graflex

If what you've read so far and already know agrees with what's in that book then there's a good chance what you already know ain't so. For example what are the determinant factors for exposure. That book has it wrong.

When you finish reading Understanding Exposure go back through and, with help if necessary, get straightened out on all the major errors in the book -- there's a lot. A good place to start would be with "exposure" as the author doesn't seem to understand what constitutes photographic exposure. OK, sorry for the sarcasm I'm on my 2nd glass of wine: That's a bad book. It's loaded with fundamental mistakes and will serve to confuse you for a long time to come.

I don't want to match what you did. I pulled more detail from the file and prefer my color and tone rendition.

No attempt at all to match yours or match color and tone -- just concerned with fine detail rendition. Fine detail looks a little smoother in the Iridient rendition but I agree yours is close.

That's not bad. I'd say Isaac Himan's Iridient version has an edge. How about this:

Upload the RAF file to Dropbox (free account) so can look at it.

Put the raw file from post #8 on Dropbox and post the link here.

This is nonsensical. See my earlier post #39 this thread. That bookcase is not well lit. It's in a dimly lit room with a single overhead ceiling light. The exposure was 1/8 sec at f/6.4. That's very LOW light. At ISO 200 that would have required an exposure of 4 seconds at f/6.4. "Just because you've raised the ISO doesn't mean you don't get a good exposure at that ISO."

This problem is rooted in demosaicing the X-Trans color filter array. It is not a sharpening problem -- sharpening exposes and exacerbates the problem. Adobe has improved their handling of the X-Trans CFA but alternative raw converters do a better job of extracting fine detail from X-Trans raw files and avoiding the "watercolor effect." Iridient, Photo Ninja, SilkyPix, Capture One, Raw Therapee, ACDSee all do a better job demosaicing X-Trans. However that doesn't mean they do a better job processing X-Trans overall. There is no clearly best choice. You can get reasonable results from Adobe with careful handling. If maximum fine detail with no "watercolor appearance" is most important to you, you will avoid Adobe for the demosiacing task. If you want to make a raw file available for others to see and work with use Dropbox (free account). Here for example is a link to an X-Trans II RAF file that exhibits the problem: https://www.dropbox.com/s/ewzhgah2bqjutqw/DSCF3971.RAF?dl=0

Let me get this straight. They have a beta out now with the final (yuck yuck yuck!) release due in about 25 days. You can't see or try the beta (no trial option) without ponying up and buying the product that hasn't been released yet, but it's on sale. That's the attitude of a company that is unlikely to ever get any of my money.

Just because you've raised the ISO doesn't mean you don't get a good exposure at that ISO. All photos regardless of ISO should be well exposed for the given ISO. Yes, processing software is an integral part of any digital image and the software used and how it's used matters. DPReview runs everything through Adobe by default. I know better. Here's "lowish light" at ISO 6400: And here's the full image at 50%

Why would you mention the in-camera settings if you shoot raw? There's no problem and the X-T2 is a stellar performer when it comes to high ISO, low light. The 2nd generation X-Trans were also excellent, but the new sensor is better. Here's a comparison between the two. Both cameras shot at ISO 3200, exact same exposure, same lens, same processing. The two cameras auto-focused slightly differently so there's a minor variation in DOF and focus placement. And here's the entire image both cameras resampled to the same 3000 pixel height. First the X-T2: And then the X-E2: No way is the new 3rd gen. X-Trans sensor noisy or nosier than it's predecessor. Noise at high ISO with the X-T2 is best in class.

Nothing. Raw photos (RAF/DNG) are the raw data without processing. The B&W film sim you applied in camera is processing. As raw data your camera MUST physically take a color photo so when you first look at the DNG you're going to see color. In Photoshop you can reconvert the image to B&W. The camera may save in the raw (RAF) file a tag noting that you used the B&W sim. And if you were using software that read your RAF files and supported your camera it's possible that the software would read that tag and automatically apply a B&W conversion when opening your raw file. But in your case you're taking a DNG into an older version of PS that doesn't support your camera -- you see the original color. Not a problem -- in ACR open the HSL tab and check the box for B&W.

I have no idea -- I never bother with anything related to the camera image processor.

OK, a person then: Shot indoors with only a ceiling light fixture holding a couple CF bulbs -- ISO 12800. For an APS class camera I think this is pretty impressive. Excellent color and noise barely an issue.

I just got my X-T2 two weeks ago but I'm finding the high ISO results to be quite good. This is ISO 12800:

Film has soul. It shines through every image like a beacon of truth and authenticity. Digital is the lifeless spawn of a binary devil. Born in a cauldron of data and algorithms it extinguishes the light that film preserves forever. You can always tell when a photo was recorded with film; even scanned and presented on a computer screen film's soul shines through gloriously. Anyone seeing them can easily sort them out http://photojoes.net/film-digital/chert_stream.jpg http://photojoes.net/film-digital/truck.jpg http://photojoes.net/film-digital/church.jpg http://photojoes.net/film-digital/flwr_pot.jpg http://photojoes.net/film-digital/poverty.jpg Right?

Capture One is probably my most used raw converter, but I'm not adverse to using a different converter if it has a feature that I think will serve a specific image well.

It is not possible. The root of the problem is Adobe's demosaicing of the X-Trans CFA. They do a poor job of rendering the finest detail compared with the competitive converters. The problem can't be "Bridgwooded" away because it's ultimately not due to sharpening (or noise processing). Various procedures like Bridgwood's or Fitzgerald's etc. are methods to avoid exacerbating the problem -- they don't correct it as it is not user correctable. It is an Adobe problem in dealing with the X-Trans CFA. Most of the other raw converters do a better job of rendering fine detail. If the problem is apparent in an LR conversion and you can't make adjustments to correct it while the problem is not apparent in 5 other conversions from 5 other raw converters simple logic points to Adobe. If you're wedded to LR and not happy switching or using a supplemental raw converter then you: 1. keep waiting for Adobe to improve, 2. move on and sell the Fuji, 3. take the blue pill and convince yourself it's gotten better. Personally I love my Fuji and I'm keeping it -- wonderful camera. I encountered the "Adobe" problem the very first time I used the camera. For me the solution was easy, no more Adobe.

Improved X-Trans support yes. Still not too good, but definitely improved.

Iridient provides the option to use the MAC OS raw demosaicing. However it also provides two additional X-Trans demosiaicing algorithms that do not rely on the OS API.

The DR setting effects the raw file by NOT applying an analog gain (ISO) that would otherwise be applied prior to A/D conversion. To use DR 200% or DR 400% you must raise the ISO to 400 or 800 respectively. Normally, with either ISO increase, the sensor signal receives an anlog amplification which is applied when the A/D converter creates the raw file. The DR 200% and 400% settings cause that analog gain to be skipped in the raw file. If you're using the camera metering system as Fuji expects, the result is an underexposed raw file. Use of the DR 200% or 400% functions is of course noted in the raw file metadata and can be read and acted upon by raw conversion software -- some do and some don't.

I'll check back tomorrow. I've used SilkyPix for a number of years and I'm pretty familiar with what it can do.

The goal shouldn't be to duplicate the camera generated JPEG. If that were the case just use the camera JPEG. SilkyPix isn't the most full-featured raw converter available but it does a decent job and you should be able to process a raw file with SilkyPix to an end result that's consistently better than the camera JPEG. If you'd like some assistance you could post some examples, or I'd be happy to post some examples.

Where's the emoticon for eating popcorn and watching the show?