if my digital prints came from the camera as good as a typical 35mm slr.

Maybe Fuji has the answer. I've never owned a Fuji camera.

I was thinking Leica would be that magic bullet, but perhaps not :(

-Bill L.
I'm glad to see that you have a sense of humor Bill :). I know what you're saying regarding pp, it can be a waste of time and life. Take a look at Fujis, best jpgs out there and if you setup the camera right you don't need to touch anything for print.
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
I do appreciate the sarcasm but truthfully, for 40 years, the prints I got from film always looked great and without post processing on my part. Even this year I shot $4 Fuji and $8 Portra with great results and gorgeous prints.
That's a compliment to the photofinishing staff where you get your work done.

With a digital camera, YOU are the photofinisher and have to learn how to make the camera do what you want as well as how to make a print, Bill.

I'm sorry to tell you this, but photofinishing machines on their own do not make great prints. The photofinishing machines require guidance from a human being, trained in how to tweak their adjustments, to obtain the best prints. I worked for a photofinishing lab for two-plus years ... to make them produce prints the way you like, we calibrated the machines twice to three times daily and had four trained operators on staff to run them. Transparency work also required lots of machine calibration and maintenance, and were even harder to make excellent prints from due to the vagaries of the various printing methodologies.

In the past, you've simply been paying a human being (or a team of human beings ...) to do that work for you.

If you balk at the requirement to learn and practice that skill yourself, well, you can still pay for human beings to do the job. I am contracted to do image rendering and printing for clients who have better things to do and are willing to pay the price. Of course, given that I do this on an image-at-a-time basis rather than using a volume photofinishing machine, my price is higher than the $4-$8 you mention.

No machine is sentient enough, yet, to know what you want when you press the shutter button except in the broadest of terms. Rendering photographs requires insight into your intent, or a great many assumptions about what that intent might be.
 

TRSmith

Subscriber Member
I think it's fair to point out that many of the more expensive cameras being discussed are aimed at the Pro market. The best and most expensive cameras have always been so. Part of the reason they are expensive is because they provide the best possible optics and advanced exposure options that can be extremely valuable to a working pro who has invested the time and effort to use them to their potential.

In the "old" days, a Hassleblad (as an example) was considered one of the top of the line cameras in the world (still is), but it required a great amount of skill on "capture" and in the darkroom to bring out its full potential. I would almost go so far as to say that the more sophisticated (which can equal expensive) the tool (camera) is, the degree of skill and effort required to extract top notch results will be greater. I know I had to study and practice and put in a ton of hours in the darkroom before I could feel like I had mastered even the first part of the potential of a "pro" camera. The effort required to produce good results with digital seems very similar to film in that regard (to me).

At the other end of the spectrum, by the time disposable film cameras started showing up in the grocery store next to the checkout line, the film and processing industry had completely sussed out what the average joe was looking for when it came to snapshooting. The results were predictable and had been made relatively brainless. As far as I know, that avenue of photography is still available.
 
W

wblynch

Guest
...I'm sorry to tell you this, but photofinishing machines on their own do not make great prints

...In the past, you've simply been paying a human being (or a team of human beings ...) to do that work for you.
Of course I have known that all along. Now, instead of paying $12 per roll for film and human processing, I wish pay up front for the camera to do that work for me.

Honestly, I don't want to spend 4 nights a week editing photos on a dang computer when I could be enjoying life with my wife and friends. I will happily spend $2,000 for that freedom.

But, I want the pictures to come out as good as a $100 p&s 35mm. :)

-Bill L.
 

Oren Grad

Active member
My digital prints have always looked poor. -Flat and lifeless- without post.
What specifically are you doing to them in post, that you can't achieve well enough by adjusting the camera's jpeg settings? And can you be more specific about how you're making your prints and what you don't like about them?

No, I'm not suggesting that jpgs are "as good as raw" in any general sense; I shoot only raw myself with my digital cameras. But Bill has already said he's been happy with machine prints from film, and that he values auto-everything convenience. So philosophy aside, the question remains as to whether he's missing something within easy reach that could get him much closer to what he's looking for.

Bill, the other reason for trying to be more specific about the diagnosis is that it's extremely doubtful that the X1 will deliver anything that's fundamentally different from what's possible with existing cameras. The lens may be subtly better for those who groove on such things, the controls more congenial for traditionalists, the construction quality nicer than other compact digital cameras, and so on, but it's unlikely that the jpg engine will be much smarter than the best that have been seen so far. So it makes sense to figure out if there's something that can be tweaked about the settings you use with your current camera and printer to produce results that you like better while still allowing you to work on auto. If the answer is no, you may well be better off with film. If the answer is yes, it's better but it's still not quite right, at least it would be clearer just what problem you're trying to solve and there'd be a more specific basis for figuring out what other digital camera and/or printer might be worthwhile for you to try.
 

zonevt

New member
The process of quality photography includes seeing the image and capturing it using the best equipment available for exposures and capturing them with the best range of light values. This was accomplished in the past with an extensive variety of films and chemical processes and now with digital sensors and a variety of software applications. If getting a perfect image (jpg) right out of the camera was the norm what would be the artistic challenge in photography? Digital capture and software today gives a photographer unlimited possibilities and the tools to create master quality photos. The limitations come from lack of experience, knowledge, and patience and not from cameras, chemical and digital processes.
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
Of course I have known that all along. Now, instead of paying $12 per roll for film and human processing, I wish pay up front for the camera to do that work for me.
Buying the camera is equivalent to buying the photofinishing machine. Once you have it, no matter how much it costs, you have to learn how to operate it. Same goes for the printing operation.

But, I want the pictures to come out as good as a $100 p&s 35mm.
They'll be far better. But only if you know how to make the machines work.

The point is that the machines don't know what you consider to be "dull and lifeless" vs "vibrant and rich". They simply do what they are told ... to get "vibrant and rich" requires human intervention.

Instead of looking at the notion of "spending some time on a dang computer", maybe you should think about it as "spending your time enjoying doing photography". Or just hire someone to do the work for you, like you always have been, and paying their price.
 
Top