• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


About artuk

  1. I have a "hahnel" branded universal charger which allows it be adjusted to charge almost any camera battery, and as you say they are much cheaper than branded ones. USB charging is also an advantage in these / some situations. I remember buying a cheap Fuji specific charger that had pins for all continents that cost less than £10... so your point is very valid.
  2. You are right they need to be seen full sized, as they take on a whole different quality, and have a real sense of "being there"
  3. The Fuji bundled version is based on V4 which is rather old. SilkyPix have changed their development engine in a later release, which gives "different" are arguably better colour. The noise reduction has been simplified and improved, and they claim tonal gradations are better. Certainly never versions have dodging, burning, HDR and local adjustment tools, and there seems to less problem with highlight clipping. Overall I would say newer version have image quality benefits, but whether that is worth the cost of a license to you, only you can decide. You can get a 1 month free trial.
  4. Thanks K1W1 but my last version of LR was 4.4 and since then I've been using other software, and I don't own any X Trans sensor cameras any more. Adobe's raw development engine has always been poor with X Trans and often mediocre with cameras that aren't Canon or Nikon, so I simply gave up on it as other tools had better image quality, the dame features, were cheaper in some cases, or didn't need monthly payments. Capture One for Sony users is free for thr light version and heavily discounted for thr pro version, for example. Overall I actually like SilkyPix image quality the best and it doesn't have a hateful catalogue system, meaning its far easier to work with files across multiple machine.
  5. I created a white balance taste and an overall taste for a group of settings and it worked correctly. SP Pro 8 as your version is rather old, maybe its a bug in that version? Is it the Fuji RFC branded version, or "full" SilkyPix? if you use it a lot your RFC license can be used to get a new licence for V8 at a discount, and it had many benefits over the old V4. in my version, click on the + next to the white balance drop down. A new dialogue pops up, you can key in a name, and then save it. Your new name and it's value then appears in the drop down. V4 may work different as I haven't used that one for about 4 years. I did notice when trying this for you that having chosen my taste, in some cases the value "custom" appeared in the drop down but the wb value was correct. When I used a global taste, which included a wb taste within it, that worked fine - may be worth trying a global taste from the drop down at the very top of the controls panel.
  6. Thanks. Alas I love symmetry! nothing irks me more than a photo that is nearly symmetrical but not quite. Someone here posted a night view of a building across a street, but the camera wasn't parallel to the buildings so there was some perspective distortion as the buildings were slightly further away on one side (but not in a way that appeared meaningful or intentional, it just looked "off"). Of course not every photo needs to be symmetrical etc but if it's something that needs symmetry then one needs to get it "right". For example the shop house fronts were a series of photos,and I could find no better way to represent them and show the viewer the intricate details and tired and worn look of many than by just photographing them straight on. Others may have done it a different way, but that's what I felt best showed what I wanted. Just my opinion. As for my experience with the X Pro 1, I stand by my views on it - it was extremely expensive and full of things that weren't very good. I haven't tried the most recent cameras, as frankly for their price I would rather buy a full frame camera (UK prices often mean a high end Fuji camera is the same price as an entry level full frame model from another company). Some of the issues do still seem to persist based on some other user reports, but I cannot comment from first hand experience. Kaizen may sound lile a great idea, but I didn't enjoy paying a lot of money to be a beta tester for a product. My comments in the article were about my experience with my X Pro 1 and gave context to my article and photographs as a response to Paul's earlier write up. I made no general comments about Fuji, the X Pro 2 etc, and felt my generalised comments about the emotional relationship you have with tools such as cameras quite fair and not obviously biased. The article this one was edited from talked more about my experience traveling with E Mount, and hopefully may be published later. One of the comments I make in it is that I haven't any great emotional bond with my E mount cameras, although over time they have quietly impressed me with being able to "get the job done". I actually don't like dewey-eyed emotional bonds with products as they often cloud our judgement, but accept that for many that emotional attachment is an important part of ownership.
  7. problem.with the electronic contacts between camera and lens
  8. I had many stability issues with Capture One on Windows 10; Phase Ones suggested solution was to upgrade to the latest version. I never found the noise reduction terribly good and it could leave a very "bruised" mottled look in dark areas. I also never understood the sharpening - most tools have input and output sharpening - C1 has only one set of sharpening parameters but isn't clear if they are for input or output, so I could never find a way to sharpen exported files for a certain sized reproduction.properly. I agree its catalogue system is hateful and completely unintuitive. Having said all that I like Light room even less as the output quality is so mediocre. SilkyPix was also good with X Pro 1 files and the latest version is excellent with files from other cameras, offering extraordinary pixel level details.
  9. I actually don't use tastes so I can't comment on what you are experiencing. Are you creating for the WB setting or an overall taste for all settings as a set? cut and paste is another quick option. or you can select multiple images and set parameters for all of them together (e.g. Set a wb value for everything in a folder) which version are you using?
  10. Thanks for your comments. I am curious to know which pictures you found particularly interesting? Regarding post processing, generally I prefer a realistic and natural look, but for some of the city scapes by night I would regard the processing as less than realistic. However, I chose that look "in camera", as an artistic choice, and for stock use it can be worth having pictures that have "impact" and grab the viewers attention - much stock photography is of questionable artistic and technical merit, in my experience (although some is of extra-ordinary quality too). The article was actually an edit of a longer item, some of which may form another article for Dear Susan talking in more detail about using E Mount cameras for (my) travel, and perhaps some of the paragraph about my X Pro 1 experiences may have made more sense in that context. I left it in as I felt it made a better explanation about the original catalyst for writing an article (albeit Dear Susan and I both "dripped the ball" and didn't publish the response until almost a year after the original article). I dont feel I "bashed" the X-Pro 1 - I gave a short account of being seduced by it and then falling out of love with it. At release it was a deeply flawed camera for many reasons (that I didn't talk about), and some issues were not resolved for over 2 years, or never at all. As an example, why would a £1500 enthusiast camera not preview a manual exposure in it's EVF, and why would it take 2 years to fix that? I felt the comment was relevant in the context of the catalyst for the article - Paul Perton's X Pro 2 experience in those places - given my (less than perfect) experience with the X Pro 1 and a visit to the same places at near the same time. I'm sorry if you feel my brief comments were "bashing" - I'm more than happy to provide you with a detailed list of issues with the camera at release, and why it therefore failed to meet the needs I had for it, if you are interested?
  11. A really nice photo,and the other's you also posted. if nothing else these pictures bust the myth perpetuated by most amateurs on the internet that portraits need very fast aperture lenses. in fact, most portraits' need a decent depth of ensure the subjects face etc (a 3d object) is in focus. Nobody wants a portrait with one eye sharp and the other soft, generally. I do think with photography of women the quality of their hair and make up contributes a huge amount to the final "look", which I think many viewers attribute to the quality of the camera ("beautiful skin tone" type comments) or the lens. I assume you used a softbox for some of these to give the fairly soft even light? I also wondered if you had used a snoot or similar as the light appears to have an "edge" at the bottom of the frame - I actually think it detracts very slightly, but is a minor issue in an otherwise lovely photo As someone who photographs men (actually male physique), it's always interesting to see the difference is approaches to male and female subjects. So much information on the internet is geared towards portraits of women, it can be difficult to get tips on photographing men. General advice for men is to used harder light, and to use "long" light for men (light falling with the "long" side of the face facing it) whereas using "short" light for women. I think lighting and posing techniques for both sexes would make an interesting article.
  12. I would be interested to know why you think you can see they were not taken with a Fuji camera? I always found the dynamic range of jpeg files from my old X Pro-1 wasn't that great as highlights would clip very easily and need up to -2EV exposure compensation to recover them at capture. Raw files offered different challenges with some highlight retention issues. The images in my article were processed with 2 different raw converters "to taste", including varying the colour response (film simulation as Fuji would call it). I do find full frame gives greater dynamic range, hence better highlight recovery and ability to lift shadows without noise. Larger pixels also seem to sharpen better at pixel level I would be interest to understand why you think you can see they ae not Fuji files, and in what ways they are different or better? Working from raw is essentially a blank canvas to process as you desire - another owner could take the same photos with thr same camera and lens and the camera jpegs could look quite different in some cases.
  13. when the camera is focusing, look into the front of the lens to see if the aperture blades are stopped down (you can see them making a smaller hole), or fully open (a big round hole right through the lens). If the latter the camera is focusing at open aperture, and then I assume at the end of focusing or when the shutter is released, it is stopping down. If this is the case, then the problem you see is focus shift caused by changing aperture - it happens in some lenses and ideally the lens should be focused stopped down, or the camera needs to compensate or this shift. if the camera is stopping down t focus then it's not focus shift and sounds like a defect with the lens or camera (either yours specific example or a more generalised issue).
  14. Corrected missing link.
  15. Please take a look at an article I've had published on the "Dear Susan" website, this time discussing travel photography in Singapore and Penang. Although not photographed with Fuji cameras this time, I hope some of my experiences may be of interest to others, as it includes a mixture or architectural and street style photography. Another of Dear Susan's contributors also wrote an interesting article on "un-destination" photography. Thanks for looking, Dear Susan - Singapore and Penang