Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Read More.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Other Digital Cameras Fuji Digital Cameras
Thread started 06 Jan 2013 (Sunday) 14:29
Prev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

STICKY: Fuji Users Unite - Post your comments, questions and images here

 
rantercsr
Goldmember
rantercsr's Avatar
Joined Mar 2014
Aug 27, 2017 12:19 |  #5236

Probably something that been covered somewhere in the 349 pages of this thread but since its kinda related....

Raws.. anyone finding any difference between compressed and non compressed aside from bigger file size?


Canon 80D//Rebel T4i//EF50 f1.4 //EFS 24mm F2.8//EFS 18-55//EFS 10-18 //EFS 55-250
Pentax k1000* k50 f2*135 f2.
Fuji XT2 // xf 23mm f2/ xf50 f2 WR
https://www.instagram.​com/shotbypops/ (external link) MYflickr (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
Two ­ Hot ­ Shoes
Goldmember
Two Hot Shoes's Avatar
Joined Apr 2014
Ireland
Aug 27, 2017 12:49 as a reply to post 18438304 |  #5237

Colour grading is indeed a skill but no more time consuming than any other part of the editing process, once you get use to doing it, like any other part of the process...

The Fuji jpeg engine can introduce grain into the images, more so in Acros and you also have a grain option setting in camera. Saying 'his images are always extremely clean from his bodies', are you implying that Fuji files are not clean? Having shot with both systems I'd differ in my opinion based on experience there. Fuji files are plenty clean if you want them to be.

Yea, Kevin says he shoots a little underexposed and uses spot metering a lot, so that will give a lot of dark areas. He also set his shadows to +2 and highlights to -1 so you can guess his style there, Works for him.

Lightroom is a raw converter and a good way of cataloging images, raw conversion is what it does. I tell you loading 2000 raw files into lightroom will take a whole lot longer then importing 2000 jpegs. As the raw files are a little over twice the size of the jpeg [In colour, less in B&W]. Outputting files is the same speed so if you are processing them the time is already spent.

'Back in the day' we would process colour film to B&W, it was called 'cross processing' & printing from colour film to B&W was also done, Google Kodak Panalure paper. Nothing has really changed just gotten more instant.


Fuji: X-PRO2, X-T1, X-E2 | 16/1.4, 18/2, 23/1.4, 35/1.4, 56/1.2, 90/2, 16-55/2.8, 10-24/4. AD600BM, TT865F, AL-H198, ThinkTank AS2, Peli1514, Ona Bowery, Matthews Grip
flickr (external link)Instagram (external link)Blog (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
Two ­ Hot ­ Shoes
Goldmember
Two Hot Shoes's Avatar
Joined Apr 2014
Ireland
Post has been last edited 1 month ago by Two Hot Shoes. 2 edits done in total.
Aug 27, 2017 12:50 as a reply to rantercsr's post |  #5238

Nope - it's lossless so other than the file being about half the size, nothing.
I should add that you program that you load the files into will need to spend a little time uncompressing them.


Fuji: X-PRO2, X-T1, X-E2 | 16/1.4, 18/2, 23/1.4, 35/1.4, 56/1.2, 90/2, 16-55/2.8, 10-24/4. AD600BM, TT865F, AL-H198, ThinkTank AS2, Peli1514, Ona Bowery, Matthews Grip
flickr (external link)Instagram (external link)Blog (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
AlanU
Cream of the Crop
Joined Feb 2008
Vancouver, BC
Aug 27, 2017 13:02 |  #5239

rantercsr wrote in post #18438311 (external link)
Probably something that been covered somewhere in the 349 pages of this thread but since its kinda related....

Raws.. anyone finding any difference between compressed and non compressed aside from bigger file size?

I just stupidly always use RAW. It's just a digital negative that I've always used for so many years.

The 80D is such a nice canon body as far as digital negatives are concerned. I still feel the Fuji has a much hearty meaty RAW file to play with compared to that canon crop body.

I'd assume the Fuji RAW file has more to manipulate since it's a digital negative vs compressed jpg.


5Dmkiv |5Dmkiii | 80D | 24LmkII | 35mm f/2 IS | 85 mkII L | 100L | EF-S 10-22 | 16-35L mkII | 24-70 f/2.8L mkii| 70-200 f/2.8 ISL mkII| 600EX-RT x2 | 580 EX II x2 | Einstein's
Fuji X-T2 w/battery booster | 16mm f/1.4 | 56 f/1.2 | 10-24 f/4.0 | 55-200 | EF-X500

LOG IN TO REPLY
Two ­ Hot ­ Shoes
Goldmember
Two Hot Shoes's Avatar
Joined Apr 2014
Ireland
Aug 27, 2017 13:30 as a reply to AlanU's post |  #5240

Fuji have an option to save compressed raw files nothing to do with jpegs Alan. Formally speaking, Digital Negative [DNG: Digital Negative Graphic] is Adobe's version or rather their naming convention for raw from about 2004, I think. And yes Fuji's raw file has loads more to offer over Canon crop sensor, that's plain to see when you look at the dynamic range alone.


Fuji: X-PRO2, X-T1, X-E2 | 16/1.4, 18/2, 23/1.4, 35/1.4, 56/1.2, 90/2, 16-55/2.8, 10-24/4. AD600BM, TT865F, AL-H198, ThinkTank AS2, Peli1514, Ona Bowery, Matthews Grip
flickr (external link)Instagram (external link)Blog (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
rantercsr
Goldmember
rantercsr's Avatar
Joined Mar 2014
Aug 27, 2017 15:07 |  #5241

Two Hot Shoes wrote in post #18438339 (external link)
Nope - it's lossless so other than the file being about half the size, nothing.
I should add that you program that you load the files into will need to spend a little time uncompressing them.


AlanU wrote in post #18438349 (external link)
I just stupidly always use RAW. It's just a digital negative that I've always used for so many years.

The 80D is such a nice canon body as far as digital negatives are concerned. I still feel the Fuji has a much hearty meaty RAW file to play with compared to that canon crop body.

I'd assume the Fuji RAW file has more to manipulate since it's a digital negative vs compressed jpg.

Thanks..
ok so going back to lossless compressed .. I did some comparisons of my own but couldn't find anything differnet


Canon 80D//Rebel T4i//EF50 f1.4 //EFS 24mm F2.8//EFS 18-55//EFS 10-18 //EFS 55-250
Pentax k1000* k50 f2*135 f2.
Fuji XT2 // xf 23mm f2/ xf50 f2 WR
https://www.instagram.​com/shotbypops/ (external link) MYflickr (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
Osa713
Senior Member
Osa713's Avatar
Joined Jun 2011
Houston, TX
Aug 27, 2017 15:29 |  #5242

17" Beauty dish w/grid and AD200 camera right. TT350 behind model with yellow and red gel combo.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

Your image can chosen for the Best Of gallery only if it is in your own member gallery.

LOG IN TO REPLY
EverydayGetaway
Cream of the Crop
EverydayGetaway's Avatar
9,758 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Joined Oct 2012
Bowie, MD
Aug 27, 2017 18:23 |  #5243

AlanU wrote in post #18438349 (external link)
I just stupidly always use RAW. It's just a digital negative that I've always used for so many years.

The 80D is such a nice canon body as far as digital negatives are concerned. I still feel the Fuji has a much hearty meaty RAW file to play with compared to that canon crop body.

I'd assume the Fuji RAW file has more to manipulate since it's a digital negative vs compressed jpg.

I think you misunderstood his question; he was asking about lossless compressed RAW vs straight uncompressed RAW.

There's no quality loss using the compressed RAW option (as the name would suggest).


Fuji X-Pro2 // Fuji X-T1 // Fuji X-100T // XF 18mm f2 // Rokinon 12mm f2 // XF 35mm f1.4 // Rokinon 21mm f1.4 // XF 18-55mm f/2.8-4 // XF 55-200mm f3.5-4.8 // Rokinon 85mm f1.4 // Zhonghi Lensturbo ii // Various adapted MF lenses
flickr (external link) // Instagram (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
FarmerTed1971
fondling the 5D4
FarmerTed1971's Avatar
Joined Sep 2013
Portland, OR
Aug 27, 2017 18:42 |  #5244

Dublin smiley

IMAGE: https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4351/36714297411_bb711b38f3_b.jpg
[IMAGE'S LINK: https://flic.kr/p/XWjn​vM] (external link)Dublin Castle - Dublin (external link) by Scott Tice (external link), on Flickr

Getting better at this - Fuji Xt-2 - 18-55 - 35 f2 WR - 50-140 - 6D - 135L - 70-200 f4L IS - 600EX-RT x2 - ST-E3-RT - flickr (external link) - www.scottaticephoto.co​m (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
F2Bthere
Senior Member
F2Bthere's Avatar
704 posts
Joined Oct 2015
Aug 27, 2017 20:02 |  #5245

aladyforty wrote in post #18438033 (external link)
Ive been doing a lot of reading on Fuji lately and notice a few pros are shooting jpeg only with Fuji. I'm curious if this is the normal thing with most Fuji photographers and how many actually see a difference with their cameras, Im always RAW but starting to wonder if I am just wasting my time

Great points made on this already.

I was shooting events (back when 6MP was big) and a friend in the same line was influenced by a "big name, workshop teaching" photographer who said that a properly exposed jpeg was good enough if you were good enough to expose properly. We came from shooting film, so we thought we were man enough. And that works well enough (if nothing goes wrong, anyway).

But there are some shots I took in that period which I value, some of which were published (book covers, even) and I would be much happier if I had the RAW files today. They were properly exposed and are perfectly good. My post processing skills have advanced since then, and there is a lot I can do to make better large prints today than I could then. And, to really get the best out of an image, it helps to have the RAW file, even for a perfectly exposed image.

And if your image exposure is off (tail end of someone else's strobe, door opens and daylight floods in, etc) or the color is...challenging...you will be happy to have a RAW if it was an otherwise perfect moment.

So I humbly suggest, even if you step up to the jpeg challenge, shoot and keep the RAW files, too. Your future self may thank you. :)


https://www.instagram.​com/storyinpictures_co​m/ (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
h14nha
Goldmember
h14nha's Avatar
Joined Nov 2008
South Wales, UK
Aug 28, 2017 00:40 |  #5246

I like these every day shots seeing faces in inanimate objects.


Ian
There's no fool like an old skool fool :D
myflickr (external link)
My Gear - 7d, / 16-35mm F4 / 70-200 2.8 II / 100-400 / 300mm 2.8 / :D Fuji X Pro1 / XT-1 Graphite 18/35/56

LOG IN TO REPLY
h14nha
Goldmember
h14nha's Avatar
Joined Nov 2008
South Wales, UK
Aug 28, 2017 00:47 |  #5247

F2Bthere wrote in post #18438647 (external link)
But there are some shots I took in that period which I value, some of which were published (book covers, even) and I would be much happier if I had the RAW files today. They were properly exposed and are perfectly good. My post processing skills have advanced since then, and there is a lot I can do to make better large prints today than I could then. And, to really get the best out of an image, it helps to have the RAW file, even for a perfectly exposed image.

I read an article the other day about a videographer who regrets shooting 1080p since cameras have 4K. Not so much for now, but the ability to limit his losses and try to future proof his vids somewhat.


Ian
There's no fool like an old skool fool :D
myflickr (external link)
My Gear - 7d, / 16-35mm F4 / 70-200 2.8 II / 100-400 / 300mm 2.8 / :D Fuji X Pro1 / XT-1 Graphite 18/35/56

LOG IN TO REPLY
AlanU
Cream of the Crop
Joined Feb 2008
Vancouver, BC
Aug 28, 2017 00:53 |  #5248

h14nha wrote in post #18438791 (external link)
I read an article the other day about a videographer who regrets shooting 1080p since cameras have 4K. Not so much for now, but the ability to limit his losses and try to future proof his vids somewhat.

Video is a fun factor thing for me at this moment.

I know there is more serious videographers shooting 4k and down rez to 1080 to have better quality 1080 video vs. video actually being shot at 1080.


5Dmkiv |5Dmkiii | 80D | 24LmkII | 35mm f/2 IS | 85 mkII L | 100L | EF-S 10-22 | 16-35L mkII | 24-70 f/2.8L mkii| 70-200 f/2.8 ISL mkII| 600EX-RT x2 | 580 EX II x2 | Einstein's
Fuji X-T2 w/battery booster | 16mm f/1.4 | 56 f/1.2 | 10-24 f/4.0 | 55-200 | EF-X500

LOG IN TO REPLY
Two ­ Hot ­ Shoes
Goldmember
Two Hot Shoes's Avatar
Joined Apr 2014
Ireland
Aug 28, 2017 15:29 |  #5249

h14nha wrote in post #18438791 (external link)
I read an article the other day about a videographer who regrets shooting 1080p since cameras have 4K. Not so much for now, but the ability to limit his losses and try to future proof his vids somewhat.

4K is a resolution like 1080p - raw and jpeg [can]have the same resolution. Like shooting 2.11Mpx [1080p] rather than 8.3Mpx [4K UHD] Vs. a 24Mpx raw or jpeg file from the same camera.

But I do agree with future proofing when you can, especially for Video. 8K is four times the resolution of 4K and already being shot with, think of the amount of hard drives shooting a few hours of 8K [33Mpx] in raw would take up.


Fuji: X-PRO2, X-T1, X-E2 | 16/1.4, 18/2, 23/1.4, 35/1.4, 56/1.2, 90/2, 16-55/2.8, 10-24/4. AD600BM, TT865F, AL-H198, ThinkTank AS2, Peli1514, Ona Bowery, Matthews Grip
flickr (external link)Instagram (external link)Blog (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
Two ­ Hot ­ Shoes
Goldmember
Two Hot Shoes's Avatar
Joined Apr 2014
Ireland
Post has been edited 1 month ago by Two Hot Shoes.
Aug 28, 2017 15:31 |  #5250

Walking on a scouting trip, not the camp fire making kind of scouting, to see if I can get a good view over Dublin bay for a shoot I'm planning, might have found a spot close. More walking the hills to go.

IMAGE: https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4431/36042414604_60ef4b91d7_b.jpg
[IMAGE'S LINK: https://flic.kr/p/WUWN​as] (external link)DSCF7548 (external link) by Kim Farrelly (external link), on Flickr

And yes, it was raining but a little break, oh the fun of it all...

Fuji: X-PRO2, X-T1, X-E2 | 16/1.4, 18/2, 23/1.4, 35/1.4, 56/1.2, 90/2, 16-55/2.8, 10-24/4. AD600BM, TT865F, AL-H198, ThinkTank AS2, Peli1514, Ona Bowery, Matthews Grip
flickr (external link)Instagram (external link)Blog (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

627,525 views & 2330 likes for this thread
Fuji Users Unite - Post your comments, questions and images here
FORUMS Other Digital Cameras Fuji Digital Cameras


Not a member yet? Click here to register to the forums.
Registered members get all the features: search, following threads, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, settings, view hosted photos, own reviews and more...


AAA

Send feedback to staff    •   Jump to forum...    •   Rules    •   Index    •   New posts    •   RTAT    •   'Best of'    •   Gallery    •   Gear    •   Reviews    •   Polls

COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Privacy policy and cookie usage info.

POWERED BY AMASS 1.4version 1.4
made in Finland
by Pekka Saarinen
for photography-on-the.net
Spent 0.00709 for 7 database queries.
PAGE COMPLETED IN 0.08s
Latest registered member is Ginn
909 guests, 391 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6106, that happened on Jun 09, 2016