Feedback - FROWNS

[Bharat Varma]

From Fuji -

"To reduce "noise" (mottling) in long time-exposures, select [ON] for [LONG EXPOSURE NR] in the shooting menu. Note that this may increase the time needed to record images after shooting."

http://fujifilm-dsc.com/en/manual/x100t/shooting/long_time-exposure/index.html

[Bharat Varma]

There are TWO types of noise reduction in digital cameras.

One is high ISO noise reduction, which I understand you do not want done in-camera, and that's fine. Most people do prefer to do this manually.

The second one is "Long Exposure Noise Reduction", which shoots a second frame (dark frame) and subtracts it from the first (main) image, in order to remove the long exposure noise (which occurs unavoidably in ALL consumer cameras). That's what I asked you to check, and switch on if it was off.

See this -

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/explora/photography/tips-and-solutions/npan-blog-testing-your-cameras-tolerance-long-exposure-noise

   
• Do the initial images shared with you show prior to the sale show any such pixels?
• At what shutter speed do you start seeing the pixels?
• Do you have long exposure noise reduction enabled? Also known as dark frame subtraction? Please check in the manual and enable it, then take some shots.
• Since the seller has committed to reimburse the full cost of the service, please show the camera to Fuji service and share the service report.

dear admin Bharat Varma

1. yes the initial image that has been uploaded prior to the Sale, File DSCF6030.RAF, in the link do show the "dead/hot/stuck pixel".
They are apparent at 100% zoom in, at 300%, they show a cluster, at 800%, it shows there are 24 damaged pixels. 12 of them severely damaged, rest 12 in their surrounding.
At slower shutter speed, the test and the photographs I had clicked, in base ISO 200, the effect is more prominent.

I do understand that digital sensor might have, or, develop "damaged pixels (dead/hot/stuck)". Had this "damaged pixels" been scattered one here and there, I would have not created this frown post.
My fear is that this damage might spread, as it is clustered on one place.
Its 2 pixel in 6 row that is heavily damaged (permanently "pink") and the periphery left column and right column of another 12 pixels that is somewhat damaged.

(I deny that I have said the seller that only one or two pixels are damaged.)
The RAF files are existing, pre Sale and also post Sale, so any third can verify the actual no of damaged pixels.

2. it appears is 200 iso, at 1/20th of a sec, as seen in the pics uploaded by the Seller.

3. I haven't enabled 'in camera noise reduction' as I prefer it to use the Lightroom or capture one noise reduction algorithm.

4. I am fully OK if the Seller is agreeing to pay the cost of repairing of such "damaged pixels".
I only disagreed to "split in 50:50".

[Parampreet Dhatt]

Reading this latest frown I gather:

1. Camera Crew has specific photography needs and should have asked for raw files to check for dead/stuck pixels. I can't remember if I've taken more than 5-10 long exposure shots in 5 yrs+ of photography.

2. My new Nikon 750D had dead stuck pixel on the LCD from Day 1. It never bothered me. So my point is if you know you have a low tolerance limit for any unforeseen minor defects ( paint loss, loose grip, missing cables) you should stick to buying new equipment.

I thoroughly agree with both your points here.

3. I wonder if B&H , KEH advertise stuck or dead pixels when selling gear ?? I have come across 2-3 buyers who have had remorse after buying gear. Maybe the gear didn't meet their expectations or they just got over G.A.S having once used the equipment.

His (overzealous) attempts at forcing a return and stonewalling any other attempts at restitution in spite of his own acknowledgement that the camera is in perfect cosmetic and working condition in all aspects (except the issue in question), struck me as either buyers' remorse, having found a better deal or that the Fuji system didn't satisfy his needs fully. However, this is just conjecture and I may be wrong here.

4. X-E1 is not a new camera. Getting one in good condition as the buyer agrees in rare. (The buyer seems to have already made a killer deal ) I would have not bothered to take the hassle or explaining over such details and simply taken the camera back.

Regarding returning the item, I would happily agree to a return provided there is a justified ground for doing so. Offering a return just to avoid "hassles" may encourage a trend of "try and buy" activities on the forum where buyers may "hassle" the seller into accepting a return for an item that they just didn't like.
I'm not sure under what circumstances would even a camera manufacturer consider offering a full refund on a new item. As an example, even Nikon did not offer any refunds on D600 bodies which exhibited the now-famous sensor dust/oil spots issue due to defective shutter assembly (a MAJOR issue in my opinion) and only offered repairs through the service center. Hence, I don't believe a seller selling a 2nd hand item should be expected to go over and above what even a camera manufacturer would offer in similar circumstances.

Sufficient evidence of willful concealment of any defect by the seller would be a justified ground for a return/refund in my opinion (please correct me if I'm wrong here).

Also, in the context of the issue at hand, no manufacturer offers any guarantees that dead or stuck pixels would not be present even on a brand new item or not appear over time on the sensor. These issues can occur in any camera with age and normal wear and tear. The only solution offered by the manufacturers in this case is to take the item to the service center and get it repaired there.

[mannusingh]

They are apparent at 100% zoom in, at 300%, they show a cluster, at 800%, it shows there are 24 damaged pixels. 12 of them severely damaged, rest 12 in their surrounding.

So, you zoom in 800% and discover 24 dead or damaged pixels representing 0.0000015‬% of the 16 million on a consumer grade camera like the XE-1?  ::)

I don't think even a brand new camera will be faultless at this level of pixel peeping!! And yeah, I'm a former Fuji XE-1 system owner.

I second this, many new cameras may have more dead pixels than this.

[Hyperdrive]

They are apparent at 100% zoom in, at 300%, they show a cluster, at 800%, it shows there are 24 damaged pixels. 12 of them severely damaged, rest 12 in their surrounding.

So, you zoom in 800% and discover 24 dead or damaged pixels representing 0.0000015‬% of the 16 million on a consumer grade camera like the XE-1?  ::)

I don't think even a brand new camera will be faultless at this level of pixel peeping!! And yeah, I'm a former Fuji XE-1 system owner.

[cymric]

Reading this latest frown I gather:

1. Camera Crew has specific photography needs and should have asked for raw files to check for dead/stuck pixels. I can't remember if I've taken more than 5-10 long exposure shots in 5 yrs+ of photography.

2. My new Nikon 750D had dead stuck pixel on the LCD from Day 1. It never bothered me. So my point is if you know you have a low tolerance limit for any unforeseen minor defects ( paint loss, loose grip, missing cables) you should stick to buying new equipment.

3. I wonder if B&H , KEH advertise stuck or dead pixels when selling gear ?? I have come across 2-3 buyers who have had remorse after buying gear. Maybe the gear didn't meet their expectations or they just got over G.A.S having once used the equipment.

4. X-E1 is not a new camera. Getting one in good condition as the buyer agrees in rare. (The buyer seems to have already made a killer deal ) I would have not bothered to take the hassle or explaining over such details and simply taken the camera back.

[camera crew]

   
• Do the initial images shared with you show prior to the sale show any such pixels?
• At what shutter speed do you start seeing the pixels?
• Do you have long exposure noise reduction enabled? Also known as dark frame subtraction? Please check in the manual and enable it, then take some shots.
• Since the seller has committed to reimburse the full cost of the service, please show the camera to Fuji service and share the service report.

dear admin Bharat Varma

1. yes the initial image that has been uploaded prior to the Sale, File DSCF6030.RAF, in the link do show the "dead/hot/stuck pixel".
They are apparent at 100% zoom in, at 300%, they show a cluster, at 800%, it shows there are 24 damaged pixels. 12 of them severely damaged, rest 12 in their surrounding.
At slower shutter speed, the test and the photographs I had clicked, in base ISO 200, the effect is more prominent.

I do understand that digital sensor might have, or, develop "damaged pixels (dead/hot/stuck)". Had this "damaged pixels" been scattered one here and there, I would have not created this frown post.
My fear is that this damage might spread, as it is clustered on one place.
Its 2 pixel in 6 row that is heavily damaged (permanently "pink") and the periphery left column and right column of another 12 pixels that is somewhat damaged.

(I deny that I have said the seller that only one or two pixels are damaged.)
The RAF files are existing, pre Sale and also post Sale, so any third can verify the actual no of damaged pixels.

2. it appears is 200 iso, at 1/20th of a sec, as seen in the pics uploaded by the Seller.

3. I haven't enabled 'in camera noise reduction' as I prefer it to use the Lightroom or capture one noise reduction algorithm.

4. I am fully OK if the Seller is agreeing to pay the cost of repairing of such "damaged pixels".
I only disagreed to "split in 50:50".

[Bharat Varma]

Adequate.

Let camera crew respond to my queries.

[Parampreet Dhatt]

I purchased Fuji XE1 camera with Fujinon 18-55 kit lens on 3rd august,  after negotiating the price at INR 27,000/- plus shipping (which i have to pay) as Mr. Parampreet Dhatt told me to transfer that later.

Upon receiving the camera i tried clicking some pictures on 9th august. I was trying long exposure photography.
10th august as i started using lightroom to correct those photos, i found that the camera shows about 24 magenta/pink pixels in every photo. At the same spot, bottom left hand corner of the frame.
On 10th august i did some test keeping lens cap closed. The spots of such pixels were again apparant.
In fast shutter speed, i.e. 1/500, its of less intensity and in long shutter, 15-30sec the magenta or pink gets more prominant.

I have shared the screenshot of my lightroom screen over whats app and Mr. Parampreet said he could not understand.
Then i transferred raw files of the test shots with Mr. Parampreet and he at first told me that he could not understand the files as they were all black (my test shots were with lens cap on) and maybe those spots were noise.
Over whats app, he forwarded some writings about "hot pixels" and how to correct them.

Then i again shared some fuji RAF raw files of actual photos on 12th august. This time i had slow shutter of self portraits with light trail/painting and 1/500th sec shot of a foliage, all clicked at 200 ISO.

To my knowledge of photography, this camera has "dead" pixels. About 24 of them. I have zoomed fully and seen.

The advertisement/post in WTS was mentioned that the camera is in perfect condition with very less shuttercount.

On rigorous exchange of  Fuji RAF files, conversations on phone and whats app and with due time, Mr. Parampreet Dhatt suggested me, today, to take the camera to Kolkata service center, get it serviced, pay in full, send him the invoice copy and then he will pay half of the service charge.

I asked him to pay the full service charge, in advance, bcoz repairing an item that has been listed as "in perfect working condition" is not my responsibility. I have to take care the entire incidental cost, harassment. Mr. Parampreet did not agree to this.

I also asked him to return the equipment as its not matching what he committed in his post.

Upon denial from Mr. Parampreet Dhatt and getting a camera which does not match the WTS post disclosure, i am keeping this frown.

A lot of such posts tend to descend into a plethora of rhetoric and emotions, hiding the actual facts from the picture.
To avoid doing that, I'll first present the facts and the technical aspects of the issue before offering any personal opinions.

1. The camera belonged to my friend and this fact is clearly mentioned in my post.
2. The return policy clearly defined on the post is: "Buyer is encouraged to do full due diligence before buying, no returns applicable thereafter." However, as a responsible seller, I'm prepared to offer suitable restitution in case of any issues with the camera which I may have missed inadvertently due to oversight.
3. The buyer Prabal Bose (username: cameracrew), did not seek *any* sample images or pictures taken from the camera *prior* to the sale. As his usage seems to entail specialized use of the camera (i.e. for long exposures), he could have easily asked for sample long exposure images for review before finalizing the deal.
4. The deal was fixed at 27K + shipping. I asked him to transfer 27k before the sale and the shipping cost after receiving the item.
5. Before shipping the items, to ensure everything was working fine, I took a few test shots at 18mm, 23mm, 35mm, 55mm and examined them and they seemed fine. I also took a few shots at slower shutter speeds (1/6 secs) to ensure the image stabilization on the lens was working fine. These shots are given in the following link:
https://1drv.ms/u/s!AnCdvhrPSrGfgXMFO7cj7N5fXDe_?e=VSfMBe
6. After receiving the items, Mr. Prabal Bose called me up on 10th morning and told me that there was a problem with the camera and had sent me few pics over WhatsApp showing the issue. I wasn't able to make much out of the WhatsApp pics and asked him to share a few RAW files showing the issue.
7. Mr. Prabal shared a set of 8 RAW files. I wasn't able to much from these RAW files either and as some of the long exposure shots were taken at ISO 2000, I requested him to share some RAW files of shots taken at the base ISO to eliminate the possibility of high ISO noise being a contributing factor.
8. Mr. Prabal sent a set of 4 more RAW files (3 long exposures and 1 normal exposure) taken at the base ISO (200). After examining these shots, I could see some spots on the long exposure images, which looked to be hot pixels as they were not present on the image with normal exposure. Comparing the shots, I could see around 2 pixels which seemed to be at the same position on both the long and regular exposures, indicating that they were dead or stuck pixels. We had a call in this regard where I acknowledged the presence of these 1-2 dead (or stuck) pixels in these images. Contrary to his claim now ("To my knowledge of photography, this camera has "dead" pixels. About 24 of them. I have zoomed fully and seen."), on the same call, he acknowledged that there is only one dead pixel and the other spots on the long exposure images are reflections from his moving the light around during the exposure and also confirmed he has no issues with any spots on the long exposure, except for the aforementioned dead (or stuck) pixel seen at the same place on both the normal and long exposure. I have a recording of this call, which I can provide if needed to corroborate this statement.
9. During this call, Mr. Prabal also acknowledged that the camera is in excellent ("almost unused") condition. He confirmed that he has no issues with the camera at all and is very happy in all aspects except for the aforementioned dead pixel issue. He even complimented me on the packing of the items.
10. He asked me to speak to the owner of the camera and arrange for a refund. I confirmed that I would speak to my friend and come back with a solution. He asked me to get back to him by 15th August evening, to which I agreed.
11. Subsequently, I spoke to my friend and sent the RAW files to him. He examined the RAW files and with great difficulty managed to locate the spots in question. We both agreed that there wasn't justified grounds for return/refund due to minuscule nature of the problem (1 or 2 odd pixels among 16 million!) and the fact that dead (or stuck) pixels can appear at any time on the camera sensor irrespective of age and condition (more on this aspect below).
12. I did some more reading on the subject online and found that the issue can be resolved by a Fuji service center by remapping the offending pixels.
13. Prabal and I spoke again on 15th August evening, where I suggested getting the camera serviced/repaired from the Fuji service center. He expressed reluctance over this as it may be cost-prohibitive (his assumption was that the repair may cost more than the value of the camera itself) and continued insisting on a refund. I told him that the procedure only involved mapping the offending pixels and not replacement of the sensor or any other hardware component. I opined that we should at least get an estimate from the service center to get an idea of the cost involved. He replied that "he is very busy and doesn't have time for this", to which I offered to speak to the Fuji service center in Kolkata and get the cost estimate and any other required details. He agreed to this and asked me to share details by the next day, post which he would align some person at his end to send the camera to the service center.
14. On 16th morning, I spoke to the Fuji service center in Kolkata as agreed (address: Room No. 502A, 5th Floor, Diamond Prestige Building, Acharya Jagadish Chandra Bose Road, Kolkata; phone number: 033-40268500). A person at the desk picked the call and directed me to speak to the technical person, Mr. Gautam (+91-8697985740). I spoke to Mr. Gautam and explained the issue of dead pixels on the camera sensor, to which he recommended getting the camera serviced, which would resolve the issue with dead pixels and would also cover cleaning, lubricating, firmware updates etc. He gave Rs. 2326 as the cost of servicing.
15. I shared these details with Mr. Prabal over WhatsApp and offered to split the cost of service 50-50. He called me back refused the 50-50 split and asked me to pay the entire amount in advance for him to consider this option. I offered to reimburse the full cost post-facto, after production of the invoice, but he refused this option and continued to insist on a full refund/return. On asking the reason for demanding advance payment, his reasoning was that if relations sour between us while the camera is in the service station, I may refuse to reimburse the amount thereafter. I found this especially disconcerting given that I had trusted him in terms of paying the courier charges after receiving the item whereas he was unwilling to extend me the same trust (in fact I still haven't asked him for the courier charges). In the end, I even offered to discuss and get back to him regarding the possibility of advance payment for servicing; he asked to me get back in this regard by 5 pm. I spoke to my friend and we collectively agreed to offer him the full amount for servicing (Rs. 2326) as advance to avoid any further hassles. Unfortunately, before I could convey this to him, he went ahead and posted this frown at 2:51 pm.

Now, some technical aspects of the discussion at hand:

The following link contains details on dead vs stuck vs hot pixels:
https://photographylife.com/dead-vs-stuck-vs-hot-pixels

I'm pasting some relevant extracts from this link below to help understand dead, stuck and hot pixels better:







Fujifilm uses "X-Trans CMOS" sensors in the X-series cameras, which are different from CMOS sensors (used by all other camera manufactuters) featuring a conventional Bayer filter array, due to different arrangement of photosites.
Due to this, the software being used to process the RAW file has a major bearing on the output depending on the demosaicing algorithms used by the software (Adobe is particularly notorious for their poor handling of X-Trans based RAW files). To remove any possibility of software bias while examining the RAW files, I used Fuji's official RAW processing software - "RAW FILE CONVERTER EX 3.0 powered by SILKYPIX" (https://www.fujifilm.com/support/digital_cameras/software/myfinepix_studio/rfc/index.html).
The following are the screenshots of some of the files shared by Prabal in this software showing the stuck pixel at 300% magnification:

Long exposure:


The offending pixel at the same position and magnification on the image with normal exposure:


A few observations from these screenshots:
1. As per the definition given above, this appears to be a stuck and not a dead pixel.
2. How prominent this "defect" appears on a normal exposure image can be gauged from the 2nd screenshot.

Both these screenshots are available in larger size at the following link:
https://1drv.ms/u/s!AnCdvhrPSrGfggShWWQAkBzrN60C?e=QQr1DB

The RAW files displayed in these screenshots are available on the following link:
https://1drv.ms/u/s!AnCdvhrPSrGfgXVlJrpFsI3fTlOj?e=b0fVo6

My thoughts on the matter:
1. In any buy-sell transaction on this forum (or elsewhere), both the buyer and seller have a certain set of responsibilities. The responsibility of the buyer is to properly examine the item (in person, through a friend, on a video call or through sample images) in all aspects before going ahead with the deal to ensure there is no dissatisfaction thereafter (especially for transactions which clearly state - "Buyer is encouraged to do full due diligence before buying, no returns applicable thereafter."). The responsibility of the seller to be transparent about all aspects of the item (including defects or missing items, if any), and in case any issue is discovered later due to oversight, offer suitable restitution to the buyer. (Please correct me if I'm wrong anywhere with these statements)
2. The missing items (lens hood, camera body cap and rear lens caps) are clearly mentioned in the post.
2. Whether there was any wilful concealment on my part with respect to the stuck pixels can be gauged by examining how prominent the effect appears on the normal exposure shots. I'm emphasizing normal exposure shots here because I didn't shoot any long exposures with this camera. I doubt all sellers selling cameras on the forum tend to blow up images by 300% or more and examine every nook and cranny for issues like these.
3. When evidence of the issue was shared with me by the buyer, I fully acknowledged the issue and offered suitable restitution.
4. Even for a camera under warranty, 1 or 2 dead or stuck pixels will not cause the OEM (Fujifilm in this case) to issue a refund or replacement for the item. They would direct the user to approach the service center to get the issue fixed, which is exactly what I offered to the buyer!
5. Throughout the conversations with the buyer, there was always a veiled threat of tarnishing my reputation on the forum (which he made good on) in case I didn't toe his line in terms of offering a full refund. He even "advised" me on multiple occasions not to risk my reputation for someone else's camera and push my friend for a full refund.

Dear Mods,

As you are looking at the issue now, I would wait for your thoughts after considering points from both sides and suggest the way ahead.
Please let me know if there's any further information required from my end.

[Bharat Varma]

   
• Do the initial images shared with you show prior to the sale show any such pixels?
• At what shutter speed do you start seeing the pixels?
• Do you have long exposure noise reduction enabled? Also known as dark frame subtraction? Please check in the manual and enable it, then take some shots.
• Since the seller has committed to reimburse the full cost of the service, please show the camera to Fuji service and share the service report.

hello Dear Admin Bharat varma.
thanks for your prompt response.
I do not have the stills in Fuji RAF before the purchase. Mr Param had shared me some pics that he clicked before despatching the camera. Those were photos of newspaper that he clicked with normal shutter to check the working of the camera. He did share them, when I sent him the first lot of test RAF pics with lens cap closed.
We can try to find the problem in these "newspaper pics", but as I already mentioned, this problem gets enhanced in "long shutter speeds".

I also have the first slow shutter pic, with this "pixel damage" which is one of the first few shots I took after receiving the camera.