Jump to content

Alan7140

Members
  • Posts

    10
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Alan7140's Achievements

  1. The 2,8/50 Touit Makro is worth every cent over cheaper alternatives. True 1:1 magnification with no need for extension tubes or close-up dioptres, and Zeiss image quality that is to die for. The AF does hunt a bit at times, but who uses AF with macro photography, anyway? It remains one of my favourite lenses for my X-cameras.
  2. Taking this right back to the beginning perhaps explains the problem best. I got my X-Pro1 in late June 2012, probably from the second or third batch into Australia. Adobe came out with their ACR support for RAF soon afterwards, but my first few weeks were spent shooting OOC jpeg while familiarising myself with the camera. Once I started to process raw files with ACR I noticed that things weren't the best, but compared to SilkyPix (I use Windows, they were the only two RAF processors available at the time) there was not much difference, although SP seemed a bit softer and ACR more contrasty. Then Corel got on the RAF train (September 2012) with their process in PaintShop Pro X5, and while worse overall, it probably best reveals why both early SilkyPix and ACR acted like they did. Below are two 100% sections of a photo I took at the time deliberately to highlight with vegetation and high contrast edge rendition I'd been noticing with ACR (and to a lesser degree with SilkyPix), and which many later called the "zipper effect". The first is ACR, the second is Corel PSP X5. (Again, these are the first 2012 versions of RAF processing, not the current versions): The Corel version perhaps shows the problem that Adobe etc with Fuji files, and the original dcraw showed a similar result to the PSP X5 version - spurious coloured pixels appearing along high contrast edges (note the lines between grille and white paint on the car and around the number plate, and the choppy edges of the geometric grille pattern against white plain detail; in fact anywhere there is a high contrast edge. If you compare the top edge of the door mirror you can just see the slight waviness in the edge of the Adobe version corresponding to where the rows of spurious pixels occur in the X5 version, again probably confirming default filter application designed to smooth edges. My guess was (and still is) that both SilkyPix and Adobe tackled this with a default addition of noise reduction (more heavily so in Adobe's case), and compensated for the NR's softening of detail and loss of colour by adding a hefty dose of saturation and sharpening. The spreading of colour in the two sticks embedded in the ground further attests to the likelihood of NR having been applied - the green/yellow colour of the grass spreading has nearly killed the brown in the highlights. As mentioned, I tried dcraw in command line form when Mac forums started mentioning it as being the basis for RPP & Iridient, and it gave a similar result to Corel's demosaic, but Dave Coffin then responded quickly to criticism and changed his demosaic algorithm to give the clean, sharp rendition that is with us today as the basis of programs such as Photo Ninja, Iridient, RPP, LightZone, Photivo, Helicon Filter, etc etc. Corel took a lot longer to respond, and still hasn't quite got there with Aftershot Pro. Adobe (and probably SilkyPix) on the other hand, seem to have stuck with their original algorithm and simply refined the degree of default NR, saturation and sharpening applied to reduce the outline and spreading effect of the original. This would probably also explain why Adobe ACR/LR/DNG files in particular can react so nervously to post sharpening, sharpening apparently already having been applied by default during the demosaic. Until someone from any of the companies mentioned actually comes out and publicly states that this is not the case (and they haven't in five years), then I'm inclined to stick with the above explanation. As such ACR/LR/DNG is basically flawed in my book, and while many might think their results are good enough, my personal quality standards (and those of many others) won't permit me to use ACR for any commercial job. One never knows how the final image may be used, at what size and with what enhancements, and as such it is the professional's duty to provide the best possible image to the client, not one that may - or may not - be "good enough". Iridient's X-Transformer is definitely a viable demosaic alternative to those who feel welded to Adobe and the ease of ACR/LR, just be sure to properly tune the base settings (to their credit Iridient do listen and have already changed the defaults at least once).
  3. I've opened it in both Photo Ninja and Iridient X-Transformer just fine. I then opened it in Adobe DNG converter and it's crap. The problem lies with something Adobe is misinterpreting something, not with the camera or the file. At some stage there finally will be a general realisation that Adobe is hopeless at handling X-Trans; it hasn't "improved", it isn't "good enough", and it is, in fact, just plain hopeless, full stop. Adobe never has cared about X-Trans, nor will they ever. Just use any of the other processors available that have had more than enough endorsements here and in many other forums, and don't lose sleep over using something other than ACR/LR to process your RAFs. If you are tied to LR by an unbreakable umbilical cord, by all means just use X-Transformer to demosaic, save as DNG and use LR/ACR for edit adjustments and cataloguing. That workflow works just fine.
  4. As nobody is confirming this, I guess you should either look at your settings or how you are using your camera. From what I see there is no difference on the LCD to the camera's review of the shot, and I've been using my X-T2 (and X-T1, and X-pro 1 before that) for my work in all sorts of conditions from moonlit night shots to full sun and see nothing untoward at all once I had the camera's menu settings correct. There's no "bug" that I can see with the camera at all.
  5. Yes, you can. Yes, you can. Sigma Foveon DP Merrill. No AA filter, zero moire.
  6. Hopefully it's the same in German: Menu > SET UP > SCREEN SET-UP > PREVIEW PIC EFFECT (i.e. last entry in page 1 of set-up) > OFF The X-T2 comes with the jpeg picture effect setting turned on so the screen simulates whatever that is set to (Provia, Astia etc). Turn it off and the screen renders properly. (Hopefully this will fix your problem). Fuji has an unnatural obsession for believing that everyone wants to have their pictures rendered as one of their film simulations, even if you are only shooting with the camera set in raw mode. This setting should definitely be off as default from the factory - I also thought there was something wrong with my camera at first, and in true Fuji style the setting is badly described in the manual so it is of little help. Translating what they mean with their menus is difficult at times, although it's better than it was with the first menus in the X-Pro1. Their use then of "Silent" to mean "Off" caused no end of confusion.
  7. This has been mentioned in other Fuji Forums. It happened to me once early on, but I was still in the process of setting the camera up and fine tuning things and I must have changed a setting that causes this afterwards because it hasn't happened again (now headed for 3,000 shots). Given Fuji's past history of finding and fixing problems like this through firmware updates, as well as them actually reading forums and following up on user concerns, I'd expect they are now both aware of this glitch and writing the cure into FW v.1.01.
  8. Theoretical vs practical going on here - I guess they're basing their assumption on the fact that there are a known number of pixels at a known size on a sensor, whereas film has a potentially vastly greater numbers of much smaller unexposed silver halide grains randomly spread in an emulsion, therefore allowing them to completely and randomly cover every part of the sensitive material to a considerable depth, and not just the single layer of pixels (or three layers in the case of Foveon) as with digital. Of course this changes during the exposure and processing procedure - digital loses nothing in number, order or arrangement of its pixels, whereas film increasingly exposes fewer and fewer halides in the shadow areas, and clumps more and more together in the highlight areas. The resulting film "grain" chops the image up, particularly in those areas, and if you are photographing highly complex fine and contrasty detail it will probably run into trouble well before digital does. The exposed halides are reduced to metallic silver grains which are "developed" to a size that gives the image visible density and can thus be printed. They are no longer so tiny as their silver halide origins, the unexposed and therefore undeveloped portion of which are dissolved away in the fixing process. That said, well exposed, properly processed fine-grain film of subject matter that does not have too higher dynamic range and is largely comprised around tones of 18% grey will more than likely be able to stand much higher enlargement, if only for the fact that its grain is random and therefore does not form regular patterns such as in digital where "jaggies" effectively put a ceiling on enlargement capability as soon as they become apparent at normal viewing distance. The eye more readily accommodates the random grain of film, both because regular patterns like a sensor array are rare in the natural world, and there also is a much longer history of photographs produced with film than with sensors, so familiarity plays a role (although that is diminishing with time). Digital noise has, for most of its earlier development been jarring to look at. Like comparing lenses of different focal lengths between different digital camera formats, comparing film with digital is every bit as pointless. Each does its own unique thing in use, and it's up to the user to choose that which best suits the purpose at hand. If, for instance, you were to take a well exposed and processes 8x10" collodion plate photograph and compare it with a digital file from any sized commercial sensor and compare a 30x40 print from each, the digital file will fail miserably. In practical terms, collodion plates became redundant in the late 19th century for some exceedingly good reasons. Carrying a full darkroom around with you and having to coat the glass plate with fresh emulsion and expose and process it it while it was still wet did limit its practicality somewhat.
  9. Turning it off doesn't stop you from shooting film simulations, it just stops the EVF displaying them as they will look in the photo, rather than what they actually look like in real life as a normal optical viewfinder would do (other than if you are using a monochrome simulation, where the viewfinder will then have the image displayed that way). The symbol of the simulation you are using will still be in the finder (other than if it's standard). Everyone who shoots raw doesn't need to shoot with film simulations, they can be added later, either in-camera or with software. Anyone who wants to edit their photos without compromising quality won't want to use simulations, either. Jpeg is always 8-bit, and has nowhere near the tonal and colour gradation and fidelity as the full 14-bit raw file the sensor and processor provides. This mightn't be of interest to a casual snapshot shooter, but for anything requiring multiple stages of editing or hi-fidelity large prints, bit depth of the initial file has a big influence on final possible quality.
  10. Menu>Setup>Screen Setup>Preview Pic. Effect = OFF. Fuji's obsession with their film simulation has them now setting the EC+VF to display Provia simulation as the default standard. Turn it off and your viewfinder should display normal colours again.
×
×
  • Create New...