Jump to content

idwilson

Members
  • Content Count

    15
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About idwilson

  • Rank
    Member

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://littlegreenmenphotography.blogspot.com

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Cambridge, UK

Recent Profile Visitors

275 profile views
  1. Based on personal experience, good IR lenses are: 14/2.8; 16/1.4; 23 (both versions); 35/1.4; 35/2 (up to f/8); and 50-140/2.8. Other wide angles (10-24/4, Samyang 8 fisheye and 12) have bad hot spots. Sadly, if you want a wide angle lens for IR photography, the number of choices are limited.
  2. Andreas, Many thanks for the information. I should have realised that the problems might be related to GDPR... I'll access the forum via a browser in the meantime, but an iPad-friendly mechanism in the future would be very much appreciated. All the best, Ian.
  3. After three years of successfully accessing this forum using Tapatalk, yesterday I started to get problems logging in. First I received an "Are you xxx with email address yyy?" message, but thereafter I received a pageful of undecoded HTML every time I attempted to log in. Thinking that there might be a password problem, I told the forum that I had "forgotten" my password (via a browser, as the Tapatalk password reminder mechanism failed) so that a new password could be allocated. This done I can successfully log into the forum from a browser, but Tapatalk gives me the message: Log In Failed The operation couldn't be completed (Forum SSO error 2) Thinking that this might be a problem with older software on my iPad (running iOS 9) I tried to access the forum from my iPhone (running the latest iOS 11). Both behaved identically. Any ideas? Many thanks in advance, Ian.
  4. I'd settle for a version which was 80% better at rendering Fuji files. This just means we'll get the same awful RAW conversions a bit faster... Ian Wilson Cambridge, UK
  5. idwilson

    16-55 vs 56

    I'm in a similar situation to you, but never actually parted with any money for the 56 as (for me, anyway) it's just too specialised. Like you I sold my 18-55 as I never got on with it (poor IQ and unreliable AF) and bought the 16-55. A great lens, but it's like walking around with a can of beans glued onto the front of the camera. If I only take one lens then this is the one; but, more usually, I tend to leave it at home and take primes (16/23/35) instead. I always try to make room in my camera bag for two other lenses, though: the 10-24 and 50-140. The latter is an absolutely stunner, and extremely versatile for candid shots. OK, so it costs more than 800 dollars, but I can assure you that it wouldn't end up sitting on the shelf like your 56! Ian. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
  6. The camera can't know that you'll be using flash, so will be attempting to simulate the exposure based on the settings you've given. This can be disabled in the main menu under "Screen Settings" and "Preview Exp/WB in Manual Mode". Turn this OFF if you want to see an image in a dark studio, without previewing what the image would be (without flash). Ian. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
  7. idwilson

    ND filters

    You'll need the 100mm system for the 14 and 10-24, although you might get away with the seven5 with the 16 (but only just). You'll also need the wide angle adaptor rings: I have the Lee 72 and 77 WA rings (for the 10-24 and 16-55 respectively) but use cheap stepping rings for other lenses, such as a 52 for my 35/1.4. Should be no problem to adapt to the 35/2, but prepare yourself for the cost of the 100mm system - it ain't cheap! Ian. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
  8. You probably have a fixed ISO value. The EC dial can only have an effect if it's allowed to change something; and, if you've set the aperture and shutter speed manually, the only possible adjustment available to the camera is the ISO setting. In manual mode, the "EC" value in the viewfinder actually becomes a light meter reading: the fact it reads -3 implies that your combination of shutter speed, aperture and ISO would result in any shot being at least 3 stops underexposed. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
  9. You've hidden the critical bits of the import dialog! At the top there are three options: Add, Copy and Move. It looks like you're importing files in place (i.e. they already exist on disc, rather than coming from a memory card) In which case you need to choose the "Add" option. If you select the "Copy" option, another part of the dialog on the right hand side comes into play: namely the target location where the files will end up. By default, files are copied into "Pictures" on a Mac ("My Pictures" on a PC), and I suspect that this is what's happening. Check the options at the top and the right hand side, posting screen grabs if necessary, and I'm sure we'll get to the bottom of this. Ian. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
  10. Noise is related to the physical size of the light gathering unit in the sensor, so your statement is only correct for two sensors with the same number of pixels. If the APS-C sensor has half the number of pixels as the full-frame sensor, then the noise is likely to be very similar. In other words, it's the size of the pixel which matters, not the size of the sensor as a whole. Ian. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
  11. Diffraction is, in fact, related to sensor size, albeit indirectly. This is because, for the same angle of view, a crop sensor requires a shorter focal length. Since diffraction is related to the ratio between the circumference and the area of the circle formed by the aperture blades, the smaller the circle - physically - the worse the diffraction. A 16mm lens on a Fuji camera will always have a smaller aperture circle at a given f/stop (and, hence, greater diffraction) than a 24mm lens on a full frame camera. In this example, f/16 on a a Fuji 16mm lens gives a 1mm aperture diameter, whereas the same aperture on a 24mm lens would be 1.5mm. This also explains why diffraction is always worse with wide-angle lenses, as the physical diameter of the aperture is a directly related to the focal length. Ian. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
  12. As a short post-script, there are two ways of judging Adobe's "film simulation" profiles. The first is to ask how closely they match those implemented by Fuji on the cameras themselves, and I can quite understand if some people are disappointed by the differences. As someone who shoots exclusively RAW, however, a much more important question is: Are the film simulation profiles better than "Adobe Standard"? The answer to this question is a resounding "yes"; in fact, I've yet to use any camera where "Adobe Standard" is worth using. On my Canon cameras I always use "Camera Standard", "Camera Neutral" or a custom profile made with an X-Rite Colour Checker Passport. I tried using custom profiles for my Fuji cameras, but found that "Camera Provia/Standard" was head and shoulders above them. If Adobe improve these colour profiles as a result of the X-Pro2 being released then great, but personally I'd prefer them to put their efforts into sorting out the well-documented X-Trans demosaic problem. Ian.
  13. I've just tried an experiment with my X-E2 running FW 4.0, importing files into Lightroom CC 2015.4. I deliberately shot RAW+JPEG so I could check the aspect ratio of each independently, and - as expected - everything is kosher 3:2. I'd be interested to know whether the JPEGs produced in "16:9 mode" have the correct number of pixels. In other words, are the JPEGs cropped or is the 16:9 aspect ratio simply the result of a rogue piece of metadata? I know that I followed the recommended upgrade path: start at 1.0; factory reset after upgrade to 3.0; then upgrade to 4.0. I'm wondering whether the aspect ratio problem might be related to missing out the factory reset or going straight from 1.0 to 4.0. This might explain vestigial "state" creeping into the new settings. Ian.
  14. Slight confusion here. What you're talking about is a colour profile, which only affects the way in which your RAF file's colours are rendered. It doesn't change the processing of the files in any other way, and the "Provia, Astia, Velvia, etc." settings are simply Adobe's (very good) attempt to match Fuji's film emulation. It certainly isn't a "Fuji Process", although better rendering of the X-Trans files is long overdue. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
  15. LR5 and PS CS5 have incompatible RAW converters. This means that you cannot simply use LR to open an image in PS, as CS5 will probably understand neither the format of the RAW file nor the instructions as to what to do with it. This is certainly true of Fuji RAF files, since the introduction of the X-Trans sensor post-dates the release of CS5. Instead there should be an option like "Render file using Lightroom", and this is what you should choose. This way, LR does all the donkey work and then passes the processed file to CS5 (which has nothing to do). By the way, there was a significant improvement in the handling of X-Trans file in LR6.1, so you might want to think about an upgrade. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
×
×
  • Create New...