• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


About artuk

  • Birthday
  1. hmmm.... on one hand I know what you mean, I dislike overly "processed" photos of any kind... but in this case, it doesn't scream out so as to detract from the photo (the subject)... often less is more... but sometimes more is more! ;-) you haven't seen my saturated high contrast city scapes!
  2. I like this and I think it is nicely done. Although the processing and treatment is obviously a "pastiche" of an old photograph, I think it suits the photo and gives a pleasant atmosphere. Your other black and white photo has nice tonality but I like it less - maybe it's the subject or the pose, which makes it look like a slightly formulaic classic head and shoulders portrait (30 degrees to the camera, short lighting etc) - but I prefer the feel of this one. I don't like the colour one very much, not sure why, possibly the subjects pose.
  3. The quality and colour accuracy of your screen will depend on your model - you cannot assume because it's a particular brand of PC maker it will be correct. Many windows laptops now have "better" screens than some Apple models, and I have only ever seen tests of recent Apple laptops, so I actually have no idea how slightly older screens perform. However, the issue is not just whether your screen is accurate - it is also about "proofing" the output in software using a colour profile that simulates what will be produced when printed, because the printers colour response is different to your screen, even if your screen is well calibrated. So there are 2 issues - does your screen accurately show what's in a file (calibrating the screen), and does your software simulate the colours that you will get from a specific printer ("proofing"). If you print at home, you can also colour profile and calibrate your screen for proofing with your printer; if you print at a lab, they may have a process for you to perform a test print and then calibrate your proofing to simulate on your screen their print output (or they may have an existing printer colour profile that can provide you with). I can't comment on colour managed workflow with Apple as I use Windows, so the process may be slightly different. WIth MS Windows, historically the desktop didn't take account of any colour profile you had set for your screen, and you had to use software that supported colour management (e.g. most image editing software) to use your screen profile to get an accurate display. I think that has now changed with Windows 10 but to be honest, I'm not sure, and whenever I have asked other photographers, I get different answers! This isn't a direct concern of yours as you use Apple, but other Apple users may be able to advise if, for example, the desktop photo viewer uses any colour profile built for your screen. Proofing for print output within image editing software should be fairly OS independent and therefore web type tutorials may help. Or, don't bother and let the experts deal with it. I have long thought that many people spend a great deal of time and money trying to get good quality prints at home when a quality photo finishers or printers can do it for you as it is their business. You can get a lot of photos printed for the price of buying a fancy printer and fancy inks and fancy papers and screen calibrators etc etc and I support you in "off loading" the printing to someone else, rather than starting on a long and expensive road to trying to do it at home to a high quality. edit: the view seems to be that Microsoft Paint and Photos use colour profiles but the desktop does not, in case it's important to anyone.
  4. as said above, printing in general, and photographic paper doesn't have the dynamic range of most photos seen on screen. As a result, brighter areas tend to white and darker areas tend to black - the highlight clip and the shadows get crushed. It depends on the print medium though and the print type. Generally, I would open shadows more than I want on screen, and make an image maybe 1/3-1/2 ev brighter than I might want, because when printed it will closer to what I wanted - but that's me, my screen, the print companies I use... As above you can profile you monitor and them use appropriate software to show a "proof" of output, but that requires the right knowledge and skill and may only benefit home printing - unless you get a colour profile for the company you will print with, or do test prints and use them to calibrate your output. If all of this sounds like incomprehensible nonsense, maybe find a pro print lab or photo finisher who will optimise your files for you. I would caution against canvas type prints or rough textured or matte papers as they can make images a little dark and also look grainy (my experience, yours may vary) - gloss photo paper is probably a safer choice at this stage, at least as a test.
  5. I once read a blog where a photographer said he felt offended at a dinner party when the host commented that he must have a very good camera as his photos were very good. At the end of the meal he commented that the cook (host) must have a very good cooker, as the food was excellent. I bought into Fuji's X-Pro 1 mythos based on trying a pre-production camera at a trade show. It pushed emotional buttons as it reminded me a great deal of my Konica Hexar AF rangefinder, and so seemed like a "proper" camera. At first there was a honeymoon period of a sense of "freedom" because it was different to an SLR, but in the end the relationship went sour because of all the things it couldn't do (or didn't do well). In reality, it didn't take any pictures other cameras couldn't, it's just as a photographer you felt different using it. Once you realise this, it's not about the tool, but about how you go about your photography. I went back to my SLR as it was simply a better multi-purpose tool, and then switched to another mirrorless system that doesn't push those emotional buttons based on styling etc, but does get the job done efficiently. Since photography has become more like a business for me than a hobby - hobbyists spend money on equipment based not on need but emotion and status - professionals choose equipment based on needs and budget - I'm somewhere in between but no longer have much dewey-eyed nostalgia for equipment but mainly think of it as tools. If I am impressed by the capabilities of the tool, I build a respect for it, and that is all that is needed so that there is trust that it can get the job done when you want it to. I don't think my photographs or my photography have suffered, although there is often little art in stock photography - though based on much stock photography I've seen often of low artistic or even technical merit, I do at least try to set myself a standard for quality as a differentiator.
  6. sticking to safe choices is what has kept ever conservative Nikon and Canon in business - the latter is particular being the choice for the most herd like buyers it would appear. Why anyone would choose an EOS-M staggers me - poor sensor, dull styling, terrible AF, I could go on... But one thing saves them... They say "Canon" on the front. On fairness the new EOS-M5 is much better, but it alone cannot account for their domestic sales rank, surely? As an aside, you can make excellent pictures with cheap lenses - only the most tedious artless technical fascist thinks expensive equipment equals the best photos. In todays online world, technical excellence and top-trumps style spec comparisons appear more important than art or pictorial quality. Having said that, I left the XF system for reasons of camera performance and X Trans raw files - so maybe I should not comment!
  7. 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.
  8. 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
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. or use Adobe bridge to batch convert the new camera files to DNG rae format to use in your existing version of Lightroom.
  12. 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.
  13. Link to Sily Pix Pro v7 page (note this offer seems to be only available on Ichikawa's Japanese website - they have an EU site but be aware the downloads from that site do not work with licenses issuesd from the Japanese parent company, so make sure you buy and download from the same site!)
  14. Ichikawa software are currently running a promotion for SIlkyPix V7 (standard and pro versions). there is a beta version of v8 in Japan, and until its final release, you can buy Version 7 at a discount and get a 3 machine upgrade to version 8 when released for free. The standard version is also heavily discounted although I'm not sure if that qualifies for the upgrade to V8 - please check on their page. If you have precious versions, or a bundled version such as Fuji RFC you may get additional discounts. For an older license your purchased, enter the license number to see a revised price (it generally needs to be for the dame edition as being purchase, either standard or pro from.Release 5 onwards). For bundle users there is a special page for discounts - I don't know if these also qualify for a free upgrade to v8 when released. in my experience it gives very high resolution "sharp" results on Bayer files and was always good on X Trans 2-4 years ago if you want it, it may be a good buy. With an old license for v5 pro I got around 50% discount in total and will get v8 pro for 3 machines when available, which is a good deal.for me.
  15. Now you've "come out" on this, I took a look at the photo thread after reading this thread, and to be honest, the photos didn't wow me at all - many are almost identical compositions of different cars/drivers, which I know nothing about and which therefore has no interest to me - some of the pictures simply looked the same. I also thought that since the post says the cars were moving at great speed, it didn't show in the small photos in the discussion - no obvious motion blur or panning blur to give a sense of speed. Finally, I thought may were composed or cropped too tightly, and gave no space for the vehicles to move into or away from - again lessening their impact and the sense of speed and racing. My honest opinion. They may well have demonstrated the camera can focus on some types of moving things, and it's well known that earlier Fuji cameras really weren't good at that, so I guess if that's where ones interest lies then it may be insightful. I sometimes do offer what I would regard as "constructive criticism" and speak openly about what I personally like or dislike. On a number of occasions this has been met with outright hostility over what in all honesty I would regard as poor or average photos, though my critique was polite and trying to be helpful in making suggestions about composition, lighting, model pose etc. The classic passive aggressive defence is "rules are made to be broken" and at that point you know there is no more point in trying to have a polite discussion about what you think might improve a photo.