Fuji X10 Pictures

DSCF0014-LR-1k.jpg


Just a little B&W close-up converted from RAW with a 150% crop below. This stuff prints just beautifully and can be blown up as large as any 35mm B&W negatives from back in the day - pretty much as large as you like. To me carefully processed B&W prints from the X10 actually look better than prints from most of my old 35mm B&W negatives, including Ilford FP4 and Agfa APX 100 - different than film but I'm somewhat opposed to adding synthetical grain in post. Again, printed at 16x16 anyone would be hard pressed to tell what camera had been used - back in the day I would have processed my a.. off to get these results from any 35mm stuff. If you like your images slick and polished though shop elsewhere :).

DSCF0014-LR-x2.jpg
 
Last edited:
Some more test stuff - for the records and my new printer :)
I'm not much of a pixel-peeper but here's a central 100% crop of a pretty straight RAW conversion in LR with careful multi-pass low-radius sharpening afterwards - about as far as I'd go before it starts looking artificial.

DSCF6112-LR-x.jpg


That's about the maximum resolution I can get out of my X10 @ISO200 in L mode (wanna-be 12MP) and when focused at larger distances (there are slightly more details at ISO100). To me this looks pretty fine for a compact zoom camera, surprisingly non-digital but more like a scanned print; I guess that's one of the main aspects of that 'special X10 look', apart from the colors.
 
Some more test stuff - for the records and my new printer :)
I'm not much of a pixel-peeper but here's a central 100% crop of a pretty straight RAW conversion in LR with careful multi-pass low-radius sharpening afterwards - about as far as I'd go before it starts looking artificial.
View attachment 27121
That's about the maximum resolution I can get out of my X10 @ISO200 in L mode (wanna-be 12MP) and when focused at larger distances (there are slightly more details at ISO100). To me this looks pretty fine for a compact zoom camera, surprisingly non-digital but more like a scanned print; I guess that's one of the main aspects of that 'special X10 look', apart from the colors.

My experience with my own published photos is that they can look really different on different screens and devices, so I try for a middle ground as much as I can by looking at each one on the different screens. This one on my iPad Jr. tends to look like a not-so-good exposure from my first digital camera, the 1.5 mp Kodak DC260.

The first thing I would do to this is increase the density (for lack of a better term), using the Gamma slider in Paint Shop Pro v6. So that's not an increase in contrast or local contrast - I think people use the term Curves for that kind of function.

If you'll forgive, here's what I did before and after:

image.jpeg


image.jpeg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This one on my iPad Jr. tends to look like a not-so-good exposure from my first digital camera, the 1.5 mp Kodak DC260.

Like I've said, it's a 100% center crop of a (rather boring) test image. Here's a downsized 1400px image of the original RAW conversion I've taken it from.

DSCF6112-LR-2-1k4.jpg


The exposure (WB, colors, contrast, tonal distribution, ...) looks absolutely OK to me on my calibrated Dell monitor, Dale. It's not the most crunchy image there is but pretty typical for a largely unprocessed RAW conversion from the X10 and close to what I remember (I pass the place every day). Taken out of its context and viewed at 100% the center crop might look a little flat, especially on some older low-res or laptop screens, but the original downsized image above should look just fine on any calibrated monitor.
 
Like I've said, it's a 100% center crop of a (rather boring) test image. Here's a downsized 1400px image of the original RAW conversion I've taken it from.

View attachment 27124

The exposure (WB, colors, contrast, tonal distribution, ...) looks absolutely OK to me on my calibrated Dell monitor, Dale. It's not the most crunchy image there is but pretty typical for a largely unprocessed RAW conversion from the X10 and close to what I remember (I pass the place every day). Taken out of its context and viewed at 100% the center crop might look a little flat, especially on some older low-res or laptop screens, but the original downsized image above should look just fine on any calibrated monitor.

Oh, now this one is waaaaaaay better than your first copy, and obviously much better than what I did. So now anyway you know how that first image is going to look to iPad users.
 
Oh, now this one is waaaaaaay better than your first copy, and obviously much better than what I did. So now anyway you know how that first image is going to look to iPad users.
Again ... the first image is a straight crop from the second image - I haven't changed anything, except for additional low-radius sharpening in the crop :)
 
Again ... the first image is a straight crop from the second image - I haven't changed anything, except for additional low-radius sharpening in the crop :)

I understood that part - just wanted to note that I try to make my images as compatible as possible to average photo screens, rather than just calibrated screens. Or maybe I'm incorrect on that point as well - just looking for a more complete understanding, or an explanation that would preclude my wanting to try an unnecessary fix here.
 
I understood that part - just wanted to note that I try to make my images as compatible as possible to average photo screens, rather than just calibrated screens. Or maybe I'm incorrect on that point as well - just looking for a more complete understanding, or an explanation that would preclude my wanting to try an unnecessary fix here.
That's what calibrated monitors are there for in the first place - displaying the truest possible colors and values on a screen - think of a reference or norm - no need to look anywhere else if you want to play it safe. There's no such thing as an average xyz display since uncalibrated displays (laptops, tablets, smartphones, photo displays, ...) can be off by a mile and a half in all sorts of dimensions; but they're getting ever better.
 
That's what calibrated monitors are there for in the first place - displaying the truest possible colors and values on a screen - think of a reference or norm - no need to look anywhere else if you want to play it safe. There's no such thing as an average xyz display since uncalibrated displays (laptops, tablets, smartphones, photo displays, ...) can be off by a mile and a half in all sorts of dimensions; but they're getting ever better.

Um, no. This forum's images posted by users here always look good/correct on my ipad, which has a very high quality Apple Retina screen. Your cropped image stood out so far from the typical image quality here that that's why I tried what I did and commented on it.
 
That last image is really good, Kevin! I also really liked the first one. On the two landscape photos, I would personally consider cropping out some of the sky.
 
Back
Top