Rayyan, you must be dumb.

[Jorgen Udvang]

You what ? ? :ROTFL: ? ? :banghead: ?

Yup, I have two actually, one with and one without movements. A bunch of lenses too, and the neck strap, just in case I want to kill myself by hanging something really heavy around my neck :chug:

If you really want to slow down, this is the Fuji for you :grin:

Here's what mine looks like without the compendium shade, although this is not my photo or camera:

Photo copyright: Danny Burk

 

[ptomsu]

Yup, I have two actually, one with and one without movements. A bunch of lenses too, and the neck strap, just in case I want to kill myself by hanging something really heavy around my neck :chug:

If you really want to slow down, this is the Fuji for you :grin:

Here's what mine looks like without the compendium shade, although this is not my photo or camera:

Photo copyright: Danny Burk

Nice setup! Reminds me on my Rolleiflex 6008 time :facesmack:

Travelled half the world with it and made some great memories with it :clap:

Anyway today I would get a GFX.

 

[rayyan]

Norm, thanks for working through the raf file.
My standards are very low..

It must be my eyesight or my paranoia, that could be the issue!

Best.

p.s. i am thankful, though, to the very civil members here for not agreeing with
my wife’s assertion of me being dumb.

Openly, at least!

Rayyan thank you for making the raw of your Philippines landscape available. Here are the results of my sharpening using only the current version of LR

........

To tell you the truth, I was, to use the English phrase, Gobsmacked, by the quality and detail of the greens, and the overall level of detail from a 24 megapixel camera. Since our two files look quite similar, your standards must be very high indeed.

Norm

 

[Shashin]

Still I am seeing things!

But you have also trained yourself to recognize where the effect happen and are sensitizing yourself to it. Try making a descent size print and show it to someone. And simply ask if they see anything odd without pointing out what you are looking for? See what the reaction is.

I have been looking at your RAW file. You have a difficult scene, not only is it all green, the greens are toward the blue rather than yellow. Also, contrast is really low, which can be a source of the painterly effect. But this is also a 24MP image. While I can see areas that are not ideal--areas in the background, not the foreground--this is also at 100% monitor view. I think you will find that on an actual print that these artifacts are not a problem. Naturally, when I resize, the artifacts disappear. BTW, I am opening this in Iridient Developer and reducing the sharpening in the details panel--in your situation, the ID sharpening can emphasize the effect. In Photoshop I am applying sharpening. While this might seem a little strange, you can also increase the radius to around 2 to give more contrast without impacting the finer details that can cause the painterly effects (do this at 100%).

Besides, I thought you lived in the desert? Why are you so worried about the greens? ;-)

 

[Norm N]

Rayyan, I could not resist coming back to this file one more time:



You can see a woman and little person at what looks to be a picnic, as well as a third person above and to the right. At the level of detail thats being expressed, I don't think you have to worry about worms or artifacts either. On my screen the original is just beginning to pixelate.

Your photo has answered my qualms about using the X-H1 for landscape photography. I now have no worries!

Thanks again,

Norm

 

[Shashin]

Norm, I would say your images does show the wormy nature of the X Trans. Here is my image from Iridient Developer and Photoshop.

The whole image:

The section you show at 100%:

 

[Norm N]

Finally,



These appear to be water vapor filaments, not artifacts,

Norm

 

[Shashin]

Finally,

These appear to be water vapor filaments, not artifacts,

Norm

Definitely artifacts. LR is not really great for X-Trans files and with high frequency green, sharpening can really show the wormy/painterly effect.

 

[rayyan]

Thanks Will for your time. Advice gratefully received.

My friend, it is coz I live in a desert! I do not know if that is real or artificial

Take care.

But you have also trained yourself to recognize where the effect happen and are sensitizing yourself to it. Try making a descent size print and show it to someone. And simply ask if they see anything odd without pointing out what you are looking for? See what the reaction is.

I have been looking at your RAW file. You have a difficult scene, not only is it all green, the greens are toward the blue rather than yellow. Also, contrast is really low, which can be a source of the painterly effect. But this is also a 24MP image. While I can see areas that are not ideal--areas in the background, not the foreground--this is also at 100% monitor view. I think you will find that on an actual print that these artifacts are not a problem. Naturally, when I resize, the artifacts disappear. BTW, I am opening this in Iridient Developer and reducing the sharpening in the details panel--in your situation, the ID sharpening can emphasize the effect. In Photoshop I am applying sharpening. While this might seem a little strange, you can also increase the radius to around 2 to give more contrast without impacting the finer details that can cause the painterly effects (do this at 100%).

Besides, I thought you lived in the desert? Why are you so worried about the greens? ;-)

 

[rayyan]

Norm thanks for the time you put into this.

And I am honestly glad you seem ok with this.

Me? I was born and remain a cynic..when I am in the best of mental health.

Hang loose Bro.

Rayyan, I could not resist coming back to this file one more time:

.......

You can see a woman and little person at what looks to be a picnic, as well as a third person above and to the right. At the level of detail thats being expressed, I don't think you have to worry about worms or artifacts either. On my screen the original is just beginning to pixelate.

Your photo has answered my qualms about using the X-H1 for landscape photography. I now have no worries!

Thanks again,

Norm

 

[Norm N]

Shashin,

Oh my goodness, I really should know better than to enter into a discussion like this.

I will readily concede that your image is far sharper than mine, and I hope that you will concede that my image has a far greater range of color tonality in the greens.

Lets leave it there. I'm not into raw converter fights.

Norm

 

[Satrycon]

this image is quite nice, lots of details considering the distance...i personally think the ISO should have been 100 but i don't know the situation it was shot in...

anyways : out from raw therapee..bit of exposure adjustment & tiny bit of sharpness..everything else off


i don't see any smearing or worms anywhere

 

[Satrycon]

The full image compressed and resized


View attachment 133252

 

[Shashin]

Shashin,

Oh my goodness, I really should know better than to enter into a discussion like this.

I will readily concede that your image is far sharper than mine, and I hope that you will concede that my image has a far greater range of color tonality in the greens.

Lets leave it there. I'm not into raw converter fights.

Norm

Norm, Fuji files have always provided a bit of a problem with greens. And processing at some point becomes subjective--everyone has submitted different interpretations of the file. I was not really trying for an argument, but just trying to figure out Rayyan's issue with painterly greens. I just saw in your images what Rayyan was really concerned about and so I thought I would jump in--not as a criticism of your processing, but reflecting on Rayyan's problem. I'm not looking for anything but information for the discussion. I also think that Rayyan could be very satisfied with his Fuji cameras.

I am sorry if you thought I was directly criticizing you.

 

[Norm N]

Norm, Fuji files have always provided a bit of a problem with greens. And processing at some point becomes subjective--everyone has submitted different interpretations of the file. I was not really trying for an argument, but just trying to figure out Rayyan's issue with painterly greens. I just saw in your images what Rayyan was really concerned about and so I thought I would jump in--not as a criticism of your processing, but reflecting on Rayyan's problem. I'm not looking for anything but information for the discussion. I also think that Rayyan could be very satisfied with his Fuji cameras.

I am sorry if you thought I was directly criticizing you.

Okay, explanation accepted,

Norm

 

[retow]

This whole thread of constructive discussions and contributions shows why the x-trans sensor is not for everyone. I did my piece of trying (x-t1, x-pro2) and stay away since.

 

[rayyan]

Thanks to all of you kind folks that contributed constructively to this post. I have learned a lot. :clap:

My special thanks to Will, and Norm for having spent their valuable time in this discussion and post processing.
Thanks also to Satrycon for his post processed image.

My views ( from an average long time experience of photographing various scenarios with different camera/lens combinations ) are briefly as follows:

1. These scenes and the near/middle/far details are without doubt pretty challenging for any cameras that I used/use.
2. All camera/lens combos perform their best for certain subjects and that too under certain conditions. ( not all cams I have used can handle the extreme colors..greens, reds etc with one in sunlight while other rests under a shadow, fog, cloud cover. Diffraction limits of APS-C cameras come into effect sooner. If fine details have to be resolved at extreme distances..most prosumer cams have a tough time.
3. The nature of my purposely planned travel, this trip, exposed me, and my cams to extreme conditions. Weather wise and scenario wise.

4. The Fuji XPRO-2 handled MOST situations with aplomb. I would not have any hesitation to carry it with me anywhere and use it exclusively. However, I would not subject it to certain ( very very few ) instances where it might struggle. But it would have to be a real challenging situation.

5. No camera is suited for all situations equally well. Know the weakness/strength of what one has..and use it to its strengths.

6. Post processing software...I am not an expert in any. Suffice to say, certain sw did better for me with respect to the X-Trans.

Another hill/valley scene with extremely fine detail. I am standing way up while taking this image. Fuji XPro-2 with the XF 14/2.8.

Processed through C1 Pro 11.xxx and CS6 for minor cropping and web output.

7. The below is just a selection from a 100% view of the image above selected thru CS6 and saved for web at maximum quality...

Folks this is , shall we say, a 24 mp cropped sensor..and that too with a certain technology ( with its inherent limitations and strengths ). A 21mm ( 35mm FF equivalent ) lens handheld.

Judge for yourselves.

Thanks once again for your valuable inputs.

p.s. the link that Bart kindly found re: how many MP needed, is informative. Putting my nose on the monitor, only dirties the monitor..bringing it out of specs!!

 

[Norm N]

Rayvan, a beautiful photo, and it really shows what Fuji Xtrans and the lenses can deliver.

Regarding the previous photo, I just uncrated a new IMAC Pro, and the latest version of LR can take advantage of it.
So here is a section of your photo using 100% detail:



Forgive me.

Norm

 

[Norm N]

Actually, the detail level is 87%, 100% was too sharp in my eyes. Here is the newly processed photo:




Your photo isn't too shabby for a 24 megapixel camera. C1 may do even better.

 

[rayyan]

Norm, I truly appreciate the time and effort you have expended over this image. Thank you.

If one gets away, there are plenty more in the sea..or a few clicks away! Let's enjoy what we have, and be thankful, to whoever we thank, for being blessed with these luxuries.

Colors, you say?

Around the world with the XT-1 and the 18-55mm.