I was in Galway a few weeks ago and I took a good few photos while I was there with my X-Pro1. Unfortunately, I haven’t really been that happy with them for a number of reasons. First of all, the weather wasn’t very good and so the light wasn’t very good. But more than that I’ve been having a bear of a time post processing them. [UPDATE] Just to be clear, I’m talking about getting the best quality RAW conversion here – not necessarily processing to add effects etc – and while I may have done so in the case of these images anyway, that’s a separate discussion to the issues I’m raising here. As it stands, this is a real problem with the X-Pro1. Each method of dealing with the files from this camera has its issues. Some people swear by the JPEG output, saying it’s as good as RAW and so on. In my opinion this simply isn’t true. While the JPEGS are very clean and free from artefacts, they suffer from some serious colour bleeding. This leads to a processed and somewhat cheap look. It’s fine on some images, but anything with areas of strong colour contrast just bleeds, and in my opinion it’s quite significant. You don’t even need to zoom in to see it which makes me wonder how everyone says the jpegs are perfect?
So that leaves us with the Raw files. Currently there are two approaches to dealing with the Raw files. You can either use Fuji’s supplied Raw Converter (a special version of Silkypix) or Lightroom / Camera Raw. Lightroom / ACR’s issues with X-Pro1 files has been well documented. The chroma smearing of fine detail leads to a completely un-natural “water-colour” effect. While this is passable for some images depending on the content, anything with a lot of fine detail just looks ridiculous. Silkypix on the other hand does a much better job of handling the fine detail but it has some serious difficulty handling the highlights. Lightroom on the other hand does a really good job of handling the highlights, but the files are only useable if you intend to down sample them. Another thing I’ve noticed with the Silkypix conversion is that there is some weird scaling artefact going on. I know that lens correction is done during the raw conversion and in camera (because I’ve used a beta of another piece of software that lets you truly see the raw file and you can see that he geometry is uncorrected) so perhaps it’s just a poor antialiasing algorithm. You wouldn’t really notice it unless you zoomed in, but I suspect the good folks at iStock and Getty would reject your shots for this.
So there is the quandary. You have this camera that people are raving about but there’s currently no way to get the best out of it (in my opinion). Unfortunately there’s also a lot of emotion surrounding it and it’s very hard to have a rational discussion, because some people are so passionate about it (and arrogant about it too). Fans of the X-Pro 1 are saying he most ridiculous things to justify what is a good but flawed camera. The usual argeuement goes something along the lines of “if you don’t like this camera you’re a bad photographer” which is kind of a straw man way of setting you up to get you out of having to justify the numerous problems the x-pro1 has. The other argument is that the X100 was “fixed” with firmware updates so you shouldn’t say anything bad about the X-Pro1 because Fuji will probably fix it too. The thing is though, those of us who bought the camera, did so to use it now, not a year down the road when it’s “fixed.” But of course, because I have issues with it, I’m a bad photographer apparently. How the camera locking up, the delay when pressing the shutter, the fact that the histogram doesn’t update when in manual exposure (I could go on and on) etc is the fault of the photographer escapes me but anyway, I’m sure I’ll be in the dog house for expressing a negative opinion.
At the end of the day, yes the camera can take great pictures, and yes any good photographer can work around the issues, but thats a giant cop out because it doesn’t excuse those issues. Sure you can use the skills you have to shoot like it’s 1970′s and you’re using a leica, but it’s not, it’s 2012, and you should be able to use the features of your camera without having to jump through numerous hoops to get the best from it. Fuji is advertising this as a fast and responsive camera and yet when you press the shutter button it can take up to a second before it takes a shot and if you shoot a bracketed exposure it locks up the whole camera for several seconds. So for those who insist that it’s just a matter of the photographer’s skill, absolutely any skilled photographer can take great shots with the X-Pro1, but you’re missing a whole lot more that you could have taken if you weren’t so caught up in the fact that you’re using something that looks like a leica. I know this will offend some people, and I really don’t like offending people, but when some photographers are writing such ridiculous things like “it’s sharper than a D800″ that are just not based in any kind of reality, then it makes the issues even more annoying knowing that you can’t problem solve or discuss issues without getting someone’s back up. I do like the experience shooting with this camera when the circumstances allow you to work around the bugs, and I still think it has the potential to be a great camera but it feels more like an advanced prototype than a finished product. I could keep pretending this is the best camera ever so as not to offend anyone, but this is my opinion so take it or leave it.
Anyway, enough negativity, on to the pictures! I did get some shots I’m almost happy with, although I’m still not happy with the way I’ve post processed them. I wen’t a bit overboard with some of the shots, so consider these a little more experimental than anything. I started trying the jpegs, and I did get some nice results, but the colour bleeding was annoying me so I went back and processed the raw files with silkypix using the super flat option. I then brought them into Aperture and took it from there. Some are over processed, but anyway…
Moody sky over Galway Bay
Low tide over the bay
Interesting mural on the side of a pub in the city
Ah, Irish summers!
Cool Graffitti. There was a few of these on a bench by the river. Well, one of the rivers. There seems to be waterways everywhere in Galway.
Needless to say, no one was walking on the footpath
I love that you can find this kind of natural beauty in the centre of a town
Now that’s a funny address.
Chef takes a break
Building a bridge! Seriously, they were building a bridge. Apparently by the end of the week it was finished too.
Well said (about the camera itself and the emotional hipster “I shoot street and wrap my camera in leather” kinda hype). I’m really starting to like this camera, but still I couldn’t agree more! I’m not a pro, relying on this camera to earn money, but if I where it would have been send back. I use it for my kids and general travel photography. I don’t regret leaving the 5D MkII + EF 24-70mm f/2.8 because of the weight but still. “Advanced prototype” is well put, and Fuji needs to do something about it.
I feel your pain.
However, your rant could have been short-circuited and unnecessary to sit down to type had you tried the third – and most appealing/free/effective – solution, which is RPP, a donation-ware RAW processor. I’m not affiliated with the developers and it’s Mac only, but it has produced incredible image quality out of the X-Pro 1′s sensor to my eye. I’m a hobbyist/enthusiast, but the way RPP handles the X-Pro’s RAW files is far superior to LR 4.1.
Give it a look if you’re a Mac user.
That’s beside the point. The camera and the software supporting it is acting BETA’ish.
Granted, the lockups on card writes, autofocus/aperture/shutter delay and histogram bodging are all VERY valid points (and frustrate me, as well).
I was speaking primarily to the post-processing part of the rant, which apparently wasn’t clear enough although it was all I addressed. What I was relaying was that there is another option to extract better image quality than that presently available through the two ‘solutions’ he mentions.
I’ll stick with the camera despite its warts.
I understood that you wanted to help with a better way of dealing with the X-pro RAW files and that you too feel the pain about it’s quirks too. But still. We’re discussing how to use a pro-camera’s raw files that’s only poorly supported in the most commonly used RAW processing software out there. Besides I’m on a PC. So still. Not good enough for a camera advertised as is, and definitely not at that price.
I’ll stick with the camera too and as I said I like it.
beautiful fuji green!
Here Here !!!!!
As a pro of 25+ years you are correct on ALL parts of this article !!!
“Most” pros shoot in manual ….. and being a “pro” camera shouldn’t the x-pro1 have got the manual histogram etc correct ????
For the fan boys who say Lightroom can do a good job with these files …….. whatever !!????
I travel the world teaching both Photoshop & Lightroom ……. and “both” are not ready for the xtrans sensor yet ….. fact !
It is …. to a degree subject dependent however.
….and I agree totally the jpegs colour smear like crazy !!!!!
So we have camera that struggles with certain subject matter in RAW and also struggles with certain colours in jpeg …. oooo look I have a cheap looking Leica B&W camera ?!?!?!?! (insert sarcasm here) !
The moral of the tale …… don’t always believe the hype (emperors new clothes and all)…..
Phew I feel better now …… still seriously out of pocket …… but better !
Agree entirely on all the issues you mention! Yes, its feels exactly like an “unfinished” product. Didn’t Fuji learn from the X100?
The sheer amount of praise/ adoration/ worship it’s getting is way way way out of proportion to the truth.
I’m so glad to hear a more balanced, realistic assessment of the camera – I was begining to feel there was something seriously wrong with my photography skills or my eyes!
Anyway, I still like it enough (light-weight, decent image quality, nice controls) to hang on to it, even if it makes my life harder than it needs to!
Photography is an ART, like everything else in the world of ART, it is all very subjective, Some like Monet’s work, others don’t. The tools that produce the art form depends very much on the skill of the artist as well as the ultimate admirers. For me, the X-pro 1 has its shortfall, but it serve me well for my type of photography even thought it is not a perfect tool. It produce what I want and that is what count.
At last someone telling the truth about one of worst camera ever. Cheap plastic body and lenses, worst af ever, falses colors.etc. Leica still rules.
Re: serious difficulty handling the highlights
The original version on the disk did weird things when you used the Highlight Controller. This was fixed with Update Ver.3.2.9.1 and now the IMO the highlight Controller works very well. The update is at:
http://www.fujifilm.com/support/digital_cameras/software/myfinepix_studio/rfc/v3291/index.html
your argument falls apart and we see that your pictures are not composed well and are uninteresting. you are overly concerned about processing because you are using processing to make up for other weaknesses in your work.
ever consider that you may indeed be a poor photographer and that everything may not be the camera’s fault?
From the article that you probably didn’t read: “Unfortunately there’s also a lot of emotion surrounding it and it’s very hard to have a rational discussion, because some people are so passionate about it (and arrogant about it too)”. That was part of the argument too and you just verified that part with your lousy comment.
if i didn’t read the article how would i know that he was concerned with the ability to process the camera’s images? his article exaggerates minutae when there are simply much bigger issues with his pictures. for example, he’s very concerned with color smearing despite the fact that he admittedly overprocesses his images. if his photos were more interesting and better processed, then his pixel peeping arguments about color smearing might have held water, but this is not the case
there were “emotional responses” that agreed with the author, why didn’t you respond to those as well and tell them they were lousy?
Perhaps I’m a little sensible to unfounded critique. If you feel the urge to tell someone that they’re poor photographers and that their pictures are badly composed and uninteresting, you could at least add a few words about why you think so. If you want to discuss aesthetics, art, composition, Henri Cartier-Bresson’s geometric or whatever, you should perhaps have chosen something else than a blog post stating something about a cameras technical performance. If by others emotional responses you mean “philip” the reason is I didn’t even bother…
Sorry got to comment on Lukes points ………….. justifying your purchase does not make this camera poor performance any better?!?
Pulling Kristians post processing apart also does not deflect any issues mentioned.
Jpeg colour smearing (for example) …IS NOT pixel peeping !
Printed large it is a printable issue and one that any “pro” will not accept (myself included).
Remember the clue is in the name …… x-”pro” 1……
My two penneth anyway !
While I know I’m going to regret responding to such an obvious Troll in Luke, and this will be my only post on the matter, here it goes anyway…
First of all, In regards to the over-processing, it was to make up for bad light not bad technique. That was said int he article if you had read it rather than skipped through it. Second, The issues with the camera were related to all images, not just these specifically or this shoot specifically, although you already know that. In fact the pictures here were also not there to illustrate the problems I was having with the camera or post processing them. They’re there despite the issue. It’s pretty obvious from reading the whole post that you skipped through. Thirdly, I admitted in the post that I wasn’t happy with them. But again, you probably just skipped through it reading only highlights.
Second of all, these images weren’t part of a portfolio. I wasn’t sharing hem to go – “these are the best images ever taken ever.” They were shared because they I felt like it and it’s my blog. You said they were un-interesting. What you meant to say was, un-interesting to you. There’s a big difference. As interest is subjective, one of those statements is a fact, the other is an obvious attempt to insult.
Also, as you’re such an apparent expert on photography, I noticed that you left out your own link to your portfolio and website where I can only assume you regularly post award winning photographs that are always perfect and never ever post an image that doesn’t live up to your own supper high standards ever? How about a link?
Finally, in terms of “poor composition” how about a less general statement and be more specific. What exactly is wrong with the composition? If you’re going to critique try doing it properly. So, for example, in the first shot, what exactly is wrong with the composition that you don’t like? is it the foreground interest? Is it the horizon framed on the rule of thirds? or is it the leading lines of the harbour? Too textbook?
How about the second shot? What’s wrong with that? The horizon isn’t exactly on the thirds line? 1 or 2% off? Is that what’s wrong with he composition?
Maybe it’s the folks walking along he river. Ok, I’ll give you that one, they should have been a bit further along, and I would have got the perfect shot had the camera not locked up, but that’s just me being a bad photographer though, not the camera’s fault. Right. After all, my lack of skill changed the laws of physics and caused the electronics in the camera to freeze. And as for uninteresting, I was illustrating a point about the weather.
Or maybe it’s the sign that you take issue with. Of course, not great composition, but it was to go with the joke caption because no one was walking on the footpath. But, obviously you have no sense of humour, so maybe I’ll go back and edit the post and delete the image because it doesn’t meet random internet person’s approval? Maybe instead I’ll include a link to all your super perfect photos that you included in your comment….oh, wait.
So, maybe it’s the picture of the Nuns signpost. Well, I just thought that it was funny, so sue me.
You see Luke, it’s not hard to be specific. If you’re going to insult someone, at least have the courtesy to put a little effort into it.
First I must admit I am not a pro, but since using the X-Pro1 in the past month, I have taken lots more pictures which I felt satisfied than other gears such as the Nikon D700. Not that the X-Pro1 is a better camera than the D700, it just fits my style better.
Because I loved the X-Pro1 so much that I have been reading lots of reviews and user comments hoping to learn more about the camera and better techniques of using it. Having said that, your review is THE most one-sided I have seen to-date of this camera. You even cited some of the X-Pro1 fan’s reaction to prove your point, which to me has absolutely nothing to do with how the camera performs. If the fan’s reaction is extreme (which to me represents only a small percentage after reading hundreds and hundreds of user comments), it is because for a very long time, they are in love again, and when you are in love, you tends to be more forgiving about the deficiency of what you are in love with.
Your complaint about the IQ makes me believe you might have gotten a bad sample. Again of the hundreds articles and user comments I have read, there are many likes and dislikes about the X-Pro1, but they all tends to agree on 2 things. First is the IQ is very good to excellent, and second the build quality is very high.
BTW, the comments from Phillip above and I quote “At last someone telling the truth about one of worst camera ever. Cheap plastic body and lenses, worst af ever, falses colors.etc. Leica still rules.” makes me believe he has never touched a X-Pro1, much less using one before.
G.
This wasn’t a review and wasn’t intended to be a complete write up about the camera. I was expressing frustration at two things. First was the fact that I know the camera can produce better image quality that it’s possible to currently get from the various raw converters and second I was expressing frustration at the one sided response others have written about this camera glossing over its flaws claiming its the users fault, and making claims that it’s the single best camera out there and that if you disagree with them you’re a bad photographer. It wasn’t a stand alone review because I’ve written lots of other things about this camera most of them positive.
If you read some of the other things I’ve written you’ll see that I’m mostly happy with this camera and it’s image quality. In fact it’s because it can produce such good results that in my opinion, makes the flaws even more frustrating because I know how good the potential is.
I thought my piece was quite balanced in the context of other stuff I’ve written, but perhaps it’s my own mistake not to make that clear in the post and include links and quotes from previous posts on the issue. It’s easy to forget sometimes that people can come here from a link to a single post and never see it in the wider context of the rest of the blog, so that’s my own fault.
As for philip’s comment, it’s so ridiculous that I didn’t even grace it with a response. It’s an obvious attempt to start an argument so I’m not going to take the bait. You shouldn’t either.
you’re right it was a bit rude to insult your photographs. if i don’t love them that is my own, and perhaps very poor, opinion. i don’t even have a blog because i don’t think my pictures are very good, honest.
however, regardless of pixel peeping type issues such as color smearing, people are taking beautiful pictures with this camera. if the pro1 creates an emotional response that leads to more creativity then perhaps that is more important than how colors bleed between low contrast lines on 100% crops… (DP review did a technical review and found that this actually occurred rarely and was not a factor in most instances).
I do think it’s a shame that lightroom doesn’t process its raw files as well as it does in camera…
As we all know it doesn’t focus very fast in low light…
The auto iso is annoying because the shutter speed it uses is too slow…
…and I too agree that it would be nice to have these things work right now rather than be fixed later in updates
I’m not too attached to it to admit there are things about it I don’t like.
For the last time (lol) I did actually read your article… and in hopes that you accept my apology I will admit that I like the “Chef Sitting.”
Sorry for being a d%^k
ps. this is not my site but i’ve stumbled on your blog and many other great xpro1 shooter blogs here: http://www.scoop.it/t/fuji-x-pro1
I accept your apology and thank you for being magnanimous enough to write it.
I’m following this up with a post showing why the colour spearing in Lightroom affects photography in a real world situation and not just “pixel peeping” and it will be balanced. I’m the first to admit that I can be too picky when it comes to image quality, but it’s only because I know it can do better. But the smearing has real world implications which I’ll write about shortly
Thomas that’s very interesting!
I actually have a hotline direct hotline to Fuji UK & Adobe UK (it’s a loooooooooong story) and only yesterday they asked me to send over smearing samples to send to the bods at both technical departments.
Just wondering if you would like to participate (the more the merrier in my opinion)?
If you do my email is studio@davewallphoto.co.uk
Regards
Dave
Sure – I’d be happy to – I’ll follow up with you on email
Thanks
Thomas
Like Denis above I use Raw Photo Processor (RPP) and find that detail resolution in the resulting Tiffs is superb, with no hint of chroma smearing. The application integrates perfectly with your followup application of choice….Photoshop CS, Aperture, or Lightroom 3 in my case and will automatically pass the converted image to that program. Yes it is Mac only, and the developer states that will never be made available in Windows as it would require a complete re write.
What astonishes me is that Adobe, possibly the major player in the field, is the the one responsible for the worst conversions, particularly in respect to chroma smearing and what is called the ‘painterly’ effect, apparent in foliage at times in Lightroom 4.1. Adobe allowed Dpreview to do some comparisons of Raw conversions using what Dpreview called a beta release of Lightroom, which clearly showed the issues, which were the subject subsequently in Dpreview and widely elsewhere of adverse comment. Nevertheless, within a week or so Adobe released Lightroom 4.1 complete with the poor conversion issues. It beggars belief.
Raw Photo Processor is no more difficult to integrate into a Lightroom workflow than say editing in Lightroom with any other application such as, for example, Nik Silver Efex Pro or the like. I do not intend to upgrade to Lightroom 4.1 unless and until the issues mentioned above are resolved. In all of that, Raw Photo Processor can be used for free, if you are stingy enough not to make a contribution. It appears that Adobe should be ashamed of themselves.
@ Dave. Dave it is not clear whether you were referring to Fuji or Adobe when you say you were asked for samples. If by that there was an inference that one or both were unaware of the issues, then who ever was involved with you is either being disingenuous or deserves to be sacked for being completely out of touch with either companies interests.
My declared interest is that I own both the Fuji X-100 and Fuji X-Pro1. I like both very much, and yes I would like to see improvements, by firmware updates, to the widely requested improvements suggested by reviewers and forum members/owners.
Thanks for posting your thoughts, Thomas.
I love my X100, and rode out the quirks while Fuji tweaked it. It’s ended up being the most enjoyable camera I have ever owned.
I’m umming and aching over the X-Pro1 to replace my 40D, but can’t bring myself to spend that amount of money until they sort the RAW conversion out.