• Members 369 posts
    May 6, 2023, 3:17 p.m.

    With the camera on auto, it will meter the scene and choose settings to produce a photo with an overall tonality of 0, matching that of middle gray. If the camera is metering primarily off the dark green grass and trees, it's going to choose some combination of increased exposure or ISO to make a photo in which the grassy field has a tonality matching middle gray. Those settings will render the sky much brighter than it appears to the eye.

    Being something of a high dynamic range scene, you may get better results by making a bracketed set of exposures and blending them either in-camera (Fuji's HDR feature) or in post in an app such as Lightroom Classic. I would, however, offer this caveat. The irregularity of the boundaries between shaded tree limbs and sky combined with the large number of very small gaps in the tree branches through which we can see the sky make it highly unlikely that you'll get a satisfactory result going the HDR route. There's bound to be haloing in those small irregular gaps. It's going to be obvious and it won't look natural.

    If there's a time of day when the Sun would be behind you when viewing this scene, that's when I would recommend making a photograph of it. Do the trees have some nice color in the fall? That could make for quite a lovely composition.

  • Members 10 posts
    May 6, 2023, 3:20 p.m.

    Compared to the X-T2, there are a host of reasons I upgraded to the X-T5 and I'm happy with almost every facet of the changes made. The glaring downside is multi-metering. At first, I attributed it to user error and told myself that I would identify the glitch and adjust accordingly. The adjustment, I'm finding, is simply that I have to do test shots first in every high-contrast shooting situation. I never ran into that with the X-T2 / X-T20.

    Whatever the Fuji engineers did to add "AI" (a marketing term), seems to me the effect is "AS" - artificial stupidity. I've tried center-weighted metering as an alternative, but that isn't my cup of tea either. I'm hoping if enough people speak up (assuming others reach the same conclusion), a firmware fix could be implemented.

  • May 6, 2023, 3:23 p.m.

    I did a windows update and that seems to have fixed my issue (introduced some others, but that's nothing to do with photos).

    I haven't seen this yet as I tend to use centre weighted. But for the scene in the original post. I think muti-metering would have not blown the skies out as much.

    Alan

  • Members 10 posts
    May 6, 2023, 3:31 p.m.

    I don't have to see the RAW to know that the cloud area transitioning to sky tones are - indeed - significantly blown out. That's why you're getting that transitional green tone rather than the actual blue. The blue channel goes first - and was not recoverable.

    Fixing the settings for display helped, I'm sure, but I know based on the ISO, shutter speed and aperture, the sky area (sunlit) is overexposed. It's a difficult shot due to the wide dynamic range, of course. The camera allowed the overexposure.

  • May 6, 2023, 4:07 p.m.

    Yes, I agree. I'm still learning - and it's all fun.

    Alan

  • Members 103 posts
    May 6, 2023, 5:19 p.m.

    Hi Alan,

    The contrast in your image is too great and the camera just automatically evens out the exposure
    thereby over-exposing the sky.

    Ideally, in such a case, you should:
    - shoot raw
    - expose for the bright sky
    - bring back the shadows in post

    Here, I selected the sky and darkened it and also brightened the dark areas:

    alansphoto.jpg

    André

    alansphoto.jpg

    JPG, 3.5 MB, uploaded by Poldersnapper on May 6, 2023.

  • Members 2 posts
    May 6, 2023, 8:43 p.m.

    You could simply take down the highlights a bit, though it would work better with a RAW image. The whites are blown, but don't look too bad once the rest of the highlights a reduced a bit.

    i.imgur.com/K7UV248.jpg

  • May 6, 2023, 8:45 p.m.

    I do have the raw. I'll maybe have a play (although I don't actually like that picture).

    Alan

  • Members 128 posts
    May 7, 2023, 12:23 p.m.
    CSCF0259 (Custom).jpg

    JPG, 1.9 MB, uploaded by Baobob on May 7, 2023.

  • Members 128 posts
    May 7, 2023, 12:26 p.m.
  • Members 128 posts
    May 7, 2023, 12:29 p.m.

    Same here no difference at all
    I suspect a lack of calibration ??

  • Members 38 posts
    May 7, 2023, 1:19 p.m.

    Morris actually made a good point. The images as attached here report a camera jpeg setting at time of shooting of sRGB in the metadata (exif), but there is no sRGB profile embedded.

    Some viewers or browsers default to sRGB if no profile is attached while others don't. In some others the behaviour is configurable.
    In XnView MP when I choose this setting (do not default):
    image.png
    The image looks darker and the same as how I see it in these forums viewed in Firefox. Conclusion: Firefox does not assume sRGB when no profile is embedded.

    When I choose the second option it looks lighter. The same lighter look as Windows Photos, which apparently does default to sRGB when no profile is embedded.
    This explains the difference.

    An image with profile:
    image.png
    The example posted here as well as the one in the dropbox link without profile:
    image.png

    image.png

    PNG, 7.0 KB, uploaded by Propheticus on May 7, 2023.

    image.png

    PNG, 14.4 KB, uploaded by Propheticus on May 7, 2023.

    image.png

    PNG, 4.4 KB, uploaded by Propheticus on May 7, 2023.

  • Members 976 posts
    May 7, 2023, 1:25 p.m.

    1st file here:
    [EXIF] 0xa001 ColorSpace: sRGB
    [EXIF] 0x0001 InteropIndex: R98 - DCF basic file (sRGB)
    That's OK.

    Image in the dropbox:
    [EXIF] 0xa001 ColorSpace: sRGB
    [EXIF] 0x0001 InteropIndex: R98 - DCF basic file (sRGB)
    Same, that's OK.

    Images are properly tagged with sRGB colour space.

  • Members 38 posts
    May 7, 2023, 1:33 p.m.
  • Members 1737 posts
    May 7, 2023, 1:36 p.m.

    If the images are viewed on the same monitor and look different, then it's not monitor calibration. Could be somewhere else in the color management chain.

    Using different surrounds could also cause the problem.

  • Members 976 posts
    May 7, 2023, 1:43 p.m.

    If the tag is set, that's it. If an application is buggy not to respect tags, it's buggy.

  • Members 38 posts
    May 7, 2023, 1:53 p.m.

    These DCF tags are for

    A viewer / browser is not an editing program. A viewer can assume sRGB when no ICC profile is attached or not. This difference in assumptions made results in different outcomes of the colour management.

  • Members 976 posts
    May 7, 2023, 1:59 p.m.

    Doesn't matter.
    BTW, Fujifilm X-T5 OOC sRGB JPEGs don't have sRGB colour space embedded, only sRGB tags are present, same as above
    [EXIF] 0xa001 ColorSpace: sRGB
    [EXIF] 0xa002 ExifImageWidth: 7728
    [EXIF] 0xa003 ExifImageHeight: 5152
    [EXIF] 0x0001 InteropIndex: R98 - DCF basic file (sRGB)