p.2 #1 · What do people mean when they say Fuji ( or other camera ) colors are better.
But C1 is not even close to organizing my images. My whole image collection is based on LR catalogues - I won't change that and rather use third party profiles to obtain the colors I find pleasing in LR.
p.2 #2 · What do people mean when they say Fuji ( or other camera ) colors are better.
Lightroom's image management, plus the ability to sync across multiple devices is the key. I know C1 handles the Fuji files better but not enough to drop LR for me.
Nielk Mike wrote:
But C1 is not even close to organizing my images. My whole image collection is based on LR catalogues - I won't change that and rather use third party profiles to obtain the colors I find pleasing in LR.
p.2 #3 · What do people mean when they say Fuji ( or other camera ) colors are better.
Nielk Mike wrote:
But C1 is not even close to organizing my images. My whole image collection is based on LR catalogues - I won't change that and rather use third party profiles to obtain the colors I find pleasing in LR.
Uh, C1 has catalogs AND you can point it to any LR catalog. Voilla, best of both worlds, but yes you need 2 softwares.
p.2 #4 · What do people mean when they say Fuji ( or other camera ) colors are better.
Tried once to import LR catalogue with edits into C1. Failed miserably. So no, I'd rather stay with LR which I am used. The difference in IQ is too small to warrant the effort.
p.2 #5 · What do people mean when they say Fuji ( or other camera ) colors are better.
C1 ignores LR edits and goes straight to the original raw file. Simply because the base demosaicing AND color attribution (exactly what we’re discussing) are different.
But I understand being used to a certain workflow and living with the shortcomings of our chosen software. C1 isn’t perfect either, but I stick with it over LRC precisely because of demosaicing and color qualities.
p.2 #6 · What do people mean when they say Fuji ( or other camera ) colors are better.
Nielk Mike wrote:
But C1 is not even close to organizing my images. My whole image collection is based on LR catalogues - I won't change that and rather use third party profiles to obtain the colors I find pleasing in LR.
I'm also so deeply invested in Lightroom that I have zero interest in switching to other tools. I just don't have the time or interest to faff around anymore. Plus I rely extensively on the catalogue features of LR.
I find this whole discussion about Fuji colour to be a bit strange. If someone is using a RAW file, what they are seeing on screen is simply the product of the demosaicing algorithm and the camera profile.
There is no "Fuji colour" in Lightroom. It's all Adobe colour. Ditto every other software that isn't Fuji's. The only way to get "Fuji colour" is to demosaic the RAW file in the camera either directly or via Fuji X-RAW Studio (which uses the camera to demosaic the RAF) and produce a JPEG or TIFF. Then you need to view it on a calibrated monitor.
p.2 #7 · What do people mean when they say Fuji ( or other camera ) colors are better.
Fuji color refers to the color after debayering *in a given software* compared to other camera manufacturers *in the same software.* And there is a distinct difference; and as was specifically stated before, it's most notable in the quality of the greens and skintones, again when compared to other cameras.
If you can't see it using your editing machine and software or because of individual vision limitations, that's too bad for you. If you choose not to bother about the differences because of some other reason, that's obviously your choice. But to claim it's irrelevant or non-existent because of either of those reasons is simply wrong.
I *might* leave Fuji for a variety of reasons, but color is not one of them. It remains the best compared to what I have seen from any other brand.
I can understand avoiding C1 for a variety of reasons, but color accuracy is not one of them. Again, it's better than any other software I've comapred it to in this regard.
p.2 #8 · What do people mean when they say Fuji ( or other camera ) colors are better.
Fuji color rendition isn’t the same as that of other brands. But the differences usually aren’t meaningful if you post-process, and sometimes they favor Fujifilm and sometimes favor a different brand.
Jul 15, 2025 at 11:07 AM
AmbientMike Offline • • • • • • [X]
p.2 #9 · What do people mean when they say Fuji ( or other camera ) colors are better.
I remember the 1st file I processed in DxO, after 20 minutes it still didn't look as good as minimally processed in DPP. Colors not as good, highlights either. It got easier over time, but idk if that image ever got quite as good as the one minimally processed in DPP
I've mostly used the raw processors having the best colors etc. It's funny how people obsess over lenses and bodies often paying little attention to raw processors which can even improve detail
If you run everything through the same processor I'm not surprised it looks the same. But I haven't often done it that way
p.2 #10 · What do people mean when they say Fuji ( or other camera ) colors are better.
Jack Flesher wrote:
Fuji color refers to the color after debayering *in a given software* compared to other camera manufacturers *in the same software.* And there is a distinct difference; and as was specifically stated before, it's most notable in the quality of the greens and skintones, again when compared to other cameras.
If you can't see it using your editing machine and software or because of individual vision limitations, that's too bad for you. If you choose not to bother about the differences because of some other reason, that's obviously your choice. But to claim it's irrelevant or non-existent because of either of those reasons is simply wrong.
I *might* leave Fuji for a variety of reasons, but color is not one of them. It remains the best compared to what I have seen from any other brand.
I can understand avoiding C1 for a variety of reasons, but color accuracy is not one of them. Again, it's better than any other software I've comapred it to in this regard. ...Show more →
It still all depends on the camera profile that is applied after demosaicing. You are never looking at a RAW file in editing software that doesn't have a profile. If you like how Fuji files look in C1 with whatever default profile it's using more than how other camera files look like in C1 with whatever default profile is used on those files, that's nice insofar as it helps you get to where you want to go more quickly and easily.
Side note for forum etiquette and general community standards: You can be really snotty. It's off putting and immature. If I wanted this kind of tone, I'd go to Reddit.
p.2 #11 · What do people mean when they say Fuji ( or other camera ) colors are better.
rdeloe wrote:
It still all depends on the camera profile that is applied after demosaicing. You are never looking at a RAW file in editing software that doesn't have a profile. If you like how Fuji files look in C1 with whatever default profile it's using more than how other camera files look like in C1 with whatever default profile is used on those files, that's nice insofar as it helps you get to where you want to go more quickly and easily.
Side note for profile etiquette and general community standards: You can be really snotty. It's off putting and immature. If I wanted this kind of tone, I'd go to Reddit. ...Show more →
Just to add to it: Fuji Colors, even if there is something left after editing in C1 or LR, are even more questionable once you start printing. Professionals have calibrated workflow - I don't. When I print from my PC with NEC MS PA272W to a Canon iP8700, all I can do and will is try to come to a close match. And that I think applies to the majority of non-professional users, if they print at all. Displaying "real" Fuji Colors on a TV or phone (even OOC JPEGs) makes a faithful reproduction of Fuji Colors even more questionable.
So in summary, Fuji OOC camera JPEGs may show special, pleasing colors which, however, are lost in the process of viewing them on different devices, or working with RAW files.
p.2 #12 · What do people mean when they say Fuji ( or other camera ) colors are better.
Nielk Mike wrote:
How come people like my photos and their colors - and I am using RAW and no Film Simulations? Only post processing can get the best out of an image.
I don't know. Maybe you're good at editing and also a good photographer? Like I said, I suck at post processing, and I'd never beat Fuji's film simulations, so I just shoot JPG and get it over with. Sorry it doesn't work for you, but it works for me
p.2 #13 · What do people mean when they say Fuji ( or other camera ) colors are better.
gdanmitchell wrote:
Each to his own, and I can understand that some people might be happy with shooting jpgs on their expensive mirrorless cameras.
It blows people's minds when I tell them that I only shoot JPGs out of my GFX
But I also blow their minds when I tell them I've saved 30 days of my life per year by not editing RAWs. It's time I used to shoot more, or enjoy with my family, thanks to Fuji.
Hey if you guys love editing RAW files, don't let me dissuade you otherwise. Keep doing what works for you.
Jul 15, 2025 at 01:02 PM
AmbientMike Offline • • • • • • [X]
p.2 #14 · What do people mean when they say Fuji ( or other camera ) colors are better.
Let me just say this: you can't just get the same colors, because you shot raw, across brands and raw processors.
People often seem to have the idea you can. That since you shot raw it doesn't matter and you can get the same output regardless. That is not the case
Now, it may be possible to get the same colors (or close enough) out of different raw processors and brands, but you're probably going to need color management, knowledge of profiles, or something. I dont know how to do it, I'll say that, and I'm not new to photography
p.2 #15 · What do people mean when they say Fuji ( or other camera ) colors are better.
Demosaicing refers to the process of assigning a specific color to each pixel based on an algorithmic evaluation of the surrounding R/G/B photosites. These algortithms are complex and different for each program, so color renditions for the same camera will vary between raw processors.
But beyond that, there are many reasons why color rendition differences between different camera manufacturers are real, so that while you can approximate one from another in post closely enough to convince many viewers, you can’t exactly duplicate them.
For one, the colors in an image are determined by counting photons passed through a matrix of microlenses (the Color Filter Array, or CFA) that filter photons of specific colors for individual photosites. Photons (particles) are digital but color (their vibration speed) is analog. Red, Green and Blue may be defined as exact vibration frequencies (wavelengths), but the pigments in CFAs are chemical compounds that can only approximate specific colors. Variations in different manufacturers’ CFAs vary the distribution of photons between RGB photosites and thus the eventual color rendition. Fujifilm’s long history in color film chemistry gives them a leg up on other digital camera makers in this regard.
The color rendition of a lens also depends on the chemistry of the glass and coatings used, which may be why Fujifilm’s lenses produce such great colors, regardless of any other mechanical or optical considerations.
p.2 #16 · What do people mean when they say Fuji ( or other camera ) colors are better.
Joseph. wrote:
It blows people's minds when I tell them that I only shoot JPGs out of my GFX
But I also blow their minds when I tell them I've saved 30 days of my life per year by not editing RAWs. It's time I used to shoot more, or enjoy with my family, thanks to Fuji.
Hey if you guys love editing RAW files, don't let me dissuade you otherwise. Keep doing what works for you.
If you are doing that why not shoot heif/heic format? It gives you a lot of benefits and you can always export a 100% jpeg. I shoot raw and heic. If the Heic file is good enough I don’t go to the raw file and that is more for archive.
Benefits:
Better compression
Lesser storage
Better image quality with broader dynamic range capabilities
Better to edit
p.2 #17 · What do people mean when they say Fuji ( or other camera ) colors are better.
I’ve never tried it myself, but as I understand it, you can use Fujifilm’s software along with a camera connected to your computer to convert RAW files into JPEGs using the camera’s hardware for processing. It’s the second way to get true “Fujifilm look" besides shooting jpegs in camera.
Built-in film simulations produce quite different results, so I am not sure which one would be the most "Fujifilm color" color.
p.2 #18 · What do people mean when they say Fuji ( or other camera ) colors are better.
olegkin wrote:
I’ve never tried it myself, but as I understand it, you can use Fujifilm’s software along with a camera connected to your computer to convert RAW files into JPEGs using the camera’s hardware for processing. It’s the second way to get true “Fujifilm look" besides shooting jpegs in camera.
Built-in film simulations produce quite different results, so I am not sure which one would be the most "Fujifilm color" color.
I just tried it. It works and quite fast. For gfx100s2, between Film Simulation and White Balance there are 300 possible configurations affecting the color directly. There are 15 more settings that affect color and look of image in camera.
Fun fact: it only works with files created on the same camera model that’s connected. For example, the GFX100S II can’t process files from the GFX50S II.
p.2 #19 · What do people mean when they say Fuji ( or other camera ) colors are better.
Joseph. wrote:
It blows people's minds when I tell them that I only shoot JPGs out of my GFX
But I also blow their minds when I tell them I've saved 30 days of my life per year by not editing RAWs. It's time I used to shoot more, or enjoy with my family, thanks to Fuji.
Hey if you guys love editing RAW files, don't let me dissuade you otherwise. Keep doing what works for you.
Two things:
For many photographers, today and throughout the history of the medium, the work done in post is/was as much a part of fthe process of creating a final photograph as the work done at the time of exposures. (Ansel’s famous quote: The negative is the score and the print is the performance.)
I still enjoy time with my family, as it turns out… ;-)
p.2 #20 · What do people mean when they say Fuji ( or other camera ) colors are better.
olegkin wrote:
I just tried it. It works and quite fast. For gfx100s2, between Film Simulation and White Balance there are 300 possible configurations affecting the color directly. There are 15 more settings that affect color and look of image in camera.
Fun fact: it only works with files created on the same camera model that’s connected. For example, the GFX100S II can’t process files from the GFX50S II.
That software is a pain in the neck! If you really want to lose interest in post processing, that's the way to do it. Slow and limited - and why? Because Fuji wants to protect the Film Simulations.
