p.3 #2 · Why am I using the X-Pro3 more than the a7cR????
One thing I really like about shooting jpeg is the smaller file size. Got sick of filling up cards and felt more free to shoot all I wanted, on older cameras raw is more like the file size on jpeg on the newer ones so I use raw . I shoot Canon, like Fuji also has an excellent reputation for color
Yes raw is better for editing but it's not like you can't fix exposure and edit on jpeg. I'd be curious if you could get close to raw if you set the camera up properly. And I'm often not one to edit a lot
I'll use raw on landscape one reason being it's probably easier to deal any blown sky etc. But I do a lot of macro and it tends to be fairly evenly lit.
p.3 #3 · Why am I using the X-Pro3 more than the a7cR????
gdanmitchell wrote:
That’s a fact, but I don’t see it as a problem.
I look thru the viewfinder (or at the rear screen) to frame and compose, not to evaluate colors. (To the extent that I do that at the time of capture, it is by looking at the actual scene directly, not thorugh a viewfinder.)
This is true, as you note, even when I’m (as always) recording raw image files. It has virtually no relevance to my final image, whose characteristic I will determine by adjustments to the raw file in post.
So, while the viewfinder (of any mirrorless camera) technically is “using simulations,” that’s and entirely different thing than letting the simulations determine the qualities of the photograph itself....Show more →
I understand your point regarding framing and composition. Evaluating color through the use of film simulations just adds another dimension. I think of it as an exposure quadrilateral instead of the classic exposure triangle.
(I think I need to TradeMark “exposure quadrilateral” since it rolls off the tongue. Hahahaha)
p.3 #4 · Why am I using the X-Pro3 more than the a7cR????
Eduard wrote:
I understand your point regarding framing and composition. Evaluating color through the use of film simulations just adds another dimension. I think of it as an exposure quadrilateral instead of the classic exposure triangle.
(I think I need to TradeMark “exposure quadrilateral” since it rolls off the tongue. Hahahaha)
I think technically it is a pyramid. The triangle refers to the trade-offs between aperture, shutter speed and ISO. For correct exposure, a change in one necessitates a change in the other. Choice of colour operates in a different dimension. So I am trademarking "exposure" pyramid.
p.3 #5 · Why am I using the X-Pro3 more than the a7cR????
Geoff D F wrote:
I think technically it is a pyramid. The triangle refers to the trade-offs between aperture, shutter speed and ISO. For correct exposure, a change in one necessitates a change in the other. Choice of colour operates in a different dimension. So I am trademarking "exposure" pyramid.
Hahaha! I got too caught up making sure I spelled quadrilateral correctly! I’ll be laughing over this for a while.
p.3 #6 · Why am I using the X-Pro3 more than the a7cR????
Geoff D F wrote:
I think we are largely in agreement. I did say at the outset that if I'm shooting for what I regard as a serious purpose I shoot both RAW and jpeg. The only point I wanted to make and this goes for probably the majority of amateurs that shoot jpeg to document their lives, is that jpegs can cope with quite a bit of adjustment.
The quality of Fuji's jpegs is a key selling point for the brand and Fujifilm seems to be doubling down on that.
While I understand your point when it comes to documenting ones life, I must say that for such documentation mobile phones are the best tool available. A number of them are now producing outstanding JPEGs and very usable RAW files. But when it comes to more than documentation of daily life, RAW files from a real camera provide the ultimate tool to create something special.
An argument has been made that RAW shooters should only learn to properly expose their images. Sorry, we RAW shooters know how to expose. But the dynamic range of a scene can render proper exposure not helpful to obtain the desired result. Back in the film days, doing a wedding with flash was a very controlled environment. So was taking images on a sunny day with the kids. But I spent hours in the dark room to get my B&W images to where I wanted them.
The limitation of a tiff or jpeg becomes apparent when looking at my thousands of Nikon Scan slides from my film days (and even those that I had scanned initially by Kodak). They are fine images - but with limited leeway for processing.
And there is another reason I even use JPEG & RAW with my Pixel Pro 9: Applying the Adobe Profile in post provides an very different image that removes all the editing that the phone has done. Those edits are often very good - but most of the time "too much" and on the warm side.
p.3 #7 · Why am I using the X-Pro3 more than the a7cR????
Geoff D F wrote:
An example of what I was talking about. Second image is an adjusted version of the first JPEG. Now let's get back to the original topic.
p.3 #8 · Why am I using the X-Pro3 more than the a7cR????
Nielk Mike wrote:
That for me is not editing - it is very moderately adjusting contrast and brightness. Of course that works with non-raw files.
Saturation, white balance adjustment and vignette added as well, plus I started with a "recipe" as the base.
I'm not why you don't regard such adjustments as edits, but I suspect we have different shooting styles. I normally try to get something close to what I want in camera and if it is not I don't bother trying to save it. If you are shooting raw I'm guessing all you are aiming for is a good exposure then building the rest of the look in PP.
p.3 #9 · Why am I using the X-Pro3 more than the a7cR????
Geoff D F wrote:
Saturation, white balance adjustment and vignette added as well, plus I started with a "recipe" as the base.
I'm not why you don't regard such adjustments as edits, but I suspect we have different shooting styles. I normally try to get something close to what I want in camera and if it is not I don't bother trying to save it. If you are shooting raw I'm guessing all you are aiming for is a good exposure then building the rest of the look in PP.
Yes, I try to capture the best tonal range from black to white and then edit according to taste and mood. The images I take are "raw" images not only because of the file format, but also because they are just the basis for my edits.
p.3 #10 · Why am I using the X-Pro3 more than the a7cR????
Nielk Mike wrote:
An argument has been made that RAW shooters should only learn to properly expose their images.
Part of the problem is that too many people still equate “proper exposure” with “looks good straight out of the camera.”
That’s not what “proper exposure” means.
The right exposure (unless you are shooting slide film or perhaps jpg-only) is the exposure that retains the optimal image data for effective post processing. Sometimes this means and exposure that would look too dark or too light straight out of camera. (Too dark if exposed to protect highlights with the intention of lightening shadows in post. Too light in the case of a low contrast scene that we intend to darken in post.)
From the article: “For me, post-processing is as much a part of the creative process of photography as is composing and making the exposure. In fact, many of the decisions that I make at the time of exposure anticipate what I may do during the post-processing stage. These decisions recognize that the camera does not “see” the same way that we do, and that simply trying to produce an exposure that looks the exactly like the actual scene is often both hopeless and counterproductive.”
I chose to expose this way…
… with this result in mind…
The article explains it all. For what I had in mind, and given the conditions at hand, that awful looking initial exposure was the “proper” one. (If I had exposed so that those trees looked “right” SOOC, the sky would have been completely blown out.)
p.3 #11 · Why am I using the X-Pro3 more than the a7cR????
When I first started shooting digital, “expose to the right” was a rule we all lived by; and we needed to in order to get a raw file that was somewhat workable and better than a P&S jpeg of the day. This was with sub 10mp cams, their DR was only slightly better than reversal film and shadow noise was ugly bad after about ISO 400, so lifting them even a little added noise rapidly.
Things have improved a lot since then, and now as Dan shows above, most of my images look dark in an unadjusted raw specifically to protect highlights —and modern manufacturers AE evaluative metering pretty much protects them automatically now anyway— allowing for fairly aggressive shadow lifts in post. This latter step is absolutely something you cannot do aggressively with a JPEG, but can easily with a modern raw file.
p.3 #14 · Why am I using the X-Pro3 more than the a7cR????
Joseph. wrote:
"Adjusting contrast and brightness" is literally editing an image. You don't get to decide what editing means.
You can, obviously, edit a jpg image.
You are just much, much more limited in what you can do with It, since when you push things much at all you quickly run out of headroom and end up with major problems like noise, banding, color shifts, etc.
That's fine, of course, if you hate editing — just like microwaving frozen dinners is fine if you don't like cooking... or fine food.
- - -
As to why one might prefer to use the XPro3 over the a7CR, there could be any number of reasons, just as there could be to prefer the opposite.
p.3 #17 · Why am I using the X-Pro3 more than the a7cR????
You basically couldn't edit slide film. And slide film was the requirement for the vast majority of published images by professionals. It certainly isn't impossible to get excellent images sooc
Jpegs are far, far more edit-able than slides. I quit shooting in mid day light on slides , on jpegs it's not that hard if you set the camera up correctly. DR seemed far ahead of chromes even 20 years ago
p.3 #18 · Why am I using the X-Pro3 more than the a7cR????
AmbientMike wrote:
You basically couldn't edit slide film. And slide film was the requirement for the vast majority of published images by professionals. It certainly isn't impossible to get excellent images sooc
Jpegs are far, far more edit-able than slides. I quit shooting in mid day light on slides , on jpegs it's not that hard if you set the camera up correctly. DR seemed far ahead of chromes even 20 years ago
You couldn't edit slide film - put publishers were able to edit before, or when printing a slide. But as with JPEGs, editing was limited.
Jul 27, 2025 at 12:47 PM
AmbientMike Offline • • • • • • [X]
p.3 #19 · Why am I using the X-Pro3 more than the a7cR????
Nielk Mike wrote:
You couldn't edit slide film - put publishers were able to edit before, or when printing a slide. But as with JPEGs, editing was limited.
You can edit jpegs far, far more, than you ever could slides. Really not close
Printing, you could get Cibachrome, but I remember one quote, what's the point of an ugly print that lasts forever, so probably not too easy. I sent off to kodalux and sometimes they'd send the internegative back, so apparently using that process. Gives you editing and also the joys of someone else printing your work, often not how you wanted
I'm not really sure how much they could edit off a drum scan, probably some, but I mean, mostly, you shot the slide, no opportunity to edit, then sent it in.
p.3 #20 · Why am I using the X-Pro3 more than the a7cR????
Nielk Mike wrote:
There is no disparaging of people who use it. In fact, whatever makes people happy. But I do feel strongly about the usefulness of Film simulations. Most of them are very close and I seriously doubt that someone who looks at an image and is not the photographer will notice any difference.
So, power to those who use them, though I will never understand why the do :-)
No, not by you in this thread, but others calling film simulations a "gimmick" is disparaging to people who find it useful or even possibly the reason they have chosen to shoot Fujifilm cameras.
It would be a gimmick if it caused marketing attention without any real use/benefit for people, but that is absolutely not the case, and yet using that terminology places people who use/like the film simulations as somehow "less than" the fully sanctioned approach to photography that the poster clearly practices. It's laughably pathetic.
My goodness, we all have our own paths with photography and people don't need to put others down to feel better about themselves. It's not a zero-sum game.
