p.2 #1 · Subjective Fujifilm X100vi review for street photographers
@ruthenium Sorry, I should have been more clear: I've been using the X RAW Studio for a while now with my X-T cameras, but for this use case I was intentionally trying not to Maybe I should have added this as one of my goals to the review.
p.2 #2 · Subjective Fujifilm X100vi review for street photographers
old-gregg wrote:
@ruthenium@ Sorry, I should have been more clear: I've been using the X RAW Studio for a while now with my X-T cameras, but for this use case I was intentionally trying not to Maybe I should have added this as one of my goals to the review.
I can understand that, all i want to is ooc jpegs and just dont want to think about raw files. its only early days for me with my new camera and looking forward to the experimenting.
p.2 #3 · Subjective Fujifilm X100vi review for street photographers
old-gregg wrote:
@ruthenium@ For context: Yep, shooting RAW solves all problems. I've owned several bodies of this line, starting with the original X100, and always used RAW. But I am primarily a film photographer, and this time I specifically wanted a camera best-suited for trying a JPEG-first workflow, somewhat analogous to shooting slide film.
I like introducing atrificial constraints to my work, like having just one fixed-lens FOV, or committing to just one film simulation for a given period of time. Not relying on RAW makes me pay even more attention to light and exposure. That's the background for me getting the camera. I have my Sonys and Nikons for RAW shooting.
Bumping clarity a bit, flattening highlights, reducing sharpening to zero, and adding grain gives me the look very close to what I get from Delta 100. And the X100VI does all of this in-camera perfectly, but unfortunately penalizes you with the delay....Show more →
One can also take raw as an "artificial constraint"
Another point. Having some film background, I consider a film very much more raw compared to a digital raw. Film workflow from developing to real photos is so extensive... Not to mention that the most common film workflow includes scanning which I really hate.
More seriously, I agree there is something magical in many Fuji film simulations, although I consider BW simulations a little lame. Maybe your settings are better than mine. Some of the color simulations are too much like art filters for my use, they are so obvious, but can work well in social media.
As a background, I started to use C1 for Fuji photos after I had acquired a second hand X100F. Maybe 2019, anyway pre covid. At that time Lr did not cope very well with Fuji raw - that was the rumor. More importantly C1 recognized Fuji film simulations, giving me best of the two worlds. With C1 I could get that "Fuji look" exactly without having to shoot jpg. (Now I use C1 for all my photography, also with Sony.)
If one wants to play with clarity, I think it is best used when developing a raw in camera. Does not slow photography. Developing raw in camera works quite well, and is fun if you have a quiet moment in cafe or in train.
p.2 #4 · Subjective Fujifilm X100vi review for street photographers
For people who are new to Fujifilm and are reading this review, it should mention the clarity setting in the very first sentence, because that setting completely changes how the camera behaves. More than half of the review does not hold true when clarity is set to zero. Just a suggestion.
p.2 #5 · Subjective Fujifilm X100vi review for street photographers
I haven't tried it myself, but I believe Clarity can be applied in-camera after the fact, if one records a raw file, via the Raw Conversion/Processing menu. I know this is not exactly the workflow you want, but you could shoot with Clarity set to zero, then later, on the camera, apply Clarity (and any other desired JPG settings) to your keepers. An extra step is involved, but it would ultimately give you the desired out-of-camera JPG, while avoiding the Clarity processing delay while shooting.
p.2 #6 · Subjective Fujifilm X100vi review for street photographers
I think of “constraining” to jpg as being like film…
… if you shot film and used drugstore processing.
Shooting raw and then taking the file into post is like shooting film and using a custom lab or processing your film and printing in your own darkroom.
Few serious film photographers aspired to the former back in the day. ;-)
tuomkok wrote:
One can also take raw as an "artificial constraint"
Another point. Having some film background, I consider a film very much more raw compared to a digital raw. Film workflow from developing to real photos is so extensive... Not to mention that the most common film workflow includes scanning which I really hate.
More seriously, I agree there is something magical in many Fuji film simulations, although I consider BW simulations a little lame. Maybe your settings are better than mine. Some of the color simulations are too much like art filters for my use, they are so obvious, but can work well in social media.
As a background, I started to use C1 for Fuji photos after I had acquired a second hand X100F. Maybe 2019, anyway pre covid. At that time Lr did not cope very well with Fuji raw - that was the rumor. More importantly C1 recognized Fuji film simulations, giving me best of the two worlds. With C1 I could get that "Fuji look" exactly without having to shoot jpg. (Now I use C1 for all my photography, also with Sony.)
If one wants to play with clarity, I think it is best used when developing a raw in camera. Does not slow photography. Developing raw in camera works quite well, and is fun if you have a quiet moment in cafe or in train. ...Show more →
Maybe I should have added this as one of my goals to the review.