The Fabulous Fuji X owners thread

Mr Perceptive said:
FAO @mickledore From this


160824 Brunner Mond, Winnington 2 sm by Mr Perceptive X100, on Flickr

to


161126 Brunner Mond Wharf 01 by Mr Perceptive X100, on Flickr
Click to expand...
Yo there @Mr Perceptive. How's life?
Looks like we may have been among the last to see the works in situ. Have you been down the other side to see if the bridge is still there, or has that gone too?

I'm just back from the land of spittle sprayers. Fog lifted like throwing a switch as soon as I crossed the Queensferry Bridge. Then it was glorious sunshine all day. Temperature was said to be minus 4 but in the sun there was no need for hat or gloves. Once the sun dipped below the hills then it went cold, very cold. But a good recce for Daves's Men or Mice meet next January. After that I went and had a bacon bap. Yes, the bap that you owe me, but your wallet was in it's cutomary triple locked deposit box!
 
mickledore said:
Yo there @Mr Perceptive. How's life?
Looks like we may have been among the last to see the works in situ. Have you been down the other side to see if the bridge is still there, or has that gone too?

I'm just back from the land of spittle sprayers. Fog lifted like throwing a switch as soon as I crossed the Queensferry Bridge. Then it was glorious sunshine all day. Temperature was said to be minus 4 but in the sun there was no need for hat or gloves. Once the sun dipped below the hills then it went cold, very cold. But a good recce for Daves's Men or Mice meet next January. After that I went and had a bacon bap. Yes, the bap that you owe me, but your wallet was in it's cutomary triple locked deposit box!
Click to expand...

Can't get down the other side, the footpath access has 6ft boats!!

I've got a day free next Saturday, you available, and I'll settle the bap debt!! Don't mind where we go, but do fancy going West! Weather dependant though
 
Yeah. Nothing pencilled in yet so you have first call. I keep hearing tales of Llangollen but is there much there besides the railway - which has probably shut down for winter?
Mines above Llanberis? As it's dark at 4ish we could take in the Menai bridge from this side.
Travel together?
Meet at yours - because I can't think where to meet otherwise.
Other suggestions more than welcome.
Bacon bap. Yummy. With HP sauce. Drools all down his chin.
 
dave.hallett said:
I'm sorry, cos I said I'd shut up :) but despite your demo, I don't believe that can be true. The RAW format records the light that hits the sensor. This is not affected by how you set the WB in camera. There's really nothing more to add. I think your subtle variations must have some other explanation, probably something to do with how the histogram is generated.
Click to expand...

It can be explained, because the histogrames that are created in camera, are not from the raws, but from the Jpegs containd with in the raw files, which do change with the white balance.
The raw file data is not in a form that can be read directly as a histogram.
 
Last edited:
mickledore said:
Yeah. Nothing pencilled in yet so you have first call. I keep hearing tales of Llangollen but is there much there besides the railway - which has probably shut down for winter?
Mines above Llanberis? As it's dark at 4ish we could take in the Menai bridge from this side.
Travel together?
Meet at yours - because I can't think where to meet otherwise.
Other suggestions more than welcome.
Bacon bap. Yummy. With HP sauce. Drools all down his chin.
Click to expand...

Let's sort it out later in the week, when we have a better idea of weather.
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
It can be explained, because the histogrames that are created in camera, are not from the raws, but from the Jpegs containd with in the raw files, which do change with the white balance.
The raw file data is not in a form that can be read directly as a histogram.
Click to expand...
Yes, that I can believe. What @snerkler is saying (and apparently others too) is that what is recorded in the RAW file is affected by the WB setting. Just in case I was losing my marbles, I Googled it some more, and can't find any reputable source suggesting that it does. Indeed, some fairly knowledgeable (and combative) experts such as Andrew Rodney are very clear that it doesn't. Admittedly we do not know exactly what camera manufacturers do to make their RAW files (it's proprietary after all), so it's not impossible but it would be an odd thing to do, I can't find any evidence to support it happening. But like Toby, I would be interested to see some. I try to keep an open mind, after all.
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
It can be explained, because the histogrames that are created in camera, are not from the raws, but from the Jpegs containd with in the raw files, which do change with the white balance.
The raw file data is not in a form that can be read directly as a histogram.
Click to expand...
Hmmm that I'm not convinced about TBH, the histograms from the jpegs and RAW files are quite different. The histograms in camera are most definitely the ones from the jpeg, and why sometimes you can get quite a surprise when you open up the RAW. However, the histograms from the RAW files when you open up in LR etc (such as those posted) are those based on the RAW and not the jpeg files. I can't post examples as I'm only on the phone, but it's quite easy to see if you shoot RAW and jpeg and load both into LR etc.
 
dave.hallett said:
Yes, that I can believe. What @snerkler is saying (and apparently others too) is that what is recorded in the RAW file is affected by the WB setting. Just in case I was losing my marbles, I Googled it some more, and can't find any reputable source suggesting that it does. Indeed, some fairly knowledgeable (and combative) experts such as Andrew Rodney are very clear that it doesn't. Admittedly we do not know exactly what camera manufacturers do to make their RAW files (it's proprietary after all), so it's not impossible but it would be an odd thing to do, I can't find any evidence to support it happening. But like Toby, I would be interested to see some. I try to keep an open mind, after all.
Click to expand...
I agree most online places do say that RAW is RAW and not affected by any settings, which is why I was so sceptical at the Nikon class (in fact both Nikon classes I've been to), and hence why I tested myself. I find it very interesting, even if it is a bit pointless :LOL: I think it's fair to say that WB does affect the RAW histogram if you don't standardise it in post, so if you shot at 4000k and 6000k and left them like that the histogram would look quite different, as you'd expect. I've not found any software that displays a 'default' WB for RAW, they always display the WB that you shot. Whether the RAW histogram looks the same if you shot one at 4000 k and one at 6000k and adjusted both the 5000k for example I'm not sure. My tests show there is a teeny variation, but I guess there could have been some variation from one shot to the other (although I'm not sure what). It'd be interesting to know (for my geekiness) whether anyone else has run tests and what their results are?
 
ryanyboy said:
Quick question - has anyone used the Lee seven5 filters with their Fuji. If so how do you rate it. Just read a very negative review on the Wex website so wondering if it's worth the money....?
Click to expand...

They're fine as long as you don't plan on using on 10-24mm at the very widest setting. The filters themselves are good enough, although I still plan on junking them all in favour of a slightly larger set from a manufacturer whose name now escapes me, though I have talked about it before in this thread.
 
snerkler said:
Hmmm that I'm not convinced about TBH, the histograms from the jpegs and RAW files are quite different. The histograms in camera are most definitely the ones from the jpeg, and why sometimes you can get quite a surprise when you open up the RAW. However, the histograms from the RAW files when you open up in LR etc (such as those posted) are those based on the RAW and not the jpeg files. I can't post examples as I'm only on the phone, but it's quite easy to see if you shoot RAW and jpeg and load both into LR etc.
Click to expand...

When you open a raw file in lightroom or photoshop it is no longer a raw, as raw data can not be displayed. You are seing what ever format adobe use as their display. Which might be a photoshop file. But any, even slight changes can not be saved back as the raw file.
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
When you open a raw file in lightroom or photoshop it is no longer a raw, as raw data can not be displayed. You are seing what ever format adobe use as their display. Which might be a photoshop file. But any, even slight changes can not be saved back as the raw file.
Click to expand...
But the histogram is based on the RAW data not the jpeg data is it not? If it wasn't then the RAW and jpeg histograms would be identical wouldn't they?

Sorry if I'm being a bit thick, I just can't get my noodle around RAW histograms being based on the jpeg file but then are wildly different from the jpegs on occasions. If you shoot RAW and jpeg is the embedded jpeg file in the RAW data different to that of the actual jpeg file then?
 
Last edited:
Alan Clogwyn said:
They're fine as long as you don't plan on using on 10-24mm at the very widest setting. The filters themselves are good enough, although I still plan on junking them all in favour of a slightly larger set from a manufacturer whose name now escapes me, though I have talked about it before in this thread.
Click to expand...

I currently have a Cokin P series set that I planned to try with the 10-24mm but understand that the holder creates a vignette at the shorter FL's as pointed out.

I may just consider a screw on ND instead of slot in filters if I the Cokin are no good.
 
Ian W said:
I currently have a Cokin P series set that I planned to try with the 10-24mm but understand that the holder creates a vignette at the shorter FL's as pointed out.

I may just consider a screw on ND instead of slot in filters if I the Cokin are no good.
Click to expand...

Interesting, I hadn't read that previously. I have the larger Lee holder and filters for my D800 and bought an adapter to let me use them with my X-T10 with the 18-55 and 14mm lenses, but thought that if I ever have the balls to move over completely to Fuji then I would switch to the smaller Lee system.... but maybe not?
 
psybear said:
Interesting, I hadn't read that previously. I have the larger Lee holder and filters for my D800 and bought an adapter to let me use them with my X-T10 with the 18-55 and 14mm lenses, but thought that if I ever have the balls to move over completely to Fuji then I would switch to the smaller Lee system.... but maybe not?
Click to expand...
I think you'd be alright at 14mm. It's the 10-12mm range that suffer apparently and even then it's only the three filter holder that causes it. A single filter holder is apparently alright.
 
Alan Clogwyn said:
They're fine as long as you don't plan on using on 10-24mm at the very widest setting. The filters themselves are good enough, although I still plan on junking them all in favour of a slightly larger set from a manufacturer whose name now escapes me, though I have talked about it before in this thread.
Click to expand...
I've just bought the hitech firecrest 100mm filter holder and some of their resin grads (well Santa's bought them so don't have them yet ;)) so looking forward to trying them out. 100mm filter set is overkill for the Fooj I know, but the reason is that my 85mm set causes vignetting at 18mm on my D750. I bet the new holder will dwarf the XT1 :LOL:
 
snerkler said:
But the histogram is based on the RAW data not the jpeg data is it not? If it wasn't then the RAW and jpeg histograms would be identical wouldn't they?

Sorry if I'm being a bit thick, I just can't get my noodle around RAW histograms being based on the jpeg file but then are wildly different from the jpegs on occasions. If you shoot RAW and jpeg is the embedded jpeg file in the RAW data different to that of the actual jpeg file then?
Click to expand...
No, you're right. What you're seeing in LR is a histogram based on the RAW data put through the current settings of the demosiacing algorithm, is my understanding. What that results in, I'm not sure, but I would guess it's probably a TIFF, because that's what PSD files are, under the skin. Reading through the links that @SsSsSsSsSnake provided, the idea that WB could affect the RAW seems to have arisen from two places. One is that on the Nikon D1, it really did :). The other is that some software has had bugs that introduced errors if you tried to correct the WB in post when channels were blown, leading people to think that because they couldn't get the WB back, it must therefore be in the RAW data somehow. But on modern cameras, as far as I can tell, the RAW file simply records the values registered by individual sensors. Everything else like WB is just add-on tags that can be used or ignored as preferred.

On a side note, I have discovered reading about all this that you can use something called Unity White Balance to get a more accurate histogram out of your camera, by taking a black frame and using that to get a truly neutral WB for your sensor. The trouble is that it's very green, making LiveView hard to use. Probably not worth the bother, as if you're that concerned about using all the RAW headroom, just use a handheld meter and expose for the highlights.:)
 
So this double cash back deal, I've read a few pages but not a lot makes sense.

If a XT10 and 16-50 lens was bought as a kit does that qualify for double cashback?
 
snerkler said:
But the histogram is based on the RAW data not the jpeg data is it not? If it wasn't then the RAW and jpeg histograms would be identical wouldn't they?

Sorry if I'm being a bit thick, I just can't get my noodle around RAW histograms being based on the jpeg file but then are wildly different from the jpegs on occasions. If you shoot RAW and jpeg is the embedded jpeg file in the RAW data different to that of the actual jpeg file then?
Click to expand...

Raw data is just a series of numbers It has to be converted into a display file of some type to be visible. During this process all the Exif tags and the like are applied. It is only after this that we can see the image and see a histogram. The Histogram we see always shows the current state of the file including tags and any alterations we have made ourselves. We can never get to see a histogram of the raw state. In camera they are based on the included Jpeg... on your computer they are based on what ever your converter displays.

The raw file contains virtually all the captured data and needs a white balance applied to make any sort of sense. A raw file does not have a white balance, one has to be applied. the histogram is established after this process is applied.
 
T_J_G said:
So this double cash back deal, I've read a few pages but not a lot makes sense.

If a XT10 and 16-50 lens was bought as a kit does that qualify for double cashback?
Click to expand...

It's whatever the original cashback was doubled, not two items with cashback on each. In your case was 80 quid and now it's 160 (if bought in the qualifying period 25/11-01/12)
 
Last edited:
dave.hallett said:
No, you're right. What you're seeing in LR is a histogram based on the RAW data put through the current settings of the demosiacing algorithm, is my understanding. What that results in, I'm not sure, but I would guess it's probably a TIFF, because that's what PSD files are, under the skin. Reading through the links that @SsSsSsSsSnake provided, the idea that WB could affect the RAW seems to have arisen from two places. One is that on the Nikon D1, it really did :). The other is that some software has had bugs that introduced errors if you tried to correct the WB in post when channels were blown, leading people to think that because they couldn't get the WB back, it must therefore be in the RAW data somehow. But on modern cameras, as far as I can tell, the RAW file simply records the values registered by individual sensors. Everything else like WB is just add-on tags that can be used or ignored as preferred.

On a side note, I have discovered reading about all this that you can use something called Unity White Balance to get a more accurate histogram out of your camera, by taking a black frame and using that to get a truly neutral WB for your sensor. The trouble is that it's very green, making LiveView hard to use. Probably not worth the bother, as if you're that concerned about using all the RAW headroom, just use a handheld meter and expose for the highlights.:)
Click to expand...

Terrywoodenpic said:
Raw data is just a series of numbers It has to be converted into a display file of some type to be visible. During this process all the Exif tags and the like are applied. It is only after this that we can see the image and see a histogram. The Histogram we see always shows the current state of the file including tags and any alterations we have made ourselves. We can never get to see a histogram of the raw state. In camera they are based on the included Jpeg... on your computer they are based on what ever your converter displays.

The raw file contains virtually all the captured data and needs a white balance applied to make any sort of sense. A raw file does not have a white balance, one has to be applied. the histogram is established after this process is applied.
Click to expand...

Thanks for bearing with me guys, very interesting (y)
 
Ian W said:
Having compared the 10-24mm to my 18-55mm, I'm now not so sure that's going to be possible. There is quite a noticeable difference in girth at the front end [emoji1] [emoji85]
Click to expand...

To you and me, yes, the difference is fairly obvious but to your average Joanne, a lens is a lens is a lens. If the 100-400 suddenly appeared in place of the 18mm or similar, she might notice but a relatively small difference in size will probably go unspotted. You could always fake up a receipt for £100 or so and say that it was a bargain you couldn't pass up!!! ;)

snerkler said:
My thoughts on it are that RAWs aren't truly RAW and there is some level of processing.
Click to expand...

I'm not a raw user so no expert but I would expect a truly raw file to be composed of red green and blue pixels only since most sensors record these colours in whichever pattern is preferred by the manufacturer (I'm ignoring the [?]Foveon sensor which IIRC does record all 3 colours on each photosite).
 
Nod said:
To you and me, yes, the difference is fairly obvious but to your average Joanne, a lens is a lens is a lens. If the 100-400 suddenly appeared in place of the 18mm or similar, she might notice but a relatively small difference in size will probably go unspotted. You could always fake up a receipt for £100 or so and say that it was a bargain you couldn't pass up!!! ;)
Click to expand...
But why would I need a receipt for something I've had all along? [emoji56]
 
That filter system I was on about...was Progrey - but it's going to have to wait a bit, 85mm system with adapters for each of my lenses, a set of 3 soft grads and a 7 stop square ND with delivery is going to be in the region of £350, though i oculd of course just get the filters and use cheapy Cokin P holders and save a lot.
 
Alan Clogwyn said:
That filter system I was on about...was Progrey - but it's going to have to wait a bit, 85mm system with adapters for each of my lenses, a set of 3 soft grads and a 7 stop square ND with delivery is going to be in the region of £350, though i oculd of course just get the filters and use cheapy Cokin P holders and save a lot.
Click to expand...
Not cheap are they :( That's why I went for the hitech resin filters rather than their firecrest ones or Lee ones as one filter alone can be over £200 :eek: Just can't justify that. The resin ones were £65 each but you could buy packs of 3, and with the 25% off it made it about £115 for 3 IIRC, so roughly £38 per filter which I thought was reasonable. I want their reversed grad but it's £177 plus VAT for the 100 x 150mm :(
 
Alan Clogwyn said:
That filter system I was on about...was Progrey - but it's going to have to wait a bit, 85mm system with adapters for each of my lenses, a set of 3 soft grads and a 7 stop square ND with delivery is going to be in the region of £350, though i oculd of course just get the filters and use cheapy Cokin P holders and save a lot.
Click to expand...

Hitech have 85mm holder and filters as well
 
rjbell said:
Wow this 18-55 really is a cracker!
Click to expand...

I keep looking at the 23mm and 35mm primes and then just as I'm about to pull the trigger I stop myself and realise that the 18-55 is a brilliant lens, perfectly sharp, more versatile and less to carry around (which was the point of me switching to Fuji in the first place!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top