All Activity

This stream auto-updates   

  1. Today
  2. DSCF9910.jpg

  3. DSCF7559-Edit.JPG

  4. DSCF1522_HDR.jpg

  5. DSCF1248_49_50_tonemapped.jpg

  6. DSCF1188-HDR.jpg

    Some snaps, a variety.
  7. DSCF0798.jpg

  8. DSCF0762.jpg

  9. DSCF0476_7_8_tonemapped.jpg

  10. It depends if your photo finisher is going to optimise your photos for you, or simply print out exactly what you give them in your file. If they are going to optimise it themselves, it may not matter that much what you do first. If they do not optimise, then you should consider: - sharpen for their print size: they will have a dpi for their prints, so you need to sharpen for output at an appropriate radius for the size and resolution - as a general guide, a larger radius unsharp mask of medium strength with a medium threshold such as 150%, 1.5 pixel radius, threshold 2). - prints won't handle highlights and shadows the same way as your screen, so you need to move your white and black points away from 0 and 255 - maybe 5 and 250 or even 10 and 245 - so that there is detail in your highlights and shadows and they don't clip completely - depending on media (paper type), prints may be darker than on screen. Screens are backlit, prints reflect ambient light. For printing NOT onto photo paper, I might lighten my images slightly, particularly on matte or textured paper I would also print onto photo paper, using a professional printer, and either let them optimise if you know and trust them, or optimise yourself if you know what you are doing and have confidence in how your prints will look when they come back. Do a single test print first. Alternatively, have you considered a photo book? Many now print onto photo paper and are professionally bound like a book in the shops. They are a great way of displaying your work, and can be left out to browse when the mood takes you or visitors. Blurb and Fuji Film Create both have good services. Blurb and more professionally orientated - Fuji print onto photo paper but I find the material quality of the books slightly lacking (not very robust binding) and have had problems the first time when they chose to optimise some photos and made them much worse (colour casts etc) - though when I contacted them they investigated and reprinted correctly for free.
  11. Japanese sales figures for interchangeable lens mirrorless cameras show that by volume, Canon are number 2 in the domestic market. To say that I was surprised was an understatement, as their offering to date has been extremely poor with the exception of the new EOS M5, though it's hard to believe that 1 decent camera could drive them to #2 in the market. It confirms what I have long suspected - most consumers purchases are significantly influenced by the power of brand, and everyone knows that Canon is a good brand because professionals use it. Right? I mean, their EOS-M cameras are all excellent, or something. Olympus were #1, Sony #3.Link to google translated page
  12. I'd argue that the 23mm f/2 lens is the most versatile prime for travel, I generally only travel with my X100T, but I love the Fujinon 23mm f/2 just as well. It's so well priced too! The 50mm f/2 will be announced soon and might be a good option for a longer lens that is compact and well priced too. I like simplicity when I travel though, and I've found the 23mm to be the best all around option without feeling particularly limited. Sometimes it's fun to embrace a single lens for a trip.
  13. Canyon Lake

    in the Superstition Mountains, AZ.
  14. The maths required to turn X Trans raw data onto a viewable image is much more intensive than Bayer sensor layouts as the colour pixels are very sparse, and some software authors said that to get any result requires a 2 pass mathematical process to get a result since the first pass only gives an approximation. it is also rumoured that Ichikawa worked with Fuji on the camera jpeg engine - Silky Pix in the guise of Fuji RFC was the first software to support the format for some months after release of the X Pro 1.
  15. artuk, I don't think remote diagnostics crossed my mind, so perish the thought ! I agree with you on its features, it has a good list on par with other software. I hope that I get to work with it in the future, since I have no pressing affinity towards any particular software. X-Trans may be processing intensive, I don't have a reference point for raw processing since I primarily worked with jpgs until recently. Thanks for your insights.
  16. Chris, I use an XT2 both raw (compressed raw) as well as jpg on a MacBook Pro. If I can answer any questions for you, please feel free to ask. I may not be able to answer questions like, "Will a Fuji Raw to DNG conversion finish while my kettle boils?" since I don't have a kettle
  17. I'm going to pick up a new X-Pro2 in the coming months. Initial heavy use will be for a Europe 2 week tour in the fall. For this trip, I want to reduce the bulk and weight of gear, thus leaving my 5DMiii and all of the L-glass behind. I'm looking for recommendations for a first lens for this trip and other uses. Typical tour photography to include landscapes, city architecture, some street type photography. I'm going to invest in quality glass (as opposed to kit level glass). Thinking of the 16-55mm f2.8 but would consider a prime instead. Weather resistant would be a good plus (it does rain in Europe). Beyond Europe tour, hope to use the X-Pro2 for street photography and event photography (inside and outside). TIA, -DarkRock
  18. Obviously I cant diagnose an issue remotely, and what's acceptable to me may not be to other people. there is a configuration setting to determine how the screen is refreshed when developing a photo after a parameter change. I'm fairly certain I've got mine set for a quick and dirty refresh followed by fully processing in the background. It can take a couple of seconds to re-process all the data when you change something. The machines I run it one are mostly Windows 8 or 10 with Intel i5 from the last 3,generations including an early Core M which are known to throttle clock speed under load due to their fanless passive cooling design. Most have Intel graphics solutions or a high spec laptop GEForce graphics card. 4-8Gb of ram. There is a pause as the screen is fully refreshed - it goes about it in.large blocks - but the machine with the graphics card is very quick, the Core M machine the slowest, but still perfectly useable. The worst feature is the spot correction tool which is very slow, but was only introduced in Version 7 so perhaps will improve. In comparison Capture One was painfully slow to load a catalog, but perhaps quicker to refresh when adjusting settings. LR 4.4 was a dog with X Trans files and just felt very slow. I can only suggest try the latest release and see if its acceptable I have no experience with Apple but their laptops tend to use older processors including Core M, but the OS can be a little more efficient than Windows, and some of their laptops use Intel Iris graphics which are a little more powerful than other Intel graphics solutions. Edit: I'm processing Bayer raw files. Its well known that Fuji X Trans files are very processing intensive during raw development due to the complex maths required to demosaic them and as a result performance tends to suffer. LR 4.4 was noticeable slower handling X Trans files than Bayer.
  19. Vic, I can understand the editorial choice of the local paper. I hope you will have some other "good fog" days during Winter which will allow you to further explore and exploit such magical weather condition.
  20. I take your point ragamuffin. I think my hesitation about an X-T2 comes from several peripheral costs, not just the LR upgrade. Vertical grip, batteries, whether my Mac OS will handle the larger files and so on. But I agree this may seem irrational. Regards Chris
  21. Until recently, I have been merely storing the pictures I take and viewing them in a digital format, screens, tablets, TVs etc. I printed some 4x6s and 5x7s here and there, but that was mostly recreational. Now I think I am now ready to start printing my pictures for mounting on walls etc. What are some of the caveats to be aware of (I know its a bit broad) both from a post processing perspective as well as sizing ? How about where to print? (I am located in the US) I can ask more detailed questions once I see some of the responses here. Thanks !
  22. artuk, I was only pulling your leg a bit with the 'ad' bit. As I may have mentioned previously ,I did try SilkyPix (Studio Pro 6) trial on a Windows machine (Xeon dual quad cores with 48GB of RAM) and it was giving me these strange artifacts when it was refreshing the screen. (I mention my machine not to brag rather to show you I had/have enough juice). After the initial load, I always would get a lag with every refresh, when I would go to another application and come back, for example. I also have LR on that box which works flawlessly, even if its a little slow LR 4.4). I am sure the SilkyPix software is sound, but it didn't give me a warm fuzzy feeling when its not using the full power available to it. I should mention that I do have a slight lag in load times on a MacBook pro with Iridient as well, so its not like my current solution is perfect. I will perhaps look at SilkyPix again in my next iteration, for now Iridient and Affinity seem to do the job.
  23. or use Adobe bridge to batch convert the new camera files to DNG rae format to use in your existing version of Lightroom.
  24. well I can assure you unlike most bloggers I have no commercial relationship with Ichikawa software. I've been using it since Pro Version 5 about 3-4 years ago. It takes an hour or two to learn where to find all the controls, but I don't understand all the hubris about it being "difficult to use" etc. I can only assume some people who use Lightroom simply learn by rote and copy what they see in YouTube how-to videos without actually understanding what they are doing, and the concepts in all raw development tools are basically the same. Version 7 introduced a new sharpening process called "natural" which gives excellent results, and it allows user controlled output sharpening so the images can be resized and sharpened for output size. There are 4 different types of input sharpening - beat that Adobe! - which work with different types of image and file. I favour it as its not excessively large, runs on a range of hardware including low end devices (albeit more slowly) and doesn't have any concept of catalogs - catalogs are a disaster when you work across multiple devices and storage media. SilkyPix creates a directory of sidecar files for every image adjusted, which can easily be copied between machines or storage devices without issue. Lighteoom.and Capture One gave me endless library issues and lost work when trying to move between devices. personally I like the results, I don't find I difficult to use, and I am often impressed with the sharpness, noise management and colour. At first I used it for portriats as I found I liked the results mote than C1 or camera maker software, but when Capture One gave me problems with unreliability, performance and lost work, it seemed natural to start using it for everything, and I haven't regretted it yet. Rumor has it the results are still very good with X Trans files, but download a trial copy and give it a go at least to see the pixel level results compared to the previous horrible softness with Adobe and to an extent C1 with X Trans files. I would rate them SilkyPix, then Capture One, then Adobe for image quality.
  25. Boulder Canyon Trail

    featuring juvenile barrel cactus. Canyon Lake, AZ, USA.
  26. Yesterday
  27. artuk, you are an ad for silkypix which probably just means you enjoy it immensely. Thanks for keeping us appraised of this package.
  1. Load more activity