Interesting S3 tests at digitalphotographers.net

[Anthony32599]

http://www.digitalphotographers.net/images/fujis3settings/index.htm

Link is above. I know some of you get all upset about Gary Fong, but I have to say I am happy to see that he's posted some interesting photos to check out what settings work best for him and the S3.

Most interesting to me were the shots of a model in a white ribbed shirt standing in mixed shade and sun with no flash. It's here that the extra dynamic range of the S3 will either manifest itself or prove worthless. To my pleasant surprise, the wide 2 DR and auto DR both prove quite good at controlling blow outs.

Those of you with new S3's might want to check out the pics and some of the comments; it might save you some time in figuring out what settings will work for your situations and which won't.

Anthony

 

[Anthony32599]

The comments I mentioned below are here:

http://digitalphotographers.infopop.cc/eve/ubb.x?a=tpc&s=9196015511&f=2266099065&m=23710995121&r=23710995121#23710995121

The original link in the post is only a link to the test photos.

Sorry about that.

Anthony

http://www.digitalphotographers.net/images/fujis3settings/index.htm

Link is above. I know some of you get all upset about Gary Fong,
but I have to say I am happy to see that he's posted some
interesting photos to check out what settings work best for him and
the S3.

Most interesting to me were the shots of a model in a white ribbed
shirt standing in mixed shade and sun with no flash. It's here
that the extra dynamic range of the S3 will either manifest itself
or prove worthless. To my pleasant surprise, the wide 2 DR and
auto DR both prove quite good at controlling blow outs.

Those of you with new S3's might want to check out the pics and
some of the comments; it might save you some time in figuring out
what settings will work for your situations and which won't.

Anthony

 

[bm bradley]

I'm not upset about g fong, just don't percive him as someone that should be anywhere near a camera, under any circumstances. regards, bmb

http://www.digitalphotographers.net/images/fujis3settings/index.htm

Link is above. I know some of you get all upset about Gary Fong,
but I have to say I am happy to see that he's posted some
interesting photos to check out what settings work best for him and
the S3.

Most interesting to me were the shots of a model in a white ribbed
shirt standing in mixed shade and sun with no flash. It's here
that the extra dynamic range of the S3 will either manifest itself
or prove worthless. To my pleasant surprise, the wide 2 DR and
auto DR both prove quite good at controlling blow outs.

Those of you with new S3's might want to check out the pics and
some of the comments; it might save you some time in figuring out
what settings will work for your situations and which won't.

Anthony

--
bm bradley

 

[Gabriele Sartori]

Most interesting to me were the shots of a model in a white ribbed
shirt standing in mixed shade and sun with no flash.

I have a very low opinion of Gary Fong but that is my personal opinion and I could be wrong. Since you posted and I have a lot of respect for you I gave a check (eheh G.F. suggest to use 3.5MP not 6MP when printing... funny).

If the pictures as I hope are out of the camera I see very little improvement from the S3. A similar improvement is so tiny that could have been introduced in the S2 either underexposing and fixing later or with an impossible (on the S2 but avail on the Nikon cameras) curve.

In other words, this is a further confirmation that I don't need to spend the money on the S3. D2X, I'm coming.....

--
Regards
Gabriele
California, CA
--------------------
Equipment list in profile

 

[stephy]

I have to ask the question,

Why all this negitive stuff about Gary Fong. Is he really that bad?

Steve

Most interesting to me were the shots of a model in a white ribbed
shirt standing in mixed shade and sun with no flash.

I have a very low opinion of Gary Fong but that is my personal
opinion and I could be wrong. Since you posted and I have a lot of
respect for you I gave a check (eheh G.F. suggest to use 3.5MP not
6MP when printing... funny).

If the pictures as I hope are out of the camera I see very little
improvement from the S3. A similar improvement is so tiny that
could have been introduced in the S2 either underexposing and
fixing later or with an impossible (on the S2 but avail on the
Nikon cameras) curve.

In other words, this is a further confirmation that I don't need to
spend the money on the S3. D2X, I'm coming.....

--
Regards
Gabriele
California, CA
--------------------
Equipment list in profile

 

[dzeanah]

Why all this negitive stuff about Gary Fong. Is he really that bad?

Gary seems to be more into marketing than making great images.

From what I can tell he's a good photographer who markets himself exceptionally well -- a number of the photo "gurus" seem to be that way, which is fine -- there's still a lot one can learn from him. But that's not to say that most think he's qualified to be a high-end photo instructor.

For instance: before the light sphere (a flash modifier he's selling now) he was big on pushing a special bare bulb strobe that only used manual settings. Yes, you too can mix the joy of manual flash exposure with the harsh shadows of a specular light source...

Now, does all that really matter from a commerce perspective? I liked to shoot weddings with Leica M6's and Mamiya 7's when I was shooting film, and I still love the rendition those cameras gave. But I once assisted for a woman who was much more successful than I was (more weddings booked, and got more per wedding) who had a simple recipe: a Nikon N90 set on center weighted metering and program, a 24-120 zoom, and a Nikon speedlight that always fired. I thought the lens was low contrast and muddy as Hell, but her clients couldn't care less and loved her images.

Which goes to show that we photographers can get caught up in a bunch of stuff that really doesn't make a difference from an objective (client = third party observer) perspective.

And Gary seems to be a master of making clients really happy while charging 10 time more than most of us can get for a wedding.

 

[Ron Munson]

Gary is a very successful photographer, both artistically and finacially. It is silly to put him down because he promotes items and services, and really silly put put him down because of differences of opinion on color space preferences. (which is a sore point with many). Imagine telling rembrandt that he should'nt be anywhere near a canvas because he did'nt agree with you on the best formula for mixing his own paints! Good post on S3 by the way!

 

[Anthony32599]

I photographed a model this past week in mixed sun and shade with my D70--and the dynamic range wasn't there. Her skin went from way overexposed to darkness in the shaded areas.

In G.F.'s shots, the ribbed shirt shots really show a lot more capability to prevent overexposure, something that just isn't there with either my S2 or D70. Yeah, I could change the curve on my D70, but who wants to change the curve every time the light changes or before each shoot? So, I do believe that Fuji's S3 does offer something pretty unusual, but it alone may not make up for the other S3 issues.

I'm waiting to see what the D2x can do, but I suspect that as a first-time Nikon CMOS camera, it will have more than a few kinks to be worked out.

The S3 has a number of its own quirks--small buffer, slow write speed, sync speed lower than I'd like, etc. I may just wait out the current round of dSLRs and wait for the next generation.

Thanks for the compliment!

Anthony

Most interesting to me were the shots of a model in a white ribbed
shirt standing in mixed shade and sun with no flash.

I have a very low opinion of Gary Fong but that is my personal
opinion and I could be wrong. Since you posted and I have a lot of
respect for you I gave a check (eheh G.F. suggest to use 3.5MP not
6MP when printing... funny).

If the pictures as I hope are out of the camera I see very little
improvement from the S3. A similar improvement is so tiny that
could have been introduced in the S2 either underexposing and
fixing later or with an impossible (on the S2 but avail on the
Nikon cameras) curve.

In other words, this is a further confirmation that I don't need to
spend the money on the S3. D2X, I'm coming.....

--
Regards
Gabriele
California, CA
--------------------
Equipment list in profile

 

[LurkerMan]

... if you look at the light shifts in the photograph it's quite obvious the ambient light levels are changing between shots in some cases. It looks like he's in some kind of public facility where there are large windows in the background and elsewhere nearby. Thus if the light outside changes, the light inside changes, thus throwing off any worthwhile comparison of DR or color purity.

Thus in the absence of a controlled environment, I fail to see what this type of test proves. I applaud the effort in general I guess, but my reaction is, if you're going to make the effort, make enough of one that you actually do it right.

I know some of you get all upset about Gary Fong,
but I have to say I am happy to see that he's posted some
interesting photos to check out what settings work best for him and
the S3.

--
A 2005 Resolution for us all:
Shoot more, type less. : )

 

[Robert M28897]

This test confirms what every other S3 user's experience has been. Not that it makes the S3 a must-have camera, but it illustrates the ability of the Wide Dynamic Range mode to contain highlights quite well.

Just because the execution wasn't perfect (and the environment seems reasonably consistent from shot to shot...the differences in lighting, if they exist, aren't terribly dramatic) doesn't invalidate the conclusions that could be drawn from the test. My own personal tests (made based on a request from another photographer) demonstrate something similar:

http://www.pbase.com/rmirani/s3_overexposure_tests

Robert

Thus in the absence of a controlled environment, I fail to see what
this type of test proves. I applaud the effort in general I guess,
but my reaction is, if you're going to make the effort, make enough
of one that you actually do it right.

I know some of you get all upset about Gary Fong,
but I have to say I am happy to see that he's posted some
interesting photos to check out what settings work best for him and
the S3.

--
A 2005 Resolution for us all:
Shoot more, type less. : )

 

[Beki Photo]

Gary is a very successful photographer, both artistically and
finacially. It is silly to put him down because he promotes items
and services, and really silly put put him down because of
differences of opinion on color space preferences. (which is a sore
point with many). Imagine telling rembrandt that he should'nt be
anywhere near a canvas because he did'nt agree with you on the best
formula for mixing his own paints! Good post on S3 by the way!

Mr. Munson.

Respectfully sir, this is a flawed analogy that you're offering: Mr. Gary Fong is no Rembrandt, nor is he knowledgeable about color issues. Science and every color management expert easily disprove his outrageous claims. Rembrandt was an expert in his field; Mr. Gary Fong is not an expert in color management or digital imaging, maybe self-promotion...

The objective critique about Mr. Gary Fong is his lack of knowledge about color management and Photoshop workflow issues such as rendering intents, linked to the fact that Mr. Fong claims to be a color expert and teaches absolutely wrong information that is easily disproved by every color management expert (including Bruce Fraser, author of Real World Color Management).

Mr. Gary Fong misunderstands a working space versus an output space and shamefully teaches wrong information despite being warned by color management experts that what he's teaching is WRONG. This is not a subjective objection to Mr. Gary Fong's claims, but rather one based on facts.

Please read this thread for the facts about Mr. Gary Fong's wrong color information claims:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1020&message=10785311

Especially read the part I quoted from Mr. Bruce Fraser.

There is nothing silly about trying to correct misleading and really BAD information, especially when the person making these flawed claims is teaching this bad information to photographers. I ask you sir, is it any more silly to correct people who believe in an earth-centric system as opposed to a heliocentric system one? The heliocentric model is easily provable showing the flawed thinking of the earth-centric advocates, so is it for Mr. Gary Fong's claims - they're easily disproven by science.

With all respect meant.
Beki

 

[Robert Smith]

I have no gripe against G. Fong sharing GOOD information regarding photo technique and equipment, but he is so thoroughly wrong on the colorspace issue -- and this as you say is based on fact, not opinion -- that people should just be warned!

He even posts an image as "AdobeRGB" on this page, but it can't possibly be, not from the S3. If you took an AdobeRGB image, opened it in an sRGB environment and told the application (such as Photoshop) to ignore the profile mismatch, then re-wrote the file without the color space tag (which he apparently did, because there is NO tag on that file, which I downloaded), you might come close to the ridiculous result he got. Any uninformed person looking at that image will assume that "gee whiz" the AdobeRGB colorspace looks really terrible; what flat, washed-out colors". The reality is that the AdobeRGB and sRGB images (with identical camera settings), opened in their respective RGB environments in a calibrated and color-managed system, will look nearly identical, if not in many cases impossible to tell apart. What he's showing us is a fraud, and only serves to further confuse and miseducate people.

Even the methodology of his comparison is very sloppy -- no, that's WAY too kind, it's absolutely TERRIBLE, it's criminally irresponsible. He uses AUTO exposure mode for his sRGB vs. AdobeRGB comparison, and guess what? The exposure values are different. If you look at the Photoshop data, the AdobeRGB image was exposed at 1/60 @ f4 and ORIGINAL contrast (tone), while the sRGB image was exposed at 1/90 @ f4.8 and NORMAL ("STANDARD") contrast (tone)!!! HELLOOOOOOO, is anybody home??? How can you evaluate color space if 1) Your exposure value is different, 2) your contrast (tone) setting is different, and 3) you throw away the colorspace tag on the images? Geez, this is beyond sloppy!! Yet, the adoring acolytes will say, "Wow, look at how much richer the color is on the sRGB image!" Ya think?

I need to stop while I still have my sanity. I'm really trying to respect the guy, and I'm sure he does some good in the photographic community, but he at least needs to be more responsible.

Robert

Gary is a very successful photographer, both artistically and
finacially. It is silly to put him down because he promotes items
and services, and really silly put put him down because of
differences of opinion on color space preferences. (which is a sore
point with many). Imagine telling rembrandt that he should'nt be
anywhere near a canvas because he did'nt agree with you on the best
formula for mixing his own paints! Good post on S3 by the way!

Mr. Munson.

Respectfully sir, this is a flawed analogy that you're offering:
Mr. Gary Fong is no Rembrandt, nor is he knowledgeable about color
issues. Science and every color management expert easily disprove
his outrageous claims. Rembrandt was an expert in his field; Mr.
Gary Fong is not an expert in color management or digital imaging,
maybe self-promotion...

The objective critique about Mr. Gary Fong is his lack of knowledge
about color management and Photoshop workflow issues such as
rendering intents, linked to the fact that Mr. Fong claims to be a
color expert and teaches absolutely wrong information that is
easily disproved by every color management expert (including Bruce
Fraser, author of Real World Color Management).

Mr. Gary Fong misunderstands a working space versus an output space
and shamefully teaches wrong information despite being warned by
color management experts that what he's teaching is WRONG. This is
not a subjective objection to Mr. Gary Fong's claims, but rather
one based on facts.

Please read this thread for the facts about Mr. Gary Fong's wrong
color information claims:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1020&message=10785311

Especially read the part I quoted from Mr. Bruce Fraser.

There is nothing silly about trying to correct misleading and
really BAD information, especially when the person making these
flawed claims is teaching this bad information to photographers. I
ask you sir, is it any more silly to correct people who believe in
an earth-centric system as opposed to a heliocentric system one?
The heliocentric model is easily provable showing the flawed
thinking of the earth-centric advocates, so is it for Mr. Gary
Fong's claims - they're easily disproven by science.

With all respect meant.
Beki

 

[Beki Photo]

Mr Robert Smith.

Sir, excellent observations on the "methodology" that Mr Gary Fong used. I'm sure that most photographers would have overlooked this if you hadn't caught it for us.

Thank you very much for your keen eye and sharing this valuable information with us.

Beki

He even posts an image as "AdobeRGB" on this page, but it can't
possibly be, not from the S3. If you took an AdobeRGB image, opened
it in an sRGB environment and told the application (such as
Photoshop) to ignore the profile mismatch, then re-wrote the file
without the color space tag (which he apparently did, because there
is NO tag on that file, which I downloaded), you might come close
to the ridiculous result he got. Any uninformed person looking at
that image will assume that "gee whiz" the AdobeRGB colorspace
looks really terrible; what flat, washed-out colors". The reality
is that the AdobeRGB and sRGB images (with identical camera
settings), opened in their respective RGB environments in a
calibrated and color-managed system, will look nearly identical, if
not in many cases impossible to tell apart. What he's showing us is
a fraud, and only serves to further confuse and miseducate people.

Even the methodology of his comparison is very sloppy -- no, that's
WAY too kind, it's absolutely TERRIBLE, it's criminally
irresponsible. He uses AUTO exposure mode for his sRGB vs. AdobeRGB
comparison, and guess what? The exposure values are different. If
you look at the Photoshop data, the AdobeRGB image was exposed at
1/60 @ f4 and ORIGINAL contrast (tone), while the sRGB image was
exposed at 1/90 @ f4.8 and NORMAL ("STANDARD") contrast (tone)!!!
HELLOOOOOOO, is anybody home??? How can you evaluate color space if
1) Your exposure value is different, 2) your contrast (tone)
setting is different, and 3) you throw away the colorspace tag on
the images? Geez, this is beyond sloppy!! Yet, the adoring acolytes
will say, "Wow, look at how much richer the color is on the sRGB
image!" Ya think?

I need to stop while I still have my sanity. I'm really trying to
respect the guy, and I'm sure he does some good in the photographic
community, but he at least needs to be more responsible.

Robert

Gary is a very successful photographer, both artistically and
finacially. It is silly to put him down because he promotes items
and services, and really silly put put him down because of
differences of opinion on color space preferences. (which is a sore
point with many). Imagine telling rembrandt that he should'nt be
anywhere near a canvas because he did'nt agree with you on the best
formula for mixing his own paints! Good post on S3 by the way!

Mr. Munson.

Respectfully sir, this is a flawed analogy that you're offering:
Mr. Gary Fong is no Rembrandt, nor is he knowledgeable about color
issues. Science and every color management expert easily disprove
his outrageous claims. Rembrandt was an expert in his field; Mr.
Gary Fong is not an expert in color management or digital imaging,
maybe self-promotion...

The objective critique about Mr. Gary Fong is his lack of knowledge
about color management and Photoshop workflow issues such as
rendering intents, linked to the fact that Mr. Fong claims to be a
color expert and teaches absolutely wrong information that is
easily disproved by every color management expert (including Bruce
Fraser, author of Real World Color Management).

Mr. Gary Fong misunderstands a working space versus an output space
and shamefully teaches wrong information despite being warned by
color management experts that what he's teaching is WRONG. This is
not a subjective objection to Mr. Gary Fong's claims, but rather
one based on facts.

Please read this thread for the facts about Mr. Gary Fong's wrong
color information claims:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1020&message=10785311

Especially read the part I quoted from Mr. Bruce Fraser.

There is nothing silly about trying to correct misleading and
really BAD information, especially when the person making these
flawed claims is teaching this bad information to photographers. I
ask you sir, is it any more silly to correct people who believe in
an earth-centric system as opposed to a heliocentric system one?
The heliocentric model is easily provable showing the flawed
thinking of the earth-centric advocates, so is it for Mr. Gary
Fong's claims - they're easily disproven by science.

With all respect meant.
Beki

 

[MartyC]

Good post dzeanah, it also takes time a good 5 years to get the marketing nailed and enough variation in your work to put the prices up Id say. But I agree with everything you say. My bottom price is now £1200 last year it was £900 thats not marketing its just knowing what your worth.

Why all this negitive stuff about Gary Fong. Is he really that bad?

Gary seems to be more into marketing than making great images.

From what I can tell he's a good photographer who markets himself
exceptionally well -- a number of the photo "gurus" seem to be that
way, which is fine -- there's still a lot one can learn from him.
But that's not to say that most think he's qualified to be a
high-end photo instructor.

For instance: before the light sphere (a flash modifier he's
selling now) he was big on pushing a special bare bulb strobe that
only used manual settings. Yes, you too can mix the joy of manual
flash exposure with the harsh shadows of a specular light source...

Now, does all that really matter from a commerce perspective? I
liked to shoot weddings with Leica M6's and Mamiya 7's when I was
shooting film, and I still love the rendition those cameras gave.
But I once assisted for a woman who was much more successful than I
was (more weddings booked, and got more per wedding) who had a
simple recipe: a Nikon N90 set on center weighted metering and
program, a 24-120 zoom, and a Nikon speedlight that always fired.
I thought the lens was low contrast and muddy as Hell, but her
clients couldn't care less and loved her images.

Which goes to show that we photographers can get caught up in a
bunch of stuff that really doesn't make a difference from an
objective (client = third party observer) perspective.

And Gary seems to be a master of making clients really happy while
charging 10 time more than most of us can get for a wedding.