Jump to content

Winter Landscapes


Recommended Posts


The distant high peak is Monte Antelao (3264m), further to the right (invisible) is Marmolada (3343m).

I rather like this one. Looks like a nicely peaceful scene, but if you want to see what the conditions were really like, have a look at  this (with sound on !). It was freezing cold, I could hardly operate my poor camera.

Edited by George_P
Link to post
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, merlin said:

Wonderful and inspiring set, George!

Thank you, sir ! You are very kind. I was just lucky to be there at the right time. But, on a holiday with my three sons and my wife, as usual, it was a "shoot quickly and run" affair - no time for some serious business like using a stative or filters or composing carefully. These were all taken with my X-T10 (before I bought the X-T2). What a little jewel of a camera that is.

Link to post
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, jerryy said:

I am really enjoying the series you are sharing with us, but after listening to that audio I also hope you are keeping warm!

Do not worry Jerryy, chasing our sons keeps me warm all right. But you ought to dip your feet in some snow (nudge). I know you are the king of Fall Pictures, but the fall season is over ! This is an open topic ! 😎

Edited by George_P
poked Jerryy in the ribs
Link to post
Share on other sites

Now this one is weird. It is SOOC (except for a slight lift of the shadows to brighten up the trees a little). I did nothing at all regarding sharpening (sharpening zero) and I took the JPG, not the RAF. I just resized it to smaller size and that is what I put here. I dunno how it looks like on FullHD screens (I have a 4K monitor), but on my screen it looks so insanely sharp that it is too much I think, both the full size and the resized one. What I find interesting is, usually with C1 when I open a RAF it looks better or at least as good as the SOOC JPG, with defaults. But with this image and a few similar ones from the same series there is no way I can tweak the RAF to get the same amount of detail (is micro-contrast the popular term?) as the SOOC JPG. Somehow the RAF looks way softer than the SOOC JPG, no matter how I try with sharpening, structure etc. Anyway, here it is:


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Posts

    • Thank you for your suggestion, but 70 is too tele for me, I did some shots regularly at 50, 55, 60 on my 16-80.
    • When considering the 55-200 also have a look at the 70-300. There's not much difference between f4.8 and f5.6 at the long end and the 70-300 is certainly a faster focusing lens. I'd buy the 55-200 only when it is a great second-hand deal. There's only €100 difference between the two lenses when purchased new. In that case I'd go for the 70-300, but that's just me... 😉 Best Fujifilm Telephoto Zoom Lens 2021 | Photography Blog
    • Thank you! This is great news. Fujinon XF 55-200mm f3.5-4.8 R LM OIS has got nice price, and its aperture in the range of 55-80mm is a little faster than on Fujinon XF 16-80mm f4 R OIS WR that I own, but at 200mm it's f4.8 which I can't tell is usable. I bought 16-80 for indoor sports but also for general purposes like landscape and architecture to complement my 35mm f1.4. For indoor sports, I used it in the range of 50-80mm so far, and I needed some more zoom, but I also know that at some other gyms that I've been before even the 35mm was fine when I could place myself near the court. Not sure if 55-200 is ideal solution for sports either, but it's much cheaper and lighter than 50-140. Heck I think even f2.8 is too small aperture for indoor sports. If I don't go for 50-140, I would most likely go for 55-200.
    • The push function on the rear-dials of the 'earlier' X cameras is quite prone to defects. I believe it was solved in the X-H1 and the X-T3 thereafter, but X-E3's have the earlier internal design. The push function could 'stick' in one function or between functions causing the rotate function not to work properly. If that happens, internal cleaning or replacing is the only option. Something that (most of) you can't do yourself.
  • Create New...