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!

Someone having a decent raw from the X1D to share?

ErikKaffehr

Well-known member
Hi,

Honestly, all the raws I have seen from the X1D are horrible. Someone having some nice raw from the X1D to share?

Best regards
Erik
 
Off topic: TNC has spotted that the GFX has better high ISO performance than 645Z.

Fuji has been infamous for its highly inflated ISO numbers. I am unable to download RAW files from IR, so I can't confirm whether this is the case for the GFX.

As for the X1D, I'm also curious to see IR releasing RAW files.
 
Did you try the samples from Dpreview?

Maybe they are not the best photos, but I found them quite instructive, as regards lens sharpness and micro-contrast, colors (Phocus compared to Lightroom) and handling of extreme dynamic range situations.
 

D&A

Well-known member
Off topic: TNC has spotted that the GFX has better high ISO performance than 645Z.

Fuji has been infamous for its highly inflated ISO numbers. I am unable to download RAW files from IR, so I can't confirm whether this is the case for the GFX.

As for the X1D, I'm also curious to see IR releasing RAW files.
First let me say, whether I use a camera in question or not and if it happens to be superseded by a competitor, that's fine as there is always going to be leapfrogging as each successive model is released by the respective companies.

With that out of the way, there was something very curious about the 1st posted comparison image at base ISO between the Fuji GFX vs Pentax 645Z. Look at the feet and bottom of the robe in each image. Both cameras are close to a dead heat or maybe a slight advantage goes to the 645Z. Yet if one looks at and compares the upper regions of the image, the Pentax is much softer and clearly the GFX is superior. It appears the Pentax camera was not perpendicular to the test image when captured or possibly misalignment of the lens itself?

This would then translate to the high ISO comparative images since from what I recall, it only shows the upper region of the test image. I suspect if it showed the lower part of the robe in the image, it would be close as it was in the base ISO test.

I rarely question IR and have a lot of respect for their methodology but I'm surprised they missed this.

Did they mention which lenses are they using on each of the respective cameras? That too is worth knowing.

Dave (D&A)
 

tashley

Subscriber Member
Hi,

Honestly, all the raws I have seen from the X1D are horrible. Someone having some nice raw from the X1D to share?

Best regards
Erik
What sort of thing are you looking for Erik? I will try to help, but we might have different ideas about what 'horrible' means. Are you referring to poor shooting technique, subject matter, or merely of the opinion that all the files you have seen look as if the camera isn't very convincing compared to some benchmark you have in mind?
 

ErikKaffehr

Well-known member
Hi Tim,

These are the raw images I have found from the X1D:
Screen Shot 2017-03-05 at 11.00.07.jpg

I may be mistaken, but neither contains any information usable. Skin tones are very unnatural and there is no grey reference, so it is difficult to find a proper white balance. The lady in the white dress is Hasselblad's only raw sample I have found.

What I would like to see is images with natural colours and perhaps a decent colour checker shot, so a profile can be built. Some folks says that Phocus and LR are close in rendition and some say LR is scrap.

The images you shared are great, as far as I recall, but I think they are in JPEG only.

I hope that you are happy with the X1D!

Best regards
Erik


What sort of thing are you looking for Erik? I will try to help, but we might have different ideas about what 'horrible' means. Are you referring to poor shooting technique, subject matter, or merely of the opinion that all the files you have seen look as if the camera isn't very convincing compared to some benchmark you have in mind?
 

tashley

Subscriber Member
Hi Tim,

These are the raw images I have found from the X1D:
View attachment 125334

I may be mistaken, but neither contains any information usable. Skin tones are very unnatural and there is no grey reference, so it is difficult to find a proper white balance. The lady in the white dress is Hasselblad's only raw sample I have found.

What I would like to see is images with natural colours and perhaps a decent colour checker shot, so a profile can be built. Some folks says that Phocus and LR are close in rendition and some say LR is scrap.

The images you shared are great, as far as I recall, but I think they are in JPEG only.

I hope that you are happy with the X1D!

Best regards
Erik
Erik, at the top of the thread I started (first thoughts) there's a link to the Jpegs as you note but in the 'fun with' thread there's a link to two useful RAW files. When it stops raining I will take some shots with a WB card. In the meantime if there are any of the shots in the jpeg gallery that might be useful I can upload some RAW images. Just let me know!
 

Tmuussoni

New member
First let me say, whether I use a camera in question or not and if it happens to be superseded by a competitor, that's fine as there is always going to be leapfrogging as each successive model is released by the respective companies.

With that out of the way, there was something very curious about the 1st posted comparison image at base ISO between the Fuji GFX vs Pentax 645Z. Look at the feet and bottom of the robe in each image. Both cameras are close to a dead heat or maybe a slight advantage goes to the 645Z. Yet if one looks at and compares the upper regions of the image, the Pentax is much softer and clearly the GFX is superior. It appears the Pentax camera was not perpendicular to the test image when captured or possibly misalignment of the lens itself?

This would then translate to the high ISO comparative images since from what I recall, it only shows the upper region of the test image. I suspect if it showed the lower part of the robe in the image, it would be close as it was in the base ISO test.

I rarely question IR and have a lot of respect for their methodology but I'm surprised they missed this.

Did they mention which lenses are they using on each of the respective cameras? That too is worth knowing.

Dave (D&A)
Some good points. According to Exif info Pentax had 55/2.8 and for Fuji 63/2.8. Studio shots taken at f/8 for both cameras.
 

algrove

Well-known member
First let me say, whether I use a camera in question or not and if it happens to be superseded by a competitor, that's fine as there is always going to be leapfrogging as each successive model is released by the respective companies.

With that out of the way, there was something very curious about the 1st posted comparison image at base ISO between the Fuji GFX vs Pentax 645Z. Look at the feet and bottom of the robe in each image. Both cameras are close to a dead heat or maybe a slight advantage goes to the 645Z. Yet if one looks at and compares the upper regions of the image, the Pentax is much softer and clearly the GFX is superior. It appears the Pentax camera was not perpendicular to the test image when captured or possibly misalignment of the lens itself?

This would then translate to the high ISO comparative images since from what I recall, it only shows the upper region of the test image. I suspect if it showed the lower part of the robe in the image, it would be close as it was in the base ISO test.

I rarely question IR and have a lot of respect for their methodology but I'm surprised they missed this.

Did they mention which lenses are they using on each of the respective cameras? That too is worth knowing.

Dave (D&A)
Dave you make a good point as when I had the 645Z and 55/2.8 I found that lens sharp as a tack from corner to corner in my images.
 

ErikKaffehr

Well-known member
Hi Tim,

Thanks for the images! Quite interesting!

Regarding the ColorChecker shot I often find that it yields a bit warm colours for my taste, but it is useful anyway.

Best regards
Erik

 

tashley

Subscriber Member
Hi Tim,

Thanks for the images! Quite interesting!

Regarding the ColorChecker shot I often find that it yields a bit warm colours for my taste, but it is useful anyway.

Best regards
Erik
I will be very interested to hear your thoughts. Those were all hand-held and with the 90mm by the way.
 

tashley

Subscriber Member
Are you using the Xrite color checker with their Passport camera calibration profile generator?

G

No - Erik asked for a shot with the Passport in it so he could take a look but I stopped using it myself ages ago because it pretty much never gave a better result than the manufacturer's profile. It was sometimes useful on older and vintage lenses where the coating might be a little funky and so the colour was off, but overall I thought it was a a bit of a faff around with no real benefit.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the RAWs. As somebody new to Hasselblad, I played a little bit with your files. Lightroom versus Phocus.

I am not that convinced about the Phocus adjustment tools and probably prefer to stay with Lightroom.

I am a little bit confused as I see subtle but considerable differences between these 3 filetypes in Lightroom:

1) *.3FR files (can be seen in Lightroom but not in Phocus, have to be imported as *.FFF)
2) *.FFF files (as imported in Phocus, can also be seen in Lightroom)
3) *.DNG (as exported from Phocus)

The DNGs are smallest, 3FR biggest files. From the samples you send with the 90mm, I personally and consistently liked most the DNG conversions (previous any further adjustments).

TIFs (can't see any differences between 8bit and 16bit) exported from Phocus look quite different in Lightroom than the previous 3 file types. Not only regarding lens corrections, but also as for colors (especially blues) and shadow corrections (not very good anymore compared to the raws).

I would be interested about your opinions, as far as the best file/RAW-strategy for Lightroom goes.
 

tashley

Subscriber Member
Thanks for the RAWs. As somebody new to Hasselblad, I played a little bit with your files. Lightroom versus Phocus.

I am not that convinced about the Phocus adjustment tools and probably prefer to stay with Lightroom.

I am a little bit confused as I see subtle but considerable differences between these 3 filetypes in Lightroom:

1) *.3FR files (can be seen in Lightroom but not in Phocus, have to be imported as *.FFF)
2) *.FFF files (as imported in Phocus, can also be seen in Lightroom)
3) *.DNG (as exported from Phocus)

The DNGs are smallest, 3FR biggest files. From the samples you send with the 90mm, I personally and consistently liked most the DNG conversions (previous any further adjustments).

TIFs (can't see any differences between 8bit and 16bit) exported from Phocus look quite different in Lightroom than the previous 3 file types. Not only regarding lens corrections, but also as for colors (especially blues) and shadow corrections (not very good anymore compared to the raws).

I would be interested about your opinions, as far as the best file/RAW-strategy for Lightroom goes.
So would I ! :ROTFL:

In truth I am waiting for proper lens corrections to arrive in LR and then I will compare. I *think* I sometimes see a little colour shading in LR which is absent in Phocus but I could be wrong. For now I just chuck everything through LR with the option of using Phocus if I want lens corrections but when I start using the camera seriously, for images that matter, I will bottom it out in more detail....

Per the 8 bit /16 bit thing, that might be monitor dependent. I'm not sure what colour space and resolution you monitor has, but assuming that all monitors are capable of showing what comes off a sensor is a risky business!
 
So would I ! :ROTFL:

In truth I am waiting for proper lens corrections to arrive in LR and then I will compare. I *think* I sometimes see a little colour shading in LR which is absent in Phocus but I could be wrong. For now I just chuck everything through LR with the option of using Phocus if I want lens corrections but when I start using the camera seriously, for images that matter, I will bottom it out in more detail....

Per the 8 bit /16 bit thing, that might be monitor dependent. I'm not sure what colour space and resolution you monitor has, but assuming that all monitors are capable of showing what comes off a sensor is a risky business!
Sure, would be nice if Lightroom comes up with some lens profiles, although I could live without them. The quite strong vignetting can be corrected manually and the rest ....

Something "magical" goes on in the conversion from 3f to FFF, apparently they change (among other things) the white balance. This can be seen even later in Lightroom where the temp and tint altered ..
 

ErikKaffehr

Well-known member
Hi,

I would agree with Tim.

The great benefit with the colour checker is that the grey fields can be used for grey (white balance) reference.

Regarding colour profiles, it is a mixed bag. A colour checker is useful for building a colour profile, but that needs good knowledge of the illuminant. Another aspect is that a profile is just a profile, it may or may not be an improvement over built or available profiles.

On the other hand, building your own profile can be useful. When using the P45+ back I always preferred home made profiles over the ones delivered by Adobe and Phase One, with Sony, my preference was to stay with Adobe Standard until DCamProf came around.

Best regards
Erik




No - Erik asked for a shot with the Passport in it so he could take a look but I stopped using it myself ages ago because it pretty much never gave a better result than the manufacturer's profile. It was sometimes useful on older and vintage lenses where the coating might be a little funky and so the colour was off, but overall I thought it was a a bit of a faff around with no real benefit.
 
Sure, would be nice if Lightroom comes up with some lens profiles, although I could live without them. The quite strong vignetting can be corrected manually and the rest ....

Something "magical" goes on in the conversion from 3f to FFF, apparently they change (among other things) the white balance. This can be seen even later in Lightroom where the temp and tint altered ..
Sorry, is that "magical" an somewhat random comment or something more specific? I see that you mentioned above that you thought there was a slight difference before the 3FR & FFF files, but I'm new to Hassy files and if you or anyone has more info or opinions on this I would GREATLY appreciate it. I will also try to test my files tomorrow.

Thanks,
Josh
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
No - Erik asked for a shot with the Passport in it so he could take a look but I stopped using it myself ages ago because it pretty much never gave a better result than the manufacturer's profile. It was sometimes useful on older and vintage lenses where the coating might be a little funky and so the colour was off, but overall I thought it was a a bit of a faff around with no real benefit.
I've used it mostly to create a profile for some obscene multiple light source situations and to calibrate two or more cameras to produce the same results, but otherwise I agree with you.

G
 
Top