The Fabulous Fuji X owners thread

The best have a straight 6 or V12...

More seriously, the rosettes look more like a Jaguar's as does the heavier set head.
 
Can you do a mid between the two! Ones over done and the other is under exposed on the shadows! Can you lift the shadows and fill in
 
Dave70D said:
Hi folks what one do you think is the better.


HDR St Nicholas Church by Dave, on Flickr




Grudge St Nicholas Church by Dave, on Flickr



Normal St Nicholas Church by Dave, on Flickr
Click to expand...

I think you're trying to make the processing compensate for the light that wasn't quite there, which is always difficult to pull off. :) I also think all three, even the "normal" one have raised shadows in the tree branches that would be better left dark, as that's how we generally see them.

The first is a good attempt at bringing out the foreground texture and making the figures read better, and is probably the most effective overall, as the third is naturalistic but a bit dull. IMO, you could probably improve the results by layering 1 with 3 in Photoshop, and masking it selectively, so that you use less HDR in the areas you don't want the viewer's eye drawn to, such as the grass. Keep the texture boost for the central path, the figures and the church, IMO. Use a soft brush for the masking and the transitions should be reasonably subtle.

In the second image, the HDR process has done ugly things to the colours. Don't know what you used, but Photomatix used to be notorious for this back in the day. Reducing the saturation of the yellows will get the grass looking a bit less radioactive :) But I think this one is a bit surplus to requirements unless it's a look you happen to like.
 
Tam Love said:
recent road trip to dalmally i just had to catch the sunsetting as i drove home
FUJI XT2 FUJI XF16-55

stuck in the middle by tam love, on Flickr
Click to expand...
I love the light and the composition here, great job. I'm just a bit surprised it's not sharper at f/8, given the quality lens and sensor. Bit of camera shake, maybe? Or just focused on infinity?

I know, sharpness isn't everything, and it's still a lovely picture. I'm just wondering...
 
Mr Perceptive said:
To help with this, we really need to see an image and the EXIF data (camera settings), can you upload an image, or even make the RAW file available in a dropbox or similar account.
Click to expand...

Hopefully this will work.

To me the trees look washed out on all three more so than ive previously noticed. What do you guys think? The edited version was edited via iridient and lightroom.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/v4t55t8cy7xvry3/EditedIRIDIENT.jpg?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/aqmbxiem3rtnbjm/JPEG.JPG?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/31t3d8efiflsldk/RawFile.RAF?dl=0
 
benhben said:
Hopefully this will work.

To me the trees look washed out on all three more so than ive previously noticed. What do you guys think? The edited version was edited via iridient and lightroom.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/v4t55t8cy7xvry3/EditedIRIDIENT.jpg?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/aqmbxiem3rtnbjm/JPEG.JPG?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/31t3d8efiflsldk/RawFile.RAF?dl=0
Click to expand...
Having downloaded the RAW, there are two main problems here. One, you're at ISO 1600, hence the noise in the water, although it shouldn't be that bad. Two, you're at f/2.2 and I doubt you are focused on the trees, although it's not entirely clear.

It's also quite underexposed, which isn't helping. My best guess is that it was pretty dark (it must have been), and you used the AF to try to get focus on the trees, which failed to do so. Landscape pictures in the dark nearly always are better manually focused, in my limited experience.

Go back in the daylight, or at night with a tripod and manual focus, and shoot it at f/8 (actually even at 2.2 with accurate focus, given the lens quality) and ISO 200, and there should be no issues.
 
dave.hallett said:
Having downloaded the RAW, there are two main problems here. One, you're at ISO 1600, hence the noise in the water, although it shouldn't be that bad. Two, you're at f/2.2 and I doubt you are focused on the trees, although it's not entirely clear.

It's also quite underexposed, which isn't helping. My best guess is that it was pretty dark (it must have been), and you used the AF to try to get focus on the trees, which failed to do so. Landscape pictures in the dark nearly always are better manually focused, in my limited experience.

Go back in the daylight, or at night with a tripod and manual focus, and shoot it at f/8 (actually even at 2.2 with accurate focus, given the lens quality) and ISO 200, and there should be no issues.
Click to expand...

:agree::plus1: This ^

It also has limited dynamic range, partly set by the scene, and partly due to the exposure set.

This type of shot really begs for a tripod, F8, IS200 and plenty of time, focus about a 1/3 into the scene. Better lighting on the scene would help as well!!
 
dave.hallett said:
I love the light and the composition here, great job. I'm just a bit surprised it's not sharper at f/8, given the quality lens and sensor. Bit of camera shake, maybe? Or just focused on infinity?

I know, sharpness isn't everything, and it's still a lovely picture. I'm just wondering...
Click to expand...
Probably to do with camera shake Dave
It was a handheld shot that was done with me running to the middle of the road and firing of a shot with one hand whilst watching for cars coming round the bend
 
Tam Love said:
Probably to do with camera shake Dave
It was a handheld shot that was done with me running to the middle of the road and firing of a shot with one hand whilst watching for cars coming round the bend
Click to expand...
Ah yes. The one hand is probably the key! :) Nicely done, regardless...
 
dave.hallett said:
I think you're trying to make the processing compensate for the light that wasn't quite there, which is always difficult to pull off. :) I also think all three, even the "normal" one have raised shadows in the tree branches that would be better left dark, as that's how we generally see them.

The first is a good attempt at bringing out the foreground texture and making the figures read better, and is probably the most effective overall, as the third is naturalistic but a bit dull. IMO, you could probably improve the results by layering 1 with 3 in Photoshop, and masking it selectively, so that you use less HDR in the areas you don't want the viewer's eye drawn to, such as the grass. Keep the texture boost for the central path, the figures and the church, IMO. Use a soft brush for the masking and the transitions should be reasonably subtle.

In the second image, the HDR process has done ugly things to the colours. Don't know what you used, but Photomatix used to be notorious for this back in the day. Reducing the saturation of the yellows will get the grass looking a bit less radioactive :) But I think this one is a bit surplus to requirements unless it's a look you happen to like.
Click to expand...


Thank you very much Dave, I appreciate the comments. I have LR6 Standalone and PSE 15 plus Topaz Studio. Looking at the shots before editing them shows me one thing, and that is Get it right in the camera first of all then try an edit, thanks again.
 
dave.hallett said:
I think you're trying to make the processing compensate for the light that wasn't quite there, which is always difficult to pull off. :) I also think all three, even the "normal" one have raised shadows in the tree branches that would be better left dark, as that's how we generally see them.

The first is a good attempt at bringing out the foreground texture and making the figures read better, and is probably the most effective overall, as the third is naturalistic but a bit dull. IMO, you could probably improve the results by layering 1 with 3 in Photoshop, and masking it selectively, so that you use less HDR in the areas you don't want the viewer's eye drawn to, such as the grass. Keep the texture boost for the central path, the figures and the church, IMO. Use a soft brush for the masking and the transitions should be reasonably subtle.

In the second image, the HDR process has done ugly things to the colours. Don't know what you used, but Photomatix used to be notorious for this back in the day. Reducing the saturation of the yellows will get the grass looking a bit less radioactive :) But I think this one is a bit surplus to requirements unless it's a look you happen to like.
Click to expand...


Hi Dave I took your advice on Layers so watched a few on youtube. Not great at all but now thanks to you I can try to get better at it. All I did on this was bring up the church then the pathway, a lot to learn but I look forward to it so thanks again.



DSCF7043.jpg
 
Tam Love said:
Thank you Steven (y) that must have been a great commute
Click to expand...
Not so much a commute as the location of our doctors! We lived at Barcaldine Castle near Benderloch. If we got stuck on the Oban side of the Connel bridge when it was closed by an accident (frequently!) it was one heck of a diversion up Glencoe and back down.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top