- Messages
- 8,134
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Shadow recovery is surprisingly good
The Fabulous Fuji X owners thread
- Thread starter mart77
- Start date
Shadow recovery is surprisingly good
- Messages
- 9,629
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Dont start TobyLovely image, almost looks like a painting
- Messages
- 1,616
- Name
- Jamie
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Pretty much yeah. The x-trans are iso invariant so pulling up the shadows only hurts at high iso.
The main thing to watch for is not clipping the blacks, which is obviously as bad as clipping the whites. If you lower the exposure so the whites are JUST in the histogram and the blacks are clipping, then you'l need to bracket, as the dynamic range of the scene is just too high.
- Messages
- 9,629
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Lol
- Messages
- 1,616
- Name
- Jamie
- Edit My Images
- Yes
You can tell it a minimum, yes. If memory serves, it will only raise the iso once the minimum is reached, unless the iso is already at the highest you specify, in which case it'l use whatever shutter speed it can, regardless of what you set.
You can also set the maximum iso.
I have 3 settings - auto iso up to 800, 1600 and 6400, and for general use leave it set to auto 1600 with a min shutter of 1/60.
- Messages
- 23,784
- Name
- Toby
- Edit My Images
- No
That would have stopped it being blown out but I'm not sure whether Fuji files have enough flexibility to bump exposure 3 stops in post and still look good.
- Messages
- 23,784
- Name
- Toby
- Edit My Images
- No
You can set minimum shutter but it's limited and Fuji are missing a trick with their minimum shutter speed in auto ISO. As you know with the D750 you can set min shutter to auto and the camera will use 1/focal length as a minimum, and you can even fine tune Auto to use +/- 1 stop of the focal length. With Fuji you can only set one speed and that's it, so if you're using a tele lens it could be too slow and so you'd have to manually change the min value in the menu. Likewise with short focal lengths or with a lens you might be able to use a slower speed and again you'd have to manually change it.
Surely it's a pretty straight forward firmware fix to have an auto setting so not sure why Fuji haven't done it?
- Messages
- 1,361
- Name
- Dave
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Well, yes. But you won't often need three stops just to avoid blowing highlights. Once the highlights aren't blown, you can start to recover detail by applying a gradient adjustment in LR and pulling down Exposure and/or Highlights. Contrast and even Dehaze may also be worth a look, the latter with a very gentle touch. The problem with exposing for the highlights is that by the time you've opened up the shadows to recover the detail there, they may get noisy or be completely blocked up, although probably less so on the X-T2. That's why I bracket. Ignore everything darker than it needs to be. Pick the one correctly exposed to the right (Google ETTR if not familiar) and get it how you want it, near enough. Then make the other exposures look as close to that one as you can (sync setting, adjust exposure should get you close). Load as layers in PS, auto align and where the main exposure is too noisy or shadows are blocked up, blend in one of the others. Simples! Well, it isn't always simple. But that's my starting point when the sensor won't get it all in a single shot.
Having said all that, sometimes blocked up shadows or burned out highlights look just fine, especially in monochrome. But there's no problem with introducing them later!
Last edited:
- Messages
- 8,063
- Name
- Andrew
- Edit My Images
- No
Cheers pal.
- Messages
- 30,336
- Name
- George.
- Edit My Images
- No
A few standard Autumn shots today. It was bloody cold. And still a bit green.
Telegraph Woods I
Telegraph Woods II
Telegraph Woods III
TElegraph Woods IV
TElegraph Woods V
Lovely set of images Graham, with some stunning colours. #2 & #5 would be my fav's with #5 for me being right on the money.
George.
- Messages
- 1,361
- Name
- Dave
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Well then bracket wildly and hope! But really, there's no excuse. Fuji make it so easy, and it's a massive benefit.
Edit: and it's one of the key advantages of a mirrorless over my old Pentax K-10D. The number of shots I wasted because I had to take it first and then look at the histogram... Now I just put it on A, and move the exposure compensation dial until the histogram just touches the right hand edge. Then take the shot. So. Much. Time. Saved!
Last edited:
- Messages
- 23,784
- Name
- Toby
- Edit My Images
- No
The histogram is the only truly reliable tool to check the exposure and I would always recommend looking at the histogram. Whilst EVFs and LCDs are good they are not always a true representation, plus ambient light will affect how the image looks on the screen and it can be misleading.
- Messages
- 9,629
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Last edited:
- Messages
- 23,784
- Name
- Toby
- Edit My Images
- No
- Messages
- 9,629
- Edit My Images
- Yes
- Messages
- 1,361
- Name
- Dave
- Edit My Images
- Yes
You don't need LR5 particularly. Any version of LR that has gradient adjustments will be fine for recovering skies. Or take it into PS, apply a gradient mask to a Curves adjustment layer and the world is your oyster, pretty much.
- Messages
- 4,903
- Name
- Graham
- Edit My Images
- No
- Messages
- 1,361
- Name
- Dave
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I don't use NDs much but yes a polariser is very useful and I am always forgetting about it! And not just for darkening skies (beware ultrawide angles) or accentuating/removing water reflections. For example, if you have wet foliage glistening in bright light, I am told it will eliminate the reflections off those too, if you want. Admittedly I have yet to try this, but it makes sense to me .
.
- Messages
- 23,784
- Name
- Toby
- Edit My Images
- No
6 and 9 stop are quite extreme, probably best used for sunrise/sunset. In an ideal world you'd use a reversed grad for these though. For the shot of yours I'd have used a 2 or 3 stop. The throuble is the rest of the sky was exposed well so would then probably look underexposed so would need to be lifted in post.
Polarisers are very useful and give landscapes great 'pop', but be careful with ultra wide angle as they can make the sky look weird as some will be polarised more than other parts. Also, as above they can alter reflections.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 1,616
- Name
- Jamie
- Edit My Images
- Yes
It doesn't need to be wet. You'd be surprised just how much light coming off of foliage is a reflection, even grass!I don't use NDs much but yes a polariser is very useful and I am always forgetting about it! And not just for darkening skies (beware ultrawide angles) or accentuating/removing water reflections. For example, if you have wet foliage glistening in bright light, I am told it will eliminate the reflections off those too, if you want. Admittedly I have yet to try this, but it makes sense to me
- Messages
- 23,784
- Name
- Toby
- Edit My Images
- No
Isn't all light seen by a camera reflected light?
- Messages
- 1,616
- Name
- Jamie
- Edit My Images
- Yes
True, I mean a scattered reflection I guess...
- Messages
- 30,336
- Name
- George.
- Edit My Images
- No
No need to apologize for your questions Peter, surely that's what the forum/thread is all about. Discussing & showing photography.
George.
- Messages
- 1,361
- Name
- Dave
- Edit My Images
- Yes
It's a question of whether it's polarised or not, unsurprisingly
- Messages
- 8,134
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Are you sure that's right, I suspect you have 0.3 soft, 0.9 soft and 0.6 hard
0.3 = 1 stop
0.6 = 2 stops
0.9 = 3 stops
- Messages
- 6,754
- Name
- Peter
- Edit My Images
- No
Sorry it seems to be this, I must have read it wrong;
0.6 = 2 stop hard edge
0.3 = 3 stop soft edge
0.9 = 3 stop soft edge
- Messages
- 9,629
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I read somewhere that the histogram is only representive of the jpeg and is not completely accurate for the actual raw exposure,would anyone
Like to expand on this
Like to expand on this
- Messages
- 6,042
- Name
- Graham
- Edit My Images
- Yes
That's right, some people shoot one of the flatter JPEG profiles because of this, evidently it gives you a more idea what the highlights are doing.
Make a list of all your questions
Check the manual
http://fujifilm-dsc.com/en/manual/x-t2/
Come back here if they aren't answered
http://fujifilm-dsc.com/en/manual/x-t2/menu_shooting/shooting_setting/index.html#iso_auto_setting
- Messages
- 15,484
- Name
- Rich
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I remember seeing a recommended Jpeg setting to give the best representation of RAW on the histogram, film simulation was Provia, DR100 and both highlight and shadow settings at -2
- Messages
- 23,784
- Name
- Toby
- Edit My Images
- No
This is true and which is why I leave all picture settings on default as these, as far as I'm aware, are most representative of the RAWs. However, I've not fully tested the Fuji yet and only have real experience with the D750 with regards to this.
- Messages
- 6,733
- Name
- Colin
- Edit My Images
- No
Damien Lovegrove posted the settings he used on the X-T1 last year to give a jpeg with a closer representation of the RAW file.
http://www.prophotonut.com/2015/06/02/fuji-x-t1-settings/
- Messages
- 15,484
- Name
- Rich
- Edit My Images
- Yes
A few years ago I messed about with a method called UniWB, do a search, have a read and make your own decision about it.
It seemed to work for me on a Canon 5D mkii, but I have no idea how it translates to the X-Trans sensor and if any benefit would be apparent
When I paid greater attention to these things I used the RGB histogram for adjusting exposure via ETTR. This is one area that Fuji needs to improve upon, very useful histogram to have visible
It seemed to work for me on a Canon 5D mkii, but I have no idea how it translates to the X-Trans sensor and if any benefit would be apparent
When I paid greater attention to these things I used the RGB histogram for adjusting exposure via ETTR. This is one area that Fuji needs to improve upon, very useful histogram to have visible
Last edited:
- Messages
- 23,784
- Name
- Toby
- Edit My Images
- No
I've just looked at the difference between jpeg and RAW histograms with the default Fuji settings and it's quite surprising how different they are
Just another quirk from Fuji I'll try those settins from prophotonut, and try some different ones myself to see which most resembles RAW. Just as an example, here's the difference in jpeg vs RAW with default exposure settings (I don't have default and sharpening but I can't see these making a difference to the histogram, but I guess you never know with Fuji )JPEG
RAW
At least the RAW file has much better preserved shadows and highlights so at least if you're using the jpeg histogram as a guide it's erring on the side of caution
However, here's the real 'kicker'. This is only true if you use the adobe profile for your RAW photos. If you use the same camera profile as you shot the picture in (in this case Provia Standard) the RAW histogram looks like this
A bit more like the jpeg but crushing the blacks a little more with less luminosity in the shadows. At least you know you can recover blacks though as shown by the adobe RAW.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 9,629
- Edit My Images
- Yes
How does this compare with the d750 you have Toby ?
- Messages
- 23,784
- Name
- Toby
- Edit My Images
- No
TBH it's a while since I did a comparison but from what I recall it was pretty darn close, the odd difference in luminosity in places but minor. I never load the jpegs onto the computer though as they're on the second card and only there as a backup in case of card failure. I might check it again one day. You're never going to get an exact match though as there's some weird voodoo magic that manufacturers create with their jpegs, plus jpeg have a lot of information removed compared to RAW.
woof woof
I like a nice Chianti
- Messages
- 40,013
- Name
- Alan
- Edit My Images
- No
Just on histogram... The ability to see the histogram in real time was one of the main factors that allowed my old tech Panasonic G1 to begin to compete with my theoretically much more capable Canon 5D in real world and challenging light shooting and more modern and more capable cameras are only going to be better. Even an arguably inaccurate JPEG histogram can be a useful guide once you get to know your camera. I'd recommend that anyone not using an in view histogram should look into it and give it a try and not just for a day but for enough time to get familiar with it and to be able to see if it's an advantage for them. I think it's a great and very helpful feature which can boost the first time keeper rate past that which is likely with a conventional DSLR.