I have a question regarding the Color Rendering of X-Trans RAW. I use an X-Pro2 which has an X-Trans III processor. I like the color rendering of the out-of-camera (OOC) JPEG in the Standard film emulation setting a lot. To my understanding, the PL5 “Generic rendering / Camera default rendering” of RAW files should give me a very close look of an OOC JPEG. To test this I shot a few test shots with the “Fine JPEG+RAW” setting and compared the result. The PL5 white balance is set to use the camera’s white balance, no other colour changing settings other than “Generic rendering / Camera default rendering” is applied. Also, there’s no DxO Smart Lighting enabled. When I render the RAW to a JPEG file and compare it to the OOC JPEG, the OOC JPEG has a lot more reds than the RAW rendered as JPEG (the saturation seems to be at the same level). Also, the shadows seem to be slightly deeper in the OOC JPEG. My question is: am I doing something wrong? Shouldn’t “Generic rendering / Camera default rendering” basically give me the pretty much same result as the OOC JPEG? Don’t get me wrong, I do know that I can’t expect a RAW file rendered by a RAW development app to look exactly like the OOC JPEG, it’s clear that there’ll be differences in processing. But I expected the result to be more similar than what I can see in my test. What do other X-Trans users think?
All Fuji cameras have same rendering for JPG from the camera and usually we mimic the standard rendering but this time we did a bit different.
In color rendering panel, in sub menu “Camer body” you have 3 lines for Fuji:
Thanks for your reply. I’ve played around with all three Fujifilm body variants for Color Rendering and I agree that the “Fujifilm X-A5…” option is closest to the standard OOC JPEG of the X-Pro2 (which is kind of weird considering there’s an X-Trans option, too). However, it’s still quite different. The way that yellow is rendered differs considerably. It’s not bad but if you’re used to the rendering of the X-Pro2’s OOC JPEG, it’s still different, especially in very colourful scenes. My feedback would be to try to smooth out the differences to make the transition to processing X-Trans RAWs in PL easier for Fuji shooters.
Fuji’s OOC JPEGs are Fuji’s interpretation of the RAW data from the sensor. I suspect without licensing some intellectual property from Fuji, any post-processing software is going to either make a reasonable guess at matching it or perhaps go its own way. Of course you can choose to go yet a different direction, such is the magic of RAW, and, some would argue, one of the major reasons to shoot RAW.
cs1, matching a good OOC rendering is an interesting challenge. If you have FilmPack, there are many interesting Colour Profiles which would more closely correspond to the OOC jpeg than the ones you are using now.
The OOC jpegs have more red and deeper shadows. I’d recommend trying:
some of the Canon profiles
Fuji Velvia 50
Generic Kodak Ektachrome 100VS
Colour Negative Film
Fuji Pro 400H
Fuji Superia X-Tra 400
These choices are for Nikon cameras though (specifically a D5). Choosing the right colour profiles to give your processing a head start in terms of colour balance, contrast and pop depend on how a specific camera model’s interact with the colour profile.
You can also not just choose a Colour Rendering but dial up and down the intensity. Color Positive Film Kodak Kodachrome 25 not only changes in intensity but kind when dialed down or dialed up. It’s quite nice at 26 intensity but turns green by 144 intensity. Most colour profiles only change in intensity, not complete colour rendering.
Keep in mind, there is no right answer with colour, just the colour rendering which best expresses your vision and your feeling. I’m sure with some experimenting you can do even better than the OOC jpeg rendering from Fuji.
Yes, I agree (see my original post). I guess that my point is that DxO does such a great job with film emulation accuracy that I hope that they’ll try to match the Color Rendering for the X-Trans bodies a little better with the Fuji’s OCC JPEGs. It shouldn’t be a lincensing issue to math colours, I guess.
That’s a very good idea, thanks for pointing it out. I’ve started experimenting with some FP profiles. There’re some really nice results to be had there.
To be clear, I’m not dissatisfied with what PL5 delivers with the X-Trans sensors. I’m glad that support for them is finally here. It’s definitely “complaining on a very high level” as they say here in Germany.
Don’t worry about what Fuji bakes in to the jpegs (nice for OOC jpeg, yes). You can do better for your own vision with one of the colour profiles and RAW.
The Fuji Velvia 50 offers richer contrast, much better reds and good greens. You might have to dial down the intensity to get it the way you like it. The Leica M9 is similar with slightly exaggerated reds, pink skin tones and more contrast. As I said how the profiles interact with a RAW file is camera specific. Work systematically through the profiles and I’m sure you’ll find something fabulous.
As an example of what a colour profile can do for your images, here’s a difficult image in low light and high ISO with prominent reds, greens and blue. Even at 25600 ISO, the Fuji Pro 400H profile is able to bring out the reds and keep the grass green despite the slightly beige-yellow native colour cast of the original NEF.
The Fuji Pro 400H profile also adds some brightness to dark images. It’s very difficult to get the same pop with just the curves tool. It’s possible but very hard work to get this kind of colour balance using the other PhotoLab tools. But not all colour profiles have a positive effect. Some of the colour profiles make my images worse, adding a strong magenta or yellow colour cast or crushing the shadows completely. It’s important to create a short list of profiles which match your camera and your vision.
Here’s a split preview of the image above to show which shows just how much a colour profile (and white balance) can help.
Here’s another example starting from a Nikon D850 file in better light at ISO 800. The image on the left is the corrected image but with no colour profile added. The image on the right is the corrected image with the Leica M9 colour profile applied.
Some people might prefer the warmer reds and slightly yellow turf in the left version. It’s a question of taste as well. But for me the greener grass and darker red uniforms and pinker skin tones are much better. It’s very hard to make such changes without using a colour profile to create a good starting point.
Images are downsized here, so here’s the finished version to better judge the final results…
PS. It’s now become impossible to share images on this forum, DxO is downsizing square images to 500x500px. @sgospodarenko Svetlana, what’s happened? I know there are some posters who have been very active sharing dozens of version of edits of the same image. Is this why we can no longer share high quality samples? I don’t post images too often but when I do it’s as examples of the quality of PhotoLab processing and I’d like people to really see the images, not thumbnails of them.
@uncoy thanks for the write-up, I found it very informative and useful.
I’m currently experimenting with FilmPack emulations of films that I like for specific situations. I’ve shot some sunset images this evening and I find the Kodak Ektar 100 emulation to be very suitable for it.
I shot this with a 3 stop hard grad ND filter (quick and dirty, no tripod). The scene isn’t particularly interesting but I liked the light. I’m happy with the result (2 stop GND would’ve been better). I’ll explore Kodak Ektar 100 emulation a little more, it’s a very nice film for autumn scenes.
Those are beautiful autumn colours. That’s a lush rich pastoral scene with nothing blown out and with subtle shadows. I like it a lot.
Kodak Ektar 100 is on some of my short lists. You specifically asked for strong reds, which Kodak Ektar doesn’t do. It does increase contrast very nicely.
Order is important. Adding the colour profile should be one of the first things one does when correcting a photo as the colour profile affects tonality, colour, shadows, even white balance. To properly correct a photo, the profile should come first. Of course, if it’s a damaged image, basic repair should be done before choosing a colour profile.
One eventually gets to know ones cameras and one’s lighting situations and you’ll know which two or three profiles are worth applying on a given set.
Here’s something I just happen to have open which is high ISO (12800) Nikon D5 and includes all of green grass, bright reds, toxic yellow, bright whites and prominent skin tones. Here’s the image with the Color Negative Fuji Pro 400H profile:
Here’s the same image with the same white balance but no profile but with exposure corrected again and the tone curve adjusted for the profile. I.e. giving no profile it’s closest matching look easily achieved with basic exposure correction.
Both are good. The default color profile is fine. But in the first image with the Fuji Pro 400H profile applied, the skin tones are special. The reds are more exciting, the grass is greener. Arguably the toxic yellow with no profile closer to how those jerseys looked to the naked eye. Nikon has excellent gradation on skin but not the best tone (inevitably people look warm or yellow). But with the colour profile applies the skin has the lifelike subtle pink tones of Canon’s colour profiles.
I love the colour profile feature. Some of the profiles included make a huge difference in bringing out the extraordinary in images.
Perfect. Once you find a few profiles which suit your photography and your vision that’s all anyone really needs. Fuji Astia 100F is terrible for my images as it turns gree grass yellow/brown. I see that’s not the Fuji Astia you meant though but a new one in FilmPack 6 (which I just installed to trial yesterday) in Digital Films. Yes, Astia is very, very nice. Thanks for the heads up.
Now that I’ve found the Fuji Digital Films set I also like Classic Chrome (for a less saturated look).
Yes, no problem. Do you have a file transfer server where to upload the files? I can provide you with the original RAW file, the OOC JPEG and the PL5 exported JPEG without DxO Smart Lighting but the Camera Body Profile (which should be the one that matches the X-Pro2 and which should look like the OOC JPEG).