world-street.photography
Thanks. I like the latest versions. I agree on the tilt though that it adds that spontaneous feel but doesn't work as well in the horizontal of which I prefer.I think I'd go with this one if it's strictly composition you're after. The right-most pillar in the other shots seems a bit awkwardly cut off at the top while leaving the bottom completely in view, whereas if the shot had more of the ceiling (so that the pillar and that lamp had some 'breathing room') and a bit less of the ground (which IMO is much less interesting than the ceiling design), it would somehow balance the frame, visualizing it in my mind at least.
Are all of these variations cropped? I'm just wondering, if yes and the uncropped image includes enough of whatever is behind the man, if it might work with a slight 'rule break' showing the man walking out of the frame. Cropped in such a way that the right-most pillar is not visible and then there's a bit of mystery as to what's beyond the two pillars the man is about to walk between. In this case as well I see it as a landscape orientation.
Personally I also find the tilt quite okay, it gives off more of a spontaneous feel (hurried, even, emphasizing the man's stride) vs everything lining up.
Tweaking for shadows and highlights, I'm neutral on that. If parts are washed out, they don't seem relevant enough to me to be a big deal.
Very nice catch BTW.
Yeah, agree the tilt doesn't work too well in landscape orientation and the lantern distracts a bit. Another thing I do like about the vertical orientation though is that it sort of follows the direction of the tall pillars and high arches, making them a bit more interesting while not at all taking attention away from the man. Anyway, was just an alternate thought, the image is a type where you can't really go wrong processing it one way or anotherThanks. I like the latest versions. I agree on the tilt though that it adds that spontaneous feel but doesn't work as well in the horizontal of which I prefer.I think I'd go with this one if it's strictly composition you're after. The right-most pillar in the other shots seems a bit awkwardly cut off at the top while leaving the bottom completely in view, whereas if the shot had more of the ceiling (so that the pillar and that lamp had some 'breathing room') and a bit less of the ground (which IMO is much less interesting than the ceiling design), it would somehow balance the frame, visualizing it in my mind at least.
Are all of these variations cropped? I'm just wondering, if yes and the uncropped image includes enough of whatever is behind the man, if it might work with a slight 'rule break' showing the man walking out of the frame. Cropped in such a way that the right-most pillar is not visible and then there's a bit of mystery as to what's beyond the two pillars the man is about to walk between. In this case as well I see it as a landscape orientation.
Personally I also find the tilt quite okay, it gives off more of a spontaneous feel (hurried, even, emphasizing the man's stride) vs everything lining up.
Tweaking for shadows and highlights, I'm neutral on that. If parts are washed out, they don't seem relevant enough to me to be a big deal.
Very nice catch BTW.
The vertical was my original yes. Nothing extra behind the man, what you quoted is what I shot and at the time I wanted that lantern thing in but now I think that was not the best choice. As always in a year I might change again! At least I shot RAW
Do you have the latest LR Martin? Did you know I turned that crop of what half or less of the original 24mp back into a 22 MP image at 15MB!
No loss of image quality! Not planning to shoot for that but heck what a thing! Even looks good in the original colour. Used the new LR 'enhance function.' As you can see I've used SEFX PRO 2 to edit the heck out of it and it still looks good. The TIFF file it created that I made the JPEGS out of is 50MB and looks good HUGE.
Interesting times.
Happy shooting!
), and decided to do the Adobe subscription scam. I still haven't installed LR which is part of the subscription but if I understood you correctly, I'm probably doing the same thing with DNG conversion and then ARC for b&w and a preset that pretty much gives me just the result I like. Converting the Fuji raws to DNG makes the file size a lot smaller and nothing is lost except maybe for some lens correction stuff etc which I don't care for anyway. I have all those xtrans converters and honestly don't notice any difference vs just RAF->DNG->ACR... ok RAF->DNG takes a little time but I only have a couple/few hundred shots to process at a time so it's quick 
world-street.photography
Thanks manYeah, agree the tilt doesn't work too well in landscape orientation and the lantern distracts a bit. Another thing I do like about the vertical orientation though is that it sort of follows the direction of the tall pillars and high arches, making them a bit more interesting while not at all taking attention away from the man. Anyway, was just an alternate thought, the image is a type where you can't really go wrong processing it one way or anotherThanks. I like the latest versions. I agree on the tilt though that it adds that spontaneous feel but doesn't work as well in the horizontal of which I prefer.I think I'd go with this one if it's strictly composition you're after. The right-most pillar in the other shots seems a bit awkwardly cut off at the top while leaving the bottom completely in view, whereas if the shot had more of the ceiling (so that the pillar and that lamp had some 'breathing room') and a bit less of the ground (which IMO is much less interesting than the ceiling design), it would somehow balance the frame, visualizing it in my mind at least.
Are all of these variations cropped? I'm just wondering, if yes and the uncropped image includes enough of whatever is behind the man, if it might work with a slight 'rule break' showing the man walking out of the frame. Cropped in such a way that the right-most pillar is not visible and then there's a bit of mystery as to what's beyond the two pillars the man is about to walk between. In this case as well I see it as a landscape orientation.
Personally I also find the tilt quite okay, it gives off more of a spontaneous feel (hurried, even, emphasizing the man's stride) vs everything lining up.
Tweaking for shadows and highlights, I'm neutral on that. If parts are washed out, they don't seem relevant enough to me to be a big deal.
Very nice catch BTW.
The vertical was my original yes. Nothing extra behind the man, what you quoted is what I shot and at the time I wanted that lantern thing in but now I think that was not the best choice. As always in a year I might change again! At least I shot RAW
Do you have the latest LR Martin? Did you know I turned that crop of what half or less of the original 24mp back into a 22 MP image at 15MB!
No loss of image quality! Not planning to shoot for that but heck what a thing! Even looks good in the original colour. Used the new LR 'enhance function.' As you can see I've used SEFX PRO 2 to edit the heck out of it and it still looks good. The TIFF file it created that I made the JPEGS out of is 50MB and looks good HUGE.
Interesting times.
Happy shooting!
Is hard using gear that's not 100% comfortable. Kind of like Capture ONE Express lol. It's free it works great but it's not ACRHahh yes/no regarding LR. I was forced to buy a Macbook Pro M1 for work reasons (the crappiest computer I have ever bought -- mostly because of the lousy OS -- and mind you I was a heavy Mac user up until the mid-90s so my hatred for this POS is not blind
Just PMSL!
When I bought my new laptop (probably meagre by your standards) a HP ENVY 17 inch touchscreen, top i7 chip, 16gb ram 1tb ssd - I called HP direct with some questions and the guy on the phone said the store are selling it for £_______ I'll sell it to you direct and with a full adobe photogrpahy subscription for free. I got it with the free sub and £70 off the price.
AH no. so the latest LR has this one feature that makes all the pop ups and awful UI worth it on occasion, It's called 'Enhance - Super Resolution.'but if I understood you correctly, I'm probably doing the same thing with DNG conversion and then ARC for b&w and a preset that pretty much gives me just the result I like. Converting the Fuji raws to DNG makes the file size a lot smaller and nothing is lost except maybe for some lens correction stuff etc which I don't care for anyway. I have all those xtrans converters and honestly don't notice any difference vs just RAF->DNG->ACR... ok RAF->DNG takes a little time but I only have a couple/few hundred shots to process at a time so it's quick
I haven't said that. I'll keep the XT2 until it dies on me then get a mint low shutter count used one again. It's my perfect camera. I did sell off my primes and no wonly use the 18-55 f2.8-4. I may regret that when I shoot a friend's b'day party in our church hall but I think the light will be decent enough and for street as you know F2,8-4 even at night is enough as usually at night you still have some good man made light in the frame. I did say on holiday in Gran Canaria my X-T2 broke and I bought a used A6000 and kit lens as a temp fill in and then replaced it once the fuji was fixed.
As I'm mostly using the zoom I'd prefer the XT series. Even when I was prime only with the 23mm F2 I still prefer the XT series for the huge EVF as my eyesight when I shoot got bad and a big VF makes it not so bad, also all manual knobs for everything and dials etc just suits the way I shoot and the grip I love the grip. Size has never been a big worry for me. Only thing I ever balk at is big lenses as much as I'd love the brick no way I'd walk round with that cannon on the front lol...Have you checked out the X-E4 yet? I put my X-T3 up for sale and bought an X-E4 bundled with the 27mm. Nothing wrong with the T3 I just wanted to downsize/simplify a bit, anyway bundled it's a bargain even new and it's missing absolutely nothing in terms of handling and image quality. The 27mm is a beauty. Only thing I miss is having an actual ISO dial but that's a minor problem. One real design flaw is it's got no grip but for about 30 eur there's a grip made by JJC which makes the camera fantastic to hold. Give 'er a try if you haven't yet
If they made a 16-35 F2.8 though around somewhere the size of the 18-55 and the 16-80 F4 I'd pay any money for it 
