The X-Pro 1 and 2 Images Compared: Part Two

Scroll down to content

Last week (click here if you missed it) I wrote about the intangible magic to the X-Trans i files and showed you some side-by-side images from the X-Pro1 and X-Pro2

I can understand that the two X-Pros are different.

The sensor and the camera’s processor are different.

The pixel amounts and pixel sizes are different

The ISO and Dynamic ranges are different.

The Bit Depth of their RAFs is different

The X-Pro1 has compressed lossy RAF files

There’s plenty of reasons why the two X-Pros don’t produce identical looking files.

The complexity comes for me at least, when I wonder what it is about the technically-not-as-good files that are better 🙂

Some of it could be emotive reasons, after all those original X-Trans cameras were by default some of the first Fujifilm X series we fell in love with, so now perhaps we always have a warm fuzzy place for their images.

Last week I ended by showing you an X-Pro2 RAF that I’d modified to look like it had come from an X-Pro1 and you might have noticed some subtle variations in each file

I’ve been using ExifToolGUI on a windows machine to make these modifications

Now don’t get me wrong, I wasn’t expecting the X-Pro2 files to suddenly look identical to the X-Pro1 files!

No that would be daft! But I was curious about what the RAW software decided to do differently just because it thought that one file from a different Fujifilm camera

After all, if we can understand how the software thinks X-Pro1 and X-Pro2 files are different then perhaps some of those differences can be things we explore in our own PP to find the look we want.

So, as per last week, here’s a single X-Pro2 file. It’s been duplicated and the copy modified to indicate that it was shot with an X-Pro1. Then both files (which are really identical don’t forget) were both opened in the RFC software (supplied by Fujifilm) and the film sim Astia was applied

Above is the real X-Pro2 shot

Above is the fake X-Pro1 shot

You might not see much difference between them (look at the orange tiles on the roofs and the pop of the blue towel that’s hanging centre left)

But let’s take a closer look at what RFC has done with each file

Above is the White Balance value from the unmolested X-Pro2 RAF

Above is the White Balance value from the modified to appear from an X-Pro1 RAF

Despite it being exactly the same file, RFC has elected to assign a warmer WB value to the “X-Pro1” file

PERHAPS this explains the differences in colour that we’re seeing? (Seriously that’s not rhetorical! I’ve no clue 🙂 )

Above is the Tone Curve from the unmolested X-Pro2 RAF

Above is the Tone Curve from the modified to appear from an X-Pro1 RAF

Much like the two images, at first glance each appears about the same (it’s the same file after all), but look closer and you see that the “X-Pro1” file actually has a wider spread of data, bunching up a little more at the shadows and stretching out a little further at the highlights end.

The word “contrast” is frequently used to describe the differences between the X-Trans i and iii sensors and we’re certainly seeing here how the (Fujifilm’s own supplied) RAW software seems to share this view that tone curves are to be treated differently between the earlier and later RAF files

One thing that occurs to me about all this, is that what we like or look at in an image might not be the same thing.

There’s the colours, the tones, the contrast, and the acuity to name some!

If for arguments sake we could 100% match (say) the colours between the X-Pro1 and X-Pro2, some people would be very happy with that, declare the files indistinguishable and be off to live happily ever after enjoying the “X-Pro1 look” from their X-Pro2.

But other people might say something like yeah the colours are right, but the contrast looks different and they wouldn’t be as happy

So I think the key understanding to take away, is the answer to the question; what is it that you love about X-Pro1 images and the answer to that question might just be the area to look at when thinking about porting over styles from the X-Pro1 images to your X-Pro2.

For me, one of the things I love about the X-Pro1 is the colour.

Tone curves and WB are image-by-image choices in my opinion, but I can happily take colour that I like en masse 🙂

So with colour in mind, here are another set of comparison pictures.

Above is the real X-Pro2 shot

Above is the fake X-Pro1 shot

Above is the real X-Pro1 shot

Yet again(!) a cursory examination does not show a great deal of obvious differences.

But if you look closer, to my eye the genuine X-Pro2 file has a bit of a greenish tint and the colours are perhaps a little flatter

The genuine X-Pro1 shot looks a little like its from an older camera, it’s a little muted perhaps is the word, but the colours pop and the image is quite bright.

Not surprisingly, the fake X-Pro1 shot I think sits about in the middle.

Here’s a close up of the colour variation between the genuine X-Pro2 file and the fake X-Pro1 file (remember both files are really exactly the same)

Colour comparison: Both files are really X-Pro2, the file that’s modified to appear to come from an X-Pro1 is on the right, red and yellow are both a bit stronger on fake X-Pro1

I hope that you’ve enjoyed seeing some of the overall broad differences between X-Pro1 and X-Pro2 files.

Since discovering that I can modify my X-Pro2 RAFs to appear to be X-Pro1 files and get a slightly different file to work on within SilkyPix Pro v8, I have been doing that fairly frequently, and (within the confines of RFC/SilkyPix) doing so certainly seems to offer an end result that I like

Luckily the ExifToolGUI tool offers the ability to modify many files at once 🙂 so it’s not a lot of extra effort

I do still find a really good X-Pro1 image different looking than a really good X-Pro2 image, but this little hack with the exif data has closed that gap.

I look forward to hearing any feedback you might have or any hacks/modification you’ve done yourself?


A lot of time and effort goes into this site.. Hopefully it’s helped you? Perhaps you’d consider helping me?

One way you could help me is if you want to buy from Amazon, if you do so using the links below, then I will receive a small percentage of your expenditure, and you will pay NO MORE than you would have paid anyway.

Shop at Amazon USA
Fujifilm X-Pro2 ¦ Fujifilm X-Pro2 Handgrip ¦ Shop for Fujifilm X-Pro ¦ Shop for Fujifilm X-T ¦ Fujifilm XF Lenses ¦ Fujifilm XF Acessories

Shop at Amazon UK
Fujifilm X-Pro2 ¦ Fujifilm X-Pro2 Handgrip ¦ Shop for Fujifilm X-Pro ¦ Shop for Fujifilm X-T ¦ Fujifilm XF Lenses ¦ Fujifilm XF Acessories

If there’s a different product you’re considering, then perhaps you’d drop me a line and I can send you an associate link for it?

Another way you could help, is by making a donation. The donate button can be found on the link below


Thank You Very Much!

The X-Pro Series Content: Referenced and All In One Place

The X-Pro Series Content: A Contents Page with Page Numbers and a Brief Description

2 Replies to “The X-Pro 1 and 2 Images Compared: Part Two”

  1. so to sum it up Adam, with less than 25 words, what is it that you find striking about an X pro 1 look vs. an X pro 2 look. Is it something within the rendering of a jpeg or a raw file. And despite all my efforts and happening to own about 6 of the most used raw processors, it is virtually to even get any of the raw processors to agree on one look that would define an x pro 2 or an x pro 1 or for that matter any camera made by any company. I find that in the end, I love what I would consider are more film look in regards to texture and color from an x pro 1 but also find that I can achieve the x pro 1 look or any look I want in any piece of software I rent or own.

    I hope all is well Adam. I follow you as often as I can these days and love what’ you write and appreciate the time and effort you put into keeping me informed. 🤓


    1. Hi Elliot,

      I think I’ll answer your question in next week’s article as a few people have commented and asked these questions.

      But in as few words as possible:

      A photograph is not reality. So which fake reality do we find most appealing

      I’m good thanks, and I hope are as well!



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: