Noisy Acros images

[Qiki]

Hi All,

 

As someone who shoots a lot of high contrast B&W I was really looking forward to using Acros on my new X-Pro 2. But after some experimentation yesterday I have to admit to being just a little disappointed. Not with the B&W so much, but with the amount of noise I was getting. Admittedly a number of my shots were at ISO1600, but for a camera with a reputation for being so good at high ISOs I'd have thought 1600 would have produced much cleaner images. My settings were Acros+R, with zero noise reduction and sharpening and +2 shadows and -1 highlights. Any suggestions about what's going on? 

[r_kt]

Grain setting is none or off? Can't remember if default was weak or strong. Also if you have some examples to post that might help

Edited February 27, 2017 by r_kt

[Qiki]

Grain is off. It doesn't default to 'on' with Acros. I'll try to post something later. 

[milandro]

You seem to call this "noise “, which it has been the precise aim of this simulation to render noise is such a way that it looks like grain.

 

I think that you simply found what acros is really all about, a disguise of noise as grain, attempting to simulate ( with stress on simulation) the “ experiece” of film in as much as that grain grows (irrespective of its setting) as the sensitivity is increased.

 

 

I am sure that you would reach way better (and finer grained) results by processing an image with silver efex 2. Try.

[mdm]

I am sure that you would reach way better (and finer grained) results by processing an image with silver efex 2. Try.

 

and I often opt for Agfa_100 over Acros_100

[milandro]

It very much depends I normally prefer extremely fine grain rendition.

 

After that I also use output sharpner and D fine.

 

I find that, as so many things, Acros simulation, was just an overinflated marketing tool.

 

We have Acros Fuji said! Everyone cheered.

 

But was Acros any better? I don’t think so.

 

Same thing happened for many other things.

[Mike G]

Qiki, a picture is as good as a thousand words!

[milandro]

indeed 

[Aswald]

Qiki, sample pic please. Acros + R is quite high in contrast.

 

Acros is good, Silver Efex2, better and Agfa 100 is great!.

[Qiki]

Thanks for all the replies folks. I realize that a certain amount of 'grain' is intended with Acros, but it just seems to me to get a little out of hand as soon as ISO gets beyond maybe 800.  For what it's worth, I had a quick play with the X-Pro 2 again last night and the other simulations are certainly cleaner. Maybe I was just expecting a little too much from Acros. I'm not currently able to get in front of the PC I use for editing, but will post some pics in the next few days as examples. As for Silver Efex, I've always liked what people can achieve with it. Unfortunately though, my preferred software is ACDSee Pro, which doesn't support Siver Efex.

 

Again, thanks for the replies. Much appreciated.

[Aswald]

I just checked some of my shots with Acros at ISO5000. I don't see the "extra" noise you mentioned. Compared to the color, the grain/noise is almost identical. In that respect, I don't think Across adds grain/noise. I've also double checked with shots at ISO200. Same results. If anything I thought the Acros conversion was very smooth.

[Qiki]

Thanks for your patience. Here's a link to a couple of fairly tight crops of images that highlight what I'm unhappy with. These were shot at ISO 200 and 640. What do you think?

 

http://aqphoto.format.com/private

[milandro]

that they are very noisy

[Qiki]

that they are very noisy

Should I expect better? Is there anything I'm likely to be doing wrong? The results from my X100T (with regular monochrome) seem far better.

[milandro]

I’ve only has a passing experience with using Acros on a friend camera when the acros thing came into fruition to have a look at what I was missing and I wasn’t impressed so this was another reason NOT to upgrade.

 

I find especially the shot at ISO 640 very bad.

 

Can one get better results? I’ve seen better but again I don’t understand this simulation as opposed to process pics with NIK.

[jlmphotos]

and I often opt for Agfa_100 over Acros_100

 

Ilford 50 was my go-to film choice back in my Mamiya 645 days.  What gorgeous BW that pumped out!

[Aswald]

Thanks for your patience. Here's a link to a couple of fairly tight crops of images that highlight what I'm unhappy with. These were shot at ISO 200 and 640. What do you think?

 

http://aqphoto.format.com/private

 

That looks unusual.

 

1st pic, was it a crop? 2nd pic, the bokeh looks like it had some art filter applied too. Is it just across or you applied another filter?

[Qiki]

That looks unusual.

 

1st pic, was it a crop? 2nd pic, the bokeh looks like it had some art filter applied too. Is it just across or you applied another filter?

They're both heavy crops, so obviously that exacerbates things, but other than that they are both SOOC. 

[Aswald]

I guess when we zoom in, we see what we don't normally see.

 

The rest of your photos does seem fine. Even the 1st pic when I didn't zoom in looks alright.

[milandro]

the question is and remains, if you processed a raw picture in Silver Efex wouldn’t you get a more flexible result?

[Qiki]

the question is and remains, if you processed a raw picture in Silver Efex wouldn’t you get a more flexible result?

Perhaps, but as I don't wish to shoot raw for my street shots, and even if I do Silver Efex is not something I can use, the question is moot.

[milandro]

why would raw not being good for street shots?

Edited March 2, 2017 by milandro

[Qiki]

I guess when we zoom in, we see what we don't normally see.

 

The rest of your photos does seem fine. Even the 1st pic when I didn't zoom in looks alright.

That fact that the rest of my photos seem fine is because most of the street shots on my website were taken with and X100S ad X100T. Never had an issue with either of those cameras. And I guess that was the reason for my post. I'd have expected the X-Pro2 to produce images of at least equal quality to its 'siblings', but if these shots are anything to go by, that doesn't appear to be the case. I'm at a bit of a loss.

[Qiki]

why would raw not being good for street shots?

It's not a case of it not being good - I used to shoot raw all the time with DSLR. But for street, I just prefer the much quicker workflow associated with jpeg. And let's face it, the quality of the jpegs from X cameras is one of their main selling points.

[milandro]

well, the new sensor has had several people puzzled about noise and about the pattern which shows in some pictures.

 

http://www.fuji-x-forum.com/topic/4281-is-it-just-me-or-the-lowish-light-files-are-too-noisy/

http://www.fuji-x-forum.com/topic/4810-xt2-and-digital-noise/

 

I guess that higher pixels count and higher AF speed come at a price or they would have done these things the first time around.

 

In my opinion someone at fuji knew that the boosted aps-c would have given these trade offs for the supposed “ gains” but they decided to market this new cameras, regardless.

 

I can’t remember if there were so many who had second thoughts about generation two of the sensor as opposed to generation one as there seem to be among the buyers of generation 3.

 

The only consistent complaint abut generation 2 was the so called waxy skin which affects shots on portraits above ISO 1600 .

 

As for immediateness, you can batch process all your pics as soon as you get home ( I am sure your would chose them and not use them straight out of the camera).

 

Good though jpegs are ( Fuji or otherwise) they limit you to what the camera gives you and that will never be pleasing everyone every time. It is a way to punch pics ( I use jpegs for tests or non crucial pictures) one after another but it is the same difference that I had bringing a B&W film to be developed & printed by someone else or to develop and print myself.

 

A print coming out from the best minilab in the world would have never equalled a print that I made myself!

 

NOT the same thing and by a very long shot not.