-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Image quality of X-Pro 1
- Thread starter Nishi Sharma
- Start date
-
- Tags
- nikon d3
Mariajoseph Johnbasco
New member
-- I, very recently sold my d mk 2 and bought both the x100s and the X-Pro 1 with the 18/-55 mm zoom. The x100 s quality is exemlary and on par or even exceed the 5d-2 IQ. The x pro 1 files are so film like and very rich.
If you like see my images in FB Mariajoseph johnbasco
MJ
If you like see my images in FB Mariajoseph johnbasco
MJ
Alamy has the X-Pro1 on their list of acceptable cameras.
Getty no longer publishes a list but their submission requirements seem to be tailored more towards full frame cameras.
I think Getty stopped listing specific cameras around 2010 and this requirements list is about four years old but is still up-to-date:
http://contributors.gettyimages.com/img/articles/downloads/submission_req_one_page.pdf
Naturally, there are several online type agencies that will accept almost anything.
Nishi Sharma
Leading Member
Thanks very much Ed for the helpful info. I feel more confident using x-pro 1 for stock images now.
Nishi
I hope you have good luck with the stock route.
Several years ago I submitted images to Getty and did make a few dollars but nothing to brag about.
Today, it seems like everything worth photographing, for stock submission, has already been photographed a thousand times and that it's pretty hard to get anywhere with submissions.
Just the same, you might come up with something unusual or specific that someone needs.
Once again, good luck.
Dennis2958
Leading Member
They all accept X Pro 1 images. I've made a good living shooting stock since the mid 70's. This past year I sold off a bunch of my Nikon equipment to make room for the Fuji. Alamy, Getty, AGE, and a few other have accepted my images without question. BTW..... I only shoot jpegs. I am only holding back one D800 and a couple of lenses for obvious reasons. I use the X pro for 90% of my shooting and am not looking in the rear view mirror.
Good luck........
dennis
Nishi Sharma
Leading Member
I agree, photography market is fairly saturated, whether it's stock photography or weddings. It's very hard work making a living out photography these days.
Nishi
Nishi Sharma
Leading Member
Hi Dennis
Thanks for your helpful comment. I agree with you, I don't think I would like to get rid of my Nikon D3, 28-70/2.8. 80-200/2.8, 85/f1.8, 50/1.4. The reason being that X-Pro 1 is not so useful for off camera flash or studio work as in manual mode the EVF/LCD is so dark that you can't see a thing. Composing accurately within the tiny white frame in the OVF with the 60mm lens is pretty tiring after you've been shooting for a few minutes. Besides the FF D3 at the base ISO produces very clean images.
Dennis2958 seems to be doing well and there are others who do make a good living but there's much more competition today than there was 10-15 years ago.
I admire anyone (especially someone with a family) who is actually making a decent living at photography.
When you consider overhead, taxes (self-employment tax in the U.S.) and all the other things that go into making photography your primary job, a person making a living wage is someone special.
I know a few older photographers who have owned studios or specialized in weddings that used to make pretty good money but all of those guys are retired now and their businesses went way down hill prior to their retirements.
I hate to say it, because there are exceptions, but the number of photographers who can send their kids to college or provide a decent life for their family are far and few between.
They are definitely better business people and better photographers than me.
Dennis2958
Leading Member
Ed,
At 72 I am in the twilight of my photography career. I had a good run at it but the 6 figure days are over for all but a handful of stock shooters. I am in good shape financially do partly to my wife's career and we now both shoot for stock. It's mainly travel and event type of photography which makes it ideal for stock images. I still hold onto the few pieces of Nikon equipment for certain action situations. And yes the stock field is completely saturated with hobbyist and wannabees and images of all sorts. It's a tough way to go in today's world.
All of this is why the Fuji X system is a good fit for me.
denns
At 72 I am in the twilight of my photography career. I had a good run at it but the 6 figure days are over for all but a handful of stock shooters. I am in good shape financially do partly to my wife's career and we now both shoot for stock. It's mainly travel and event type of photography which makes it ideal for stock images. I still hold onto the few pieces of Nikon equipment for certain action situations. And yes the stock field is completely saturated with hobbyist and wannabees and images of all sorts. It's a tough way to go in today's world.
All of this is why the Fuji X system is a good fit for me.
denns
Nishi Sharma
Leading Member
Dennis
you said I'm another reply that you shoot only in jpegs with X- pro 1 for stock. What picture profile do you use? Standard, velvia....?
Thanks.
Nishi
Dennis2958
Leading Member
I have played around with this a bit and settled on Standard and kick it +1 for most uses. Otherwise I do, sometimes extensive, post processing in CS6.
dennis
Nishi Sharma
Leading Member
Thanks Dennis. If you do extensive PP on images then won't it be better to work on a 16bit RAW images that have more information than 8bit JPEGS?
Also, I am not sure what you meant by 'kick it +1'. Please forgive my ignorance.
Nishi
I shoot JPG too with an E1. The Fuji JPG files are nothing like any JPG file from any other camera. You can obtain as much detail with as much headroom as there is in the RAW files.
This also allows a lot of very advantages such as film simulation bracketing etc etc etc. Couple this to superb auto white balance and an excellent meter and your onto a winner
I'm pretty sure Dennis meant that he adjusts the color (in the menu) to plus one.
Just go to the "Q" menu.
Nishi Sharma
Leading Member
This is a topic for discussion on its own but with due respect there is a big difference between a RAW and JPEG file when it come to recovery of tones and image information. You might already know what this article says but if not then you might find it useful:This also allows a lot of very advantages such as film simulation bracketing etc etc etc. Couple this to superb auto white balance and an excellent meter and your onto a winner
Loading…
www.photoshopessentials.com
Ultimately it depends on what you want to do with your images.
Thanks.
Nishi
S
stimpy
Guest
In my experience it's entirely dependant on which stock agency you are using. Getty is more fussy than shutterstock for example - but then it also depends what you are shooting / editorial isn't always that fussy and advertising is incredibly fussy, so there is no perfect answer.
Contact an agent at the place you wish to submit to along with a sample or two.
I think in general the XP1 is going to be more than OK
Last edited:
Nishi Sharma
Leading Member
Thanks for taking time to reply. Not all pic agencies are photographer friendly. I guess there are so many photographers making submission every day - the market seems to be fairly saturated. Some agencies don't even bother to tell you why your images were rejected. I rang one such agency as soon as I got their email and got the reply "You don't expect me to remember that. We are getting so many submissions everyday that we can't track of all of them'. Which might be the case but it doesn't help people like me. They did tell me later after my persistence that my images had slightly more saturation than they like in garden images!!In my experience it's entirely dependant on which stock agency you are using. Getty is more fussy than shutterstock for example - but then it also depends what you are shooting / editorial isn't always that fussy and advertising is incredibly fussy, so there is no perfect answer.
Contact an agent at the place you wish to submit to along with a sample or two.
I think in general the XP1 is going to be more than OK
However, my sincere thank to all those who have replied and assured me that X-Pro 1 should be able to stand the test of picture agencies!
Thanks again.
With equally due respect there is exceedingly little or any difference between the Fuji RAW and Fuji JPG files where headroom in highlight and shadow detail. You should try doing your own tests or read a little more yourself. Try starting even with the write up on here lol.This is a topic for discussion on its own but with due respect there is a big difference between a RAW and JPEG file when it come to recovery of tones and image information. You might already know what this article says but if not then you might find it useful:This also allows a lot of very advantages such as film simulation bracketing etc etc etc. Couple this to superb auto white balance and an excellent meter and your onto a winner
http://www.photoshopessentials.com/photo-editing/raw-vs-jpeg-for-photo-editing/
Ultimately it depends on what you want to do with your images.
Thanks.
Nishi
That is regardless of whatever you do with them !
Further to the question of suitability of the X Pro 1 for stock pics....
As has been said, most agencies have there own set of rules and guidelines. Most will not care what camera is used. They judge the image not what you use. As far as I can see, there is still a problem with watercolour effects in foilage etc. Most images are fine though. I also never see any watercolour effects in more close up. However, it would not be a good camera for landscape work that includes lots of grass and trees etc for the purpose of submitting pics to an agency !
You need to be your own judge. Check the image yourself at 100%. If it is clean and free of artifacts etc then it is clean and acceptable. If you can see a fault, so will they. They also prefer images that are different. Content is even more important than IQ. If the image does not have the content it will be binned out of hand. I have had images accepted that I considered slightly under par, because they were swayed with the content. While I have had images rejected that were perfect in IQ but the content was not strong enough etc.
Neither do they like loads of images that are too much of the same. So always be selective. Check out lots of pics in the agency. If nothing else it will give you an idea of there taste ! Keep in mind there is a genuine person looking at your images that makes a personal judgement. Then keep in mind that if the other person sat next to him doing the same job may have thought differently.
The Pro 1 and E1 are capable of producing top rate images. A top rate image is a top rate image regardless of what camera is used. If you have and use software that can rid of the watercolour effects then you should not have a problem regardless of the subject.
As has been said, most agencies have there own set of rules and guidelines. Most will not care what camera is used. They judge the image not what you use. As far as I can see, there is still a problem with watercolour effects in foilage etc. Most images are fine though. I also never see any watercolour effects in more close up. However, it would not be a good camera for landscape work that includes lots of grass and trees etc for the purpose of submitting pics to an agency !
You need to be your own judge. Check the image yourself at 100%. If it is clean and free of artifacts etc then it is clean and acceptable. If you can see a fault, so will they. They also prefer images that are different. Content is even more important than IQ. If the image does not have the content it will be binned out of hand. I have had images accepted that I considered slightly under par, because they were swayed with the content. While I have had images rejected that were perfect in IQ but the content was not strong enough etc.
Neither do they like loads of images that are too much of the same. So always be selective. Check out lots of pics in the agency. If nothing else it will give you an idea of there taste ! Keep in mind there is a genuine person looking at your images that makes a personal judgement. Then keep in mind that if the other person sat next to him doing the same job may have thought differently.
The Pro 1 and E1 are capable of producing top rate images. A top rate image is a top rate image regardless of what camera is used. If you have and use software that can rid of the watercolour effects then you should not have a problem regardless of the subject.
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum