Today, despite the crazy weather I decided to head out to catch a bit of seascape photography in Swanage, Dorset at Peveril Point. I wanted to try using three different lenses to create three different shots of the same piece of coastline.Firstly I tried the Fujifilm 18mm lens, set to f/11 with a B+W 10 stop ND filter to create that classic creamy sea effect. I set the camera up on a tripod, in manual mode with a shutter speed of 8 seconds. When I was happy with this shot, I then tried to make the rocks in the water more of the main feature of the photograph so I switched to the Fujifilm 35mm lens, to compress the foreground and background and to fill more of the frame with the rocks. I also switched to a portrait orientation to enhance the natural perspective of the rocks. I also used the B+W 10 stop ND filter to give it that creamy sea dreamy effect. Because this lens is so sharp I knew it would really create a strong black and white image. Settings were again manual, f/11, 15secs. Finally, something a little different to finish up with. I took the camera off the tripod and switched lenses to the Voigtlander 12mm M mount lens using the Fujifilm M mount adaptor. I laid down on the grass right on the edge of the small cliff I was stood on and framed up another portrait shot of the rocks. I wasn’t using a ND filter this time, the lens was again set to f/11and the camera was in Aperture priority giving a shutter speed of 1/220 of a second….
Several readers have mentioned the Fuji X-Pro1′s lack of built-in diopter correction. A commenter named peter [sic—I always reproduce commenter names just as they come in] mentioned this morning that Nikon FM-style diopters fit the Fuji’s eyepiece. That’s fortunate, because those are the most common aftermarket diopters (well, they’re not aftermarket, but they might as well be), and they’re widely available. At B&H Photo, they’ll be labeled “Diopter for FM3A, FM2, FM, FE2, FE & FA” and they cost $21.95 each. Admittedly, that doesn’t help if you don’t know what diopter you need, but maybe your optician could help you there. Or perhaps you have another camera on which the diopter correction dial or slider is marked with actual values….
Doug: Some technical notes on dioptric correction lenses.
“Nikon, like Canon and maybe other manufacturers, labels their correction lenses by the total effect when mounted on a camera with the standard –1 diopter viewfinder, so a ‘–2′ lens has an additional –1. There is no ‘–1′ correction lens, because that’d be plain glass. There is, however, a ’0′ (Nikon seems to call it ‘neutral’) correction lens that has a +1 correction.
“Dioptric numbers for viewfinders are straightforward. They determine the apparent distance (for eye-focusing) of the viewscreen. They’re numbered in –1/meters.
- 0/neutral: infinity
- –0.5: 2 meters
- –1 (standard viewfinder): 1 meter
- –2: 1/2 meter
- –3: 1/3 meter
- +anything: Buzz Lightyear territory (infinity and beyond)
You’ve spent a small, or even a large fortune on your camera, it’s state of the art, has bells, whistles, and even built-in metering.
You head-out to take photos, secure in the knowledge that some boffin engineers have programmed your camera’s metering system to give you perfect exposure every time. You set up your shot – choose your aperture, and click – the camera has chosen a shutter speed and your shot is in the bag. Here’s what my X-Pro1 came up with: 1/160 f/8 ISO200. But what if this exposure wasn’t ‘correct’, or I should say optimal…..
How else could we judge the correct exposure for this scene?
You can use a hand-held light meter to set your exposure – an incident meter measures the light falling on it, and gives you an exposure value. It has a little white dome which you point at your light source – in this case the Sun, and you can set ISO and in this case f/8 for aperture, and the meter provides an optimal value for shutter speed. My meter in full Sun gave me a value of 1/500 f/8 ISO200. I set my X-Pro1 to those settings and got this shot: As you’d expect, the change in shutter speed has produced a darker image – the colors are more saturated, the highlights are muted, and the shadows are deep black. If you compare detail from the camera exposure and incident exposure, you can really see the difference…
See on www.fujix-forum.com
Before purchasing the X-Pro1 I read about the RAW conversion woes reported by many other people. I saw their examples posted to their websites, read the forums, and read the rumor sites. I work exclusively with RAW due to the wide latitude the files provide. I try to expose to the right of the histogram, without blowing highlights, but I have always preferred the flexibility afforded by RAW output. Besides, Canon’s out-of-camera JPG’s were awful. So, if I knew the issues surrounding RAW files on the X-Pro1, why did I take the plunge anyway? Quite simply, the RAW converter in camera. You see, as we sit today, the best RAW converter for X-Pro1 images is the camera itself. The camera allows one to do quite a bit of in-camera processing of a RAW file, make multiple JPG files from a RAW, and generally make out-of-camera JPG files something to actually consider rather than abhor. Besides, high-quality JPG’s from the camera provides some flexibility that I had not considered with my Canon. Now, if I don’t feel like processing a RAW file, I can often use the JPG straight out of the camera and have an excellent image. What about the times when I need to process a RAW file outside of the camera? Well, I use Adobe’s Lightroom for almost all of my image processing and cataloging and Lightroom’s RAW processor for X-Pro1 files isn’t too great yet. Colors are generally there but sharpness is questionable, especially with foliage, where it is left looking like a watercolor painting. Just how bad is it? Check out these examples of a 100% crop from a recent image. The first one is the output after processing in Lightroom 4.2, while the second one is the output of an out-of-camera JPG utilizing the Velvia film simulation…..
See on www.codyhatch.com
The ERASE option in the playback menu can be used to delete individual pictures, multiple selected pictures, or all pictures.
Press MENU/OK during playback to display the playbacj menu, then press the selector up or down to highlight ERASE and press right to display the following options. Press the selector up or down to hightlight an option and press MENU/OK to select.
OPTIONS: FRAME / SELECTED FRAMES / ALL FRAMES
SELECTED FRAMES: Highlight pictures and press MENU/OK to select or deselect. When the operation is complete, press DISP/BACK to display a confirmation dialog, then hightlight OK and press MENU/OK.
I’m not a PixelPeeper. seriously not. But even I noticed the amount of “watercolouring” in some X-Pro shots containing very fine details, when processing them in Lightroom 4. I achieved the best results in terms of details and sharpness with the SilkyPix software that came with the X-Pro, but wasn’t satisfied with a “2-app-workflow” consisting of SilkyPix (->16bit Tiff->) and Lightroom. This becomes a pain in the arse as soon as you have to edit more than 3 images per session. So like most of us X-Trans users, I was waiting/hoping for Adobe to improve the support for our beloved .RAF files in LR 4.2…
Officially, there was nothing changed in the updated demosaicing/processing engine. They just added the new Fujifilm X-E1 to the list of supported cameras. so actually, I was expecting to see the “same shit” even on new RAWs in the latest version of Lightroom. But I gave it another try, and took a shot of my sleeping pug and his very fine detailed coat for a single PixelPeeping-session. Even though they changed nothing (or at least claimed they haven’t), I’m quite happy right now with the results I get out of LR 4.2 when processing and handling X-Pro.RAFs just like “normal” RAW files.
See on patrickbraun.net
I’ve gone through my photo archives again. There are actually quite many interesting shots that I’ve neglected in the first round. I’ve tested B&W conversion for many shots using VSCO Film presets in Lightroom. Quite refreshing approach actually! I also processed quite many using VSCO color presets like Fuji 160 C which seems to be my favorite at the moment. It seems to be so that some shots need to be archived to be found again. SP. XF 60mm F2.4 R Macro lens. VSCO Film Fuji Neopan 1600 preset. Love that grain! I just got a Fotodiox EOS-FX adapter to test my Voigtländer 90mm F3.5 SL II lens with my X-Pro1. I will soon post some photos taken with that combination and I will add some comments on it too.
See on jonnenaarala.wordpress.com
Macro photography is hard work. There are so many technical issues to overcome that you have to be a very patient person with the correct camera equipment. Now, add in the complexity of HIGH SPEED WATER DROP COLLISIONS to the mix and you are faced with one of the more complex camera and photographic setups and skills necessary to capture great images. Most people think that water drop photography is purely luck or done with high speed computer controls. While this statement is partially true, you still have to overcome the normal issues associated with macro photography in the 1:1 image ration realm. By this I mean that a penny photographed is the same size as if laid on the camera sensor, hence 1:1!
Was geht in Sachen RAW Entwicklung im November 2012, und hat sich mit dem Release der Lightroom Version 4.2 in der “Wasserfarben Effekt Affäre ” was getan? Das erfahrt ihr auf sachlicher Ebene, und ohne Vernachlässigung wesentlicher künstlerischer Aspekte im folgenden Artikel! Grundlegend, dreht sich dieser Post um die RAW-Entwicklung von X-Trans Sensor basierten Kameras, wie der Fuji X-Pro 1 bzw. XE(die Bilder sind mit der X-Pro 1 und dem Fujinon 35/f1.4 enstanden) und lässt sich deshalb nicht auf Kameras mit einer klassischen Bayer-Matrix übertragen. Ein gewisses Grundwissen setze ich mal vorraus, wenn etwas unklar sein sollte fragt ruhig via Kommentarfunktion. Berücksichtigt wird hierbei das finale Ergebnis, das in diesem Fall in Sachen Colorit, Dynamik, Gradation, Korn und Schärfe(auch Bokeh) möglichst nah an eine beliebige Filmcharakteristik(z.B. Velvia, Provia, Portra 160 NC) angepasst werden soll. Dabei zeige ich einfach mal verschiedene Varianten, und wie man zum gewünschten Ergebnis kommen kann.
Google Translater (ENG)
See on www.janfervers.com
Dull frame lines make it almost impossible to use the OVF outdoors during the day with mount adapters But I found a way to change this. I apologize if I’m the last one to figure this out but here is a little tutorial on how you can trick the camera to brighten them if you didn’t already know how. This isn’t written in the manual as far as I know.
See on Youtube