Leaderboard

I understand the site has a need to bring in revenue but the "Advertisement" and "Ad" replies to every forum post are useless and annoying - seeing a possible response to your post and instead being sent to Amazon is just irritating - perhaps the site could switch back to normal ads.

Mandarin Duck. XT5 + XF150-600.

Hi all, First post here. A few pics from a recent trip to Cornwall in the UK. Any feedback or ideas on how these could have been improved (in camera and editing) would be amazing.

I like shadows.

More Finches.

X-T4; XF150-600mmF5.6-8 R LM OIS WR + XF 1.4x TC; 1/2000; f10; ISO800; 632mm, monopod

Last autumn I took a few shots with a fisheye lens at each location before wrapping it up. These landscape types came out well, I think. Anyone got tips on fisheye lens landscape motifs? (X-E4 with 7Artisans 7.5mm)

Millions of tonnes of crystallized water in Voss, western Norway. X-E4, 50-230mm.

Two days old.

Here's another Robin.

Steam Engine Driver Railway Museum Dieringhausen, Germany

Interesting day in Havre de Grace, found this guy hunting right near shore with a lot of folks watching, didn't seem to phase him much. X-T5, 70-300, 300mm, 1/1000.

X-H2S, XF100-400+TC1.4x - Reed Warbler

X-T4; Fujinon XF150-600mmF5.6-8 R LM OIS WR; 1/2000; f7.1; ISO640; 500mm; hand held...

I've been playing with the 70-300 at 300; not really "macro", but cool.

Welcome to the forum! I've been thinking about this exact question lately. I did a LOT of amateur photography in about 1978-1985, including my own darkroom with some simple color processes. Much of my attention was on how to do the wet chemistry and using the enlarger. Polycontrast paper, which involved purple and yellow filters on the enlarger, was new, and I tried a lot with that, including burning and dodging with different filters to do local increase or decrease of the contrast. For a while I was on a sepia toning kick. On the camera side of things, I liked macrophotography including a bellows and special bellows lenses, and I worked pretty hard to make depth of field work. Generally I tried to practice better focusing technique, and had about 4 or 5 different focusing screens. I tried to practice better holding technique, too, using tips from archery to control my breath and get less blurry pictures when struggling with long shutter times. I got into Fuji X cameras within the last couple years. This was my introduction to digital cameras with interchangeable lenses. What evolved the most was that all the wet chemistry went away, including a lot of work that had nothing to do with controlling the images I made. Do I need to improve my temperature control? How fresh are all my batches of chemicals and how fresh do they need to be? Do I need to add a fan because the fumes are bothering me? Can I make a homemade vacuum easel to keep the paper from curling under the enlarger? Can I load some more cartridges today or is it so hot I will sweat inside the changing bag and ruin them all? ALL of that stuff just went away. Lots more evolved. Autofocus mostly made focusing technique go away, or reduced it to thinking about what part of the image I wanted sharp. Rather than having to decide whether to accept the grain of Tri-X or the speed of Pan-X or compromise on Plus-X, and having to stick with that for the whole session, I get sensitivity that is somewhere between better and way way better. Handheld shots can be so much slower now without shake. And the lenses are faster -- I used to have one lens that went to f/1.4, and now I have several that can do that, and one that incredibly goes to f/1.0. Not only that, I can do focus stacking now, and get what used to be flat out impossible shots. Long story short, mostly, the hard stuff went away, or at least got several stops better. I guess the downside is that now I struggle sometimes with software, installations that don't go right, needing to track updates, and camera instructions that are 10 or 100 times more complex. Before automatic exposure and other microprocessor driven stuff came along, there just weren't that many details. My favorite camera, the Canon F-1, did have a battery for the light meter, but other than the meter not functioning it was the same user experience if I left the battery out. Sunny 16 and I was good to go.

Maybe this is better....

XH2 with XF 33 wr

Hawk in the snow. X-T5 70-300.

Townsend's Warbler going after spiders. X-H2s, Fuji 150-600.

Red-breasted Nuthatch, Oregon. X-H2s, Fuji 150-600.

Hayden Covered Bridge Alsea, Oregon. X-T1, TTartisan 17mm F2.

Bald Eagle Oregon. X-H2s, Fuji 150-600.

I love using the Acros sim to guide my RAW editing. After using 20-22 MP Canon RAW's for years, it's interesting/fun to have all the latitude in these 40MP Fuji files. Yellowstone National Park by the way.

Hiking the Heceta Head Trail to the lighthouse on a foggy Oregon Coast morning. X-P1, 16mm F2.8.

The Milky Way as viewed looking south in Peru.

I've only had one issue with ONE camera (Fujifilm S2 Pro) and that includes owning between 1973 and today: Minolta SR-T101 (my sister still owns it) Minolta X-E7 ( I still own it and it still works) Digital: Fuji 4900z 4.3 megapixel - outstanding camera Nikon 8700 8mp - never had an issue through sale Nikon 300 6mp - never had an issue through sale Nikon D700 12mp - Still use it and still works perfectly with over 200,000 images RB67 Pro Medium Format 2 ea Mamiya 645 AFD Medium Format 2 ea Yashicamat Twin Lens reflex Fujifilm S1 Pro - ONE of the BEST early digital cameras with gorgeous colors and a Base ISO of 320, 3.2mp Fujifilm S2 Pro. The S2 Pro developed a bad sensor and Fuji in Edison replaced the sensor, and shutter free of charge with a. two day turnaround after I dropped it off. X-E1 - never had an issue X-T1 still own it. Rubber grip started to come loose and I used gorilla glue to fix it X-T2 Camera took a salt water bath and self-destructed. Not worth repairing per Fuji's repair estimate, sold for parts X-H1 - Still shoot with it never had an issue G50R and 100S. -- Haven't had an issue. Fingers crossed I don't

Given the inverse rule, a stable shot at 1/8 second not even including IBIS, there aren’t many compelling reasons for needing faster than f/4 on this UWA lens. Astro maybe, but nearly every other use case it’s not really there. You aren’t going for subject separation on 8mm, nor “bokeh balls”.

another

Scorpius with some Milk(y Way) on the side... This image is also the equivalent of just over 15 minutes exposure. A lot of passing clouds got into this one, but they opened up for the constellation. More Antares info: https://skyandtelescope.org/observing/meet-antares-the-star-that-is-not-mars/ https://www.space.com/21905-antares.html

I live in Rome ...so one day i have spent my time to take some pictures of Imperial Rome, All this photo are taken by zoom 10-24 f4 and X-T1

I owned the 16f1.4 in the absence of a decent 18mm (e.g. 28mm equivalent). As soon as the 18f1.4 came out I traded the 16 in for it. Unless you are desperate for the 24mm equiv fov I can highly recommend the 18f1.4 - quite possibly the best lens in the XF mount line up and one of the lenses on the support list for the X-T5/X-H2? On the other hand, how often do you care about the corners of a photograph? If you print or display the work, no one will ever notice that a lens is only 99% good enough. LouisB

Sharpness is not everything in a picture, in fact beyond a certain point it is not important, and chasing after a small increase is pointless. Forget the stupid list and go out and enjoy what you have.

I was reviewing some more of my shots from my recent trip, and I noticed something in one shot that at first I thought was trouble, but turned out to be shocking. Here are two images.... Here's the first - I purposely used the top of the spire to shield the sun, to allow it to halo the top as part of the composition.... When I zoomed in to see about cropping it some, I noticed spots, and thought, "wow the lens or sensor got REALLY dirty, and that's a shame. Wasted shot." I looked at the other images immediately after and before it, and there were no spots, so I was naturally confused. Zoomed in... That's when I realized, those aren't dust spots or bad pixels, those are... STARS. The dynamic range was wide enough that it could pick up the faint starlight that was mixing in with the sunlight, stars that are always in the sky, but normally invisible due to the intensity of the sun. I am impressed with the ability of the sensor in the X-T5 to resolve these details. post edit - the compression when posting the image ruins the details, sadly. I may post another one REALLY zoomed in to show it better....

Jasmine. X-E3 with 18-55mm lens. Acros B&W conversion in Lightroom Classic.

Not proper macro shots, but I took these on my X-T4 with the 16-80 kit lens and macro extension tube.

Sierra de Callosa, Alicante, Spain - XE-3, 18-135, originally shot on Vivia