Stop The Waxing!

[Jano]

Dear Fuji,

 

I'm fed up. I love your JPEG colours and there are many use cases where I have stopped wasting time working on a RAW file when the JPEG is just beautiful as is. Especially for images I take of my family I don't want and need that extra work. But let me state this as clearly as possible: your JPEGs suck when using anything north of ISO 3200, especially for photographing people. I don't want my family to look like I stole them from Madame Tussauds!

 

I have only been getting stupid replies from your German staff members who don't acknowledge the problem but instead look for excuses why the images look the way they do. So now I will use this forum to hopefully put some pressure on you to solve this problem. I'm not the first but it seems most have given up after a while.

 

Let me prove the problem with some images of my son, who was obviously delighted to be photographed. Don't worry, he got raisins afterwards which made him happy again ;-)

 

The first image is an OOC JPEG shot at ISO 6400. Astia film simulation, AWB and NR set to "-2". The rest of the settings are untouched. Let me introduce you to Mr. Waxy:

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

The second image is the RAF file converted through Iridient using the standard settings:

 

The second image is great and absolutely usable for me. The first would immediately go to the trash because it is terrible. Japanese might like that look, I don't know. Fuji might like that look and call it "Image Intelligence", but to me and many others it just looks terrible.

 

Here's what I want: I want a setting to turn NR off completely. I know "completely" might be the wrong word because that is not possible from what I know. So I'll be more precise: I want an ISO 6400 JPEG to look like an underexposed shot at ISO 1600 that is pushed two stops with the in-camera converter. For some strange reason the resulting image looks completely different in the noise and detail department that a JPEG shot using ISO 6400.

 

To prove that point as well, here's my son again. This time I underexposed two stops by lowering the ISO to 1600 and keeping the aperture and shutter speed. Afterwards I pushed the image two stops in-camera:

 

It looks great to my eyes and clearly proves that your JPEG engine is capable of delivering this. Since ISO 6400 is really just ISO 1600 digitally amplified two stops this should be the easiest thing to program into a firmware update. Stop finding excuses and just do it, for goodness' sake, I thought Fuji was known for listening to its users!

 

------

 

Dear forum members,

 

Fuji probably won't read this on their own. If you want this fixed as well, you have two options and I hope you will use both of them:

 

1: comment on this thread and express your opinion. Feel free to say if it doesn't bother you but please don't pretend that there isn't a problem. It's clearly visible to anyone with one or more eyes. Also feel free to add other examples of the wax problem.

 

2: write to Fuji and send them the link to this thread. Tell them directly that this is embarrassing and should be fixed through a firmware update. Yes, even on the left-behind-X100S.

 

 

If anyone wants to look at the full size images and compare the amount of detail in the skin, the wall and the shirt at 1:1 magnification, here's a link to my Dropbox: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/uutydfzb7he8pvu/AACHXnmQA4Rbfl1WUTHouAVHa?dl=0

[Trenton Talbot]

Ditto. This is a part of a feature set called "Image intelligence" (quote: "Automatically enhances skin tone and texture to create smooth, attractive images").

 

 Fuji! Leave damn texture alone! 

[CRAusmus]

Have you tried other jpg simulations and achieved the same results?  I ask because I know that Astia is known for softening the skin as it was very popular back in the film days for this.  Why not process your raw the same way the Astia setting processes your image?

[Trenton Talbot]

Have you tried other jpg simulations and achieved the same results?  I ask because I know that Astia is known for softening the skin as it was very popular back in the film days for this.  Why not process your raw the same way the Astia setting processes your image?

 

How 'bout B&W? http://yadi.sk/d/0NkDMdwCKCmkG (don't worry, it's a Russian cloud storage service, not a virus repository))

[Jano]

Have you tried other jpg simulations and achieved the same results?  I ask because I know that Astia is known for softening the skin as it was very popular back in the film days for this.  Why not process your raw the same way the Astia setting processes your image?

 

Good question. Yes, I have. Same problem though I haven't tried all of them because some just don't fit my style.

And as Trenton has shown, even B&W has the same problem.

[CRAusmus]

That looks much worse then the image above Trenton.

[pizzaman]

That's pretty awful.

But is it that big an issue - why not just use the RAW? I'd be fine if Fuji tossed out their JPG processing altogether, or every camera manufacturer for that reason. With LR RAW is no more inconvenient than jpg these days no? 

[CRAusmus]

In LR you can change your camera calibration to match the Fuji Custom Filters.

 

I actually tried this last night, but I don't have any portraits to try it on to see if I got the same results as the OP or Trenton.

[Trenton Talbot]

In LR you can change your camera calibration to match the Fuji Custom Filters.

 

I actually tried this last night, but I don't have any portraits to try it on to see if I got the same results as the OP or Trenton.

 

There's no waxing with any RAW converters I used, including LR, ID, C1 and Silkypix. No Image Intelligence either. 

[Jano]

That's pretty awful.

But is it that big an issue - why not just use the RAW? I'd be fine if Fuji tossed out their JPG processing altogether, or every camera manufacturer for that reason. With LR RAW is no more inconvenient than jpg these days no? 

 

To me it's a rather big issue, yes. With Fuji I like to use JPEG in different situations because I prefer shooting than post-processing. And for day-to-day photos of my family or a friend's birthday party I really don't need that last bit of control and quality. Also I love the options that Fuji gives us to adjust shadows, highlights and colour. Pushing the shadows a bit and pulling the highlights gives me wonderful images in many higher-contrast situations (especially when combined with the expanded DR modes). Fuji's algorithms for pushing/pulling are much better than Lightroom's imho. In LR it takes a lot more work to get some images right that the in-camera converter outputs beautifully within half a minute. As far as I know no serious converter reads and applies those setting automatically so converting the RAWs in LR would mean a lot more work for me.

[abjurina]

That's why it's always going to be a subjective thing for all of us. I actually LOVE processing all of my images, and even when I shoot JPEG, I still find myself processing them in LR. It's so quick and easy to do with a program like that. For some, Post-processing your work with your own style is what can help you distinguish yourself from other photographers. Of course, some people could care less about that last bit, but even the great film shooters pushed and pulled their negatives towards their artistic vision. Each to his/her own, right?

[abjurina]

Ignore that last post. I am and idiot for not reading the original Poster's remarks: and I agree completely, stop waxing, Fuji!

[Paul Crespel]

You can't use RAW over 6400 ISO.  For those who want to shoot in very low light, at 12800 or 25600, it is a problem.

[arty]

sure,

 

Fuji, leave us texture! Pls!

[mariasamba]

Came home last night with photos taken in a dark, local pub. Looks like a wax museum. Fuji! HELP!

[malteser]

@Jano

 

I'm not an expert, but of the 3 above I like your last shot best, the (so-called waxy) OOC one 2nd, and your Iridient thing least. I guess this proves your point that the jpegs could be better, but I really don't think it's as bad as you make out.

[flysurfer]

You should try Portrait Enhancer in the X-T10, X-A2, X-A1 or  X-M1.

Now that's real waxing.

[Alexandre RS]

You should try Portrait Enhancer in the X-T10, X-A2, X-A1 or  X-M1.

Now that's real waxing.

 

 

Because it can be even worse is no justification for not trying to improve.

[chrisgilesimages]

I totally get the waxy issue. I dealt with that in the past with skin tones.

 

But lets put this in perspective. You are whining about the effects at 6400 ISO! We have all gotten so spoiled with the technology that is available to us anymore. Maybe I'm showing my age (44) but people seem to forget what it was like to shoot with film. These images would have been a dream compared to some film stocks pushed to 6400. Not to mention that you probably shot these photos, downloaded processed them, compared them, wrote a blog post, uploaded the images in the same time that it would have taken you to go drop off you film at the lab. 

 

Yes, Fuji can definitely improve...just like Canon, Nikon, Leica, and RED. The joy is that we are in a world of constant improvement and a solution to this issue is probably 12-24 months away. Relax, its not the end of the world.

 

Reminds me of saying I heard the other day,"Girlfriend...you got white girl problems!" 

[Paul Crespel]

Chrisgilesimages, I'm older than you, and started my career in photography in 1975, so I remember film well... but.... Canon, Nikon, Sony and others now produce cameras that go up to over 50k ISO, and although they produce grainy images, which is to be expected, none of them produce the wax effect.  The wax effect is exclusive to Fuji... perhaps they've even patented it... but if all the other manufacturers can avoid the waxing, then so can Fuji.  Technology has moved on, and we make use of it.  We can now shoot in the dark with most cameras and smartphones, but Fuji is the only one that has wax effect.

 

Just a thought, maybe Fuji waxes because it's aimed at the Brazilian market :D

[jlmphotos]

Dear Fuji:

 

LEAVE EVERYTHING ALONE!

[Paul Crespel]

jimphotos.... don't you mean:

 

Dear Fuji:

 

FIX THE WAXING!

 

Leaving everything alone will simply leave the problem unresolved

[Koox]

I agree with Everyone. Fuji JPGS are amazing BELOW 1600 ISO. Above that, face smoothing is too present no matter the setting. 

I personally would love Fuji to offer the option of exporting uncompressed images with colour profiles in TIFF Format. That would be fantastic in order to retain great colours and sharpening without any loss. If that was not possible then yes, I would like to have the option of turning off that Face Smoothing going on above 1600 ISO. When I need to shoot 1600 ISO and above, I have to resort to using RAW's as I get much better results through Raw File Converter 2 and then post processing through LR. Please Fuji hear us out!

[madmaxmedia]

Came home last night with photos taken in a dark, local pub. Looks like a wax museum. Fuji! HELP!

 

Maybe you were drunk and walked through the wrong door???    Perhaps that's why everyone was so untalkative!

[madmaxmedia]

Jano, I am glad your well-written thread is on FujiRumors main page. I really hope this gets a good look by Fuji, although there has been plenty of other complaints and there has been no response so far. Really, it is as simple as Jano describes.

 

 

I totally get the waxy issue. I dealt with that in the past with skin tones.

 

But lets put this in perspective. You are whining about the effects at 6400 ISO! We have all gotten so spoiled with the technology that is available to us anymore. Maybe I'm showing my age (44) but people seem to forget what it was like to shoot with film. These images would have been a dream compared to some film stocks pushed to 6400. Not to mention that you probably shot these photos, downloaded processed them, compared them, wrote a blog post, uploaded the images in the same time that it would have taken you to go drop off you film at the lab. 

 

Yes, Fuji can definitely improve...just like Canon, Nikon, Leica, and RED. The joy is that we are in a world of constant improvement and a solution to this issue is probably 12-24 months away. Relax, its not the end of the world.

 

Reminds me of saying I heard the other day,"Girlfriend...you got white girl problems!" 

 

 

Chris- here is the issue. The original Fuji X cameras- X100, X-E1, X-Pro1- show none of these problems, with these cameras I don't think I could imagine a better JPEG engine even if I tried. Fuji then "fixed what wasn't broken" with the next generation of cameras, and now we have waxy skin at high ISO. There's nothing Fuji has to even develop or improve to avoid the problem, they just have to give BACK users a little more control over NR, as we had before.

 

IMO, Fuji's JPEG engine is actually still the best, I have my X-E2 Auto-ISO set at 3200 so the issue is more tolerable for me. The multiple ISO 6400 examples I've seen on the internet all look really bad.