Greg VdB: Erez, thank you very much for all the information in this article, and the beautifull image at its basis!
I usually stay on the save side of postprocessing, hence I understand to some level the criticism about how the shard of ice appears "disconnected" from the rest of the scene. However, comparing with the RAW original isn't fair; where your final image might be called "over-processed", the original RAW definitely qualifies as "under-processed", i.e. lacking in color and contrast in comparison to the real life vista. To check this for myself, I spent a few minutes doing my standard PS tweaks on the original: color balance, levels, "local contrast enhancement" (Unsharp Mask 15%, 33px, 0 levels), and high-pass sharpening. For illustration purposes, I took the liberty to temporarily upload this version of your image to my web gallery: http://www.pbase.com/gbleek/image/150655005/originalThis to me looks more natural, but your version definitely packs more punch, and I enjoy both takes.
i agree to some point about over processing pictures. Erez's version does really make the shard of ice stand out. your edit is awesome (by comparing to the raw file) but the ice looks a bit flat (maybe because i have the original edit already in my mind).
if i were to make an edit, it would be a blend of both... i like how you treat the water on the right of the ice and a more pleasing blue, but like the distinct feel of the ice in the original.
but as erez pointed out somewhere else on the comments, edits are subjective and i think the photographer has a better appreciation for the scene from the moment he was thinking about composition.
Cary Maures: Well done. I have the same lens. are you enjoying it as much as I am?
TBH... i cannot consider going out without it!
BackInTheGame: I have been checking daily for price and availability on this lens. I love VR in the mid-range because I can shoot lower ISOs handheld and still get nice sharp photos. A D800e is in my distant future, and right now all I have are primes for mid-range on my D700, no VR (not a big problem for the D700). I want this lens, if it checks out good. I believe the street price will drop after release, sooner rather than later. If it just has good center sharpness at f2.8 I'm all in for it. Imagine the indoor, casual family portraits you could get with this and a D800e.
please tell me you use $4000+ worth of equipment for other things than 'JUST' casual family portraits.... :)
this camera will be fantastic for what it is meant to do. not for what YOU critics want it to be
most people here never laid hands on the camera and are already bashing it.
when (or if) fuji bring out a FF, then compare it to a leica FF. we all know you love leica and hate fuji. or love nikon and canon and hate fuji blah blah....
lets make a simple comparison.... leica body + 1 lens = $ 10,000
x pro 1 system: $ 1700 + 3x $ 500 = $ 3200 which obviously will not be as INCREDIBLE IQ as a leica ( maybe 80% of the quality??)
what could i possibly do with $ 6800???
option 1: buy a car and drive around to take picturesoption 2: if in europe, travel across the continent to take picture, same for africa and america...option 3: go around the world and take picturesoption 4: buy a D7000, or 7D or 5D or D700 plus some lenses....option 5: let the x pro 1 go under a truck and buy a new one, let it fall down a canyon and buy one again....
hmmm... WOW i still have change for a Big mac meal and watch a movie.
Pixnat2: A bit too "old fashioned" for me. I prefer the Olmypus E-Px look, a clever mix of old style and modernity.
But wow, it's IQ seems nothing sort of amazing!
got to the x pro 1 micro site. a couple of samples only but great IQ