A Dozen Years In

A dozen (or more) years in to this digital thing and the state of affairs we are in as a group (photographers) is pretty pathetic. I just happen to be signed-up/following a couple of Fuji X-series related news and discussion communities so I end up seeing this stuff constantly. Truth be told, I ignore it for the most part but for some reason I felt compelled to take a look at this series of "can't see the forest" stuff. I have no idea how or why I am immune to this 90% of the time and the other 10% somehow I just get sucked in.

What we have here is what looks like some sort of helpful post on dealing with your x-trans images. Which leads here to a quite scientific study comparing the wonderfulness or lack thereof Fuji files in two different RAW processors…

Quick what's the biggest difference you see? Just your first impression. Ummm yea ones darker than the other. Me too. I skimmed some words here and there and there were all sorts of better-ness attributed to darker. Yep - it's darker. Yep if it's darker you definitely will have "richer" colors, yep darker will give you more detail in the ugly sky. Ummm 100% now okay strain your eyes real hard…

Really? This is where we're at. Looking at shitty pictures under a microscope. Still? How come the scientist didn't notice one is darker? How did this particular attribute escape all the fine clinical analysis of dynamic range and color evaluation and sharpy-ness under a microscope. Honestly I could ask my 1.5 year old granddaughter which one is darker and she would get it right. I could also ask her if she liked it and she would most likely say no. If it had her or a giraffe in it she would love it.

I get sucked into this shit every once in a while as well. I don't know how. "Peer" pressure? Collective insanity of some sort? Why does it seem all these scientific tests have to use bad pictures? Like really bad ones? Is that a requirement. How often do you see good pictures in this kind of pains taking assessment. I guess we'll have to leave that one to the philosophers. Oh I forgot to mention there's also an assesment of relative 3D-ness with the dark one being the winner. Do I need some sort of special glasses? I don't know. Honestly my biggest question is the thought process for selecting this particular x-trans file to run the analysis on. I am afraid to ask… I didn't read the thread but I also really want to know what the ISO was too (sarcasm).

Here's the old version of ACR before they fixed it with all the new improvements.

I kinda like the way these RAW files look. In fact I like it way better than the way that new version of ACR looks or even the superduper 3D-invoking RAW processor that's way way better (darker). I just grabbed these out of my old blog image directory already uploaded sometime in 2012 to make sure they are using the old ACR. They are from my quick review of the XF60 Fuji - quite the lens for 500 bucks…

I just pulled up the original RAW files and you know what. I am kind of thinking they look all forked up at 100% - I think I will try that other RAW processor… kidding.

Here's a 100% from my old D2H…

It's kinda 3D and reasonable colors. It's even kinda sharp. I can see details too. I think ACR8 is even better. Heck this is even better than that X-trans at 100%. I think I may ditch my X100S and go back to the D2H… I may even remove the AA filter with some needle nose pliers. Then it will even be mo-better.

Whatever.

Hey man I am all about image aesthetics and yea I have more than a few complaints about the current state of the image capture ecosystem but I really have no idea why we are gauging our imaging aesthetics and what we want out of a camera and subsequent work-flow to make a picture using this rather absurd technique. All I wanna know is when we are going to get past this…

RB

blog comments powered by Disqus