Jump to content

Watcher24

Members
  • Posts

    147
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    20

Everything posted by Watcher24

  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

    Motorcycles

    . 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 :.
  13. . давай! by Christoph, auf Flickr :.
  14. . Bokeh Blödelei ausm Brunnen by Christoph, auf Flickr :.
  15. . Дедушка не любит влажные ноги by Christoph, auf Flickr :.
  16. . little madcap by Christoph, auf Flickr :.
  17. T.b.h., until now it reads as a list of lenses Fuji most probably never will make. But that's fine! As my Grandma used to say: Don't stop having wishes!
  18. beside the other Fuji X cams as X100, X100s, X100t, X-E1, X-E2, X-T1, X-T10 and some of the "cheaper" models which i was too lazy to look up their proper names. My short answer to the initial question of the thread is: No.
  19. While if many people do "recommend", i wouldn't buy anymore an X-Pro1 these days. (Although i had one and loved it.) If the hybrid finder is really needed, yes, then take an X-Pro1. However, the OVF with the X-Pro1 must be used appropriately. (Lots of people failed in this.) If it should be an older model to minimize spending, i'd rather go with an X-E2. Note that X-E2 already has the sensor with phase detection pixels which enables PDAF which was an important step in the AF history of the Fuji X cams. (The X-Pro1 has NO pd-pixels and no PDAF.) Hard to answer. It depends ;-) Lots of people say AF generally sucks on Fuji X cams. Most of them just fail in proper usage. Lots of people stated the AF of the X-Pro1 is sufficient when the camera was released with firmware 1.0. (I also said that in the days i was using the X-Pro1). Even nowadays many people tell X-Pro1 AF is satisfactory; and some of the same people report slow speed of lenses as the XF23, XF35, XF60, ... Most probably X-Pro2 won't be available this year. If you do not dislike the SLR style of X-T1 or X-T10, i would buy one of these.
  20. Watcher24

    Fuji IR

    I was not in the mood to convert my cam yet. For the very rare IR pics i take it's fine for me to use a tripod.
×
×
  • Create New...