Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Watcher24 last won the day on January 8 2022

Watcher24 had the most liked content!

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Watcher24's Achievements

Community Regular

Community Regular (8/14)

  • Conversation Starter
  • Reacting Well
  • Very Popular Rare
  • Week One Done
  • One Month Later

Recent Badges



  1. . Family excursion in Can Tho :.
  2. . Chicken family - Saigon, Cholon :.
  3. . The knife grinder in Saigon :.
  4. yet another Vietnam thread. There are other pics from from other people about this very interesting country - e.g. there is the nice thread The Streets of Vietnam by lichtundlaerm However, i have decided to have my own thread here. ... 1st of May - Ho Chi Minh City - back road :.
  5. Sure. I understood the question of the thread opener :-) But it should be allowed to generally talk about the "why you need the RAW" - especially in the case where you want to achieve the same result as a film simulation JPG with a RAW - but where it seems hard or not yet possible yet. But, yes. We also could discuss why it is not possible to create a RAW by JPG. Very reasonable. Sorry for disturbing this constructive discussion.
  6. imho - some of the posts here within this thread are on a very theoretical level - but have nothing to do with final resulting images. Since i'm at least middle-aged - i know b&w film processing. I haven't done it very long, but i would say i know its limitations and how far you can go (and what's not possible). I digged into digital imaging with the original X100 (btw. that was when i became "passionate" about fotografy). My first ~1000 pics i was accidentally trashing RAW, only keeping JPGs. After that, i always kept both JPG & RAW (if the pics "deserved" it). As a X-Pro1 early adopter and former Aperture user, i could process only JPGs for quite a log time (at least it felt like). Nowadays i use Lightroom and have a pretty good idea about the limitations of RAW processing (and i have an X-Pro2). So far about the intro :-) My point is: If you're not failing in the exposure - even a JPG already provides very useful reserves. Sure: There are cases were you missed proper exposure and want to rescue - and with Lightroom on a RAW you can rescue A LOT. And there are light situations which are so dynamic that your tempted to screw extensively. However - 8 of 10 guys usually fail and end up with something that looks so artifical which lets me suddenly think about the self-help group for pseudo-HDR-freaks. (scnr) I love the Acros film simulation! For me it is a clear unique selling proposition (UPS) - actually this is generally true for Fujifilms JPG engine. Acros doesn't fit always perfectly for what i want - but it *is* really easy to add some "extra bits" (for instance with RNI presets). Just to make sure: i also use different approaches - besides Acros - i'm open to use many different tools. But: If i like the result of the Acros JPG engine - why should i try to reproduce the same with a RAW? What's the point? Would it make me feel better to know that i would have much more "buffer" with a RAW development? The answer is: No, not at all. One of *the* awesome things about the Acros film simulation is the ISO dependent grain - and the grain looks really nice (no comparison to any other "digital grain" i have seen before ... if we want to pixel-peep). I haven't printed Acros simulations based pics yet, but i will do it soon, and what i've heard and read about yet is very promising. My recommendation to the thread opener: Just enjoy the Acros results, combine it with appropriate DR usage, forget about what you've done with RAWs, try out what's possible with the JPG. For me, Acros especially shines on high ISO on nightly shots on the street! To the physicist and math genius (which has turned into a guest): Rather go taking pictures and use less time on the software - and do not mix up processing tools knowledge with fotografic skills.
  7. Watcher24


    . Solex by Christoph, auf Flickr :.
  8. I think the are not the same. Not at all. It is hard to understand what you really asking. Your lens portfolio is a function of your requirements (e.g. concerning focal length), the money you want to spend and sometimes also influenced by GAS.
  9. Thanks a lot for sharingy your story and pictures. I wish you and your wife a good time there and may you bring peace to the people you meet.
  10. . observations in the park #003 by Christoph, auf Flickr :.
  11. . Gestühl mit Blumen by Christoph, auf Flickr :.
  12. . Jonathan just floored the can and off he went by watcher24@f.ickr :.
  • Create New...