Share you Fuji compact's photos! Week/month beginning 26 July 2015

cantanima bis

Leading Member
Messages
920
Solutions
3
Reaction score
431
  • This thread is fun whenever I get around to it (which lately has been once a month), and can be a great learning experience: letting you show off what you and your Fuji compact camera can do.
  • Please reply to the original post, but change the title to reflect the subject of your image(s) so that you post starts a new section.
  • If you can provide details on the subject, camera, settings and processing, that would be great for people reviewing the images.
  • If you have more than 10 images to share, please break them up into more than 1 posting.
 
Attended my nephew and his brides wedding earlier this summer and took along the X-S1. The wedding was held at the Empire Mine State Park which was a very productive gold mine until the mid 1900's. It's a gorgeous place with the grounds kept green and lush and mostly due to their being over 300 miles of underground tunnels that are filled with water that's used to irrigate. Full size shows best.































 

Attachments

  • 3257254.jpg
    3257254.jpg
    3.9 MB · Views: 0
  • 3257256.jpg
    3257256.jpg
    3.2 MB · Views: 0
  • 3257246.jpg
    3257246.jpg
    2.3 MB · Views: 0
  • 3257245.jpg
    3257245.jpg
    2.5 MB · Views: 0
  • 3257244.jpg
    3257244.jpg
    3.4 MB · Views: 0
  • 3257255.jpg
    3257255.jpg
    2.2 MB · Views: 0
Actually a monument erected to Cicero at his villa, where he died, but parts of his body at least were carried off to Rome.

The tour guide said that, during Roman times, the monument could be seen from quite a distance, and was topped with a statue that is by now long gone.
The tour guide said that, during Roman times, the monument could be seen from quite a distance, and was topped with a statue that is by now long gone.

The tour guide let us look around inside. Once upon a time you could climb to the top and get a great panorama view of the seashore, but not at the present time, nor for the forseeable future.
The tour guide let us look around inside. Once upon a time you could climb to the top and get a great panorama view of the seashore, but not at the present time, nor for the forseeable future.
 
Last edited:
These are from eastern Missouri this year.



Widow Skimmer female
Widow Skimmer female



Hooded Warbler
Hooded Warbler



Pileated Woodpecker
Pileated Woodpecker



Eyed Click Beetle
Eyed Click Beetle





Dickcissel
Dickcissel



American White Pelicans
American White Pelicans

Jpegs, some basic PP. The camera is a joy to use and is quick to operate. Admittedly, I do find myself wanting a bit more clarity/resolution. But, that is a compromise with this camera and I knew that going in. I am in the process of looking at other options, maybe in the Bridge camera arena, maybe not.

Bryan
 
Car show in downtown Saratoga California.

DSCF3978%20%5B50%25%5D-XL.jpg




DSCF4027%20%5B50%25%5D-XL.jpg






DSCF3928%20%5B50%25%5D-X2.jpg




DSCF3959%20%5B50%25%5D-X2.jpg




DSCF3792%20%5B50%25%5D-X2.jpg




DSCF4026%20%5B50%25%5D-X2.jpg




DSCF3738%20%5B50%25%5D-X2.jpg




DSCF3740%20%5B50%25%5D-X2.jpg




DSCF3955%20%5B50%25%5D-X2.jpg


Richard
 
RAW developed with Photo Ninja - Yacht Marina near me. Good detail across the frame.
RAW developed with Photo Ninja - Yacht Marina near me. Good detail across the frame.

Camera JPEG (Provia) with very minor tweaks in FastStone image viewer - Norwegian Church, Cardiff Bay, Wales
Camera JPEG (Provia) with very minor tweaks in FastStone image viewer - Norwegian Church, Cardiff Bay, Wales

Pleased with the way the X30 performs and its ouput
 
Last edited:
Attended my nephew and his brides wedding earlier this summer and took along the X-S1. The wedding was held at the Empire Mine State Park which was a very productive gold mine until the mid 1900's. It's a gorgeous place with the grounds kept green and lush and mostly due to their being over 300 miles of underground tunnels that are filled with water that's used to irrigate. Full size shows best.
Full size shows better, but that's not enough for some of the photos. The first one looks pretty good using the gallery's Large size but some others, like this one :
turned out pretty poor (details too mushy) at the same Large size. All of the Large size photos I saw were about 1.8mp resolution and that may be a lot lower than what you uploaded. If you change your DPR profile to allow downloads, then we'll be able to see another "original" link that will let us see identical copies of the photos that you've uploaded and the usually look MUCH better than DPR's Large size photos.

Edit: Oops. Forgot to say nice photos!
 
Last edited:
Attended my nephew and his brides wedding earlier this summer and took along the X-S1. The wedding was held at the Empire Mine State Park which was a very productive gold mine until the mid 1900's. It's a gorgeous place with the grounds kept green and lush and mostly due to their being over 300 miles of underground tunnels that are filled with water that's used to irrigate. Full size shows best.
Full size shows better, but that's not enough for some of the photos. The first one looks pretty good using the gallery's Large size but some others, like this one :
turned out pretty poor (details too mushy) at the same Large size. All of the Large size photos I saw were about 1.8mp resolution and that may be a lot lower than what you uploaded. If you change your DPR profile to allow downloads, then we'll be able to see another "original" link that will let us see identical copies of the photos that you've uploaded and the usually look MUCH better than DPR's Large size photos.

Edit: Oops. Forgot to say nice photos!
Thanks! I remember shooting some, but not all, in EXR so maybe that's why the smaller size. I do see the "smudging" in this shot and now wondering what caused it..these were all hand held so would that be a likely culprit? Maybe ISO set too low? It's a bit of a battle I find when shooting one of my p&s cams or this Fuji: movement needs higher ISO, but IQ quickly heads south when ISO goes north. I should have tried using my monopod or tripod.
 
Attended my nephew and his brides wedding earlier this summer and took along the X-S1. The wedding was held at the Empire Mine State Park which was a very productive gold mine until the mid 1900's. It's a gorgeous place with the grounds kept green and lush and mostly due to their being over 300 miles of underground tunnels that are filled with water that's used to irrigate. Full size shows best.
Full size shows better, but that's not enough for some of the photos. The first one looks pretty good using the gallery's Large size but some others, like this one :
turned out pretty poor (details too mushy) at the same Large size. All of the Large size photos I saw were about 1.8mp resolution and that may be a lot lower than what you uploaded. If you change your DPR profile to allow downloads, then we'll be able to see another "original" link that will let us see identical copies of the photos that you've uploaded and the usually look MUCH better than DPR's Large size photos.

Edit: Oops. Forgot to say nice photos!
Thanks! I remember shooting some, but not all, in EXR so maybe that's why the smaller size. I do see the "smudging" in this shot and now wondering what caused it..these were all hand held so would that be a likely culprit? Maybe ISO set too low? It's a bit of a battle I find when shooting one of my p&s cams or this Fuji: movement needs higher ISO, but IQ quickly heads south when ISO goes north. I should have tried using my monopod or tripod.
No, I don't think so. This photo's focal length is 6.1mm so it was shot at the extreme wide end (24mm, equivalent). Even if stabilization was disabled, a 1/24th sec. shutter speed would eliminate most camera movement, but the shutter speed was 1/280th sec. so even hand holding would almost always produce sharp photos. If stabilization was enabled you probably could have gotten sharp hand held photos with shutter speeds as slow as 1/4 sec. This photo should have given you the best of all possibilities, fast shutter speed (1/280), low ISO (ISO 100) and wide aperture (f/2.8) that would rule out diffraction blurring.

If you still have the original unedited photo on your computer (it still may also be in the X-S1), compare its detail with what DPR's gallery shows. Since you don't have "downloads" enabled DPR's software stripped out most of the EXIF data so we can't tell if EXR mode was used or even if the original photo was shot using Large or Medium size. This photo is only 1.82mp at DPR's Large size and even that should have produced a reasonable amount of detail. Maybe DPR's downsizing software resembles the way Fuji's firmware processes in-camera JPEGs with smaller sensor Fuji's, where fine, low contrast detail is smudge out, even in low ISO photos.

Even though we can't download your original photo, you can always download the original size photos, so you could compare that with the gallery's Large size photo to see if there's a significant difference in IQ.
 
Attended my nephew and his brides wedding earlier this summer and took along the X-S1. The wedding was held at the Empire Mine State Park which was a very productive gold mine until the mid 1900's. It's a gorgeous place with the grounds kept green and lush and mostly due to their being over 300 miles of underground tunnels that are filled with water that's used to irrigate. Full size shows best.
Full size shows better, but that's not enough for some of the photos. The first one looks pretty good using the gallery's Large size but some others, like this one :
turned out pretty poor (details too mushy) at the same Large size. All of the Large size photos I saw were about 1.8mp resolution and that may be a lot lower than what you uploaded. If you change your DPR profile to allow downloads, then we'll be able to see another "original" link that will let us see identical copies of the photos that you've uploaded and the usually look MUCH better than DPR's Large size photos.

Edit: Oops. Forgot to say nice photos!
Thanks! I remember shooting some, but not all, in EXR so maybe that's why the smaller size. I do see the "smudging" in this shot and now wondering what caused it..these were all hand held so would that be a likely culprit? Maybe ISO set too low? It's a bit of a battle I find when shooting one of my p&s cams or this Fuji: movement needs higher ISO, but IQ quickly heads south when ISO goes north. I should have tried using my monopod or tripod.
No, I don't think so. This photo's focal length is 6.1mm so it was shot at the extreme wide end (24mm, equivalent). Even if stabilization was disabled, a 1/24th sec. shutter speed would eliminate most camera movement, but the shutter speed was 1/280th sec. so even hand holding would almost always produce sharp photos. If stabilization was enabled you probably could have gotten sharp hand held photos with shutter speeds as slow as 1/4 sec. This photo should have given you the best of all possibilities, fast shutter speed (1/280), low ISO (ISO 100) and wide aperture (f/2.8) that would rule out diffraction blurring.

If you still have the original unedited photo on your computer (it still may also be in the X-S1), compare its detail with what DPR's gallery shows. Since you don't have "downloads" enabled DPR's software stripped out most of the EXIF data so we can't tell if EXR mode was used or even if the original photo was shot using Large or Medium size. This photo is only 1.82mp at DPR's Large size and even that should have produced a reasonable amount of detail. Maybe DPR's downsizing software resembles the way Fuji's firmware processes in-camera JPEGs with smaller sensor Fuji's, where fine, low contrast detail is smudge out, even in low ISO photos.

Even though we can't download your original photo, you can always download the original size photos, so you could compare that with the gallery's Large size photo to see if there's a significant difference in IQ.
Thanks for the reply PR. I did enable downloads so it should show info. Btw, your mention of IS just triggered something..months ago I set IS to off since I was shooting various scenes and someone mentioned getting better images (sharper) with IS off. When I get home, I will see if still off and if so, that very well might be my answer to some of these being being soft. Will see.
 
...

Even though we can't download your original photo, you can always download the original size photos, so you could compare that with the gallery's Large size photo to see if there's a significant difference in IQ.
Thanks for the reply PR. I did enable downloads so it should show info. Btw, your mention of IS just triggered something..months ago I set IS to off since I was shooting various scenes and someone mentioned getting better images (sharper) with IS off. When I get home, I will see if still off and if so, that very well might be my answer to some of these being being soft. Will see.
Got the EXIF info and there was a lot of it. It shows that IS was on ("Optical, (mode 1, continuous; 0"). EXR DR mode was used ("Auto (100-400%)" and it used EXR DR 200%.

Even though the resolution is higher and the original version looks better (5.24mp vs 1.82mp) it only looks slightly better. Looking at all of the EXIF data I'm at a loss as to why the photo is so soft. For a "Hail Mary" guess I see that Picasa was used to edit the photo. I can't see what Picasa might have done other than reducing the resolution or cropping. It looks more likely to have been cropped since the photo's 1.4097 aspect ratio isn't one of the X-S1's native aspect ratios. But if Picasa was used to reduce noise, that could have smudged away much of the photo's detail. I don't use Picasa so I don't know if it would automatically apply noise reduction whether you asked for it or not.
 
...

Even though we can't download your original photo, you can always download the original size photos, so you could compare that with the gallery's Large size photo to see if there's a significant difference in IQ.
Thanks for the reply PR. I did enable downloads so it should show info. Btw, your mention of IS just triggered something..months ago I set IS to off since I was shooting various scenes and someone mentioned getting better images (sharper) with IS off. When I get home, I will see if still off and if so, that very well might be my answer to some of these being being soft. Will see.
Got the EXIF info and there was a lot of it. It shows that IS was on ("Optical, (mode 1, continuous; 0"). EXR DR mode was used ("Auto (100-400%)" and it used EXR DR 200%.

Even though the resolution is higher and the original version looks better (5.24mp vs 1.82mp) it only looks slightly better. Looking at all of the EXIF data I'm at a loss as to why the photo is so soft. For a "Hail Mary" guess I see that Picasa was used to edit the photo. I can't see what Picasa might have done other than reducing the resolution or cropping. It looks more likely to have been cropped since the photo's 1.4097 aspect ratio isn't one of the X-S1's native aspect ratios. But if Picasa was used to reduce noise, that could have smudged away much of the photo's detail. I don't use Picasa so I don't know if it would automatically apply noise reduction whether you asked for it or not.
I think the shutter speed was too slow.
 
...

Even though we can't download your original photo, you can always download the original size photos, so you could compare that with the gallery's Large size photo to see if there's a significant difference in IQ.
Thanks for the reply PR. I did enable downloads so it should show info. Btw, your mention of IS just triggered something..months ago I set IS to off since I was shooting various scenes and someone mentioned getting better images (sharper) with IS off. When I get home, I will see if still off and if so, that very well might be my answer to some of these being being soft. Will see.
Got the EXIF info and there was a lot of it. It shows that IS was on ("Optical, (mode 1, continuous; 0"). EXR DR mode was used ("Auto (100-400%)" and it used EXR DR 200%.

Even though the resolution is higher and the original version looks better (5.24mp vs 1.82mp) it only looks slightly better. Looking at all of the EXIF data I'm at a loss as to why the photo is so soft. For a "Hail Mary" guess I see that Picasa was used to edit the photo. I can't see what Picasa might have done other than reducing the resolution or cropping. It looks more likely to have been cropped since the photo's 1.4097 aspect ratio isn't one of the X-S1's native aspect ratios. But if Picasa was used to reduce noise, that could have smudged away much of the photo's detail. I don't use Picasa so I don't know if it would automatically apply noise reduction whether you asked for it or not.
Hummm, I have the originals so I'm going to compare to see if there is any loss of detail differences. Some of these probably have been cropped a bit, but I'll know for certain tonight. Thanks for your help..appreciated.
 
...

Even though we can't download your original photo, you can always download the original size photos, so you could compare that with the gallery's Large size photo to see if there's a significant difference in IQ.
Thanks for the reply PR. I did enable downloads so it should show info. Btw, your mention of IS just triggered something..months ago I set IS to off since I was shooting various scenes and someone mentioned getting better images (sharper) with IS off. When I get home, I will see if still off and if so, that very well might be my answer to some of these being being soft. Will see.
Got the EXIF info and there was a lot of it. It shows that IS was on ("Optical, (mode 1, continuous; 0"). EXR DR mode was used ("Auto (100-400%)" and it used EXR DR 200%.

Even though the resolution is higher and the original version looks better (5.24mp vs 1.82mp) it only looks slightly better. Looking at all of the EXIF data I'm at a loss as to why the photo is so soft. For a "Hail Mary" guess I see that Picasa was used to edit the photo. I can't see what Picasa might have done other than reducing the resolution or cropping. It looks more likely to have been cropped since the photo's 1.4097 aspect ratio isn't one of the X-S1's native aspect ratios. But if Picasa was used to reduce noise, that could have smudged away much of the photo's detail. I don't use Picasa so I don't know if it would automatically apply noise reduction whether you asked for it or not.
I think the shutter speed was too slow.
That may be accurate for some of the other photos but I only looked at the EXIF data of the two that I downloaded. One looked pretty good but the other was the one that I described as being soft and it didn't have a slow shutter speed. This is what I wrote about it in an earlier reply :
This photo's focal length is 6.1mm so it was shot at the extreme wide end (24mm, equivalent). Even if stabilization was disabled, a 1/24th sec. shutter speed would eliminate most camera movement, but the shutter speed was 1/280th sec. so even hand holding would almost always produce sharp photos. If stabilization was enabled you probably could have gotten sharp hand held photos with shutter speeds as slow as 1/4 sec. This photo should have given you the best of all possibilities, fast shutter speed (1/280), low ISO (ISO 100) and wide aperture (f/2.8) that would rule out diffraction blurring.
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/56225197
 
Last edited:
According to the experts, the "blue moon" could actually have a blue color cast, if seen through a smoke screen. I had my doubts and my S1 captured the scene realistically but it's not very blue. Indeed, there is a forest fire burning just east of here and the smoke is thick. Trying many different settings they all turned out similar.



cb8620340216450aa5fced76ba134ea3.jpg

No messing with color sliders in photoshop, honest.
 
...

Even though we can't download your original photo, you can always download the original size photos, so you could compare that with the gallery's Large size photo to see if there's a significant difference in IQ.
Thanks for the reply PR. I did enable downloads so it should show info. Btw, your mention of IS just triggered something..months ago I set IS to off since I was shooting various scenes and someone mentioned getting better images (sharper) with IS off. When I get home, I will see if still off and if so, that very well might be my answer to some of these being being soft. Will see.
Got the EXIF info and there was a lot of it. It shows that IS was on ("Optical, (mode 1, continuous; 0"). EXR DR mode was used ("Auto (100-400%)" and it used EXR DR 200%.

Even though the resolution is higher and the original version looks better (5.24mp vs 1.82mp) it only looks slightly better. Looking at all of the EXIF data I'm at a loss as to why the photo is so soft. For a "Hail Mary" guess I see that Picasa was used to edit the photo. I can't see what Picasa might have done other than reducing the resolution or cropping. It looks more likely to have been cropped since the photo's 1.4097 aspect ratio isn't one of the X-S1's native aspect ratios. But if Picasa was used to reduce noise, that could have smudged away much of the photo's detail. I don't use Picasa so I don't know if it would automatically apply noise reduction whether you asked for it or not.
I think the shutter speed was too slow.
That may be accurate for some of the other photos but I only looked at the EXIF data of the two that I downloaded. One looked pretty good but the other was the one that I described as being soft and it didn't have a slow shutter speed. This is what I wrote about it in an earlier reply :
This photo's focal length is 6.1mm so it was shot at the extreme wide end (24mm, equivalent). Even if stabilization was disabled, a 1/24th sec. shutter speed would eliminate most camera movement, but the shutter speed was 1/280th sec. so even hand holding would almost always produce sharp photos. If stabilization was enabled you probably could have gotten sharp hand held photos with shutter speeds as slow as 1/4 sec. This photo should have given you the best of all possibilities, fast shutter speed (1/280), low ISO (ISO 100) and wide aperture (f/2.8) that would rule out diffraction blurring.
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/56225197
1/280 is way too slow of a shutter speed. It does not always produce sharp photos hand held.
 
...

Even though we can't download your original photo, you can always download the original size photos, so you could compare that with the gallery's Large size photo to see if there's a significant difference in IQ.
Thanks for the reply PR. I did enable downloads so it should show info. Btw, your mention of IS just triggered something..months ago I set IS to off since I was shooting various scenes and someone mentioned getting better images (sharper) with IS off. When I get home, I will see if still off and if so, that very well might be my answer to some of these being being soft. Will see.
Got the EXIF info and there was a lot of it. It shows that IS was on ("Optical, (mode 1, continuous; 0"). EXR DR mode was used ("Auto (100-400%)" and it used EXR DR 200%.

Even though the resolution is higher and the original version looks better (5.24mp vs 1.82mp) it only looks slightly better. Looking at all of the EXIF data I'm at a loss as to why the photo is so soft. For a "Hail Mary" guess I see that Picasa was used to edit the photo. I can't see what Picasa might have done other than reducing the resolution or cropping. It looks more likely to have been cropped since the photo's 1.4097 aspect ratio isn't one of the X-S1's native aspect ratios. But if Picasa was used to reduce noise, that could have smudged away much of the photo's detail. I don't use Picasa so I don't know if it would automatically apply noise reduction whether you asked for it or not.
I think the shutter speed was too slow.
That may be accurate for some of the other photos but I only looked at the EXIF data of the two that I downloaded. One looked pretty good but the other was the one that I described as being soft and it didn't have a slow shutter speed. This is what I wrote about it in an earlier reply :
This photo's focal length is 6.1mm so it was shot at the extreme wide end (24mm, equivalent). Even if stabilization was disabled, a 1/24th sec. shutter speed would eliminate most camera movement, but the shutter speed was 1/280th sec. so even hand holding would almost always produce sharp photos. If stabilization was enabled you probably could have gotten sharp hand held photos with shutter speeds as slow as 1/4 sec. This photo should have given you the best of all possibilities, fast shutter speed (1/280), low ISO (ISO 100) and wide aperture (f/2.8) that would rule out diffraction blurring.
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/56225197
1/280 is way too slow of a shutter speed. It does not always produce sharp photos hand held.
Sorry but you're totally misinformed. 1/280 is NOT too slow. Without stabilization, the recommended shutter speed for reasonably sharp photos is the reciprocal of the focal length, so with a P900 at 2,000mm, without stabilization you should shoot with shutter speeds at least as fast as 1/2000 sec. Many cameras/lenses these days use stabilization that allows 3, 4 and even as much as 5 stops of improvement. So assuming only 3 stops, that 2,000mm focal length would need a shutter speed of only 1/250th sec. or faster.

But that's for loooong focal lengths. For the photo in question the focal length was only 24mm so reasonably sharp photos could be taken with shutter speeds as slow as 1/24 sec. if stabilization is turned off. If stabilization is used, the same 3 stop improvement would allow shutter speeds as slow as 1/3 sec. I have some cameras that have better stabilization, slightly exceeding 5 stops of improvement and with them I've been able to take sharp photos at 200mm with shutter speeds of 1/6 sec.

If I didn't explain this well enough, read the article that this quote was copied from :
...

In the above example with the Nikkor 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6G VR, since the lens comes with image stabilization and Nikon claims up to 4 stops of compensation, you could theoretically reduce the recommended shutter speed by reciprocal rule by up to 16 times! So when shooting at 400mm, if your hand-holding technique was perfect and you turned image stabilization on, you could go from 1/400th of a second (reciprocal rule based on a full-frame camera) to 1/25th of second and still be able to capture a sharp image of your subject (provided that your subject does not move at such long shutter speeds and cause motion blur).

...
https://photographylife.com/what-is-reciprocal-rule-in-photography
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top