X100 - JPG or RAW?

[jonoslack]

Hi there
Like many, I've been very much attracted to the Fuji jpg engine - great detail and sharpness, and all of those splendid options.

BUT having really tried, and done lots of comparisons, I've realised that RAW is still (as always) the way to go.

Sky colour is a real bugbear of mine, it's why I didn't go Canon when the 5D came out, and it's always been a real plus point for Sony, Leica, and now Pentax.

This example shows what I mean; the first is shot in the default jpg mode on the X100, the second shot is RAW - there is no more processing in either of them.





Now - many might contend that the jpg shot is more attractive, but it's not right, there is definitely too much cyan in the sky colour


So I thought - what about the HDR function - that must be worth trying:

Sorry for the quality of the shots.

This was a pretty dark barn, with splashes of sunlight - seemed to me to be a perfect situation to use the 400% HDR option - so I did.
I also shot a RAW file.

Here are the results - I spent 30 seconds adjusting the shadow and highlight detail on the RAW file: You can see that the HDR jpg (first shot) has done a grand job of recovering the highlights (better, perhaps than the RAW file)





But the beams are horrible in the HDR shot - lots of false noise and that nasty brown look.

Of course, had it been worth it, one could have spent more time with the RAW file to improve things further (or done some exposure overlays).

all the best

[terryc]

Hi Jono,

I feel this pain - I have been doing pretty much the same thing. That said I worry about the future of Aperture. Might be time to look at something else.

Cheers, Terry

[willie_901]

Thanks for the comparison.

I don't think I would call the dynamic range setting HDR. HDR generally means blending multiple frames shot with different shutter speeds over a range of exposures. The X100 dynamic range setting only boosts the shadow areas when a single RAW in-camera image is rendered into a jpeg. This is not HDR. The dynamic range of a single frame can not be increased. All you can do is process the image to take full advantage of the dynamic range it has. That's what the 200% and 400% dynamic range settings do to the data before it is rendered into a jpeg.

A properly exposed (no clipping of highlights) X100 RAW file can be rendered to give the exact same result as the in-camera 200% or 400% dynamic range rendering. In Adobe Camera RAW and LightRoom, this is accomplished with the fill slider.

I have read reports that when the X100 is set to 200% or 400% dynamic range, the exposure of the RAW file is automatically reduced by manipulating the shutter or aperture (or both) in order to increase the odds that the highlights will not be clipped. Of course the same thing can be achieved in RAW by bring mindful about exposure with the dynamic range set to 100%.

I always shoot in RAW with dynamic range at 100%. The example you show with the muddy look of the ceiling beams is a good example of why it is always best to use RAW. The automated in-camera processing can not be changed, but when you have the RAW data in your computer, you can match the technique to the data with complete flexibility. The data compression responsible for reducing the jpeg file size throws away most of the information in the RAW image file. So recovery of information the highlights and shadows regions in a jpeg is very limited compared to the RAW data.

[jonoslack]

Originally Posted by terryc

Hi Jono,

I feel this pain - I have been doing pretty much the same thing. That said I worry about the future of Aperture. Might be time to look at something else.

Cheers, Terry

HI Terry
I hope you're wrong - everyone was saying this before version 3 came out last year.

I went through all the pain of getting ready to change to Lightroom . . . . but version 3 does some things (which are important to me) very much better than Lightroom. Version 3 is excellent, and until this update they've been pretty fast at supporting new cameras.

Added to which - if you look at the App Store - Aperture is the top grossing product - above pages and numbers etc. It would seem odd to stop producing it now!

Aperture won't just stop working, so the time to change is when they really do stop supporting it - or when something else gets better.

[Sapphie]

Guys

I wasn't going to admit it because it is embarrassing. Somehow my mouse was checking a local camera dealer for availability and it said it was in stock. I then found myself on the phone to confirm. Oh dear. What, really you have one? Oh Sh*t.

Half an hour later (not sure why it took that long) I was driving to Exeter and there it was. Some things are just destined to happen.

Today I have been out and about and took some OK shots with it. Some were in JPG + RAW. The JPGs were perfectly exposed, the RAWs under. After I switched to RAW only most were spot on but some inexplicably under exposed. I had the DR thing set to AUTO. I think this was the cause. Nice to know you have the choice of letting the camera preserver highlights in this way or just go for what looks right in your raw developer app.

Anyway, first impressions are it is great, apart from that blasted Menu/OK button.

The viewfinder is a dream. I have already decided my GH2 has to go to make it less embarrassing. The K5 stays.

BTW, I shot some at ISO 3200 last night and I reckon they are better than the K5 ...

It must be fun to play with that Velvia simulation in JPG though?

Lee

[woodyspedden]

Hey Sapphie

Congratulations on your new X100.

At first I thought I would have to make a decision between the X100 and the K-5. But after a few days of shooting with both, I have decided to keep both.

X100 when you want small and lightweight with wonderful features and sensational IQ and the K-5 when you need versatility (read interchangeable lenses) and can suffer somewhat less sharpness in the corners (noticeable but not very much so!)

Nice to have choices

Woody

[nugat]

The only manufacturer whose jpegs are near-perfect for my taste is Olympus. Try as I might the Oly raws (orf) rarely get any edge over jpegs from Lightroom. Fuji X100 definitely needs the raw workout. But then they can be great.

[dhsimmonds]

I am assured that this image is straight out of the FujiX100.
http://www.digitaldome.org/domeshack...fm_DSF0598.jpg

[jonoslack]

Originally Posted by dhsimmonds

I am assured that this image is straight out of the FujiX100.
http://www.digitaldome.org/domeshack...fm_DSF0598.jpg

HI Dave
I believe it (the sky's the wrong colour )

[dhsimmonds]

Hi Jono, Looks fine on my calibrated sky but then colour vision is a very personal thing, safer in B & W!

[jonoslack]

Originally Posted by dhsimmonds

Hi Jono, Looks fine on my calibrated sky but then colour vision is a very personal thing, safer in B & W!

Well, colour vision might be a personal thing, but that colour sky is not the same colour as the colour sky I see when I look at the sky (see images in original post). It's nothing to do with calibrated monitors . . and it's nothing to do with the scene either.

I really think that those that decide on colour profiles - especially in Japan - give us the colour we 'like' rather than the colour we 'see' (and I'm sure lots of research has been done on this). A touch of cyan in skies is a case in point - Canon do it, Fuji do it - Nikon don't do it, and neither do Sony or Leica.

Unless of course my colour vision is different from other people's, and can detect differences where others can't (just like my hearing CAN'T detect differences when others CAN ).

[Paratom]

Jono, the first HDR shot looks much better than the second raw converted one. Much more detail. I assume you applied NR after bringing the shaddows up and that might have destroyed detail.
Also the highlights are hold better in the first IMO.

[scho]

Originally Posted by jonoslack

Well, colour vision might be a personal thing, but that colour sky is not the same colour as the colour sky I see when I look at the sky (see images in original post). It's nothing to do with calibrated monitors . . and it's nothing to do with the scene either.

I really think that those that decide on colour profiles - especially in Japan - give us the colour we 'like' rather than the colour we 'see' (and I'm sure lots of research has been done on this). A touch of cyan in skies is a case in point - Canon do it, Fuji do it - Nikon don't do it, and neither do Sony or Leica.

Unless of course my colour vision is different from other people's, and can detect differences where others can't (just like my hearing CAN'T detect differences when others CAN ).

Agree Jono. I also do not like the cyan rendering that many stock camera profiles produce. A true blue sky is one reason I like to make my own camera profiles for use in LR.

[jonoslack]

Originally Posted by t_streng

Jono, the first HDR shot looks much better than the second raw converted one. Much more detail. I assume you applied NR after bringing the shaddows up and that might have destroyed detail.
Also the highlights are hold better in the first IMO.

Hi Tom
I didn't really do anything with the raw shot - perhaps I could have done. The point really was what a nasty job the HDR shot has done with the roof beams!

all the best

[Sapphie]

Looks like there is a LR fix for the 'underexposed' shots when they have been taken with the DR feature switched on:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...ssage=38511283

I may try this tonight and see what difference it makes ...

Lee

[scho]

Originally Posted by Sapphie

Looks like there is a LR fix for the 'underexposed' shots when they have been taken with the DR feature switched on:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...ssage=38511283

I may try this tonight and see what difference it makes ...

Lee

I just upgraded to LR 3.4.1 and saw no difference to 3.4.0. Raw images shot with DR200 or DR400 still come into LR underexposed by 1 or 2 stops. Using an Intel Mac with OS 10.6.7.

[Rich M]

Originally Posted by scho

I just upgraded to LR 3.4.1 and saw no difference to 3.4.0. Raw images shot with DR200 or DR400 still come into LR underexposed by 1 or 2 stops. Using an Intel Mac with OS 10.6.7.

Same experience as Carl.......if you use DR200 or DR400, your RAW shots will be underexposed.....even with 3.4.1.

R

[jonoslack]

I've long since given up on this stuff - RAW only for me!

[Sapphie]

Yes, I agree, so not sure what the folk on DPR were seeing, maybe they were looking at a 'preview' from their previously adjusted shots.

Anyway, the DR stuff is really for JPEGs anyway I guess and if LR did do any trickery I suspect all it would do would boost the exposure but we can do that ourselves.

Lee