Here are examples of just the X2D. One has the HNCS applied straight out of camera, and the other 3 are the LR profiles for Camera Matching, Adobe Standard, and Adobe Color.
I'm curious to know which one you find most pleasing, and if the differences are substantial enough to pay $10,000 for the exclusive pleasure of HNCS
A fair chunk of my time was spent as a horticultural photographer and as such critical colour reproduction was paramount, depending of course on the client.
The only file here that I would reject out of hand as a starting point would be number 3. Please don't tell me that is the HNCS. My preference would be number 2.
Personally I like the first one the most but would still mess with the file some more to my liking.
However, I think I can tweak any of the four files to my liking as far as color is concern.
Sometimes it comes down to seemingly small things. For example, as much as a Hasselblad CFV 100C would make a lot of sense on my digital view camera outfit, compared to the GFX 100S I use, I would find the Hasselblad frustrating.
It's "little" things I use every time I head out, like geo-tagging, being able to write lens information into EXIF automatically, and the ability to record a voice memo in a sidecar file (yes with Fuji, but no with Hasselblad).
I'm also irritated that Hasselblad knows they have a problem with wide symmetrical lenses that are shifted, but isn't fixing it. Getting rid of the stripes using a tool someone else wrote would be irritating.
These functional things matter vastly more to me than "colour science" because I work in RAW and don't use Adobe's versions of Fuji's film simulations. ...Show more →
I also work in RAW 100% of the time as well. Film simulation the way Fuji implement it is a hassle for sure.
I supposed if I want film look or feel (whatever that is), DXO film pack seems like the easiest solution and I use that some times even though it is not exactly the same as Fuji film simulation which seems to be much more elaborated than just a simple filter or profile. Capture One is one of those program that I have a love hate relationship with. I like its raw converter but much more comfortable to use ACR for most of my quick adjustment.
Like you, I rather get the picture first then deal with color science later. Although I have to say, every time I hold X2D, X1D or
CFV100c/907x, I really want to get one just because the form factor is so nice, function be damned
rdeloe wrote:
Bernard, I was reacting to your suggestion that C1 results are the same. To me that means something specific (identical, at the pixel level). I think what you meant was "so close that differences don't matter", which is fair enough. If C1 can give people a "Fuji-like" experience using RAW files, that's amazing and kudos to them.
They aren't. Capture One default curve is more contrasty and hotter on highlights. The in-camera processor that generates the jpeg is better with highlights by default.
I found myself in a similar boat, and decided to try out the X2D and 55v, which is still in process. I sold my 100s and 32-64, kept 45 and 45-100 in case I decide to go back to GFX. I wouldn't say that I hated GFX colors, but there were certain situations that required more work to get the colors I wanted. I agree the X2D colors straight out of camera (using Lightroom) are very nice. Also, I love that Hassy has many prime lens options to choose from, most are light weight, manual focus clutch on some, and gorgeous to boot. The 55v is a fabulous lens, but the GFX 45 2.8 is optically superior IMO, not enough to sway me one way or the other.
Setting the Fuji Film Sims aside, I found that most of my issues with Fuji Colors relate to Auto WB in certain situations, curious if you found the same? Did you try / use any presets to deal with them?
Anyway, I just got from a trip to the central Ca coast and will post some once edited for anyone interested.
Rod
RoamingScott wrote:
I hated every single aspect of GFX colors and white balance, which is why I picked up the X2D. Hassy just nails the tones comparatively speaking for what I shoot.
KLaban wrote:
Viewing on my calibrated Eizo I'm shocked by the HNCS and wouldn't choose it as the starting point for colour critical horticulture work.
Could just be a simple white balance issue, especially with such a large area of a single dominant color.
6x4.5 used to be the smallest common 120, something like 60mmx45mm. Now medium format is only 33x44, about the same difference vs ff as m4/3 cspared to aps.
AmbientMike wrote:
6x4.5 used to be the smallest common 120, something like 60mmx45mm. Now medium format is only 33x44, about the same difference vs ff as m4/3 cspared to aps.
Better, but maybe not a huge difference
6x4.5 image size is usually 56x41.5mm
There was also 127 film which is similar in size to those 44x33mm sensors
Here are a couple images, one with my X2D and other with SL3...Avila Beach Pier, there was a lot of fog, which surprised me for July in the Central California Coast. As such, not a lot of color BW looked the best.
Which one do you prefer?
Rod
X2D 100CXCD 55V lens55mmf/14.045s200 ISO-1.0 EV
LEICA SL3LUMIX S 24-105/F4 lens39mmf/13.010s100 ISO-1.6 EV
Rod.smith7 wrote:
Here is another taken a few days ago, again, BW seemed appropriate, Oceanside Pier. I really do like how the X2D renders, especially sunstars.
Rod
I think things like the sunstar rendering are pretty subjective, but I indeed preferred the 55V shots there.
The rest of the image was similar enough to not really matter what it was taken with IMO, much like my examples in this thread
RoamingScott wrote:
I think things like the sunstar rendering are pretty subjective, but I indeed preferred the 55V shots there.
The rest of the image was similar enough to not really matter what it was taken with IMO, much like my examples in this thread
Yeah, sunstars are definitely subjective...I need to decide if I will make a further investment into the X system...considering the 21, 28/38, 75, 90 (original), and 135...all this adds up quickly which means the SL3 would have to go. Going back to GFX is the smarter move and will need to learn how to deal with the colors (I will just shoot BW).
Definitely an interesting sample Scott. The yellow tip of the in focused flower shows a good example of how the different profiles are treating color and highlights. Would be interesting to see the same test of an image with more in focus, such as a landscape or a cityscape.
I do feel that when comparing profiles, it's a bit different if you are looking for a starting point for editing or close to a final output. For example, the Adobe Color one has enough saturation and contrast, it's probably close to the final output, whereas the Adobe Standard one will need more tweaking before output. The HNCS one seems to be a nice middle ground. Now if you're in a situation where you plan to do a heavy edit and pull detail out of the shadows, the Adobe Standard one might be a better starting point.
It just proves how subjective we all hold our color tone preferences.
