Duncan Dimanche: You know the fuji sensors are nice in low light but they are never sharp. Even the RAWs are being stripped off noise in order to create an illusion of amazing high ISO performance... it does remind me of Sony's JPGs
It would be nice if those samples shot would be in RAW... But I know that there is little difference in Fuji's raw and JPGs...
I'm trying to like Fuji but I really can't...just look at that girl's portrait... there seems to be not much details....
Cheers and thanks for posting those
Not sure what you mean there - the JPEGs from my X-E1 and XF 14/2.8 and 60/2.4 are VERY sharp indeed.(No fanboy here, just my first-hand experience).Besides, sharpness is overrated anyway. A good photo is first and foremost about composition and tone (colour / b&w gradations).
If tripod mounted, then why such a high ISO?
marco1974: "pansy whining"? Is this what you think of not being willing to stand for blatant corruption?
No. I wrote "NOT being willing to stand for", i.e. that he would NOT stand for it.
Anyhow: I'm glad to see that the post I was referring to in indignation has now been deleted.
"pansy whining"? Is this what you think of not being willing to stand for blatant corruption?
Micky Nixgeld: Does somone need "The Zonesystem" in the age of HDR and other digital "goodies"? For film it´s great, but...
Beautifully put, DaveMarx!I agree 100%.Marco
All those who say the Zone System is irrelevant today must be those same people whose idea of photography is to "spray and pray" with their 10fps DSLRs set to Matrix/Evaluative metering, and then "tweak and salvage" whatever sheer chance presented them with (at least exposure-wise) in post-processing.BUT for those who instead wish to MAKE pictures and approach photography as a more slowed-down and deliberate art akin to painting, the Zone System is actually as relevant today as it ever was.Marco
Yes, that's what I meant with my previous post.Then, if some people wish to make *shadows* as light as *highlights* and call it *art*, by all means that's their prerogative.
Oh dear... indeed.
Absolutely.In fact, deep shadows should NEVER be "lifted" to medium-tone!"Extreme contrast edits" invariably produce extremely cartoonish results.Marco
elefteriadis alexandros: -Yes, first photoshop, (money and months to familiar with that..) then filters, then again some extra money for Nikon software,( ..familiar with that..), then double triple exposure (forget if the subject move..) shot raw and give money for extra space in hard drive to gain maybe 1-2 stop, maybe in the end some pictures looks dull or fake.... -Huh start all over again..-Hey dude take some real film camera and go out to take real pictures!!
Yes! But I'd like to add: nothing prevents one from using 'film photography' techniques (like GND filters, spot metering + zone system, etc.) with DSLRs too...
HiRez: HDR brings everything towards a flat grey mess. Pictures need definition and HDR tends to remove it. Yes, you can see more detail in the shadow and/or highlight areas, but it just never looks natural, no matter how good the software or how skilled the artist/photographer.
Sorry, but I still prefer a more natural looking picture with some clipped highlights or shadows.
I agree 100%
dccdp: In my opinion, the original picture is actually better than the processed result. It looks more natural, the unprocessed shadow areas outline the shapes better and give "depth" to the picture.
The final result is just a flat, artificial, oversaturated, cartoonish picture.
exactly my point, also!
Hmmm... I actually like the "uncorrected" image best. LOL