Jump to content

X-pro 2 sooc waxy skin?


Recommended Posts

I absolutely love my x-pro 1's rendering. Very film like without the horrible waxy skin that I hated on my x100s and x100t. However, the camera is not the fastest around, so when the x-pro 2 came around and reports started coming that the waxy skin was gone with the x trans 3 sensor I was happy and ready for a purchase. That was until dpreview in their list of cons stated that the waxy skin was still there. Huh?! So what is it? Is the waxy skin still there in high iso jpegs?

 

I shoot raw + jpeg fine, but only keep the raw as a sort of negative as I hate post processing. I prefer jpegs sooc! So shooting raw to eliminate waxy skin is not an option for me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Part of the problem is that everyone has a different definition of 'waxy skin.'. For one thing this term seems to be used exclusively in reference to Fuji. When people talk about excessive noise reduction on other brands of camera they tend to use terms like 'smearing of details'.

 

Personally, I think that what makes the effect different on Fuji is just X-Trans (any generation). X-Trans requires a fairly heavy amount of chroma denoising/color smoothing (usually built into the demosaicking processing step) to remove false colors. Without this step, which Bayer demosaickers have historically skiped entirely (most Bayer sensors having AA filters), X-Trans images of skin would contain lots of green and magenta artifacts at texture edges. With it, skin tone is smoothed out. You'll notice that in comparisons between X-Trans and Bayer images, the veins in peoples eyes are always gray/flesh-tone in X-Trans and (correctly) red in the Bayer images. This is the kind of detail one loses with X-Trans. NR -4 brings back the luminance noise, but it doesn't really bring back the chroma detail. 

 

All of this being said, it's still a somewhat subjective matter where personal preference plays a large role. And if you're not the type of person who zooms in to 100%, you may never even notice the lack of chroma detail.

 

Life is full of compromises, and if you want Fuji's sharpness (in lenses and sensor output), you may just have to decide to life with their sub-optimal CFA and camera ergonomics. (or wait for the Bayer medium format camera!)

Edited by kimcarsons
Link to post
Share on other sites

what I really don’t understand is that this supposed “ problem” appears only at high ISO and I really don’t think that I shoot portraits at high ISO so what is the problem?

 

However it is what it is. If one likes the rendition of colors and surfaces by Fuji one likes it, if one doesn’t one doesn’t. Fuji has had plenty of time to give this a thought and if they didn’t do anything is either because they don’t want to or can’t or, more likely, because they don’t see, as I do, the problem.

Link to post
Share on other sites

what I really don’t understand is that this supposed “ problem” appears only at high ISO and I really don’t think that I shoot portraits at high ISO so what is the problem?

 

However it is what it is. If one likes the rendition of colors and surfaces by Fuji one likes it, if one doesn’t one doesn’t. Fuji has had plenty of time to give this a thought and if they didn’t do anything is either because they don’t want to or can’t or, more likely, because they don’t see, as I do, the problem.

 

Not all photographs containing people are portraits.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no account for taste, but why? I simply don’t understand it. When I started taking pictures, a very long time ago, nobody in his right mind would have shot a portrait at 1600 ISO and above.

 

We all dealt with films that simply could have not been used that way and we didn’t.

 

At some point “ beauty “ photographers ( those whom shot make up and things like that)  used to overexpose 3 stops and underdevelop two stops.

 

This made sure that the skin tomes were pastel and the surface equalized ( I am talking of times before the widespread use of any computer!). 

 

But again “ unicuique suum ”  :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately I do have neither a Pro 2 nor a T2 so I cannot answer the original question. But I think the discussion is drifting away from the original question. Therefore I would like to encourage my fellow forum readers to come back to the original question. Are the SOOC images of the Pro2 as good as those of the Pro1 regarding waxy skin tones. What ever quality level this means compared to other cameras.

It is not a question what X-Trans can or cannot do what Beyer can or cannot do. It is also not a question if skin tones only occur on portrait shots and if it is wise to take pictures of people at high ISO.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately I do have neither a Pro 2 nor a T2 so I cannot answer the original question. But I think the discussion is drifting away from the original question. Therefore I would like to encourage my fellow forum readers to come back to the original question. Are the SOOC images of the Pro2 as good as those of the Pro1 regarding waxy skin tones. What ever quality level this means compared to other cameras.

It is not a question what X-Trans can or cannot do what Beyer can or cannot do. It is also not a question if skin tones only occur on portrait shots and if it is wise to take pictures of people at high ISO.

 

As someone who has used the X-Trans I, II and III camreas I would say there's not really any difference between the different generations of X-Trans far as the 'waxy skin tones' issue goes. However, the default noise reduction settings between the generations of camera do differ slightly.  That is, if someone thinks that the X-T1 has 'waxy skin tones' , they will likely think the same of the X-Pro2 (although maybe the new NR -4 setting will be enough to placate them) and it's beyond me why they would think that the X-Pro1 doesn't (maybe it's because ISO 6400 is so unusable on the X-Pro1 that they have no point of comparison?)

 

Maybe this is beyond the topic but I think it bears repeating that the problem is not just with SOOC JPEG images... It's also impossible to process the high ISO X-Trans RAW files in a way that preserves fine color detail (as well as one can with Bayer sensors anyway).

 

It probably doesn't help that the auto white balance on the X-Trans III cameras tends toward a somewhat ghoulish cool/green tint (although this is easily fixed by using the WB SHIFT option.)

Edited by kimcarsons
Link to post
Share on other sites

All digital cameras will have some compromises when used in low light - and the manufacturers need to balance these compromises in a way that suits the majority of their customers.  just my view - but I think older photographers may prefer a noise 'grain' effect - as we're used to film grain and that's what we expect to see at high ISO, whereas younger photographers raised on digital may prefer a cleaner/smoother looking low light image?

 

I live in Asia where Fuji is a very popular brand - and the typical profile of a Fuji photographer is a young woman.  They will generally be photographing people (often themselves) and the ideal is a smooth, white-skinned look - and they will use Apps mercilessly to achieve the desired look.  I think having this as your major customer base will influence how Fuji engineers balance the low-light compromises.

 

I guess many of us posting on here are, erm ..... rather more mature and perhaps a bit wrinkled, and so well beyond any salvation offered by a skin smoothing App.  I also bet that the subject of our photos is rarely, if ever, ourselves.  So we're not keen on the smooth, waxy skin look - but this compromise will be seen as desirable by Fuji's core customer base.

 

As an example, whenever I've been taking shots of my local friends in low light, and I see some excessive skin smoothing creeping in to the shots, my friends will comment on how good my camera is!

 

For what it's worth, I still prefer the skin tones and detail from my X-trans 1 equipped X-M1, as compared to my X-Trans II equipped X-E2.  So I'll be following this thread as part of my buying decision on upgrading to the X-Pro 2.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think in most western countries the typical Fuji user is someone over 50 or a much younger hipster.

 

I’ve compared my X-T1 to a X-pro 2 and couldn’t really see any significant difference but maybe others have better eyes and/or different expectations. Up until this point I haven’t seen any reason to upgrade, maybe will do so by the time the next generation of sensors will come to us

Link to post
Share on other sites

As someone who has used the X-Trans I, II and III camreas I would say there's not really any difference between the different generations of X-Trans far as the 'waxy skin tones' issue goes. However, the default noise reduction settings between the generations of camera do differ slightly.  That is, if someone thinks that the X-T1 has 'waxy skin tones' , they will likely think the same of the X-Pro2 (although maybe the new NR -4 setting will be enough to placate them) and it's beyond me why they would think that the X-Pro1 doesn't (maybe it's because ISO 6400 is so unusable on the X-Pro1 that they have no point of comparison?)

Sorry but I have to challenge this - it's nonsense on a couple of levels. I have both an X-Pro1 and an X-E2, shoot exclusively in JPEG, and find the difference between immense in low light. Far from being "unusable" 6400 on the X-Pro1 is excellent IMO - of course it loses some detail but people and things still look perfectly natural, at the default NR setting.

 

The X-E2 with its X-Trans II setup is a very different story. At anything over 1600 people start to look decidedly unnatural, progressively developing anything between a weird sheen, false texture, to the full on, classic waxwork. I see this all the time in pictures of my children at home when the lighting's not good - I have a pretty good idea of what my own children look like, the X-Pro1 gives me that, whereas some of the output from the X-E2 in the exact same circumstances is just plain bizarre in comparison.

 

The point you're missing when you talk about NR settings is that there is something else going on in these X-Trans II cameras with regards to skintones to which the NR setting simply doesn't apply. Turning NR all the way down on the X-E2 will have little or no effect in the situations I'm talking about, and I don't believe that making the dial go to -4 would do anything either other than increase the noise elsewhere in the image.

 

The X-Pro1 is a different beast altogether and suffers none of these issues. I sincerely hope (from what I've read) that the X-Pro2 is similar.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry but I have to challenge this - it's nonsense on a couple of levels. I have both an X-Pro1 and an X-E2, shoot exclusively in JPEG, and find the difference between immense in low light. Far from being "unusable" 6400 on the X-Pro1 is excellent IMO - of course it loses some detail but people and things still look perfectly natural, at the default NR setting.

 

The X-E2 with its X-Trans II setup is a very different story. At anything over 1600 people start to look decidedly unnatural, progressively developing anything between a weird sheen, false texture, to the full on, classic waxwork. I see this all the time in pictures of my children at home when the lighting's not good - I have a pretty good idea of what my own children look like, the X-Pro1 gives me that, whereas some of the output from the X-E2 in the exact same circumstances is just plain bizarre in comparison.

 

The point you're missing when you talk about NR settings is that there is something else going on in these X-Trans II cameras with regards to skintones to which the NR setting simply doesn't apply. Turning NR all the way down on the X-E2 will have little or no effect in the situations I'm talking about, and I don't believe that making the dial go to -4 would do anything either other than increase the noise elsewhere in the image.

 

The X-Pro1 is a different beast altogether and suffers none of these issues. I sincerely hope (from what I've read) that the X-Pro2 is similar.

 

 

I'm not missing it, in fact I pointed it out: the NR setting only affects the luminance noise reduction, it doesn't affect the chrominance NR.

 

I have the X-Pro1 (X-Trans I) X70 (X-Trans II) and X-T2 (X Trans III) so I do have some basis for comparison. Personally, I find the X-Pro1's output to be rather unlovely above ISO 1600, but then I'm not going for the gritty B&W street look either.

 

Admittedly, I shoot RAW + JPEG and rarely like the JPEG output from any of the cameras (NR-wise) for high ISO shots better than what I can get from processing the RAW files (I can preserve more detail processing them myself.) I always look at the JPEG as a baseline, though.

 

I'm afraid that all of us spouting our subjective opinions on the matter isn't doing much to clear things up. Has anyone competent done a direct comparison between the generations of X-Trans that shows the 'waxy skin tones' issue and how X-Trans I is immune from it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

If i hadn't just sent my X-Pro1 in for a minor repair I'd absolutely do a controlled comparison - I have many, many examples but nothing that a nitpicker couldn't put down to differences in lens, lighting, wind speed etc. I need my children to sit still one evening while I bore them with test shots.

 

In the meantime here's a SOOC jpeg from the XP1 taken at a ridiculous 12800 ISO and lit only by a distant bonfire - I don't consider it "unusable" or waxy, what do you think?

 

https://flic.kr/p/PbEyeo

Link to post
Share on other sites

If i hadn't just sent my X-Pro1 in for a minor repair I'd absolutely do a controlled comparison - I have many, many examples but nothing that a nitpicker couldn't put down to differences in lens, lighting, wind speed etc. I need my children to sit still one evening while I bore them with test shots.

 

In the meantime here's a SOOC jpeg from the XP1 taken at a ridiculous 12800 ISO and lit only by a distant bonfire - I don't consider it "unusable" or waxy, what do you think?

 

https://flic.kr/p/PbEyeo

 

Well that certainly looks better than anything I ever got out of the X-Pro1 above ISO 1600... However, I think it's largely because of the lighting and the subject. I will say that this image does exhibit the main problem with X-Trans (esp high ISO) and that is the much reduced chroma detail. Notice that her teeth and the whites of her eyes are the same color as her skin. I sincerely doubt the real scene shared that quality. If this were white-balanced to correct for the color cast of the light, it would be more obvious. Children make a poor example for the 'waxy-skin' issue anyway because they have perfect, smooth skin naturally. It's on older people with splotchy skin, blemishes, burst capillaries, bloodshot eyes, etc. that it becomes noticeable (i.e. that those features are missing from the images.)

 

It doesn't have to be skin either. It just has to be something with fine (particularly red or blue) color detail against a different ground color. You'll never get as much color differentiation/detail from X-Trans as a Bayer sensor of the same resolution. It's just a fact: The red/blue photosites simply aren't there in the same proportion and frequency. And it's also a fact that this applies equally to all generations of X-Trans.

Link to post
Share on other sites

what I really don’t understand is that this supposed “ problem” appears only at high ISO and I really don’t think that I shoot portraits at high ISO so what is the problem?

 

However it is what it is. If one likes the rendition of colors and surfaces by Fuji one likes it, if one doesn’t one doesn’t. Fuji has had plenty of time to give this a thought and if they didn’t do anything is either because they don’t want to or can’t or, more likely, because they don’t see, as I do, the problem.

 

 

There is no account for taste, but why? I simply don’t understand it. When I started taking pictures, a very long time ago, nobody in his right mind would have shot a portrait at 1600 ISO and above.

 

We all dealt with films that simply could have not been used that way and we didn’t.

 

At some point “ beauty “ photographers ( those whom shot make up and things like that)  used to overexpose 3 stops and underdevelop two stops.

 

This made sure that the skin tomes were pastel and the surface equalized ( I am talking of times before the widespread use of any computer!). 

 

But again “ unicuique suum ”  :rolleyes:

 

Then you haven't shot events where flash is discouraged/not allowed.

 

I do a lot of wedding and event shooting and am routinely shooting at 1600-3200 in ambient light. JPGs in most lighting scenarios at those settings do have too much smoothing, which makes skin look unnatural. However, I really like Fuji overall and am willing to shoot RAW to avoid that; that being said, I'd be more likely to buy a new camera if the phenomenon was alleviated/reduced.

 

 

Poor light existed even before digital photography, and you couldn’t shoot portraits with film at Asa/Iso above 1600.

 

No box contains chops.

 

In any case, it is what it is.

 

 

Well now you can shoot portraits with digital chips at/above ASA 1600, and there are clients who expect you to do just that.

 

Different photographers have different needs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I have, with appropriate measures like for example using a monopod , but you may mean events in total darkness.

 

Recently I went to a birthday party where the official photographer was shooting, with a Nikon, in near total darkness or where there was no light to speak of. There was no prohibition to use a flash.

 

Analogically, I’ve never shot a portrait any higher than 400ASA and Digitally, I think that I’ve shot one portrait at 1600ISO.  Anyway, like for the IBIS thing, this seems to be a big deal for some and not for others.

 

I suppose that it simply mean that fuji’s are not for everyone. If you like them you do, if you don’t you don’t.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I used to have an x100s and x100t and I started noticing the waxy/smoothed skin on my kids when shooting very early on. I really hated it and started to Google the phenomenon without, at that point, knowing to search for 'waxy skin'. I sold both those cameras and got a used x-pro 1 while waiting for the x-t2 to be released and I absolutely love the pictures coming from that camera. No waxy skin, just fine grain, when shooting high iso. I usually don't go beyond iso 3200 unless there is good lighting. So, unless the x-t2/pro 2 shows the same kind of 'organic' high iso IQ I will stick with my x-pro 1. Slow AF and all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Having had all three generations of cameras, the Pro2 (and by extension T2) does not have the waxy skin tone problem from the X100S/T generation cameras. I moved from a Pro1 to T1 and sold the T1 in a month after encountering that issue; happily went back to my Pro1.

 

The new cameras have the added benefit of being usable up to 12800 where my Pro1 was suable up to 6400.

Edited by darngooddesign
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I have, with appropriate measures like for example using a monopod , but you may mean events in total darkness.

 

Recently I went to a birthday party where the official photographer was shooting, with a Nikon, in near total darkness or where there was no light to speak of. There was no prohibition to use a flash.

 

Analogically, I’ve never shot a portrait any higher than 400ASA and Digitally, I think that I’ve shot one portrait at 1600ISO.  Anyway, like for the IBIS thing, this seems to be a big deal for some and not for others.

 

I suppose that it simply mean that fuji’s are not for everyone. If you like them you do, if you don’t you don’t.

 

 

Firstly, I have no desire to drag a monopod around at a wedding reception - never mind a monopod on each body. Secondly, I have no desire to shoot living subjects at shutter speeds so slow I need a monopod. Thirdly, not everything is so black and white; it's possible to like something without liking every single aspect of it. Just because I don't like Fuji's high ISO JPGs, that doesn't mean I don't like Fuji cameras or that they aren't for me.

 

There's no need to be rude and insult other people's shooting techniques, especially when the thread doesn't seem to be relevant to you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wasn’t rude, quite the contrary. But we are all different and that in the end means that one likes a system for what it is, or not.  I don’t find the “ waxing” a problem, you do? Very well!

 

In that case, you may very well, politely, make you point and I will equally politely make mine, this is what a forum is all about. Exchanging experiences and ideas.

 

Don’t confuse a discussion with an altercation. In the end we both do what we do and will keep doing it, whether we agree or disagree.

Edited by milandro
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...