Fuji s5 Pro v Canon v Nikon

oakfieldphotography.com

Seems like alot of the treads i have read online concerning the Fuji S5 Pro maintain that the colours look far better SOOC than canon or nikon cameras leading to less post processing. Is this true and why?
:scratch
Patrick

mud390

I can't speak to the S5, but I compared some pictures from the S3 (I believe) against my D80 (same Sony sensor) and the S3 pictures were much more vivid. I thought the colors were bright/better. As to why? Firmware or utilization of available pixels on the sensor?

Kris

insanefred

The very little experience that I had with the Fuji S5. I compared it to my D300. There was something really nice about the shadow and highlight roll off. It just had a different look, just like Nikon tends to have different look than Canon. Even if you shot raw and used a 3rd party converter. Colors, tones, and contrast just looked bit more like what you'd expect from print film.

Overfocused

Are we talking about JPEG or RAW? And, the default color profile on Canon/Nikon is sRGB. You can change to AdobeRGB for a more vivid photo (if youre shooting jpeg)

Harryb

I can't speak about the S5 but my RAW images from the X-100 need much less processing than my D300, D3 and D3s RAW images.

oakfieldphotography.com

Probably what i should have asked is.... Should i have had my 5d2 set to rgb when i am taking raw images and srgb when shooting in jpeg. I am as confused as Ralf from the Simsons at the moment.

Pat

ziggy53

oakfieldphotography.com wrote: »

Probably what i should have asked is.... Should i have had my 5d2 set to rgb when i am taking raw images and srgb when shooting in jpeg. I am as confused as Ralf from the Simsons at the moment.

Pat

When you shoot in RAW mode you can make your color space selection later on. It only matters a lot when you shoot to JPG.

Regardless of what you might hear, sRGB is still very competent and actually has more color information available for flesh/skin tones than does Adobe-RGB. Adobe-RGB does have more Green and Blue tones available for landscapes, for instance.

My own workflow is to shoot RAW whenever possible, and then convert to 16 bit sRGB using ACR. Stay in 16 bit as long as possible in Photoshop and then convert to 8 bit sRGB JPG for output and showing/printing.

The only time I shoot to JPG is for sports, when I need the fastest possible transfer to a card. In sports color accuracy is about the last of my concerns, except shooting the cheerleaders and other slower activities. Regardless I shoot JPGs in sRGB since they generally have people in them.

Overfocused

sRGB has less contrast and vibrance/saturation in general though... AdobeRGB has a punchier image by default even if the gamut isn't as wide which is what most consider better looking

ziggy53

Overfocused wrote: »

sRGB has less contrast and vibrance/saturation in general though... AdobeRGB has a punchier image by default even if the gamut isn't as wide which is what most consider better looking

"But" sRGB is required for most Internet browsers and most commercial printers, like the 2 printers that SmugMug uses, also use sRGB. If you should process in Adobe-RGB and then convert to sRGB for output, you have negated most of what you might have gained and, potentially, lost more than you gained. This is because Adobe-RGB has a wider gamut than sRGB, meaning that all tonal values are represented by values that are more spread apart in Adobe-RGB than in sRGB.

Plus, you need a special wide-gamut monitor in order to approximate Adobe-RGB display.

oakfieldphotography.com

oK Ziggy. Case closed. I am never taking mine off srgb.

Overfocused

ziggy53 wrote: »

"But" sRGB is required for most Internet browsers and most commercial printers, like the 2 printers that SmugMug uses, also use sRGB. If you should process in Adobe-RGB and then convert to sRGB for output, you have negated most of what you might have gained and, potentially, lost more than you gained. This is because Adobe-RGB has a wider gamut than sRGB, meaning that all tonal values are represented by values that are more spread apart in Adobe-RGB than in sRGB.

Plus, you need a special wide-gamut monitor in order to approximate Adobe-RGB display.

That's exactly what I do for the web I have a wide gamut monitor. However with conversion from AdobeRGB to sRGB, %95 of my photos retain appearance while keeping the intensity. Generally the only things that significantly change visually are the very intense hues of red/yellow/orange.

Matthew Saville

I would consider the Fuji S5 Pro to be a fantastic camera for any hobbyist or camera geek who enjoys the *art* of capturing images beautifully in-camera. I found the S5 to be a pleasure to use, especially in JPG mode , and when the camera geek inside me was in the mood to perfect the exposure and white balance etc. etc.

If you ask me, photoshop has caused the subtle art of image capture to fade in many ways. "Choice of film", as it were, is seen these days as a previous limitation that we no longer have to worry about. But if you ask me, choice of film was an art in itself, just like lens choice, or camera choice, even the format. I dunno about you, but for example I had a whole lotta fun "back in the day", playing with polaroid and pinhole cameras.

In that same spirit, I certainly would like to own a Fuji S5 pro again one day, for the enjoyment of my hobbies...

Now, with regard to sRGB:

While they say that RGB has "more color" and sRGB has "less", the effective result is more the opposite- shooting in sRGB, or shooting in JPG for that matter, is like shooting slide film- added *look* to contrast and saturation.

As a general rule, I shoot with my camera set to sRGB, RAW or JPG, I process and ouptput in sRGB 99% of the time for the sake of web viewing and lab printing, and maybe ProPhoto RGB the 1% of the time I want to process a truly colorful nature / landscape image that is just *way* outside of sRGB. (And even then, I'll probably have to end up converting to sRGB eventually anyways, cause most of the labs I use are sRGB.

Pretty simple!
=Matt=

ziggy53

Overfocused wrote: »

That's exactly what I do for the web I have a wide gamut monitor. ...

Overfocused wrote: »

... However with conversion from AdobeRGB to sRGB, %95 of my photos retain appearance while keeping the intensity. Generally the only things that significantly change visually are the very intense hues of red/yellow/orange.

If that's true then you could have been working in sRGB all along and gotten the same results. There is nothing "magical" about working in Adobe-RGB if your "intent" is to output in sRGB. The second that you convert to sRGB you are working in sRGB color space. Nothing is there that couldn't have been there the whole process.

There are uses for working in different color spaces.

CMYK is what you would want if you intend to do a genuine color photo book printed using an offset printing process.

Some inkjet printers can approximate color gamut close to Adobe-RGB (but not exactly what you see on the screen since a computer screen is transmissive technology while prints are reflective.)

My recommendation is to keep original RAW files for important images as you might need to re-convert the images for another use at a later date.

Overfocused

ziggy53 wrote: »

If that's true then you could have been working in sRGB all along and gotten the same results. There is nothing "magical" about working in Adobe-RGB if your "intent" is to output in sRGB. The second that you convert to sRGB you are working in sRGB color space. Nothing is there that couldn't have been there the whole process.

There are uses for working in different color spaces.

CMYK is what you would want if you intend to do a genuine color photo book printed using an offset printing process.

Some inkjet printers can approximate color gamut close to Adobe-RGB (but not exactly what you see on the screen since a computer screen is transmissive technology while prints are reflective.)

My recommendation is to keep original RAW files for important images as you might need to re-convert the images for another use at a later date.

I do keep the RAWs. My point here is that if you go in the wrong order of color management you wash out your photos relative to the potential pop you can get out of AdobeRGB. There are 2 ways I've run across that can wash out your photos.

Either you forget to assign AdobeRGB from the start, and edit in sRGB; the photo is washed out for the web or printing compared to if you had assigned AdobeRGB from the start, edited, and then converted.

or

You assign AdobeRGB from the start but only assign sRGB for the web rather than converting to sRGB, washing it out.


I did it without a wide gamut monitor for 2 years and it still works the same way since its the order of management rather than what colors the monitor may be able to represent

Matthew Saville

Overfocused wrote: »

I do keep the RAWs. My point here is that if you go in the wrong order of color management you wash out your photos relative to the potential pop you can get out of AdobeRGB. There are 2 ways I've run across that can wash out your photos.

Either you forget to assign AdobeRGB from the start, and edit in sRGB; the photo is washed out for the web or printing compared to if you had assigned AdobeRGB from the start, edited, and then converted.

or

You assign AdobeRGB from the start but only assign sRGB for the web rather than converting to sRGB, washing it out.


I did it without a wide gamut monitor for 2 years and it still works the same way since its the order of management rather than what colors the monitor may be able to represent

Yeah, you can definitely mess things up if you "assign" instead of "convert", or whatever it is you're talking about, I now what you mean cause I've seen it before.

But honestly, other than that; if your images dont *stand out* in sRGB, starting in / working in another color space isn't going to magically *make* the image work. No, the difference is much more subtle, it's really only something that a true aficionado, a connoisseur, would appreciate. It's vaguely similar to a regular chemical paper print, verus a fiber print. The difference is there, but yo're really only doing all that extra work for your OWN enjoyment, and for maybe <5% of viewers...


=Matt=

oakfieldphotography.com

ziggy53 wrote: »

When you shoot in RAW mode you can make your color space selection later on. It only matters a lot when you shoot to JPG.

Regardless of what you might hear, sRGB is still very competent and actually has more color information available for flesh/skin tones than does Adobe-RGB. Adobe-RGB does have more Green and Blue tones available for landscapes, for instance.

My own workflow is to shoot RAW whenever possible, and then convert to 16 bit sRGB using ACR. Stay in 16 bit as long as possible in Photoshop and then convert to 8 bit sRGB JPG for output and showing/printing.

The only time I shoot to JPG is for sports, when I need the fastest possible transfer to a card. In sports color accuracy is about the last of my concerns, except shooting the cheerleaders and other slower activities. Regardless I shoot JPGs in sRGB since they generally have people in them.

Getting a little confused here Ziggy53.
Ok i get it where you take your photographs in RAW. You put the RAW files through ACR.
I do the same but use CS5. When i save my raw file from the RAW converter in Adobe Bridge the files are 16bit sRGB IEC6 1966-2.1
wHat i dont understand is how you can change it again in your workflow to 8Bit unless you have opened the file in photoshop direct from acr and change it as a finished jpeg for print. Confused here. Can you help please.
Pat

ziggy53

oakfieldphotography.com wrote: »

... I do the same but use CS5. When i save my raw file from the RAW converter in Adobe Bridge the files are 16bit sRGB IEC6 1966-2.1
wHat i dont understand is how you can change it again in your workflow to 8Bit unless you have opened the file in photoshop direct from acr and change it as a finished jpeg for print. Confused here. Can you help please.
Pat

The change to 8 bit is after all editing is finished. However you get there, when you save to a JPG file it is 8 bit data.

oakfieldphotography.com

So if i get this correct a jpeg is 8 bit when saved?:D

ziggy53

oakfieldphotography.com wrote: »

So if i get this correct a jpeg is 8 bit when saved?:D

Yes, the current JPG specification only allows for 8 bits.

oakfieldphotography.com

Do you recommend ACR over Adobe Bridge RAW converter?

ziggy53

oakfieldphotography.com wrote: »

Do you recommend ACR over Adobe Bridge RAW converter?

Adobe Bridge is primarily a file browser and front-end for other Adobe applications. It has no RAW conversion capability and it uses Adobe Camera Raw (ACR) as its RAW conversion engine.

My own workflow is to use FastStone as my primary image browser and I link it to the Adobe Photoshop CS4 family of products. I prefer the user interface of FastStone over Adobe Bridge. My current settings open ACR for RAW files, JPGs and TIFs. From ACR I choose either to pre-process the image in ACR or simply pass the file to PS CS4. I do have ACR set up to pass JPGs as 16 bit data.