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?

nostatic

New member
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
Jono, that's crazy talk. We all know that anyone who bought a camera newer than the one that I currently own is just a gear junkie. And anyone who still has the model prior to the one I own is a luddite. :D
 

GrahamWelland

Subscriber & Workshop 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.
Just a thought, and I'm not sure that it really makes any difference, but I'd be inclined to use X-E2 as the model vs X100s since it has the newer sensor in a similar camera series.

Also, there are GUIs available for both windows and Mac.

pyexiftoolgui is the one for the Mac, although once you know the command line for mass conversions it's a bit redundant. It does display ALL of the exif info though which is very useful.
 

jonoslack

Active member
Just a thought, and I'm not sure that it really makes any difference, but I'd be inclined to use X-E2 as the model vs X100s since it has the newer sensor in a similar camera series.

Also, there are GUIs available for both windows and Mac.

pyexiftoolgui is the one for the Mac, although once you know the command line for mass conversions it's a bit redundant. It does display ALL of the exif info though which is very useful.
Hi Graham
Unfortunately Aperture doesn't yet support the X-E2 yet either - so it doesn't help that much.
I looked at one or two GUIs, but they seemed even more odd. This is fine - it seems to be applying all the lens corrections for better or for worse!

All the best
 

raist3d

Well-known member
Jono, that's crazy talk. We all know that anyone who bought a camera newer than the one that I currently own is just a gear junkie. And anyone who still has the model prior to the one I own is a luddite. :D
For the record - that's not what I said ;-)

Ricardo
 

raist3d

Well-known 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.
Well ok. I haven't shot with the Leica but let me know what you think of the Ricoh GR then because I am seeing it.

I still think fuji made the right choice in that one.

And yeah we disagree in some things but actually agree on some others. Hope you can make your mind about the xt1 for your workflow.

- Ricardo
 

raist3d

Well-known 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?"
Sorry, I missed this. But let me clarify what I am talking about there- I am talking about photographers with over 30 years of experience with big clients and/or photographers with a bachelor of arts or master degree in photography from CalArts (which is like saying a bit like "MIT" in engineering here in the USA). Some of them qualified to teach (and do so) the art of photography and they do work in photography.

People who made it their #1 profession and most of them studied it with a degree and exercise it.
Hope that made that part more clear :) And I am not counting the many world acclaimed photographers that have also commented accordingly.

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.
The tools may be made by science but photography itself as the art is not. At least not in the bigger % of any mix. It may have some but not the mix in the quantities implied. Simple case- why is it that most of the accomplished photographers like Andreas Feininger makes the point the camera doesn't matter? Why did Ansel Adams when asked about which lens is sharper and what not replied pretty much which "all contemporary lenses are more than good enough" (paraphrased)?

The "good glass is good glass" shows part of the problem - there are photographers who have used a plastic Holga for a job, because for a particular project gives a certain look. It's pretty bad glass :) plastic and all with leaks but it works for something they were going for.

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.
Anyway I just wanted to comment on the first point. Truth is I have no right to tell anyone what to do with their money. And of course GAS is real- it's a type of addiction. I certainly don't consider it a virtue :)

Believe it or not (as ridiculous as this may sound) I am trying to help when I make those comments I made - because it's kind of sad to see a group of people who could to me be doing better just upgrading to the next latest great thing and their photography with some rare counted exceptions seems stuck at the same level it was with the previous camera.

Because picture this- working within constraints, with limitations is what gets the art flow going. More and more options is just bad. There's even research now that backs this up a bit. It's knowing a particular tool and working it to its edge what gives you a "grammar" if you will to write a particular poetry with a certainly style. In the end it's up to the writer of course.

But again, I'll promise to shut up on this. I really mean well when I make those comments even if I may come across as a bit confrontational.

Sorry everyone :)

- Ricardo
 
Last edited:

nostatic

New member
Sorry, I missed this. But let me clarify what I am talking about there- I am talking about photographers with over 30 years of experience with big clients and/or photographers with a bachelor of arts or master degree in photography from CalArts (which is like saying a bit like "MIT" in engineering here in the USA). Some of them qualified to teach (and do so) the art of photography and they do work in photography.
Umm, my wife is faculty at CalArts. Since my phd is from Caltech, I consider the MIT reference a bit of an insult to CalArts :D

Trying to save "addicts" from themselves is a noble cause, but one that also ends up making you sound somewhat patronizing in the process. As for your other points, everyone has their own opinion. For example I see plenty of "Jaco only needed 4-strings" comments when people discuss extended range instruments. imho the pursuit of most anything these days is a mix of art and science. Certainly the case in music (my night job), and in digital media (my day job). How the percentages break down is up to the individual.
 

raist3d

Well-known member
Umm, my wife is faculty at CalArts. Since my phd is from Caltech, I consider the MIT reference a bit of an insult to CalArts :D
LOL. That's awesome :)

Trying to save "addicts" from themselves is a noble cause, but one that also ends up making you sound somewhat patronizing in the process. As for your other points, everyone has their own opinion. For example I see plenty of "Jaco only needed 4-strings" comments when people discuss extended range instruments. imho the pursuit of most anything these days is a mix of art and science. Certainly the case in music (my night job), and in digital media (my day job). How the percentages break down is up to the individual.
Well certainly it has individual things. What I can tell you is that I notice better work from great photographers who seem more inclined to say the tool doesn't matter vs the other camp. Not only in the ones I can see at present time, but the ones that one can read that are considered in history world class photographers.

Anyway, I will keep my promise, didn't mean to hijack this thread. I promise to follow up in private if you want to do so.
It's all good.

- Ricardo
 

jonoslack

Active member
LOL. That's awesome :)



Well certainly it has individual things. What I can tell you is that I notice better work from great photographers who seem more inclined to say the tool doesn't matter vs the other camp. Not only in the ones I can see at present time, but the ones that one can read that are considered in history world class photographers.

Anyway, I will keep my promise, didn't mean to hijack this thread.
- Ricardo
Well. a good place to stop. I agree with that absolutely and wholeheartedly
 

Braeside

New member
Jono, you mentioned you were unable to change from multi metering mode on your camera? I notice in the manual that the metering mode selected option will only take effect when intelligent face detection is off, I wonder if that was anything to do with your problem or not?

Sorry if granny and sucking eggs applies!

Cheers
 

jonoslack

Active member
Jono, you mentioned you were unable to change from multi metering mode on your camera? I notice in the manual that the metering mode selected option will only take effect when intelligent face detection is off, I wonder if that was anything to do with your problem or not?

Sorry if granny and sucking eggs applies!

Cheers
Thanks grandson :) You're right - I'd not turned it on, but it WAS on - even after a factory reset

all the best
 

ptomsu

Workshop Member
BTW same should be true also for AF point selection - will not work as long as intelligent face detection is on (at least with XE2, so I assume same for XT1).
 

kdriceman

New member
Hi there David
I'm not a serious pixel peeper myself, but these look awful, artifacts everywhere on Iridient and smudginess in LR. Comparing them to E-M1 files isn't funny.
Maybe Aperture will do better....... But when? I guess I'm going to have to bite the bullet and have a try with Silkypix :(.
I've emailed Fuji, I can't believe that this isn't going to be a really big deal, so maybe they'll sort it with a firmware update. I hope I can find a solution because I really love the camera!
Thank you for the offer! I'll keep it in mind, but I'm not in a hurry. One thing is that I won't be buying any more lenses yet.
Jono, I just got the XT 1 and I use LR, which doesn't have an update which includes the XT1 yet (yes, I think there is a LR5.4Beta floating around that has it, but I haven't tried to fine it yet). And the latest version of ACR will handle the XT1 raw files but it hasn't been incorporated into a new version of LR5. Anyway, I downloaded Adobe DNG convertor which will handle the XT1 raw files and ran them all through DNG convertor. My copy of LR5.3 was able to import and edit the files as DNG's. Now, I am literally in day 2 with the XT1 and don't know how LR handles these newly created DNG's, but I'm wondering 1) if this might be a viable option for you and Aperture (I'm assuming Aperture will process DNG's) and 2) How others that are more experienced than me in working with the converted files feel about this process.
 

greypilgrim

New member
Jono, I just got the XT 1 and I use LR, which doesn't have an update which includes the XT1 yet (yes, I think there is a LR5.4Beta floating around that has it, but I haven't tried to fine it yet). And the latest version of ACR will handle the XT1 raw files but it hasn't been incorporated into a new version of LR5. Anyway, I downloaded Adobe DNG convertor which will handle the XT1 raw files and ran them all through DNG convertor. My copy of LR5.3 was able to import and edit the files as DNG's. Now, I am literally in day 2 with the XT1 and don't know how LR handles these newly created DNG's, but I'm wondering 1) if this might be a viable option for you and Aperture (I'm assuming Aperture will process DNG's) and 2) How others that are more experienced than me in working with the converted files feel about this process.
Link for some info on Aperture and DNG's:

Aperture 2 and 3: Tips on Baseline DNG support

Doug
 

jonoslack

Active member
Jono, I just got the XT 1 and I use LR, which doesn't have an update which includes the XT1 yet (yes, I think there is a LR5.4Beta floating around that has it, but I haven't tried to fine it yet). And the latest version of ACR will handle the XT1 raw files but it hasn't been incorporated into a new version of LR5. Anyway, I downloaded Adobe DNG convertor which will handle the XT1 raw files and ran them all through DNG convertor. My copy of LR5.3 was able to import and edit the files as DNG's. Now, I am literally in day 2 with the XT1 and don't know how LR handles these newly created DNG's, but I'm wondering 1) if this might be a viable option for you and Aperture (I'm assuming Aperture will process DNG's) and 2) How others that are more experienced than me in working with the converted files feel about this process.
Hi there
Tragically , Apple don't support the more recent DNG standards. It's inexcusable, but files with lens corrections simply won't work in Aperture. Changing the camera model to the X100s, however , means that Aperture will read the RAF files directly, so the issue can be resolved (Thank you Ario)
 

kdriceman

New member
Hi there
Tragically , Apple don't support the more recent DNG standards. It's inexcusable, but files with lens corrections simply won't work in Aperture. Changing the camera model to the X100s, however , means that Aperture will read the RAF files directly, so the issue can be resolved (Thank you Ario)
The Apple vs Adobe war raging forward I suppose.
 

GrahamWelland

Subscriber & Workshop Member
Part of the DNG issue is what part of DNG do you support? It seems few support the normalized/linear/demosaic'd embedded image format and all of the converters seem to rely on the device specific embedded raw content which requires knowledge of the original camera. This is where I feel the whole 'archive' aspect of DNG falls apart IMHO. (You need both linear and raw DNG I believe)
 
Top