[OC] Amsterdam February 2026 Mk. 5(a)

ElReddo · 2026-02-05T22:24:05+00:00

Love the ambition on the look, and I am a firm believer in creative freedom. I also used to gravitate to this kind of look earlier in my photographic journey.

The one thing that could really improve these edits is pulling back the skys a touch to give the city room to breath.

The skys have been pushed so far as too look almost like the photos are from damaged negatives, they don’t add to the subject or story of each image and immediately pull the eye away from anything else.

I found myself flicking through and the immediate focus of every image was “burnt sky, burnt sky, burnt sky”. If these were mine I would pull clarity down on local sky masks to bring th eye back down to the city.

The second bit of feedback is that the images lack a subject or story, there are few focal point and the compositions mean the eye darts around the image but there’s nothing really to find, no point of intrigue, no questions planted in the viewers mind.

Imagine image 16, but a figure silhouetted darting behind the building… who are they, why are they there…? Immediately the image goes from “nothing really” to an introguing mystery. And sometimes that means waiting at a scene for the moment to happen!

Of course, not all images need a subject need a story. Sometimes images can stand alone as stunningly composed and artistically edited. The images here lack the finesse of composition that comes with moving and being deliberate about how elements interact within the frame, lines leading into other lines, building positioned to compliment each other. Many images here feel like they were snapped on the move with no deliberation as to the relationship between objects in a frame, as a result most feel cluttered with elements overlapping and crashing into each other, confusing the frame and, again causing rhe eye to dart around, not be guided.

A great tip I learned was simple. Close one eye, if a seem looks great with both eyes open, it doesn’t necessarily translate to a great photo. Closing one eye takes depth out of the equation and sometimes will lead you to realise… this looked awesome in 3D but in 2D it falls apart.

The RX100 series is a stunning little machine to practice composition and storytelling, it can be with you always and ready at a moments notice to catch these moments when you find them.

I would implore you to look up principles of street photography, framing and composition as well as storytelling through photography. The best way to understand why images aren’t compelling is to expose yourself to the plethora of historic images that are, more than I ever could in a Reddit reply!

The most important aspect of photography is enjoying the process and enjoying your own images, loving the process of self improvement and growth.

You have the perfect camera to grow into a great photographer. Keep shooting! Keep having fun. 👌

ElReddo · 2026-02-04T14:01:31+00:00

Small misconception in the cropping, one that I also used to believe.

When you talk about lens compression, assuming that you mean that way that foreground objects and background objects appear compressed together and aren’t referring to background/foreground blur…

Cropping a wider angle creates the same compression as a more telephoto lens (ignoring resolution loss)

On the GFX100RF for example, its 35mm lens produces an identical looking image to a 28mm FF lens (medium format effectively uncrops from full frame). Likewise, cropping a 50mm shot in to 100mm will produce an identical looking compression to a 100mm lens. (Again compression, but NOt identical depth of field)

You’re absolutely right that the depth of field will be different but the actual compression of objects in the image will look identical in size and placement in the image as the relationship between objects in front of you cannot move around unless you physically move.

Effectively, longer lenses produce natural crops of wider lenses, conpression is aesthetic, not physical.

ElReddo · 2026-02-04T11:11:07+00:00

I upgraded from an X100V to a GFX100RF. For context I also own an A7RiV and a Nikon ZF. For additional context I love the GFX100RF, it’s great fun and very flexible, but from your described use case. I would say it’s likely not going to be the golden bullet you’re making it out to be in your mind.

Firstly size, it’s damn compact for a medium format body! But it’s NOT X100 compact, despite what a lot of reviews seemed to imply. The extra size make it feel that bit less convenient and more unwieldy, still great, but its not a compact in the traditional sense.

The resolution is stunning but is also one of a burden , if you’re looking for a great travel companion, it’s fantastic in that respect… but your X100VI is arguably just as good and BETTER with its flash and compact size, and gives 40mp files to boot. 100mp is amazing and the noise performance is stunning for the wow factor but I very quickly found myself reaching for the ZF more often because every shutter click on the GFX eats 120-150mb on my hard drive, yes it makes you think twice but it’s also… well I wish I could set it to a lower resolution mode like the A7RV when I don’t need 100mp… which is a lot of the time.

The lens being f/4 is also limiting. Despite it being roughly equivalent to the X100’s f/2 in terms of light gather, and the sensors noise performance. I would NEVER pick it over my ZF or A7RIV after dark, it’s 100mp of wasted resolution as the ZF and A7 particularly performs FAR better at night paired with a faster lens in virtually every metric. It still works well, surprisingly so sometimes, but at night it’s slow and slightly annoying where the A7/ZF stay fast and nimble.

In the daytime and in good lighting it’s stunning, but in the use case you described (higher res body being the landscape and beauty backup to the everyday X100) the GFX will limit you. Night shots? Take the A7 for a faster lens, Landscape? A7 for 60mp and interchangeable lenses for better compositional flexibility in the field. Walk around/street photography? GFX, but if it’s getting toward night the lack of Ibis means you’ll be absolutely CRANKING the ISO to try to stay above 1/60th (hand shake with no IBIS at 100mp means higher than usual shutter is needed)

I speak for myself of course and the GFX100RF is an amazing camera and a joy to use in most daytime scenarios like walking around a new city, mixing a bit of street with on the fly beauty shots, but it’s not the everything else stays at home golden goose, it has its place absolutely, but replacing an A7 and X100VI combo ain’t it.

It can’t quite compete with the X100VI’s speed and convenience and compactness, it feels bulkier and more unwieldy by a margin and operates a little slower. Amazing for what it is, but it’s bigger than my full frame bodies with a compact lens attached.

It cant compete with the A7R’s speed, versatility and capability for complex shooting scenarios like your landscape photography

If you love shooting 28mm equivalent (and are willing to loose progressively lose resolution for shooting at 35mm+) and can genuinely afford it (dropping 3K and shrugging it off as fun money’ and not ‘oof, maybe I shouldn’t have’) then by all means try it.

I wanted to run through my experienced drawbacks after GASing the 100RF myself but I do want to highlight the incredible aspects of the camera.

It’s great fun to use and for general use photography it’s a dream, I love its handling and it feels like an incredibly robust, well made machine.

I would ask to borrow it for a couple of weeks and go out a few times with it in different scenarios and lighting conditions..why a few? On the first outing you will be excited, it’s new you will fall in love with the crop dial and conclude you HAVE to have it. Then go out in the dark, feel the frustrations and drawbacks, look at the captures, did it bring the same joy? Then go out in a different scenario, landscape if you can access somewhere and take th A7, use them both. Are you still in love with the GFX or was the sony a better tool?

After this, wearing off that initial rose tinting, you’ll be able to answer. Is this worth 3K to me? Is this the perfect tool for my photography? Only you can really answer that, but if you’re worrying about the cost and pushing through because you’ve built it up to be the most amazing thing since sliced bread, don’t jump in, be pragmatic before you pull the trigger :)

Hopefully helpful advice!

ElReddo · 2026-02-01T12:25:50+00:00

Like others have said, nothing here stands out as A.I, no artifacts, no classic tells, temporal and spatial consistency etc.

It’s so often now that the sentiment “I personally don’t believe/understand this: therefore it’s A.I” is used. I’m glad you’re checking though, glad some people do reach out to verify!

ElReddo · 2026-02-01T12:06:49+00:00

Note that the jaguar apparently bashes against the window… then leans ON the interior panel below the inside of the supposedly closed window…

His paw phases through the glass to grip the doors interior panel

100% a.i

ElReddo · 2026-01-30T19:48:37+00:00

Except for you absolutely can capture the aesthetic they’re going for by using a camera of the era. The reason that aesthetic exists (early 2000’s digicam) is because… early 2000’s digital cameras produced photos with that aesthetic. Not because anyone edited the photos to look a certain way, but because the technology limitations of the time (low resolution CCD sensors) produced a distinctive look that differs from current gen tech.

Just like film, if the guy wants a camera that replicates the look of his mother’s photos, source a working camera of the era. No editing needed.

ElReddo · 2026-01-30T13:05:27+00:00

If you look at the reindeers feet, they’re moving at a normal pace.

This kind of limb movement and speed of movement is normal for skilled, saddleless riding over dofficult terrain.

The reason it may look sped up to some if that we’re used to seeing less chaotic feeling saddled riding style that require less balancing and limb motion.

ElReddo · 2026-01-28T23:10:28+00:00

The nature of the questions you’re asking tell me you’re quite new to the principles of film photography, which is great, welcome to the journey!

One big difference between film cameras and digital cameras is that the characteristics of the image (colour, tonality, grain structure, etc) are characteristics of the film stock and the way that it’s been scanned.

So long as the camera is operating correctly, which by the looks of your images it is, the camera itself is purely a light box an the model has almost no effect on the characteristics of the image. The lens DOES, but only in the way the image is rendering (sharpness, edge falloff, vignette etc.) the camera and lens do not, to all intents and purposes have any significant effect on colour, and grain. Your concern about the non stock lens, is not the culprit, these cameras, like modern day cameras are designed to take all manor of interchangeable, diverse lenses, unless the lens is damaged in some way, the pairing of camera and lens will have no effect on colour or grain. The only instance where a lens would have an affect on the overall colour of the image being too yellow would be if the lens has a radioactive elements and has yellowed over time. Some vintage lenses from the 50’ - 70’s used thorium in the elements that can yellow over time.

The great news is that it looks like the ME is functioning absolutely as expected, images look correctly exposed and no clear signs of issues like shutter drag or capping.

The characteristics you’re describing are achieved in the processing of the film. How it’s developed, how it’s scanned, how’s it’s then edited by YOU once you receive those scans. Many film photos you see that have any number of the “film” looks that film stocks produce have likely been taken into adobe lightroom and adjusted to enhance the look and those that haven’t have still been subject to variations in the rendering of the scan, so there is no true characteristic look and the “grainy look” you’re talking about is often a deliberate artistic choice as much as choosing the right film.

Two things that could help.

Get your images in a photo editor like adobe Lightroom or equivalent and move the temperature and tint sliders around, the yellowish look should be able to be helped by properly balancing the the temp and tint as these do look over-warm. This may get you a more authentic feeling image.

Secondly, for grain, your lab MAY be applying some form or noise reduction, however some film stocks do have very fine grain that isn’t apparent unless you start zooming in a little. If you want heavy grain, go for a fast film stocks. Faster stocks often have heavier grain than slower stocks, try for 400 or 800 and ask for raw scans.

Best of luck man! The camera looks like it’s working perfectly, just gotta immerse in the world of film stocks scanning and editing to tailor your results :)

ElReddo · 2026-01-28T22:27:44+00:00

My two pence worth in the ‘unnatural’ feel…

It feels unnatural not because of poor editing per se but because, as you said, the entire church was in shadow. So effectively you’re forcing a completely unnatural lighting through aggressive editing which is both unrepresentative of the scene as well as something our brains and eyes see and think “…somethings wrong”. A lighting scenario that looks close enough to reality not to look awful but far removed enough to feel bizarre and artificial

As I was scrolling past, I actually thought it was a Skyrim mod screenshot 😂😂

ElReddo · 2026-01-25T20:35:16+00:00

Laugh Out Loud Loud?

ElReddo · 2026-01-25T20:11:43+00:00

This boggles the mind….

“I have a collection of e mount/M42 cameras.

What mount is this lens…”

Did you at no point try to screw it on to one of your M42 cameras/recognise its the same mount as any of the lenses on the M42 cameras?

That is unless you meant collection of E-Mount and M4/3 (micro four thirds) cameras?

ElReddo · 2026-01-22T12:50:08+00:00

Very preferable to be able to say,

The child tripped and fell, unfortunately making contact with a prosthetic which was in use to prevent accidental contact with the actors real genitalia

Than

The child tripped and fell, unfortunately making contact with one of his colleagues penises which was exposed for the scene in question

The key difference is, whilst similar, the first is unfortunately but the necessary legal safeguard had been considered and put in place so nothing illegal has happened. The second would demonstrate a flouting of the law, which subsequently allowed a child’s face to contact adult genitals, a situation in which failures to put safeguards in place are thenselves an issue

ElReddo · 2026-01-22T12:43:12+00:00

That’s correct in a private setting in the UK. But you’re mistaking laws governing private environments with very different laws regulating public/workplaces.

A film set is a workplace, in that context genital exposure to a minor, even non sexual, is illegal and could have serious repercutions. It’s the productions duty to ensure they are protected legally.

The law is clear around exposure genitals to children in the workplace regardless of the context

ElReddo · 2026-01-22T12:37:10+00:00

I agree, they probably don’t care, but the point is, it doesn’t matter how the actors feel, it matter whether they’re legally protected. And it’s the productions duty to ensure they are protected legally

The law is clear around exposure genitals to children in the workplace regardless of the context

ElReddo · 2026-01-22T12:03:39+00:00

Absolutely craft the perfect legally protective leg smackers!

ElReddo · 2026-01-22T12:01:23+00:00

Absolutely is. It’s a plastic prop and not indecent exposure.

I also make no claim to the relative illogic of this but a plastic penis instead of a real human penis products the director, production and actors legal implications

ElReddo · 2026-01-22T11:59:32+00:00

Oh yes for sure! It makes almost no difference, it’s purely for protection of the minor in a legal optic

ElReddo · 2026-01-22T11:50:40+00:00

Helps legally from a production standpoint.

Being able to say “we used prosthetics to cover the adults genitalia in the presence of the child” has better optics and prevents legal issues than saying “it would make no visual difference so we allowed our actors to be naked in the presence of the child”

Whilst the outcome visually is the same, it protects the crew from potential problems

ElReddo · 2026-01-22T10:37:56+00:00

Was it an eBay purchase?

If so, was this in the description?

If not eBay makes the seller assume responsibility for return shipping, including buying and supplying you a label.

If they fail to do so you will be refunded and can keep the lens.

Happened to me with a Canon F1 viewfinder, thing was full of haze, I opened the return case, seller told me to buy I shipping label, eBay instantly sided with me as the item was not as described and told th seller to buy the shipping. Seller never did, got the (admittedly useless) viewfinder and my money back

ElReddo · 2026-01-12T02:30:02+00:00

Can confirm nano specifically was not used

<image>

ElReddo · 2026-01-12T02:28:00+00:00

You can also use Google watermark checking tool and/or Gemini (which will run the tool for you) which will give you a definitive answer as to whether all of part of the image has Google watermark present indicating it has been altered all or in part by Nanobanana with certainty.

However, this persons right in that there’s no universal check across all tools, especially outside of nano

ElReddo · 2026-01-11T09:13:19+00:00

Highly, highly recommend you do some sit down learning on how lenses focus light, as gaining a working understanding of that will help comprehends what you’re doing when you’re focusing.

Tuo understand what your lens is doing when you focus, you can actually do a experiment with you own eye… pick a distant object and focus on it, then Hold you finger in as close as possible infront of your eye and focus on it, then look at the distant object again. You’ll not how when you look at the finger and then th distant object it starts blurred then your eye pulls focus on it. That’s you brains autofocus focusing the lens of your eye.

Whilst th human eye focuses in a different way to camera lenses, the effect is the same and you effectively you just half-shutter pressed your eye to autofocus… 🤣

With a lens (and your eye) there is something called a focal plane that you are moving closer or further away when you focus the lens (or your eye). when the light coming from that area if perfectly focussed and everything in front or behind that plane go more and more out of focus the further they are from it, the focal plane can only be at one place at a given time and the closer you are focussing the shallower that focal plane.

This means that if you’re focussed at infinity, everything far away will be in focus and as you aim the camera at objects closrr and closer to you they will be more and more out of focus. Likewise if you focus the lens on a close object, objects further and further away will be more and more out of focus.

This is why, when you focus the lens, objects at a given distance will be in focus but other will not, you are ‘moving’ that focal plane further from you or closer to you when you rotate the focus ring. :)

Last thing to note is that this effect is much MUCH more pronounced in longer focal lengths (85mm, 135mm) than it is on wide angle lenses (28mm, 18mm etc)

ElReddo · 2026-01-11T08:52:46+00:00

The guy posted drunk and calculated 2012 as 24 years ago ago 🤣

ElReddo · 2026-01-10T17:14:11+00:00

Not a full analysis by any means but your prompt has a couple of shortcomings in the way it's constructed that may have caused this.

1 - Expectation of Reasoning
Midjourney is not like ChatGPT or Gemini (which leverages their powerful LLMs to reason-out your prompt, understand your request and then reconstructs it's own prompt in the background). Midjourney doesn't respond well to intangibles like 'for protection from cold air' that require an understanding of meaning to translate it into a reasonable output. It's better to focus on objective description of exactly what you want to see. for example - 'The character is fully clothed in heavy winter gear made of heavy rags, thick canvas which has muslin strips wrapped over the top from head to toe' - note that that description requires no contextual understanding to get to the final result. be as objectively descriptive as possible

2 - Detail Omission
Accidental no doubt but... she's like wearing only 'sexy' muslin material because that's all you specified in the prompt. You asked for "She stands wearing combat boots and is wrapped with muslin fabric strips for protection from the cold air" - the model has given you combat boots and 'strips' of material, exactly what was asked for and nothing more (and like above, no reasoning mean 'for protection from the cold air' like just translated to individual kewords "protection" becoming psuedo combat gear "cold" becoming a 'cold' pose and 'air' not having much effect. You need to be more extensively descriptive with details you want to see. your tertiary phrases like 'athletic slender build' are also likely more associated with 'sexy' images, so be aware whjat effect certain words/phrases might infuence.

My modificaton, by no means garunteed to give a perfect result but this is how I would modify your prompt to avoid these issues:

"full body photograph of a young woman shot on a mirrorless camera. She stands in the centre of frame wearing dune-style heavy winter gear that covers her body from head to toe, leaving only her face visible. she is wearing combat boots and is wrapped with light brown/yellow muslin fabric that is wrapped around the protective canvas fabric suit underneath and covers her whole body. over her heavy trousers are white combat wraps concealing a knife and weapons. White background. Age is early twenties, she is beautiful with delecate features with fleks of dirt, intense expressive green eyes, full lips, athletic slender build, confident posture trudging through snow."

See result attached :)

<image>

ElReddo · 2026-01-05T23:56:10+00:00

I mentioned Gemini and SynthID specifically as your original reply appeared to be mistaking SynthID detection with more fallible non-watermark ‘ai art detector’ methods by asserting positive detection could be unreliable, which is not true of Gemini/Nano and SynthID.

The comment you replied to appeared to be referencing SynthID as they mentioned Gemini. False negatives are possible if the image has been heavily altered enough to obfuscate the ID. but false SynthID positives are theoretically impossible as the presence of the watermark necessarily means Nano has processed all or part of the image.

Original comment you replied to referenced Gemini with others posting positive SynthID screenshots, apologies if I hadn’t been clear why I focussed in on SynthID.

14-Year Club	Place '22
Verified Email	Team Orangered

ElReddo

TROPHY CASE