douglasf13 wrote:
Sony jpeg color is usually considered good, but both Sony jpegs and the packaged Sony raw converter have both been know to be lacking in the detail department. RPP kills both in terms of detail, but it generally kills just about any converter in terms of detail.
I don't understand your point about the raws, when the previous examples in this thread show the 5N raws to be competitive with the XE-1, in terms of detail, when using RPP. Are you mistaking artifacts in the X-E1 with actual detail? What sharpening settings are you using for the 5N in Lightroom? Are you using deconvolution?...Show more →\
Its well known that the best solution for the XE-1 yet is the jpegs, fuji's film emulation is very good also hence there is no reason at the moment for raw. You can set sharpening to zero and it sharpens nicely in LR
Douglas, the bottomline is I liked what I saw on the XE-1 better. The lens used for both is the Zeiss ZM 50 Planar.
frezeiss wrote:
Douglas, the bottomline is I liked what I saw on the XE-1 better. The lens used for both is the Zeiss ZM 50 Planar.
No problem with that. I'm just pointing out that it is entirely dependent on the raw converter (or jpeg engine) that you use, as well as the settings.
My question was in regards to your sharpening setting in Lightroom for the 5N. What did you use for your comparisons? Did you use deconvolution? Did you compare the 5N in RPP to the X-E1's jpegs?
I would like to see a 13x19 print where RPP will give a significant crispier print than a properly sharpened jpg. I don't think it will. In fact, I bet the jpg print will look a lot better to many because of the nice Fuji colors. I'm sure it will be plenty crisp.
mortyb wrote:
I would like to see a 13x19 print where RPP will give a significant crispier print than a properly sharpened jpg. I don't think it will. In fact, I bet the jpg print will look a lot better to many because of the nice Fuji colors. I'm sure it will be plenty crisp.
That's not what I said. I'm simply saying that I've not seen crisper output from the X-E1, as long as you're using 5N raws and properly sharpening them (or using RPP.) Sony jpegs have never been good in terms of detail.
Either way, I agree, the X-E1 is currently a jpeg camera.
My point, fwiw, is that I don't quite understand why people use RPP to squeeze that last bit of detail out of their raw files. Unless you print really big. Or unless RPP gives something else to the conversion. I tried RPP a few years ago, and found the UI really bad and results gave me nothing compared to ACR or Capture NX etc.
I've been testing the Capture One beta some more with my X-E1 RAW files and I'm very happy with the results so far! So much better than Adobe.
Very happy with the look. I'm getting better results than the jpegs. Better detail and color separation.
A quick random example shot out of my window:
100% corner crops.
Left is the OOC jpeg, right the RAW file. I did nothing to the colors. It's shot in harsh light. The jpeg looks washed out while the RAW still separates the colors nicely.
mortyb wrote:
My point, fwiw, is that I don't quite understand why people use RPP to squeeze that last bit of detail out of their raw files. Unless you print really big. Or unless RPP gives something else to the conversion. I tried RPP a few years ago, and found the UI really bad and results gave me nothing compared to ACR or Capture NX etc.
I agree. I quit using RPP a couple of years ago, and I only use Lightroom, now. My RPP remarks were in regard to Frezeiss, who was claiming to see more detail in the X-E1 compared to the 5N.
