I was watching the sky last week out of a bedroom window, a storm had just cleared, I watched and took images of it over half an hour or so. Given the restriction on my viewpoint I wanted to see what sort of images i would get over a few days. It was quite challenging, but spending the same amount of time at the window at around the same time of day, made me think quite alot about other people who have a restricted view on the world. Makes you think? All the images were shot with a Fuji X pro 1 and a zuiko 100mm f2.8 lens. The images were all shot as jpegs. The fuji produces such wonderful colour, its very accurate and shows the scene exactly as i saw it. This camera continues to suprise me everyday. So much so in fact that the Nikons are getting very dusty.
See more pictures on www.thebigpicturegallery.com
London photographer Dave Kai-Piper, who is an one of the more active members of the Fstoppers Facebook group took off to explore the United States this summer with his Fuji X-Pro1. He traveled super light on his journey and rarely used anything more than natural light to journal his expedition. I love his series that he has slowly been revealing through our FB group so I caught up with him over chat to share some of his work with you guys. Click the jump for photos and a word from Dave. Enjoy!
“The shot in the subway is particularly fun. Shot under under Times Square NYC, this just uses the natural light from the Subway. Being able to really open up the lens to 1.4 /2.8 can really help you work with available light, Playing about with your white balance can also help at times to create interesting lighting. As I think over the gallery, 90% of the images are shot just with natural light. I guess this is mostly due to the shooting style of the X-Pro 1. Most of the time when I am travelling, there is just no time to set up lights or space to carry them. Also, I found that it is quite refreshing to just leave all the kit behind and travel super light. The photograph of Stephanie in the swimming pool was shot using some fill light from an Orbis ringflash. Using the same set up as the cover shot for Photo Professional last year, most of the shot is natural light with a tiny amount of fill being provided from the flash. Having the extra light from the flash does help add a little gloss and shine also….
See more pictures on fstoppers.com
A few weeks ago I saw a blog post tutorial that showed how to create black background with a reflective photo effect using a clear plate of glass and a black sheet. The simple method was to put your subject on the glass, put the black sheet behind them both, shoot slightly from above, and when the flash light hit everything it would turn the clear glass into a reflective element that appeared solid black as it reflected both the subject and the black sheet behind it. The problem was I don’t have any panes of glass lying around. I was thinking of going to a glazier to get a small piece made for me so I could try this but as I googled around I discovered another option: black plexiglass acrylic sheets. I was able to buy a 24″ x 48″ sheet that is 1/4 inch thick for $44, and I don’t think I could get a piece of glass that size for that little, and this weighs less. It arrived last week and I played with it last weekend, and was rather pleased with the results. I still used a black sheet in the background to minimize the chance that additional reflections would interfere with the clean surface. I had one Speedlight on a stand shooting through an umbrella, and metered using TTL auto settings. I had my camera on Aperture priority so I could control depth of field, and even at f/11 I see that it’s probably not broad enough to get the entire subject in focus so when I go back to this method I will adjust. Depending on the subject, I found that I would need to adjust the TTL metering sometimes within the range of +1.= to -1.0, but an even 0.0 usually came out right. The biggest issue was dust. If you try doing this I highly recommend getting a good dust cloth. The plastic company also recommend a specific cleaning agent I will look into. But don’t ignore that your subject will also have dust on it. In the shot above I was able to make most of the dust that accumulated on the plastic surface disappear using a simple black brush in Photoshop, but removing dust spots from the subject is harder – I managed to get about half of the but cannot do much about the rest. I would recommend carefully cleaning everything before you start, and several times along the way on a long shoot. As I look at the images I took over the course of maybe an hour, there is visibly more dust on the plastic at the end of the session than there was at the beginning. Unless you are doing your shoot in a technological Clean Room where they make computer chips or something similar, I think it is likely that having a dust fee surface when you start will be no guarantor of a dust free surface when you are done. Finally, my subject above is my fairly new Fujifilm X-E1, which is an absolutely gorgeous camera. Here it is sporting the 35mm f/1.4 Prime Lens and original strap. I recently sold my Micro Four-Thirds Gear to switch over to the Fuji system. Explaining that decision would require doubling the length of this post, so I will defer it to another day, but for now I’ll just make it clear that I still love the Micro 4/3s system and note that it could very well be the right solution for you….
See more pictures on toomuchglass.net
I have a gig coming up for which I’ll probably need the new 14mm XF lens (what’s life without rationalization), which means finally jumping in with both feet and getting rid of my remaining Nikon gear. Why? Because I don’t use it, I don’t plan on using it and it’ll help fund the new kit. If a situation arises where I need a DSLR (or anything else) I can always rent. But before doing so, I wanted to see if I could possibly salvage some of my glass for use with the X-Pro1. You never know. One of the great advantages of mirrorless systems is their ability to use most lenses out there with an appropriate adapter. When I first looked at this option last summer, the landscape was rather bare but now: choices aplenty. So I turned to Ebay and ordered a Rainbow Imaging Nikon G adapter with aperture ring for a whopping $24, shipping included. I figured I didn’t have much to lose. I hadn’t been expecting much at this price point so I was pleasantly surprised: metal, sturdy feel, didn’t look half bad either*.
But the best part of it is: it actually works. A few bucks and I’m shooting the X-Pro1 with a whole new range of focal lengths. Perfect right? Hmm… It is fun… But there are some things to be aware of:
The camera needs to be set to Shoot Without Lens which means no focal length info in the EXIF.G lenses don’t include an aperture ring and the one on the adapter doesn’t communicate with the camera, so you set it by eye through the LCD/EVF while half-pressing the shutter. It’s very… Let’s go with “vague” for lack of a better term.No communication means no info: everything you shoot shows up as f/0. Fastest glass I’ve ever owned ;)No AF and no IS either. That fast and heavy telephoto just got a serious case of the jitters (case in point: a Nikon 70-200 2.8 that made no sense at all).This specific adapter’s aperture ring has an extremely short throw. It’s about 1/8th of a turn from one end to the other. Not very precise to say the least.
You quickly realize that beyond this basic ability to mount a lens, it actually needs to make sense overall. There’s a reason the XF lenses are so light: they’re meant to balance with the X-Series bodies. Some of the lenses I tried made the kit seriously front heavy. Interesting to see though…
Bottom line: I’m glad I didn’t spend a boatload on a $200+ adapter. From the few days I’ve had with it, it’s just not something I’d use as part of my main shooting workflow. Compared to shooting native lenses it leaves a lot to be desired. That said I will be keeping a few things, and surprisingly not what I would’ve expected. Expensive and fast Nikon glass is usually on the heavier end of the spectrum so the few lenses I’ll be keeping are actually my lightest and cheapest; which is perfect from a seller’s standpoint. I’m keeping the Sigma 70-300 Macro, maybe the cheap but often impressive Nikon 50mm 1.8D (still not sure about that one) and the original Lensbaby. Stuff I wouldn’t get much for anyway and that might be fun to have around. They also all have their own aperture ring (well, the Lensbaby doesn’t but it’s fixed anyway). I would’ve preferred keeping the 10mm fisheye but the small built-in tulip hood that surrounds the glass shows up in the images. If I miss it I’ll get the Samyang alternative sometime in the future……
See on www.laroquephoto.com
See more pictures on www.laroquephoto.com
The pictures in this post were shot on my recent ‘Film Noir’ workshop in Northampton. I’ve been researching the genre for some 4 months and I was generally unimpressed by the lack of great reference images on Google. It was upon this discovery that I knew I was onto something. The Wikipedia entry for Film noir is “…a cinematic term used primarily to describe stylish Hollywood crime dramas, particularly those that emphasise cynical attitudes and sexual motivations.” Hollywood’s classical Film Noir period is generally regarded as extending from the early 1940s to the late 1950s however it often depicted scenes from just after the great depression of 1929 – 1933. I’ve been shooting with a classic Hollywood style since I completed my lighting director training at the BBC way back in 1992. But is has only been since 2008 that I’ve integrated this style of photography into my lighting and portraiture workshops. The vintage style has been the trigger for this resurgence of interest. I’m not a fan of vintage with Instagram looks or altered colours, however I do predict that pure monochrome Hollywood style portraits like those crafted by Studio Harcourt in Paris will be a future product genre to line the pockets of professional studio based photographers. I’m often asked what makes a portrait ‘Hollywood’ in style? My answer is the light sources and lighting in general. Vintage Hollywood also needs appropriate hair, make up and fashion styling to complete the look. There is a new genre opportunity that takes classic Hollywood lighting and fuses it with modern fashion styles like the exciting emerging SteamPunk movement. What makes this Hollywood lighting special is the use of traditional spotlights with fresnel lenses and barn doors. These luminaries produce crisp hard light that is controllable using a flood/ spot system and by shaping of the barn doors. That sums up pretty much everything you can’t do with studio flash without expensive fresnel adaptors.
The great news with fresnel lensed lighting is it has come of age and is now more convenient and better value than ever before. Arri, 150, 300 and 650 fresnel spotlights cost less than Nikon or Canon Speedlights and even the powerful daylight balanced units from Lupolux are a comparable price, pound for Lumen. The Lupolux spotlights use HMI or LED sources, are cool running, can work off batteries or inverters and produce enough light to use sensible shutter speeds for hand held shooting. This innovation is exciting for stills photographers because we can tap into the kind of lighting that was the reserve of film crews with mega budgets. The numbers in the Lupolux range of lights refer to their equivalent power when compared to tungsten spotlights. All the Lupolux units emit a cool pure daylight balanced light of between 5200k and 5600k depending upon the light. The Lowel and the Arris are warm tungsten balanced lights of 2950k and 3100k respectively and are used primarily after dark when tungsten room lighting becomes the principal light source of the set.
Model/ actress: Chloe-Jasmine Whichello
Makeup and hair: Claudia Lucia Spoto
Styling: Chloe-Jasmine Whichello, Lisa Keating and Damien Lovegrove
Location: Pipwell Hall, Northamptonshire
Camera kit: Fujifilm X-Pro1 with 18-55mm OIS f/2.8-4 zoom and 35mm f/1.4 lenses.
Filters: Tiffen Black Pro Mist ¼ on all pictures.
Lights: Arri 150 and Arri 300 junior spotlights. A Lowel iD battery light with lithium power supply. Lupolux DayLED 650 and 1000 spotlights. Lupolux HMI 800 and 1200 Spotlights. …..
See more pictures on www.prophotonut.com
I’ve had the Fujifilm X-Pro 1 about a week now, so far I’m very pleased with it, battery life isn’t great but apart from that this camera is blinding. The main lens I’m using (35mm 1.4 Fujinon) is sharper than my L series lenses and the pics have a great feel to them, it is almost worth noting that the high ISO performance of this little camera is astounding. This camera was bought to replace my old film Nikon FM2 with a 50mm f/1.2 lens which took truly fantastic pictures, this is coming close to that and I no longer have to sit for hours scanning negatives in. The images below are just a few grabs from the past week…..
See on tombarnesphoto.com
Thank you for all the kind words and comments we received following our last publication “Just Get It.” Many of you asked for more samples. All images taken with the Fuji X-Pro1 and the Fujinon XF 14mm F2.8. Processed in Capture One 7 and Lightroom 4.
See on olafphotoblog.com
Wow, was it ever cold in New York on Sunday! The wind chill was brutal, but I was itching to try some focus tests and I was blown away by the results. But first some clarification. Hyperfocal distance is the closest distance that a lens will be in focus and still be able to keep focus at infinity reasonably sharp. Zone focusing requires that the lens have distance indications on its barrel for each appropriate aperture setting, thus allowing the photographer to set the range of distances within which any objects will appear reasonably in focus. When I shot film in my Leica M6 I often used zone focusing, but rarely the hyperfocal distance. With a very wide angle lens, such as the 14mm, I’m shooting to create a perception of great depth, I don’t really care that objects in the far distance are out of focus. But when I shoot street, and especially when shooting from the hip, sometimes the autofocus on the camera either doesn’t understand what I want to be in focus (it’s often an object or person at one side of the frame, while the focus point for the sensor is set for the center of the frame) or the autofocus lag (even at 1/10th second) misses the shot. The first case scenario happens more than I’d like, the second case much less often – so much less that it’s not even worth considering.
When I decided to run this test I wanted to err on the side of caution, so I opted to shoot part of the afternoon in autofocus, just to make sure I’d get some good shots to show for my afternoon of braving the cold. The zone focus shots were taken at f8 (less than that would have narrowed the depth of field unacceptable for the test) and 1/250th second, which put my exposures in the high ISO range – not a problem for the X-Pro1 processor. Here’s a calculator to play with to discover acceptable in-focus distances. Remember that this calculation has nothing to do with the quality of the lens, the parameters that affect the calculation are the lens focal length, the aperture setting, and the distances involved. All the rest is pure physics and math. If I set my 14mm lens at f8 and the focus at a distance of 4 feet, my nearest acceptable in-focus distance will be a tiny bit over 2 feet away and the farthest will be 243.5 feet. If I set the focus point for 1/2 foot closer, 3.5 feet, that range drops from 1.9 feet to 24.9 feet. So to achieve a difference of about 1/10 foot closer, I’d have to loose about 220 feet in distance. Given the way I shoot, in close, I’d go for the closest possible I can get and still bet some reasonable distance focus. Even at a focus point of 3 feet I can get an acceptable image from 1.75 feet to almost 10 feet. That last zone is probably the best for me. That’s why I love using very wide angle lenses. I would suggest to anyone that they play with this calculator to get a feel for how the calculations work, so that out in the field there is a lot less guessing. If you happen to be a math wizard, you might want to make note of these formulae and when your out in the field do your own calculations (while I take the pictures)….
See on genelowinger.blogspot.de