Jump to content

Quality of Jpeg images from XT20


Recommended Posts

I have been watching You Tube videos on the XT20.  There a several videos on the good quality of the Jpeg images and suggest to use RAF images only  as backups.  In general, the conclusion is that the jpegs are so good that RAF are really unnecessary and in some cases the qualtity of the jpegs can not be matched with RAF edits.   I would like to hear thoughts from experienced XT20 users on this idea.  I am still getting used to the X-T20 and am annoyed with the aggravation of how RAF files are handled.  I am used to Nikon and really having a difficult time getting used to Fuji.

Thanks,

Anne

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Annewin said:

I have been watching You Tube videos on the XT20.  There a several videos on the good quality of the Jpeg images and suggest to use RAF images only  as backups.  In general, the conclusion is that the jpegs are so good that RAF are really unnecessary and in some cases the qualtity of the jpegs can not be matched with RAF edits.   I would like to hear thoughts from experienced XT20 users on this idea.  I am still getting used to the X-T20 and am annoyed with the aggravation of how RAF files are handled.  I am used to Nikon and really having a difficult time getting used to Fuji.

Thanks,

Anne

 

I like my x-system but I'm not married to it and I use  Fuji and Nikon concurrently.

The JPEGS I see from my XT2 are amazing.

Even being a non-pro with only very basic editing skills, I engage RAW+JPEG because

I want to compare them before I flush either. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Annewin said:

I have been watching You Tube videos on the XT20.  There a several videos on the good quality of the Jpeg images and suggest to use RAF images only  as backups.  In general, the conclusion is that the jpegs are so good that RAF are really unnecessary and in some cases the qualtity of the jpegs can not be matched with RAF edits.   I would like to hear thoughts from experienced XT20 users on this idea.  I am still getting used to the X-T20 and am annoyed with the aggravation of how RAF files are handled.  I am used to Nikon and really having a difficult time getting used to Fuji.

Thanks,

Anne

 

I use LR for most of my pictures. Sometimes landscape images can suffer some slight blurring in distant detail and sharpening can cause worms in closer detail. That is when to use Iridient X Transformer to demosaic files first and convert to DNG.

 I actually got used to putting all my files through IXT and importing the DNGs it produces into LR. Recently I've been using Thomas Fitzgerald's sharpening presets in LR and finding them quite good but that is the only time I use LR sharpening - all other times I turn off LR sharpening in the IXT interface so that not even import sharpening is used in LR. https://store.thomasfitzgeraldphotography.com/

This is my basic setup for IXT:

Latest IXT settings.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Take @veeejaycee's advice and get a copy of iridient, I did, and find its much better with Fuji Raw files than Lightroom.

I use an XT-2 and an XT-10  I always shoot Raw + Jpeg.

If my JPEGS are good for what I want I use them but have the back up of the RAW file if I want to tweak -  AND -  You also then have the advantage of using the Fuji in camera converter to make more JPEGs from the Raw file with different settings and film simulation. The best of both worlds perhaps.

I also find I can get better results using the "in camera" JPEG converter than I can via Lightroom   e.g I dont think LR can support any Lens correction for FUJI but the "in camera " converter does.

Im not a Pro and still on a self learning curve with my Fuji's but getting there and very pleased with the images I am now getting. I started with a Nikon and then bought an XE 2, I was getting in a right old  mess at times trying to master both manufacturers operational concepts  so I can appreciate your problems. I obviously opted for Fuji and now find I'm comfotable with all the X series cameras I get to use. I did find Rico Pfirstingers books on the XT cameras very helpfull. He goes into the JPEG facilities and how they are used in camera, in some depth. Dan Baileys book is also very good.  Both light years ahead of the Fuji manual.

You can get these as EBUP files at a discount if you google.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Annewin said:

I have been watching You Tube videos on the XT20.  There a several videos on the good quality of the Jpeg images and suggest to use RAF images only  as backups.  In general, the conclusion is that the jpegs are so good that RAF are really unnecessary and in some cases the qualtity of the jpegs can not be matched with RAF edits.   I would like to hear thoughts from experienced XT20 users on this idea.  I am still getting used to the X-T20 and am annoyed with the aggravation of how RAF files are handled.  I am used to Nikon and really having a difficult time getting used to Fuji.

Thanks,

Anne

 

In case you didn't know - you can shoot raw and develop in camera to produce a jpg to your liking.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, veejaycee said:

In case you didn't know - you can shoot raw and develop in camera to produce a jpg to your liking.

Even if you have selected JPEG only, the camera writes a RAW file, edits it into a JPEG, and dumps

the RAW file.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Whether the jpeg files are suitable is entirely a decision of the owner of the camera and the only way to decide is for the owner of the camera to actually take jpeg photos and decide. YouTube and forums cannot see what the camera owner sees and do not know what the camera owner wants to see. 

Get out and shoot jpegs and decide for yourself. The film is cheap.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I am still learning the Fuji XT20 and I might add that I do not find it an easy transition from Nikon DSL.  Thanks for the information about in camera raw converter.  That is going on my list of what I have to learn.

Thanks,

Anne

Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎01‎/‎09‎/‎2017 at 11:36 PM, K1W1_Mk2 said:

Whether the jpeg files are suitable is entirely a decision of the owner of the camera and the only way to decide is for the owner of the camera to actually take jpeg photos and decide. YouTube and forums cannot see what the camera owner sees and do not know what the camera owner wants to see. 

Get out and shoot jpegs and decide for yourself. The film is cheap.

It depends what is "suitable", doesn't it?  If you want to dodge shadows, burn highlights or colour clipping, adjust individual colours, vary the noise reduction, perform local adjustments, have greater control of sharpening for an output format and size, carefully adjust contrast, perform HDR or tone mapping, convert to black and white.... and a whole host of other things that cannot be done in camera, than doing so from raw is better than trying to edit a jpeg later, as the raw file contains more data and therefore is less likely to cause image quality issues than trying to edit jpegs.

My own view is that there is nothing wrong with most camera jpegs from most cameras, but if you want the control to perform "photo finishing" (such as some of the things I mention above), then using raw is a much better option.  Jpegs are great if you like how the camera maker decided to process a scene - which may not be how you want it.

(1) "Camera store" made a comparison of jpegs from all the major brands on landscapes and portraits, and asked the general public and photo finishers to rate the printed results.  Interestingly, Fuji didn't do very well, nor did Sony or Panasonic, all for different reasons.  I would say that Fuji jpegs can look "attractive", but perhaps not always very accurate, and for some photos that may not be suitable or can look unrealistic.  It's down to personal choice.  If you like the Fuji engineers view of how you pictures should look - and many do - then by all means shoot jpeg.

17 hours ago, Annewin said:

I am still learning the Fuji XT20 and I might add that I do not find it an easy transition from Nikon DSL.  Thanks for the information about in camera raw converter.  That is going on my list of what I have to learn.

Thanks,

Anne

What are the problems you are getting when working from raw, compared to your Nikon files?

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, artuk said:

It depends what is "suitable", doesn't it?  If you want to dodge shadows, burn highlights or colour clipping, adjust individual colours, vary the noise reduction, perform local adjustments, have greater control of sharpening for an output format and size, carefully adjust contrast, perform HDR or tone mapping, convert to black and white.... and a whole host of other things that cannot be done in camera, than doing so from raw is better than trying to edit a jpeg later, as the raw file contains more data and therefore is less likely to cause image quality issues than trying to edit jpegs.

My own view is that there is nothing wrong with most camera jpegs from most cameras, but if you want the control to perform "photo finishing" (such as some of the things I mention above), then using raw is a much better option.  Jpegs are great if you like how the camera maker decided to process a scene - which may not be how you want it.

(1) "Camera store" made a comparison of jpegs from all the major brands on landscapes and portraits, and asked the general public and photo finishers to rate the printed results.  Interestingly, Fuji didn't do very well, nor did Sony or Panasonic, all for different reasons.  I would say that Fuji jpegs can look "attractive", but perhaps not always very accurate, and for some photos that may not be suitable or can look unrealistic.  It's down to personal choice.  If you like the Fuji engineers view of how you pictures should look - and many do - then by all means shoot jpeg.

What are the problems you are getting when working from raw, compared to your Nikon files?

I use Nikon transfer for my RAW files  and this process is so easy.  For the RAF files I have found that I can download them, and if I make at least one adjustment, I can then open them in PS.  So I have found a solution but I do not care for LR, maybe mainly because I have never really learned how to use it.   I just find that downloading and process RAF files to be complicated.  From what I have read on the web, I am not the only person to feel frustrated with RAF files.  I am continuing to experiment and research ways of handling these files.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Annewin said:

I use Nikon transfer for my RAW files  and this process is so easy.  For the RAF files I have found that I can download them, and if I make at least one adjustment, I can then open them in PS.  So I have found a solution but I do not care for LR, maybe mainly because I have never really learned how to use it.   I just find that downloading and process RAF files to be complicated.  From what I have read on the web, I am not the only person to feel frustrated with RAF files.  I am continuing to experiment and research ways of handling these files.

I'm really sorry but I don't understand your response.

I don't what Nikon Transfer is, or what it does - can you elaborate?

I don't understand what you mean by "For the RAF files I have found that I can download them, and if I make at least one adjustment, I can then open them in PS."  Surely the process is to copy the files from your memory card to your PC, then open them in Photoshop?  Why do you need to make "at least one adjustment" to open them in PS?  And what are you using to make that adjustment?  Is the issue your version of PS cannot open the raf files from your camera because it is an older version, or not up to date?  If using PS (I don't, so bear with me), I would assume if you open a raf file, you get the Adobe Raw converter dialogue, you adjust the image to taste, then develop it and it gets transferred into the PS editor?

I think raf raw files give other challenges when post processing and developing them, but not in the sense of copying them to your computer or opening them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nikon Transfer is Nikon's instrument for downloading images , both jpeg and RAW. 

13 hours ago, artuk said:

 

19 hours ago, Annewin said:

I

13 hours ago, artuk said:

 

 

19 hours ago, Annewin said:

 

use Nikon transfer for my RAW files  and this process is so easy.  For the RAF files I have found that I can download them, and if I make at least one adjustment, I can then open them in PS.  So I have found a solution but I do not care for LR, maybe mainly because I have never really learned how to use it.   I just find that downloading and process RAF files to be complicated.  From what I have read on the web, I am not the only person to feel frustrated with RAF files.  I am continuing to experiment and research ways of handling these files.

I'm really sorry but I don't understand your response.

I don't what Nikon Transfer is, or what it does - can you elaborate?

 

Nikon Transfer is Nikon's program to download images from camera or card reader, both jpeg and RAW.

 

don't understand what you mean by "For the RAF files I have found that I can download them, and if I make at least one adjustment, I can then open them in PS."  Surely the process is to copy the files from your memory card to your PC, then open them in Photoshop?  Why do you need to make "at least one adjustment" to open them in PS?  And what are you using to make that adjustment?  Is the issue your version of PS cannot open the raf files from your camera because it is an older version, or not up to date?  If using PS (I don't, so bear with me), I would assume if you open a raf file, you get the Adobe Raw converter dialogue, you adjust the image to taste, then develop it and it gets transferred into the PS editor?

I am not a PS expert, I just know that RAF files are not recognized by PS.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll begin by saying I wish i could use Nikon Transfer, View NX and Nikon Capture NX2 on all my RAF files. Best imaging software ever. I still keep them on my PC to use on tiffs when necessary.

Current Photoshop CC does recognise XT20 Raf files but your old copy of (I believe) CS6 does not. It will probably recognise my older Fuji XP1 files but each new Fuji camera comes with a different file description.

When I used CS5 I added the MetaRaw plugin which converted my my otherwise unrecognised Rafs to DNG and opened them in Photoshop's ACR as for normal adjustments. The XP used X Trans 1 files. The metaraw plugin basically converts the unrecognised sim to the latest DNG for normal processing. You can do the same manually (and free) with Adobe's free DNG converter for single or batch conversion - it seems to take longer - worth trying though.

Cheap - http://thepluginsite.com/products/metaraw/

Free -  https://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/using/adobe-dng-converter.html

I then decided to give LR a try and at first I didn't like it. I don't give it control of my cataloguing because I have too many files from way back and I know where to find them. Sometimes when I move a file in other software I will see either the file or the folder dimmed out in Lr so I simply click and remove from LR and that's done. It was obvious I had to blank out PS and ACR from my mind and accept LR's way of working and once I did that it took me just a few downloads of files to find my way around - and that was doing it the man's way - otherwise known as read the manual later. As I live on a pension I bought the standalone version of LR which gives me access to all X trans Raf files. The controls are basically the same as ACR, it's just the UI which is different. I now prefer it and use it for all my work then export for any further work in PS CC 2015 as tiffs.

Since then X Trans II files (XT1/XT10/XE2), began to exhibit some smudgy foliage and distant detail. attempts to sharpen would sometime lead to obvious "worms". I now use Iridient at the settings above or using Thomas Fitzgerald's presets (the only presets I use). I only use IXT on landscape files which might prove problematical. In fact though LR has changed/improved it's algorithm for demosaicing and Tom Fitzgerald's presets work well as my standard sharpen for full size - however, I still use PS high pass filter as my final sharpen at output size/resolution.

Iridient X Transformer can be used the same way to batch demosaic Raf files before opening them in ACR thus cutting out LR. Although they are designated DNG they are exactly the same as RAW, even the film sims may be used and lens corrections are still automatic.

This is what I suggest you do - download IXT trial and input the settings as above (you only need do this once. The settings remain until you change them so you just open IXT and slide the folder of images onto the taskbar IXT icon which will pop up and slide the folder into the download panel of IXT - sit back and wait. A DNG copy of each Raf will be placed into the same folder. Open and process the DNGs as usual in ACR.

Cheap + trial - http://www.iridientdigital.com/products/xtransformer.html

Cheap - http://blog.thomasfitzgeraldphotography.com/blog/2014/02/updated-x-trans-sharpening-presets-lightroom

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Annewin said:

Nikon Transfer is Nikon's instrument for downloading images , both jpeg and RAW. 

Nikon Transfer is Nikon's program to download images from camera or card reader, both jpeg and RAW.

 

don't understand what you mean by "For the RAF files I have found that I can download them, and if I make at least one adjustment, I can then open them in PS."  Surely the process is to copy the files from your memory card to your PC, then open them in Photoshop?  Why do you need to make "at least one adjustment" to open them in PS?  And what are you using to make that adjustment?  Is the issue your version of PS cannot open the raf files from your camera because it is an older version, or not up to date?  If using PS (I don't, so bear with me), I would assume if you open a raf file, you get the Adobe Raw converter dialogue, you adjust the image to taste, then develop it and it gets transferred into the PS editor?

I am not a PS expert, I just know that RAF files are not recognized by PS.

 

So:

1) Nikon Transfer - why not simply remove the memory card from your camera, put it into a card reader on your laptop/PC and then copy the folders to wherever you keep you images?  Removes the need to any further software etc (perhaps Nikon Transfer is used to do other things rather than just transfer files?)

2) So the problem is your copy of Photoshop is too old to read the files from your new Fuji camera.  That's not a problem of the camera. VJC mentions some options for you.  Adobe provide a tool to convert camera raw files to their own Adobe Raw format, which any version of their software, including old copies, can read.  So if you don't want to upgrade, that might be an option.

the other option is to abandon Adobe, since their raw conversions from Fuji files are quite poor, and move to another raw development tool.  You could then use Adobe for editing once you have developed your files as you want them.  VJC can recommend other raw development tools - I prefered Capture One or SilkyPix to Adobe by a large margin.  Affinity and On1 Raw are recent raw development and editing tools that are quite affordable too - others will need to advise how they are with Fuji files. 

If you really like Adobe, the only remaining option is an upgrade, unfortunately.

It's not a problem with Fuji - its a problem with any camera when the software you are trying to use is out of date and doesn't include the camera you are trying to use - I've had the same problems too over the years.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...