Among Fujifilm “X” users, the unique characteristics of the Trans-X sensor used in most of the camera line is a very familiar topic. This sensor was developed in 2012, and was one of the first sensors to not include an  anti-aliasing filter,. These filters, which slightly blur the image (thus reducing apparent resolution) had been included in most digital imagers up to that time to prevent the phenomenon of moiré. The Trans-X sensor used a less symmetrical color filter array to prevent moiré effects.

Those a few that are unfamiliar with this topic can find more information here.

Because of  the unique design of this sensor, programs to convert the raw files generated by these cameras have at times struggled to optimize the resultant files. Part of this may have been at least in the beginning, Fujifilm was not particularly forthright with information on the sensor.

Over the years we have looked at the different raw converter options for the  Fujifilm cameras and in my case those compatible with a Windows environment (definitely not a Mac person).

For many years it seemed clear that Phase One’s Capture One software was then programmed to beat, besting Adobe Camera Raw, and even slightly better, then Fujifilm’s on Raw file converter, based on the Silkypix photo management product.

Ultimately Adobe refined its raw conversion process for X-trans, and Photoshop and Lightroom became more competitive. Recently the differences in conversion quality, though still favoring Capture One, have not been worth the workflow interruption required.

Then there was Irident X Transformer. This was a Fuji specific raw file converter, exclusive to IOS, that has long been said to produce the best, most detailed images, from Fuji raw files. But alas, it was unavailable to those of us in the Microsoft world.

Now a version of Irident has been released for the Windows platform. I was excited to give it a try.

This is a very simple product with one mission, to convert a photo file from the Fuji raw format to the Adobe native DNG format( which Adobe understands very well), where it then can be further processed into a Tiff, jpeg or other file type. In the process of conversion, the program also applies a unique sharpening algorithm, as well as noise reduction, and lens correction, all of which can be controlled by the user. There is also Irident developer, a full featured photo program for IOS and Windows, selling for US$99.00.

 

 

X Transformer is roughly analogous to Adobe’s own digital negative converter, a program they offer for users of older Photoshop versions, who now wished to convert files from newer cameras not compatible with their versions of Photoshop.

I was eager to apply the program, to raw files from both the 16mp and 24mp X-Trans sensors, and compare them to Adobe Camera Raw conversion alone. I also converted files from the original conventional sensor X100 to see whether there was any advantage with that camera’s output.  I also converted Raw files using Capture One, and Adobe digital negative converter (which then I finalized in Photoshop much like one needs to do with the Irident DNGs) for comparison.

I tried to pick images with a variety of color mixes mindful of the effect the X-Trans sensor is said to have on green foliage.

I processed all images using equivalent amounts of sharpening. I turned sharpening to low on the Irident converter.

Below is fairly typical of the differences in the 16 mp files, the Irident conversion pulling far more detail than ACR alone, with Capture 1 (version 9) in the middle. So you know, the jpg conversion needed to post these actually tends to minimize the differences.

 
Below is a file from my X Pro 2. Here the differences between the various conversions are more subtle, though the original TIFFs still favor the Irident workflow. Look at the small patch of lichen on the branch which is more detailed on the Irident version. I actually think that the Capture one version lags behind the ACR conversion, but I may have under sharpened that file slightly.

Out of curiosity, I dug out a file from the Bayer sensored X100. Here I could detect little advantage for adding an Irident conversion first.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

     

 

Now this is not scientific, but I have formed the following conclusions:

Pre-converting the raw files with Irident X Transformer into DNG seems to be helpful to extract the most realistic and detailed X Tran images from Adobe Camera Raw. This effect, however, is to me, more noticeable for the 16 mp imager where Irident is quite helpful. The advantage of Irident seems to be some less dramatic with the newer 24mp imager though not negligible. Is this because Adobe has done a better job in their algorithms for the Trans-X III? Or has Irident not quite figured things out for this sensor?

Also, Capture One remains a step ahead of ACR for 16mp Trans-X though not as good as Irident +ACR. For the 24 mp imagers is seems to have less advantage though I have not upgraded yet to version 10. All of this suggests to me that Adobe has done a better job with analyzing and coding for the new 24mp sensor. I did not test Capture One with the Bayer-sensored X100 because in the past I have noticed little difference between ACR and C1 with conventional sensors.

Finally, I should say something about the Workflow using Irident X Transformer. It certainly adds an extra step to processing. In my case the program wouldn’t display thumbnails, requiring me to go back to Adobe bridge and get the file #. This is annoying.

So, in summary, I would say if you want the simplest workflow with X-Trans files, go with Adobe products such ACR or Lightroom. Capture One is certainly an alternative with the potential to reveal a smidgen more detail, but for me, it is less streamlined. Finally, for big prints and critical results, adding Irident X Transformer to Adobe definitely allows you to extract more detail from your images.

 

 

 

 

 

Back in the days before digital imaging, it was much easier to keep your gear current. I think back to 1980s vintage Nikon F3 which was produced (admittedly in multiple forms) for perhaps 20 years. The camera featured very simple technology, with little pressing reason to update. There was finally an auto focus version of the camera in the last several years of its twenty-year lifespan, but for the most part there was little change over its long history.

Nowadays things are radically different. Cameras are far more sophisticated, and photographers now expect fairly frequent updates to them, even though they long surpassed the performance of those older cameras long ago. I think also the fact that the technological advances of new models involve not only exposure and focus, but the actual film stock (the digital sensor) that the camera uses increases the interest in upgraded models.

In the last week, Fujifilm has announced replacements for 2 cameras that I currently own. The X100F replaces the X100T model in a somewhat confusing nomenclature scheme. And the X-T10 is replaced with the X-T20.

As always the question of whether to and when to upgrade comes up.

Let me first acknowledge, that photography is not my main source of income.  I have always tried to be rational about equipment purchases.  Every once in a while I find myself with a bloated collection of gear which needs to be thinned.  I am there now.  Soon, I suspect I will once again become a frequent visitor to my FedEx drop-off point.

I see that I am not the only one who faces this dilemma. A Fuji photographer I very much admire, Zack Arias, writes about gear simplification here.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

First my thoughts on my current X-T10 currently the budget version of the SLR style X-T1 interchangeable lens camera. This for me as a modestly used device (I have learned that I prefer rangefinder style cameras and I already own a nearly identically spec’d  XE-2). The main improvement in the newer camera is, of course, the sensor, which is now 24mp.  I already own a version of this sensor in my X Pro 2.  In my experience, the real resolution boost offered by the newer chip is modest, and the high ISO performance is roughly the same.  Still, more resolution is not a bad thing.

Whereas I do enjoy the Acros film simulation that is only offered in the 24 mp cameras I can typically get pretty close to the same profile with a custom RAW conversion I have set up in Photoshop. There are autofocus improvements I suppose, but I’m not grossly unhappy with the current camera (and perhaps there is more to come in a firmware upgrade). Finally, while I think the enhanced video capabilities are interesting, they are not important to my workflow. 

Thus I probably won’t upgrade this camera anytime soon.  In fact after this analysis, as much as I like the little X-T10, I would consider putting it on E Bay list, and waiting for the rumored rangefinder style XE3 to be introduced.

The X100T to “F” upgrade is slightly different for me. I like the fact that the battery will now be the same as all of my other Fuji “X” cameras though the older battery was fairly cheap(and I have a lot of them). I hope the camera will still be chargeable through its USB port. Once again the new sensor (the same 24mp sensor of the XT-20) is not really a draw for me, but not a detriment either.  Apparently, unlike a lot of other people, I do like the new ISO/shutter speed dial (same as on my X Pro 2).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I do wonder however whether the incremental improvement in auto focus in this model line will be greater (the X100T had earlier auto focus technology than the X-T10). To me, a very significant improvement is the autofocus “joystick”. It was a very useful addition to the X Pro 2.

Ironically, I have actually avoided using it on that camera for fear of it becoming reflexive when it is not available for focusing on my other bodies.  Currently, if one is to retain the largest number of function buttons on the camera, moving the autofocus point, requires you to first press the lower button of the four-way pad, which then tells the camera that the keypad  is to be used for autofocus.  This means an additional step and occasionally results in lost opportunities.  With the joystick, moving the autofocus point can be done instantly.  Adding it to the X100F means that I will be more comfortable relying on it in both cameras. In fact the lack of the joystick on the X-T20 means that it will be more difficult to integrate that model line in the future.

I hope the XE 3 will have a joystick.

 One new development I am both frustrated and intrigued by is the improvements in the lens converter system for the X100F. the new converters communicate with the X100F, allowing the camera to automatically adjust when they are mounted (I often forget to do this on my current camera).  This is wonderful, except that I have pristine copies of both of the older lens converters for the X 100 series which I understand are optically identical. I would probably first upgrade the TCL (50 mm FOV), as that is the one I use far more frequently than the WCL(28 mm FOV).  I could really save some money here if only my interaction with the camera was a little more disciplined.

As this is my most commonly used camera, I believe it makes more sense to upgrade this instrument, given that I will obtain the most benefit and enjoyment from the money spent.  And my fairly pristine X100T, on eBay, seems to have decent residual value.

This explains my thought processes, on upgrading equipment.

Feel free to offer your comments and ideas.

 

 

 

 

There is a different and wonderful culture in the Adirondacks. It is one where outdoor activities feature prominently.  Events such as the Wooden Ski Race, and Full Moon Madness that I have described elsewhere on this site, as well as the Saranac Winter Festival, all display a physicality and an embrace of the season that is lacking for instance, in my Pennsylvania hometown.

On a recent trip to Lake Placid, I attended one of my favorites; namely the Broomball tournament, held at The Cottage, a waterside/ pub restaurant, that is part of the spectacular Mirror Lake Inn; a luxury resort hotel in the village.

The Cottage is the pub and informal dining venue for the resort. In summer can be very pleasant to paddle a kayak or canoe to the restaurant’s dock , and stop for a bite of lunch.

For much of the winter, however, with Mirror Lake firmly frozen, an area of the ice is plowed behind the restaurant, and an informal hockey rink is set up. Then in January, the restaurant sponsors a tournament for the somewhat arcane sport, which is apparently the winter version of softball for many people.

Broomball, is a sort of proto hockey. The rules are similar, but the equipment, at least in the case of the local variety is much less sophisticated. As I understand it was often played in tennis shoes, though there is actually a specialized shoe to wear which gives more friction to the icy surface. In the Lake Placid varient, the predominant “stick”, was an actual broom, with the bottom cut off about halfway up, then wrapped in duct tape. There is an actual broomball that is used, a little bigger than a softball.

While some of the teams, had actual matching hockey Jerseys (and apparently padding), most people played in heavy outdoor clothing sometimes with whimsical touches. Everyone plays with some sort of helmet. In this multisport town, I saw players sporting rock climber’s helmets, skiing helmets, and even hockey helmets. Though it was quite mild (high 20s F) this year, I have seen it proceed enthusiastically with temperatures in the minus teens.

Now to be sure, Broomball, apparently in Canada, and parts of the US, is a serious sport with a governing body, and specialized equipment, and national tournaments. Not so much in Lake Placid. Though obviously a lot of serious competitive athletics goes on in town, this one is not so intense. Like many activities in the North Country, my impression over the years from this event, it is that it is first and foremost an opportunity to socialize and be convivial on a dark cold evening in January. It is only secondarily a competition.

The large crowd gathers both in the restaurant, where windows allow the games to be followed, or down on the ice around a warming fire built for the occasion. As the festivities continue, the bar gets rowdy, but never unpleasantly so. Many of the older folks, who prudently no longer play, share great memories of their own time on the ice.

It is one of the small events, that over the year makes Lake Placid a truly unique placed to visit.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  I still think the practice of upgrading from one highly capable smartphone to another slightly more smartphone is a relatively wasteful exercise. But, when my previous phone began to look shabby, and the battery started to fail, I began to shop around. I finally acquired a Samsung Galaxy S7 Curve at a remarkable deal from Verizon. It pushed all the right buttons for me: Beautiful screen, faster processor, bigger battery, waterproof…and apparently a better photo experience.

On the camera side, there are some signs that Samsung “gets it”. For the G7 models get fewer megapixels (12 vs. 16 on the S6) on a bigger sensor, with on-chip autofocus, a microSD card slot and the ability to shoot RAW.  This might just be a smartphone that can produce a decent image.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So how has it worked for me?

The Samsung Galaxy S7 curve, at least as of this writing, Is Samsung’s high-end smartphone (the G8 is imminent, which is probably why I got mine cheap). It’s a beautiful instrument, with a sleek metal body and that unique curved screen.   As a phone/ tablet, it is for my purposes essentially flawless, with a gorgeous display, fast processing, and excellent battery life. It’s still waterproof but it no longer has the annoying flap over the USB port so annoying on my previous Galaxy S5. If you want a great phone, buy one today.

How does it work as a camera? On this issue, I have definite reservations.

The new sensor is supposedly an improvement in the older sensor, with the pixel pitch (1.4) up approximately 40% from the sensor in the S6. It tests very well on DXomark (It currently ranks 2^nd among camera phone sensors). Theoretically, this should improve low light capability. To an extent it does. But compared for instance to even the “crop frame” sensor of the 16mp Fuji’s (pixel pitch 4.79) you can’t really expect too much.

Here’s a jpeg image shot of my friend Elliot in typical tavern lighting.

 

The camera shot this wide open f1.7, at iso400 and 1/10sec. The resultant jpeg is aggressively noise managed, with smearing of what detail there might have been. I consider this unusable for other than display on the phone’s own screen.

Now here’s the Raw version, processed in Adobe Camera Raw.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As you can see, the image is grainier, but the detail is retained in Elliot’s face, and in the 3×5 cards in the foreground. And in the raw converter, I can decide between noise and detail. This image may be more useful.

Autofocus is fast; much more responsive than in my previous S5. This is apparently due to “Dual pixel technology” of having phase detection pixels throughout the whole sensor.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The camera app is at one time very good, and very weird. On the surface, the app seems well designed, with multiple modes available, including “pro, which allows significant manual control. It is in this mode (only) that you can access raw capability. There are multiple autofocus modes.

It is at the same time frustrating. You can save your jpegs to the SD card, but the far larger raw files will save only to the camera’s memory. So the point of having an SD card slot is undermined.

Also, the camera seems to use any excuse to shift out of raw capture mode. Specify a “vivid” jpeg profile in “pro” mode and raw capture is lost. Accidentally do a burst of shots…same thing. I thought I was shooting raw for the “frozen pond” shot above, only to get home and find that I wasn’t. This behavior causes me to think that this is not in any way a reliable device for serious photographers.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Most infuriating is the phone’s behavior when attached to my PC. When hooked up by USB, you first need to pull down the typical Android notification screen and enable the phone to transfer media. Fine.

Problem is that when I use Photoshop Bridge, to navigate into the camera files to edit them, the software doesn’t recognize the jpegs and can’t display a thumbnail.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Even more ironically, Photoshop can’t recognize its own proprietary dng. raw files while they reside on the phone.  This problem does echo the behavior of my previous S5.

 

 

 

 

This means that if you want to edit a file, you must copy it into a file on your computer. Then for some reason I cannot fathom, it becomes readable. With the raw files (which remember won’t save to the SD card) potentially eating up a lot of camera memory, I just cut and paste them to a file on my hard drive, and deal with them there.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How about the image quality?   Compared to my Galaxy S5 I think the loss in resolution and sharpness is surprising. The jpegs, perhaps in an effort to reduce noise, are over-processed to the point where a lot of detail, particularly in the shadows is completely lost, The above  “Hemlocks in the Snow” image illustrates this nicely; note that it was shot at 1/100 sec ad at iso 100, which are hardly challenging settings.  They look fine on small displays, however.

The raw files seem to lack dynamic range and cannot be pushed too far before they look odd. I saw banding emerge with modest editing of color or contrast. The “Twin Springs” image above, for instance, was shot at iso 50 and yet, was still very fragile.

I’ll keep trying, though.

For me, all of this means that I will rarely use raw, and mainly, as with previous phones, use the phone to shoot jpegs for casual use.

The Galaxy S7 is widely thought to be one of the top two or three camera phones available now. I’m sure will enjoy using it.

But camera phones aren’t cameras. Not yet anyway.

 

 

 

Every December on the second weekend of the month, my lovely wife and I participate in a rather, em convivial, Christmas event, the annual caroling trip run by Cavanaugh’s Grille, which is our local pub.

It’s a non-paying gig, but nonetheless an interesting photographic opportunity, given the colorful holiday clothing, the festive spirit, and the inevitable breakdown in inhibitions as the night proceeds.

For you see, the trip`s premise is that we will visit and sing in most of the other pubs in the area. And professional singers these folks are not. They do know a thing or two about pubs, however.

The other local pubs are welcoming and appreciative as you might expect when 40-50 or so thirsty customers show up on a sleepy winter evening. They will often provide us with offerings of food and spirits.

 

Over the years I have utilized the X100 series to shoot the event, and they have never let me down. The combination of the fast 23mm (35mm equivalent) lens, the excellent low light capability, the quiet shutter and unobtrusive form, work perfectly. My only wish would be weather sealing, given the likelihood of a splash or spill as the night proceeds.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As with shooting any event, it pays to scout the venue(s). Knowing the bartender helps, particularly if you need to have them bump up the light level a bit. As we tend to visit the same institutions each year, I have come to know which spots in each place produce good lighting for images.

We have a Santa on the trip who functions as our leader, sort of. If we enter a place where there are children with families, he tends to get pressed into service, reviewing their Christmas wishes. If only they could see him later that night…

 

 

But I digress. With the X100s and t models, I leave the camera on RAW plus Jpg, with the auto ISO set to 6400, and try to keep the aperture at f2-2.2. This seems to work well. Where mixed color temps in the setting are unappealing or the light is low, I convert the images to black and white, which people seem to really like.

At the end, we repair back to Cavanaugh’s for the last thing people need…more drinks. Billy, the owner typically arranges to have food, and live music. Things then go rapidly downhill. The camera gear is put away as ethics demand.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As Christmas traditions go, it`s not exactly Currier and Ives.

 

It is, however, a whole lot of fun.

 

For additional images of  this and other Cavanaugh’s caroling trips throughout the years, visit my Smugmug site here.