- Messages
- 8,055
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- Yes
@Rosedalelad @PaulButler Andrew, Paul - thanks its definitely a work in progress.....
Suits the OTT processing. Is Cains brewery still operating? Hope it makes better beer than it did in the 70s!OK so I've got a bit of a thing for cinema style processing at the moment, so I thought I'd actually start a project, one from yesterday reprocesed
Cain Brewery (Liverpool) - Cinema Project 001 by David Yeoman, on Flickr
STD is supposed to be neutral. And yes, you don’t have separate lens calibrations even for raw. So no need to worry about them.I have an xt2 and 16-55 lens arriving today to try out (they are on hire). Is there a neutral or flat setting available? All I have been able to see are various film simulations ... I'll be shooting raw but am assuming that like Nikon & Canon the histogram etc will be based on the processed image (i.e. jpeg) ...
Also, when I was looking at one in a local shop, the chap there said that the in camera corrections (distortion, vignetting etc) are applied to the raw files too - now maybe I misunderstood, but is this true? I know it can be done in LR etc ...
I have an xt2 and 16-55 lens arriving today to try out (they are on hire). Is there a neutral or flat setting available? All I have been able to see are various film simulations ... I'll be shooting raw but am assuming that like Nikon & Canon the histogram etc will be based on the processed image (i.e. jpeg) ...
Also, when I was looking at one in a local shop, the chap there said that the in camera corrections (distortion, vignetting etc) are applied to the raw files too - now maybe I misunderstood, but is this true? I know it can be done in LR etc ...
I have an xt2 and 16-55 lens arriving today to try out (they are on hire). Is there a neutral or flat setting available? All I have been able to see are various film simulations ... I'll be shooting raw but am assuming that like Nikon & Canon the histogram etc will be based on the processed image (i.e. jpeg) ...
Also, when I was looking at one in a local shop, the chap there said that the in camera corrections (distortion, vignetting etc) are applied to the raw files too - now maybe I misunderstood, but is this true? I know it can be done in LR etc ...
I have an xt2 and 16-55 lens arriving today to try out (they are on hire). Is there a neutral or flat setting available? All I have been able to see are various film simulations ... I'll be shooting raw but am assuming that like Nikon & Canon the histogram etc will be based on the processed image (i.e. jpeg) ...
Also, when I was looking at one in a local shop, the chap there said that the in camera corrections (distortion, vignetting etc) are applied to the raw files too - now maybe I misunderstood, but is this true? I know it can be done in LR etc ...
Twas me who asked @Mr Perceptive for advice and his informative reply was much appreciated.
Seen how people had stated that X-Trans III needs processing in a different way to the Mk II version.
For example the latter required detail to 100% in LR for best results, not the case anymore.
I would argue that with the latest update of lightroom, Detail at 100%, is not needed for any X-Trans sensor.
Those that I have processed recently from my X30 An Xe2 have been better not doing so.
It would be interesting to hear what others have found.....?
Wouldn't exactly argue with you, but the Thomas Fitzgerald presets that incorporate this feature seem to do a pretty good job.
My limited experience leads me to believe that using the masking tool is important to only sharpen specific areas
I use the X trans I & II currently, and have found that in LR, I keep sharpening amount below 30 ish, with detail somewhere halfway, and use alt + masking to narrow down to the areas I want sharpened, I get good results. I have never suffered from any of these worm or artifact issues. I think people are over sharpening when they discover it mostly. If I felt the need to sharpen beyond this I would take the image to Photoshop and use selective high pass or Unsharp masking
I use concave. I find it reduces the chance of the finger slipping (off the shutter button).Quick question of my own now please
If you use a soft shutter button what shape do you find best?
I have been using convex, but wondered about the flat ones, personally not keen on the concave type
Please no more wormy, artifact, watercolour discussions, X-Trans III is definitely handled better by LR6 and that will do for me
I did too, until it fell off the other day! Need to order some more I thinkI use concave. I find it reduces the chance of the finger slipping (off the shutter button).
Who moaned about it in this recent discussion?We'll mention it till the cows come home so long as people keep moaning and groaning about it. This is the only reason to question processing in LR regarding Fuji files tbh. I think this X-trans III being better is nonsense, because as I just stated, I have never found the issue on the previous gen ones. See the point now?
We'll mention it till the cows come home so long as people keep moaning and groaning about it. This is the only reason to question processing in LR regarding Fuji files tbh. I think this X-trans III being better is nonsense, because as I just stated, I have never found the issue on the previous gen ones. See the point now?
Who moaned about it in this recent discussion?
So no I don't see the point, it was more to do with subtle differences between the two sensors and not a complaint.
Have you both to compare or is that just an assumption?
People will continue to moan about worms and detail-less leaves till the cows come home.
Or they can massively over sharpen to their hearts content.
Few of them realise that sharpening does not add detail, it only accentuates what is already there. if you over sharpen all you add are artifacts, and haloes around edges.
A lovely holiday-postcard well-composed shot.Just a simple landscape/seascape Fujigraph taken at Folkestone Kent UK from the Harbour Arm.
X-T1, 10-24mm Lens, 1/640th @ F8, ISO-200, Handheld.
Sea Front (Folkestone) (1) (C)-03035C by G.K.Jnr., on Flickr
for looking.,
George.
A lovely holiday-postcard well-composed shot.
Potentially ... but only if the smaller hood doesn't properly shade the front element in adverse lighting (usually strong light source from the side and not in frame) - then you may see a drop in contrast and possibly flaring.If I replaced the 55-200mm lens hood with a smaller one will I likely lose quality? It’s just so big
Matt
So it’s just related to the sun mainly? I could then purchase a smaller hood and if shooting on a sunny day could put the bigger one on.
Matt
If I replaced the 55-200mm lens hood with a smaller one will I likely lose quality? It’s just so big
Matt
Just use it with the hood off when it's not sunny
Just a simple landscape/seascape Fujigraph taken at Folkestone Kent UK from the Harbour Arm.
X-T1, 10-24mm Lens, 1/640th @ F8, ISO-200, Handheld.
Sea Front (Folkestone) (1) (C)-03035C byG.K.Jnr., on Flickr
Never seen Folkestone look so nice, reckon their tourist board should snap that one up
Brought back memories too, stayed in the Bursten and fished that beach at night, even managed to catch a few too.
A hood also protects the glass from dust rain and bangs. They are a good safety measure.
Well I went out today and got caught
Smile your on Fuji by David Ore, on Flickr
The Look by David Ore, on Flickr
Yes I took your photo by David Ore, on Flickr
Eye Eye by David Ore, on Flickr
And I loved it too