Fuji X-Trans Colors

Winder · 01-28-2017, 07:26 AM

X-Trans: The Promise and the Problem ? Jonathan Moore Liles ? Medium

When the K-3 came out I compared it to the X-T1 I noticed similar issues, but this guy does a good job really looking into it. I have always liked what Fuji is doing, but I think X-Trans might be a short lived color filter.

**luftfluss** · 01-28-2017, 08:41 AM

Interesting article. I remember when the lower-end Fuji bodies came out that eschewed X-Trans in favor of the standard Bayer sensor, some Fujians claimed the Bayer sensor equipped cameras were Fuji's best for high-ISO.

I've read that Iridient Developer is the best RAW converter for X-Trans cameras.

**UncleVanya** · 01-28-2017, 12:43 PM

Reported here:

X-Trans critique - article - PentaxForums.com

Fenwoodian · 01-28-2017, 12:59 PM

I've shot a variety of Fuji X cameras since when they first came out.

Often I get very nice JPGs out of my Fuji X cameras. They have a feature that Pentax does not have that I use all of the time for "one shot HDRs" and that's ISO bracketing. Absolutely wonderful feature that I'd love to see Pentax adopt (I would think it could be done with just a camera firmware update).

I still get the famous "Fuji Watercolor" effect on some of the landscapes I take with the Fuji X. If you look at 100% in the vegetation, it will look like a mass of writhing worms or snakes and not the detail of grass/branches/twigs that it actually is. No way to fix this in post.

I don't like processing Fuji RAW files, a real pain and you need special software.

Fuji JPGs usually look great on the Internet, but certainly don't print as well as JPGS/RAWS from my Pentax K3 camera.

And don't get me started on comparing Fuji X images to Pentax K1 images. Not even close, my K1 blows away my Fuji photos.

Last edited by Fenwoodian; 01-28-2017 at 09:31 PM.

**jpzk** · 01-28-2017, 01:35 PM

Originally posted by Fenwoodian

I've shot a variety of Fuji X cameras since when they first came out. I still have one.

Often I get very nice JPGs out of my Fuji X cameras. They have a feature that Pentax does not have that I use all of the time for "one shot HDRs" and that's ISO bracketing. Absolutely wonderful feature that I'd love to see Pentax adopt (I would think it could be done with just a camera firmware update).

I still get the famous "Fuji Watercolor" effect on some of the landscapes I take with the Fuji X. If you look at 100% in the vegetation, it will look like a mass of writhing worms or snakes and not the detail of grass/branches/twigs that it actually is. No way to fix this in post.

I don't like processing Fuji RAW files, a real pain and you need special software.

Fuji JPGs usually look great on the Internet, but certainly don't print as well as JPGS/RAWS from my Pentax K3 camera.

And don't get me started on comparing Fuji X images to K1 images. Not even close, my K1 blows away my Fuji photos.

Which Fuji X camera(s) has(have) that?
I have a Fuji X-E2 ... just wondering if that is possible with it.
Thanks.

BTW, I really like this little camera, especially for taking "people" shots.

Fenwoodian · 01-28-2017, 01:56 PM

Originally posted by jpzk

Which Fuji X camera(s) has(have) that?
I have a Fuji X-E2 ... just wondering if that is possible with it.
Thanks.

BTW, I really like this little camera, especially for taking "people" shots.

XE1, XE2, XT1, X Pro1

Winder · 01-28-2017, 08:34 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by Fenwoodian

I've shot a variety of Fuji X cameras since when they first came out. I still have one.

Often I get very nice JPGs out of my Fuji X cameras. They have a feature that Pentax does not have that I use all of the time for "one shot HDRs" and that's ISO bracketing. Absolutely wonderful feature that I'd love to see Pentax adopt (I would think it could be done with just a camera firmware update).

I still get the famous "Fuji Watercolor" effect on some of the landscapes I take with the Fuji X. If you look at 100% in the vegetation, it will look like a mass of writhing worms or snakes and not the detail of grass/branches/twigs that it actually is. No way to fix this in post.

I don't like processing Fuji RAW files, a real pain and you need special software.

Fuji JPGs usually look great on the Internet, but certainly don't print as well as JPGS/RAWS from my Pentax K3 camera.

And don't get me started on comparing Fuji X images to Pentax K1 images. Not even close, my K1 blows away my Fuji photos.

I think the watercolor effect works for some styles of portraiture as it naturally smooths the skin, but I can get better results with the K-3. The K-1 is in another league compared to Fuji X-Trans cameras. All of the photographers I know who love Fuji are shooting portraits and weddings.

**jpzk** · 01-28-2017, 08:45 PM

Originally posted by Fenwoodian

XE1, XE2, XT1, X Pro1

Thanks!
I'll have to take a look at this.

CLG · 05-14-2017, 12:45 AM

I wonder if there's a way to manually replicate the "Fuji" film look in lightroom.
That would be an interesting experiment.
Have any of you tried it?

surfar · 05-14-2017, 02:16 AM

Originally posted by CLG

I wonder if there's a way to manually replicate the "Fuji" film look in lightroom.
That would be an interesting experiment.
Have any of you tried it?

Fuji have the film simulation feature that you can select in camera.It provides 3 jpgs of your choice.

CLG · 05-14-2017, 03:24 AM

Originally posted by surfar

Fuji have the film simulation feature that you can select in camera.It provides 3 jpgs of your choice.

Thanks for the reply.
Yes I know that. What I was asking was can it be done by tweaking the RAW image in lightroom, etc (I think it can) and if so has someone tried for example replicating Velvia from the X trans sensor manually?

**clackers** · 05-14-2017, 04:52 AM

Originally posted by CLG

I wonder if there's a way to manually replicate the "Fuji" film look in lightroom.
That would be an interesting experiment.
Have any of you tried it?

Yep, there are presets people have devised to do this, including in the free Nik software (the Colour Efex module).

Homo_erectus · 05-14-2017, 07:18 AM

Lots of articles popping up on the internet lately bashing / hating on X-Trans. In a lot of cases, I think it's people who guilelessly bought the marketing hype about X-Trans coming back down to earth after discovering that it doesn't make their apsc sensor camera produce image quality better than the best full frame sensors.

People keep repeating that you need special software to process Fuji raws but, as of today, the only widely used raw processing software package that doesn't support Fuji raw is DxO.

And, Fujis raws are very good. Are they magical? No. But they are very good apsc sensor raws.

I know jpgs are a huge selling point in Fujis marketing but, I've only seen a few come out of my Fuji cameras that made me think "Oh wow, that's great!" I shot jpgs for a few weeks after getting my first Fuji and then switched to raw as it became apparent that their jpg software is good, but not as good as I can do with a raw, and that their raws are WAY better than their jpgs.

Lenses and body ergonomics are the best arguments for Fuji, in my opinion.

**Rondec** · 05-14-2017, 11:42 AM - **2 Likes**

Originally posted by Homo_erectus

Lots of articles popping up on the internet lately bashing / hating on X-Trans. In a lot of cases, I think it's people who guilelessly bought the marketing hype about X-Trans coming back down to earth after discovering that it doesn't make their apsc sensor camera produce image quality better than the best full frame sensors.

People keep repeating that you need special software to process Fuji raws but, as of today, the only widely used raw processing software package that doesn't support Fuji raw is DxO.

And, Fujis raws are very good. Are they magical? No. But they are very good apsc sensor raws.

I know jpgs are a huge selling point in Fujis marketing but, I've only seen a few come out of my Fuji cameras that made me think "Oh wow, that's great!" I shot jpgs for a few weeks after getting my first Fuji and then switched to raw as it became apparent that their jpg software is good, but not as good as I can do with a raw, and that their raws are WAY better than their jpgs.

Lenses and body ergonomics are the best arguments for Fuji, in my opinion.

It's not surprising, though, when you have your hired guns releasing videos like the (infamous) Crop or Crap? video and your executives saying that they decided to release a medium format camera after they reviewed 645z raw files and thought they could do better.

If you bought a Fuji thinking that you would get full frame quality from a crop sensor, then you will tend to be upset as time goes by. The whole point of the X Trans sensor was supposed to be that it let you get rid of the AA filter without moire, but now there are plenty of Bayer sensor cameras that have gotten rid of that and if that's not the point, then hard to say what is. To me, the whole X Trans array is voodoo that lets Fuji make outlandish claims about what are fine, but not extraordinary sensors.

In the end, as you say, the biggest reason to buy Fuji is for the lenses. They aren't cheap, but they are high quality and will give good results. As to ergonomics, I have used Pentax cameras long enough that Fuji cameras feel uncomfortable to me when I use them, but I guess I could get used to them if I had to.

CLG · 05-14-2017, 07:05 PM

Thanks for all the replies!
If I ever switch to Fuji it will be because of the very good, very small, and very fast wide primes that you can stick on smaller and lighter bodies. I was just asking as my Fuji friends rave about the "film look" that their pictures have. It made me very suspicious!

01-28-2017, 07:26 AM	#1
Winder Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Tennessee Posts: 6,617	Fuji X-Trans Colors X-Trans: The Promise and the Problem ? Jonathan Moore Liles ? Medium When the K-3 came out I compared it to the X-T1 I noticed similar issues, but this guy does a good job really looking into it. I have always liked what Fuji is doing, but I think X-Trans might be a short lived color filter.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Fuji X-T2 purple veil/grid problem - will Fuji recall all the faulty units?	beholder3	Photographic Industry and Professionals	3	12-08-2016 08:38 AM
New entry level Fuji with X-trans sensor	PBandJ	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	21	07-01-2013 08:29 PM
Natural FUJI like colors.	ytterbium	Digital Processing, Software, and Printing	10	12-09-2009 07:11 AM
Wow - K-x has 20 body colors and 5 grips colors in Japan!	nosnoop	Pentax News and Rumors	109	11-06-2009 10:59 PM

01-28-2017, 08:41 AM	#2
luftfluss Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: NJ Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 11,619	Interesting article. I remember when the lower-end Fuji bodies came out that eschewed X-Trans in favor of the standard Bayer sensor, some Fujians claimed the Bayer sensor equipped cameras were Fuji's best for high-ISO. I've read that Iridient Developer is the best RAW converter for X-Trans cameras.

01-28-2017, 12:43 PM	#3
UncleVanya Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2014 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 28,406	Reported here: X-Trans critique - article - PentaxForums.com

01-28-2017, 12:59 PM	#4
Fenwoodian Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2015 Location: USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,874	I've shot a variety of Fuji X cameras since when they first came out. Often I get very nice JPGs out of my Fuji X cameras. They have a feature that Pentax does not have that I use all of the time for "one shot HDRs" and that's ISO bracketing. Absolutely wonderful feature that I'd love to see Pentax adopt (I would think it could be done with just a camera firmware update). I still get the famous "Fuji Watercolor" effect on some of the landscapes I take with the Fuji X. If you look at 100% in the vegetation, it will look like a mass of writhing worms or snakes and not the detail of grass/branches/twigs that it actually is. No way to fix this in post. I don't like processing Fuji RAW files, a real pain and you need special software. Fuji JPGs usually look great on the Internet, but certainly don't print as well as JPGS/RAWS from my Pentax K3 camera. And don't get me started on comparing Fuji X images to Pentax K1 images. Not even close, my K1 blows away my Fuji photos. Last edited by Fenwoodian; 01-28-2017 at 09:31 PM.

01-28-2017, 01:35 PM	#5
jpzk Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Québec Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,251	Originally posted by Fenwoodian I've shot a variety of Fuji X cameras since when they first came out. I still have one. Often I get very nice JPGs out of my Fuji X cameras. They have a feature that Pentax does not have that I use all of the time for "one shot HDRs" and that's ISO bracketing. Absolutely wonderful feature that I'd love to see Pentax adopt (I would think it could be done with just a camera firmware update). I still get the famous "Fuji Watercolor" effect on some of the landscapes I take with the Fuji X. If you look at 100% in the vegetation, it will look like a mass of writhing worms or snakes and not the detail of grass/branches/twigs that it actually is. No way to fix this in post. I don't like processing Fuji RAW files, a real pain and you need special software. Fuji JPGs usually look great on the Internet, but certainly don't print as well as JPGS/RAWS from my Pentax K3 camera. And don't get me started on comparing Fuji X images to K1 images. Not even close, my K1 blows away my Fuji photos. Which Fuji X camera(s) has(have) that? I have a Fuji X-E2 ... just wondering if that is possible with it. Thanks. BTW, I really like this little camera, especially for taking "people" shots.

01-28-2017, 01:56 PM	#6
Fenwoodian Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2015 Location: USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,874	Originally posted by jpzk Which Fuji X camera(s) has(have) that? I have a Fuji X-E2 ... just wondering if that is possible with it. Thanks. BTW, I really like this little camera, especially for taking "people" shots. XE1, XE2, XT1, X Pro1

01-28-2017, 08:34 PM - 1 Like	#7
Winder Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Tennessee Posts: 6,617 Original Poster	Originally posted by Fenwoodian I've shot a variety of Fuji X cameras since when they first came out. I still have one. Often I get very nice JPGs out of my Fuji X cameras. They have a feature that Pentax does not have that I use all of the time for "one shot HDRs" and that's ISO bracketing. Absolutely wonderful feature that I'd love to see Pentax adopt (I would think it could be done with just a camera firmware update). I still get the famous "Fuji Watercolor" effect on some of the landscapes I take with the Fuji X. If you look at 100% in the vegetation, it will look like a mass of writhing worms or snakes and not the detail of grass/branches/twigs that it actually is. No way to fix this in post. I don't like processing Fuji RAW files, a real pain and you need special software. Fuji JPGs usually look great on the Internet, but certainly don't print as well as JPGS/RAWS from my Pentax K3 camera. And don't get me started on comparing Fuji X images to Pentax K1 images. Not even close, my K1 blows away my Fuji photos. I think the watercolor effect works for some styles of portraiture as it naturally smooths the skin, but I can get better results with the K-3. The K-1 is in another league compared to Fuji X-Trans cameras. All of the photographers I know who love Fuji are shooting portraits and weddings.

01-28-2017, 08:45 PM	#8
jpzk Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Québec Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,251	Originally posted by Fenwoodian XE1, XE2, XT1, X Pro1 Thanks! I'll have to take a look at this.

05-14-2017, 12:45 AM	#9
CLG Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2016 Posts: 29	I wonder if there's a way to manually replicate the "Fuji" film look in lightroom. That would be an interesting experiment. Have any of you tried it?

05-14-2017, 02:16 AM	#10
surfar Pentaxian Join Date: Jan 2015 Location: mid nth coast,nsw Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,141	Originally posted by CLG I wonder if there's a way to manually replicate the "Fuji" film look in lightroom. That would be an interesting experiment. Have any of you tried it? Fuji have the film simulation feature that you can select in camera.It provides 3 jpgs of your choice.

05-14-2017, 03:24 AM	#11
CLG Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2016 Posts: 29	Originally posted by surfar Fuji have the film simulation feature that you can select in camera.It provides 3 jpgs of your choice. Thanks for the reply. Yes I know that. What I was asking was can it be done by tweaking the RAW image in lightroom, etc (I think it can) and if so has someone tried for example replicating Velvia from the X trans sensor manually?

05-14-2017, 04:52 AM	#12
clackers Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2013 Location: Melbourne Photos: Albums Posts: 16,397	Originally posted by CLG I wonder if there's a way to manually replicate the "Fuji" film look in lightroom. That would be an interesting experiment. Have any of you tried it? Yep, there are presets people have devised to do this, including in the free Nik software (the Colour Efex module).

05-14-2017, 07:18 AM	#13
Homo_erectus Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2012 Posts: 410	Lots of articles popping up on the internet lately bashing / hating on X-Trans. In a lot of cases, I think it's people who guilelessly bought the marketing hype about X-Trans coming back down to earth after discovering that it doesn't make their apsc sensor camera produce image quality better than the best full frame sensors. People keep repeating that you need special software to process Fuji raws but, as of today, the only widely used raw processing software package that doesn't support Fuji raw is DxO. And, Fujis raws are very good. Are they magical? No. But they are very good apsc sensor raws. I know jpgs are a huge selling point in Fujis marketing but, I've only seen a few come out of my Fuji cameras that made me think "Oh wow, that's great!" I shot jpgs for a few weeks after getting my first Fuji and then switched to raw as it became apparent that their jpg software is good, but not as good as I can do with a raw, and that their raws are WAY better than their jpgs. Lenses and body ergonomics are the best arguments for Fuji, in my opinion.

05-14-2017, 11:42 AM - 2 Likes	#14
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,653	Originally posted by Homo_erectus Lots of articles popping up on the internet lately bashing / hating on X-Trans. In a lot of cases, I think it's people who guilelessly bought the marketing hype about X-Trans coming back down to earth after discovering that it doesn't make their apsc sensor camera produce image quality better than the best full frame sensors. People keep repeating that you need special software to process Fuji raws but, as of today, the only widely used raw processing software package that doesn't support Fuji raw is DxO. And, Fujis raws are very good. Are they magical? No. But they are very good apsc sensor raws. I know jpgs are a huge selling point in Fujis marketing but, I've only seen a few come out of my Fuji cameras that made me think "Oh wow, that's great!" I shot jpgs for a few weeks after getting my first Fuji and then switched to raw as it became apparent that their jpg software is good, but not as good as I can do with a raw, and that their raws are WAY better than their jpgs. Lenses and body ergonomics are the best arguments for Fuji, in my opinion. It's not surprising, though, when you have your hired guns releasing videos like the (infamous) Crop or Crap? video and your executives saying that they decided to release a medium format camera after they reviewed 645z raw files and thought they could do better. If you bought a Fuji thinking that you would get full frame quality from a crop sensor, then you will tend to be upset as time goes by. The whole point of the X Trans sensor was supposed to be that it let you get rid of the AA filter without moire, but now there are plenty of Bayer sensor cameras that have gotten rid of that and if that's not the point, then hard to say what is. To me, the whole X Trans array is voodoo that lets Fuji make outlandish claims about what are fine, but not extraordinary sensors. In the end, as you say, the biggest reason to buy Fuji is for the lenses. They aren't cheap, but they are high quality and will give good results. As to ergonomics, I have used Pentax cameras long enough that Fuji cameras feel uncomfortable to me when I use them, but I guess I could get used to them if I had to.

05-14-2017, 07:05 PM	#15
CLG Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2016 Posts: 29	Thanks for all the replies! If I ever switch to Fuji it will be because of the very good, very small, and very fast wide primes that you can stick on smaller and lighter bodies. I was just asking as my Fuji friends rave about the "film look" that their pictures have. It made me very suspicious!