Petr Kulhavy Posted December 31, 2014 Share Posted December 31, 2014 Hi guys, I'm new to Alamy and trying to post some landscape pictures for a QC approval. One of the images is an unmodified OOC JPEG from my Fuji X-T1. To my surprise it got rejected due to "compression artefacts". It was shot at the "fine" setting, which is the best setting the camera offers. Could someone please help me to understand what is wrong and how to get better JPEGs out of the X-T1. Is this something Fuji should be aware of to improve their JPEG engine? The reason I'm shooting OOC JPEGs is the awesome film simulation feature Fuji has. Thanks a lot Petr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DDoug Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 I shoot "fine" JPEGs with an X-E1, so the files are similar. Everything is at default settings except for sharpness at -1. Files are opened in Silkypix 6, which allows treating JPEGs as raw files. Film simulation is added there, along with a minimal amount of sharpness. Everything done this way has cleared QC so far (knock on wood). By layering and erasing I can have Astia skin tones in a Velvia environment. I also like increasing dynamic range in post as opposed to the in-camera version. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Baigent Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 I shoot RAW and if I want the film look I apply it in lightroom or Photoshop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin P Wilson Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 I shoot RAW and if I want the film look I apply it in lightroom or Photoshop. Me too. I sometimes shoot Fine+RAW if I need images for immediate news submission or to get a sense of what the result will look like (in the viewfinder), especially if I might want monchrome. Then I still have full colour RAW data to process either way. I tend to exclude the JPGs from my catalogue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DDoug Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 I started out shooting RAW because of habits held over from previous camera. However, although CA is no problem I found PF in some contrasty files that I couldn't get rid of in post without a lot of hand work. Somehow, Fuji's JPEG files don't have it, comparing with RAW files of the same images. I don't submit OOC JPEGs, but after tweaking in Silkypix I find them pretty much equal to what is possible from RAW, and better with respect to PF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Number Six Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 Most surprised that you had problems with an OOC Jpeg from the X-T1. I've been submitting mainly OOC Jpegs from both the X-E1 and X100 for over 18 months with no problems. Any minor tweaking of the associated TIFF files is usually done in Elements, and I only use the RAW files for any 'rescue' shots. On both cameras I use the Provia 'standard' setting, DR200 and Auto ISO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Lewis Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 I too have not had any issues with submitting Jpegs from my X-E2 (same sensor & processor), or my X-T1. Fuji Jpegs are definitely "sharper" OOC due to the compression algorithms they use to generate the images. I keep my Sharpening setting on zero. I always open in either Capture One Pro or PS5 at 100% to check, but I've never seen any artifacting. Do some testing with your Sharpening setting at -1 and see what results, (as stated by Don Douglas). IMHO, Jpegs should never be sharpened. They do "artifact" very easily when sharpened. There have been many times that the Jpeg OOC looks much better than what I produce out of the RAF. But, I'm not very skilled at post processing. I like the "Lens Optimization" option Fuji presents. Helps with refraction, CA and such. Pretty good stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Petr Kulhavy Posted January 7, 2015 Author Share Posted January 7, 2015 Thank you all for your comments. I'm also not very skilled in post processing either and rather spend the time with the camera than sitting in front of the screen ;-) The only thing I can see the QA could complain on that picture is slight banding in dark blue sky. The picture was shot at ISO200, fine quality. How do you get around that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Lewis Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 Thank you all for your comments. I'm also not very skilled in post processing either and rather spend the time with the camera than sitting in front of the screen ;-) The only thing I can see the QA could complain on that picture is slight banding in dark blue sky. The picture was shot at ISO200, fine quality. How do you get around that? Well, shoot RAW I guess, to answer your question. ;-) I did a quick comparison on an image I made yesterday. I processed the RAF in Capture One Pro then processed the Jpeg companion. (I adjusted levels.) It was a somewhat high, or at least higher, contrast image, and I did see what could be perceived as compression artifacting. There were very sharp transition lines between the light and dark. On the RAF conversion the transition was very smooth with a better gradient. Pretty typical from my experience. If you are getting the image right, in the camera, at the time of exposure you shouldn't have a lot of processing to do. I'm not that skilled but, to be honest, I don't need to be for stock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin P Wilson Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 Thank you all for your comments. I'm also not very skilled in post processing either and rather spend the time with the camera than sitting in front of the screen ;-) The only thing I can see the QA could complain on that picture is slight banding in dark blue sky. The picture was shot at ISO200, fine quality. How do you get around that? Well, shoot RAW I guess, to answer your question. ;-) I did a quick comparison on an image I made yesterday. I processed the RAF in Capture One Pro then processed the Jpeg companion. (I adjusted levels.) It was a somewhat high, or at least higher, contrast image, and I did see what could be perceived as compression artifacting. There were very sharp transition lines between the light and dark. On the RAF conversion the transition was very smooth with a better gradient. Pretty typical from my experience. If you are getting the image right, in the camera, at the time of exposure you shouldn't have a lot of processing to do. I'm not that skilled but, to be honest, I don't need to be for stock. That is the problem. If you adjust jpegs, especially for exposure or adjust the black/white points to open up the midtones, you are liable to get banding - it should be obvious as you get spikes and gaps in the histogram. After all there is less data, 14bits of data per pixel in RAW (typically) reduced to 8 and further compressed in the jpeg. Difficult to spread that out over the full range without leaving gaps which show as banding. That is why I always shoot RAW (sometimes + jpeg) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Lewis Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 Thank you all for your comments. I'm also not very skilled in post processing either and rather spend the time with the camera than sitting in front of the screen ;-) The only thing I can see the QA could complain on that picture is slight banding in dark blue sky. The picture was shot at ISO200, fine quality. How do you get around that? Well, shoot RAW I guess, to answer your question. ;-) I did a quick comparison on an image I made yesterday. I processed the RAF in Capture One Pro then processed the Jpeg companion. (I adjusted levels.) It was a somewhat high, or at least higher, contrast image, and I did see what could be perceived as compression artifacting. There were very sharp transition lines between the light and dark. On the RAF conversion the transition was very smooth with a better gradient. Pretty typical from my experience. If you are getting the image right, in the camera, at the time of exposure you shouldn't have a lot of processing to do. I'm not that skilled but, to be honest, I don't need to be for stock. That is the problem. If you adjust jpegs, especially for exposure or adjust the black/white points to open up the midtones, you are liable to get banding - it should be obvious as you get spikes and gaps in the histogram. After all there is less data, 14bits of data per pixel in RAW (typically) reduced to 8 and further compressed in the jpeg. Difficult to spread that out over the full range without leaving gaps which show as banding. That is why I always shoot RAW (sometimes + jpeg) Agreed. I have found that you need near perfect conditions to really get a Jpeg you know will pass QC here. But, when that happens, it seems like magic. :-) I've done a lot of testing and you are absolutely right. I shoot RAW + Jpeg Fine. Having said all that, a properly exposed Jpeg in Fine compression, without a lot of post and zero sharpening, should pass QC. I have several that have passed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin P Wilson Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 At the moment I would rarely shoot jpegs. Today for example we have bright but low sun with a lot of deep dark shadows. To get anything out of those needs careful manual processing - the contrast is just too high and the dynamic range beyond pretty well any camera, or film. When it is not sunny it is grey and the contrast is so low the histogram is very narrow and for most purposes needs widening. That spreading of the mid tones will also create banding on jpegs; you might just get away with it on raw. I too have submitted a lot Fine ooc jpgs but they were News and not subject to same QC scrutiny. In one or two cases I later submitted same images processeed from raw to open up the shadows that the OOC jpgs had not done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Lewis Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 At the moment I would rarely shoot jpegs. Today for example we have bright but low sun with a lot of deep dark shadows. To get anything out of those needs careful manual processing - the contrast is just too high and the dynamic range beyond pretty well any camera, or film. When it is not sunny it is grey and the contrast is so low the histogram is very narrow and for most purposes needs widening. That spreading of the mid tones will also create banding on jpegs; you might just get away with it on raw. I too have submitted a lot Fine ooc jpgs but they were News and not subject to same QC scrutiny. In one or two cases I later submitted same images processeed from raw to open up the shadows that the OOC jpgs had not done. Totally agree. Where the jpegs seem to fall apart are the high contrast situations. The Fujis tend to block up the shadows. You can draw a lot out of the RAW but that amount of processing of the compressed Jpeg causes QC problems. Totally usable as a snap shot but not what I would submit for QC review. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Number Six Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 Rick/Martin I found that using Provia with DR200 provides an excellent histogram with little or no blocking at either end (given a correct exposure of course!). However, from a previous thread, I was surprised that some people appeared to be submitting OOC Jpegs using other film simulations which certainly do block up the shadows (particularly Velvia). Regards John (and have still lost the ability to include quotes in replies btw) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin P Wilson Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 Provia is my default film simulation setting. It was when I last used film as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.