Fuji Fuji X10: goodbye SRGB

Lachlan

Regular
Feb 7, 2013
8
I've owned my X10 for several months now and am still learning with it. Today I thought I'd try something new, and made the switch from shooting SRGB to adobe. Well, as a jpeg shooter, I think I've just hit on something wonderful. Out at the playground today with wife and son, I was snapping away. Just opened up the photos and was rewarded with some of the best colour I've ever had from my X10.
I keep looking at moving back to M4/3 and the E-PL5, but I thinking I may hold off another season and keep the X10 as my snapshooter to go.
Would love it if Fuji could speed up the AF a touch, but otherwise, it's a pretty fine little P&S.

Lachlan
 

flysurfer

Hall of Famer
Aug 31, 2011
123
Since monitors, websites, iPads, smartphones etc. run on sRGB (or something similar to it), I certainly do not recommend using AdobeRGB unless the images are processed on a wide-gamut monitor and intended for CMYK printing. Viewing AdobeRGB JPEGs/TIFFs on standard monitors will lead to a loss of color variation due to necessary color remapping. The color management of your PC should automatically take care of this.
 

Lawrence A.

Hall of Famer
Nov 8, 2012
124
New Mexico
Larry
Well, the auto focus was tweaked, but it's called the X-20. I always found the X10 focus pretty easy to work with, though. I gave up shooting Adobe RGB because outside of photoshop I couldn't control what my pictures looked like -- on my own monitor let alone those of other people. When I opened the picture up in a windows srgb application the color looked completely different. It was too frustrating. It it were a matter of just making prints out of Photoshop and getting my printer and CS to speak the same color language, I'd probaly think about using it again. But a lot of my sharing pictures is online.
 

Lachlan

Regular
Feb 7, 2013
8
Thanks for the words of caustion. I'm basing my comments on opening up images in Aperture on a newer iMac, and I usually reprocess images accordingly prior to printing, which is seldom.
 

Zaar

Rookie
Mar 31, 2013
1
To use Adobe RGB one needs a complete ARGB tailored workflow (including the final step: publishing in sRGB or CMYK). Every step of this workflow needs to be calibrated. For a hobbyist like me who likes to show images to the world (even though the world doesn't need them) it's too cumbersome.
 

flysurfer

Hall of Famer
Aug 31, 2011
123
Thanks for the words of caustion. I'm basing my comments on opening up images in Aperture on a newer iMac, and I usually reprocess images accordingly prior to printing, which is seldom.
The iMac isn't wide gamut, anyway. My MacBook Pro monitor matches sRGB to 99%, as measured by my Spyder 4 calibration tool.
 

Lachlan

Regular
Feb 7, 2013
8
Thanks for all the interesting feedback. Didn't realize AdobeRGB could be so finicky. I can only comment on what I'm seeing/doing, and I like so far what I'm seeing.
 

Lachlan

Regular
Feb 7, 2013
8
Now questioning sanity

To use Adobe RGB one needs a complete ARGB tailored workflow (including the final step: publishing in sRGB or CMYK). Every step of this workflow needs to be calibrated. For a hobbyist like me who likes to show images to the world (even though the world doesn't need them) it's too cumbersome.
Sorry to pester then, but does it make sense that I would be seeing an improvement on my monitor shooting ARGB, or am I just cracked? I know I should test and compare, but I'm not really into that and my little boy doesn't like to pose for too long while I'm adjusting settings.
 

Lachlan

Regular
Feb 7, 2013
8
Ahh, too bad they can't offer that tweak via firmware. But I'm actually getting the hang of the X10's AF.
 

CaptZoom

Veteran
Mar 22, 2013
18
Though current displays are limited, there's little reason to believe the gamut will not be improved as we progress. Photos with a wider color gamut will "age" better than those with a lesser gamut. So if you're shooting photos to preserve memories, wouldn't it make sense to capture at the widest gamut you can? I shoot raw only, and work in ProphotoRGB. In the extremely rare occasions when I post photos on the web, I assign no profile at all (just let the displays display the photo as best they can).
 

flysurfer

Hall of Famer
Aug 31, 2011
123
Unlikely. Both gamuts are equally large (16.7 million colors), the difference is their wideness, so each space covers different colors. AdobeRGB simply has larger gaps between colors and is optimized for colors that are available in CMYK printing and not on screens.
 

Lachlan

Regular
Feb 7, 2013
8
thanks

Unlikely. Both gamuts are equally large (16.7 million colors), the difference is their wideness, so each space covers different colors. AdobeRGB simply has larger gaps between colors and is optimized for colors that are available in CMYK printing and not on screens.
Thanks. Must just be me then, as well as the very good lighting I had yesterday and a combination of other settings/elements.
 

flysurfer

Hall of Famer
Aug 31, 2011
123
Thanks. Must just be me then, as well as the very good lighting I had yesterday and a combination of other settings/elements.
I assume that your color management (when converting the images to sRGB for viewing and editing) is introducing color and contrast conversion errors that look "pleasant" to you. I would recommend to get similar results by tweaking contrast, black point and colors manually.
 

Lachlan

Regular
Feb 7, 2013
8
I assume that your color management (when converting the images to sRGB for viewing and editing) is introducing color and contrast conversion errors that look "pleasant" to you. I would recommend to get similar results by tweaking contrast, black point and colors manually.
Thank you again for the constructive feedback. Though regarding colour, true it was pleasant, but also I found it more accurate, particularly in terms of skin tone. Tried comparing with flash last night though, and found that a different story. Still curious and plan to explore some more.
 

Latest posts

Latest threads

Top Bottom