Some Settings I Found Work for Me on the Fujifilm X-T1

SOOC JPEG from the Fujifilm X-T1 set on Pro Neg S (click to enlarge)
This would be a fine image to send to my stock agency.  Subtle but not noticable sharpening.  If I were to print
this image or use if on a website, I would add some additional sharpening, but stock agencies don't want sharpened images.

One of the determinations I wanted to make with the X-T1 is if, in many cases, a SOOC JPEG would suffice for many of my image uses instead of using only the RAW image format then spending quite a bit of time editing the files.  I had repeatedly read that the JPEGS from the Fujifilm X-cameras are excellent. On the other hand, I've also read that the JPEGs are terrible. What to believe? I wanted to draw my own conclusions, based upon the type of work I do and not just take someone else's word for it.  

I've photographed using the RAW format exclusively for the past many years, but many times, I don't think I really needed the full quality (16-bit) and file sizes (132mb in the case of my D810) of RAW files and would JPEGs really be a viable substitute?  With judicious use, can a SOOC JPEG work for me?

After now using the Fujifilm X-T1 for over three weeks, putting the camera through a number of tests and taking several hundred photographs, I have come up with some preliminary conclusions for JPEG settings as well as general camera settings, that seem to work well for me. 

Each time I took the camera and kit lens out, I set the format to RAW + JPEG so I had both files at my disposal for two reasons.  First, I wanted to use the RAW format, edit it as I would any other RAW image, then compare that finalized image to what the camera produced with various JPEG settings applied.  Second, just in case I photographed something memorable or important and found the JPEG couldn't be used, I would have a RAW image as a backup. 

Photographing using JPEG was quite foreign to me, but an interesting exercise.  I quickly found out that settings used on bright, sunny days with deep shadows were not necessarily good settings for heavily overcast days.  That makes sense since the contrast on the subject matter would be vastly different.  So, the first thing to remember is keep the contrast of your subject matter in mind.  But that is pretty apparent.

I tried each of the film simulations specifically looking at color rendition, contrast, and saturation.  Some of them I liked and others, not so much.  This comes down to a personal decision for each photographer.  I liked the Astia, Provia, and Pro Neg Standard the best, with my intention of standardizing on the Pro Neg Standard.  I like the open shadows and detailed highlights as well as the color palate.  Also, I don't like over saturated or overly contrasty images and Pro Neg S seems to fit my bill.

I was a Kodachrome shooter for over 30 years and have extensively used Kodachrome 25 and 64.  When I started using Kodachrome it was Kodachrome II.  That was a long time ago.  A lot of people like the Classic Chrome film simulation and it does do a fairly nice job on skin tones.  It has a nice contrast also.  Reds were always the strong point for Kodachrome.  (National Geographic Magazine used to include something red in many of their images when they went color. Back then, the red really caught the viewer's eye.) The reason I probably won't use it much is that the CC setting renders the skies too cyan for my taste.  I like, what is sometimes called here in the eastern U.S. as a "Carolina blue" (sky blue) or even a "cobalt blue" sky when I want a darker, more polarized version, which has almost no cyan in the blue.

SOOC JPEG (before my final settings were determined); Notice the color of the blue in the sky.  Also,
notice that the shadows on the tree have gone black.  Hence, for sunny days, setting the shadow tones for +2.
(click to enlarge)

Same image but set on Classic Chrome.  Notice all the cyan in the sky!  Not to my liking at all (click to enlarge)

I found, on sunny days, that the standard settings were a bit too contrasty.  I've settled on a -2 setting for shadows and a 0 setting for highlights.  I could also see setting the highlight tone for -1 if I thought highlights might be blown for an extra contrasty scene. My philosophy is that if the image is a bit flat, I can always add some contrast, but if too contrasty and shadows or highlight detail is lost, it is gone forever.

On low contrast days with very flat light, I move the shadow setting to 0 and the highlight setting and color setting to +1.  More and more to remember when shooting on differing days.  That is another reason I like RAW files.

I found that +1 for sharpening was about right to suit my taste.  Plus 2 looked a bit crunchy and obvious to me.

For bright, sunny days I keep my color setting at 0, as I like my color palate more natural than exaggerated.  If I want a bit more color afterward, I can always add a bit of Vibrance in ACR or Lightroom, which is much better than adding overall saturation as would happen in the camera.

SOOC JPEG with Pro Neg S film simulation.  Only straightening of verticals applied in Lightroom
This was with my final settings as described in the text.  Color is nicely rendered, highlights are not blown,
shadows are open the way I like them and sharpness is fine.  No digital noise.  I think the image could be
just a bit brighter for a bright, sunny day, but I've described my issues with below getting used to this EVF.
(click to enlarge)

As for noise reduction, I found that -2 works best.  There is almost no noise in the files and added noise reduction just causes fine detail to be lost.

I think Auto WB pretty much hits the mark in every situation in which I made images, so far.  That is a first for me.  As I said, I've always used RAW, so WB wasn't an issue and I always left my camera's setting on daylight.  I would correct the first image in Lightroom, then copy the WB correction to all the other images, so it was never a problem to correct all the images, even if set for daylight.  In my tests, I found with Auto WB that some images needed a very slight tweak to taste, but I overall, I think Fuji did a nice job with the auto white balance algorithms.  Again, a tweak to taste.  Others may have been totally happy with the camera's rendering.

I've also tried the various black and white modes and find them pleasing.  The in-camera filters provide the same type of filtration as we used in traditional film black and white photography.  If you don't understand filtration for black and white film, it is worth learning as the judicious use of these filters can improve the look of a black and white image–or make it worse, if you don't know what you are doing.

As for file size, the JPEGs average about 6.5mb in size.  When opened in Photoshop their file size increases to 91.4mb (pretty large!) and has a native size and resolution of 10.88 inches X 16.32 inches at 300dpi.  For example, I try to send image files to my stock agency that are no smaller than 12 inches X 18 inches.  This size is very close and I think it would be acceptable, as long as the file is correctly exposed and doesn't appear sharpened (remember I have the camera set at a -2 setting, the lowest).  I think file size is pretty good as long as I don't have to crop.  That brings me back to wanting a sensor with more pixels–24mp in my case, which gives me a larger file and a bit more flexibility.

I don't think I've forgotten anything on JPEGs.  If I have, I'll fill in the blanks later as I further work with this new tool.

One comment on the electronic viewfinder (EVF).  I'm still having some issues judging correct exposure when looking at the overall luminance of the image through the EVF and simultaneously check the in-EVF histogram.  They seem to be coming out a bit darker at times, about 1 stop.  I'm not sure why at this point, but I plan on working through this to refine my EVF settings so the image I see in the EVF reflects the final tonality of the scene when rendered as a JPEG.  I have been using an Olympus E-M5 and E-M1 for almost two years so I have a lot of EVF experience and don't seem to have the same problem with either of those cameras.  More experience, I guess, is needed.  More on this later.

 I want to get to the point where I can judge the in-camera appearance of the image and have it look like a perfect exposure later.  However, the image can be tweaked in Lightroom as I import and catalog all my images.  That being said, a bit of editing of JPEGs in Lightroom is certainly not a burden at all.  Most of the work has already been done in the camera.

Overall, I like the JPEG renderings from the X-T1.  I believe the files are of such quality that they can be used for many applications.  I can control color, contrast, sharpening, highlight, shadow and noise.  What's not to like?  You just have to test the camera under a wide variety of conditions to fully understand how it will perform under various lighting conditions.  If you don't, there is a danger of you not getting what you want or need from you image files.

Next, I will write about my experience with the camera's RAW files.


Thanks for looking.  Enjoy!

Dennis Mook

Many of my images can be found at www.dennismook.com.  Please pay it a visit.  I add new images regularly.  Thank you.


All content on this blog is © 2013-2015 Dennis A. Mook.  All Rights Reserved.  Feel free to point to this blog from your website with full attribution.  Permission may be granted for commercial use.  Please contact Mr. Mook to discuss permission to reproduce the blog posts and/or images.