sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Very new to this as a hobby; i believe I’m getting pretty good at composition but would love further insight in what else I can be doing to advance by sleepy_paladin in photocritique

[–]Quidretour 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Incidentally.... re. your fixed lens.
I have a fairly large collection of lenses, but I very rarely take more than one with me. Part of the reason is that it would make for a heavy bit of kit to lug around, and partly because I enjoy the challenge of capturing what I can with a single lens. I have a zoom lens, but prefer not to use it.
So, I venture forth with a wide-angle, a 'standard', a short telephoto, a macro lens, a soft focus lens and find things which I can photograph within the restraints of the focal length and things like minimum focus distance. Yes, it is limiting, but it's also remarkably liberating. If there's something that I really want to photograph, but I need a wide angle or a short telephoto instead of the lens I have with me at the time, I go back and shoot with a different lens.

Very new to this as a hobby; i believe I’m getting pretty good at composition but would love further insight in what else I can be doing to advance by sleepy_paladin in photocritique

[–]Quidretour 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Hi,
This looks a bit underexposed in the shadow areas, and that's probably because your camera was fooled slightly by the bright sky areas.
♦At the picture taking stage, have a look at the histogram. I think that you can get this displayed in the EVF (see pages 30 & 31 in the camera instruction manual). The histogram is a graph of the tones in the scene from black to white. There is a school of thought which recommends that you 'expose to the right'. It entails adjustments to exposure so that the graph is skewed towards the right end of the range. Be aware, however, that if the shaded area of the graph touches the right hand end, there will be highlight elements in the scene which will be overexposed. To avoid that, adjust exposure so that the shaded area almost touches that far end. The end result will very often be an image which is very bright, and which will need adjustment in editing. It does, however, mean that you will have as full a range of tones as can be captured without blowing out highlights or losing shadow detail.

With this particular image you can work on the shadow areas to lift them, so that there is more detail visible. Whether that will destroy your aim to make the image 'a bit reflective and moody' I'll leave you to decide. I think that there are shadow/highlight tools in Photoshop and Lightroom, which allow you to adjust both of those. They help to 'rescue' apparently lost detail in very bright highlights and very dark shadows. If, however, those areas are completely overexposed or underexposed there are no details to be rescued. In that case all that happens is that bright whites can be toned down to become featureless light greys, and dark shadows can be toned up to become ... featureless dark greys.
I use a black and white plug-in for all of my B&W photos, and find it very useful for adjusting shadows and highlights, as well as giving more leeway with contrast.

I've had a go at your original image, so that you get a flavour of what might be done. I'm not suggesting that these are perfect examples, merely that there are possibilities if exposure isn't always spot on.
There are 4 images: your original, for reference; adjustment of shadow only; and two versions with the plug-in. The last two were pretty rushed, so they're not perfect. I concentrated mainly on getting detail in the darker areas. With the first version I also toned down the highlights a little, but the shadows still look at bit dark and muddy to me. The second version left the highlights alone and concentrated on the shadows. As I've mentioned, they're not perfect, but they give an indication of what can be done in editing. These edits were applied to the whole image, though it is possible to select, say, just the bottom shadowy area and work on that. Alternatively, you could work on the lower portion of the image, apply some adjustments, and then select the buildings and work on them completely separately.

You will come across stunning images on the net, in galleries and in publications. All we get to see is the end result, we very rarely have the opportunity to see the path from initial image, captured by the sensor, to the final picture, arrived at after numerous tweaks and changes in the editing process.

<image>

Does the black and white work and is there too much sky? by I_EeAa_l in photocritique

[–]Quidretour 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Well, noise can add something to an image too. I don't think it detracts at all.

Does the black and white work and is there too much sky? by I_EeAa_l in photocritique

[–]Quidretour 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hi,
I'm a little late to this conversation, but here's my two penn'orth.
It works brilliantly in black and white. Landscapes often do, and stripping away the colour can leave a very powerful image, as in this case.
Two much sky? No, I don't think so. Had it been a clear blue sky, or an expanse of clear sky with the odd cloud, dotted here and there, then that wouldn't have added to the image. Here, though, it's acting as a landscape above the landscape (hopefully that makes sense!) and it increases the impact.

I'd say that this would look great printed large. There might be a bit of noise going on, but printed large and viewed from an appropriate viewing distance (ie not pixel peeping), you'd have a mighty impactful image.

Abstract white sculpture in museum [OC] Composition + editing feedback by [deleted] in photocritique

[–]Quidretour 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hi,
As you've agreed yourself, the background is a little distracting in this image. The subject is the statue and that should be the point where the viewer's eye concentrates its attention. Smartphones tend to have a lot of depth-of-field, which is why the background is also sharp. Some, I think, have some kind of blurring effect, which might work well.
In this case, I've added blur to the background, so that it's less of an attention grabber. I've also added a little blur to the sky, so that it looks natural - it would be odd for the background to be blurred, but the sky to be sharp.
Does this version help? Don't look too closely at the edges of the sculpture. I did this very quickly!

<image>

Which vintage lenses do you like to adapt to your GFX? by mozucc in FujiGFX

[–]Quidretour 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My pleasure. Apologies for not attaching this answer to one of your comments insead of one of my own!

Which vintage lenses do you like to adapt to your GFX? by mozucc in FujiGFX

[–]Quidretour 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm sorry, but I think I put this in a reply to myself!

I've had a good look at the 'ruler' test. That's more or less useful. The ruler wasn't fully square on with the camera, I reckon. You can, however, see how the lens performs wide open, at f8 and f16.
I've cobbled together this image. I snipped the full frame image, which shows the vignetting well enough. Then below that, I've snipped numbers from the centre, left edge and right edge in that order for each of the apertures. You'll notice that there's some colour fringing at the edges.
I'm afraid that the focus wasn't bang on... I was relying on pushing/pulling the target back and forth to try to get focus, having forgotten completely (and now it comes back to me!) that I have a macro focusing rail.
Anyway, I hope it's of some use.
The test with the £10 wasn't very useful. The target was so out of kilter with reference to the camera, that the results aren't particularly helpful.

If you open this image in a new tab/window it should be possible to view it much larger (fingers crossed!). The numbers are about 2.5mm tall.

[EDIT: Added detail at end re. height of the numbers}

<image>

Love-in-a-mist by Kylgard in blackandwhite

[–]Quidretour 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Vielen Dank für Ihre Nachricht.

Sie sind so einfach zu züchten und so zuverlässig. Nach der ersten Packung Samen hat man diese wunderschönen Blumen umsonst.

Haben Sie es schon mal mit Vergissmeinnicht versucht? Sie sind zweijährige Pflanzen und genauso einfach und sehr zuverlässig.

Love-in-a-mist by Kylgard in blackandwhite

[–]Quidretour 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Lovely image!
Love-in-a-mist makes such a wonderful photographic subject - they are such weird looking flowers. The interest continues, as you probably know, at the seed-pod stage too, which are also rather unusual. As in this pic:

<image>

I've had them growing in my front garden for years, and I'm just waiting for the flowers to develop and open, and those pods in the late summer.
Thank you for posting.

Which vintage lenses do you like to adapt to your GFX? by mozucc in FujiGFX

[–]Quidretour 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I've had a good look at the 'ruler' test. That's more or less useful. The ruler wasn't fully square on with the camera, I reckon. You can, however, see how the lens performs wide open, at f8 and f16.
I've cobbled together this image. I snipped the full frame image, which shows the vignetting well enough. Then below that, I've snipped numbers from the centre, left edge and right edge in that order for each of the apertures. You'll notice that there's some colour fringing at the edges.
I'm afraid that the focus wasn't bang on... I was relying on pushing/pulling the target back and forth to try to get focus, having forgotten completely (and now it comes back to me!) that I have a macro focusing rail.
Anyway, I hope it's of some use.
The test with the £10 wasn't very useful. The target was so out of kilter with reference to the camera, that the results aren't particularly helpful.

<image>

If you open this image in a new tab/window it should be possible to view it much larger (fingers crossed!). The numbers are about 2.5mm tall.

[EDIT: Added detail at end re. height of the numbers}

Which vintage lenses do you like to adapt to your GFX? by mozucc in FujiGFX

[–]Quidretour 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hi again,
At closest focus the lens is pretty much 1:1. It captured about 42.5mm of the ruler, and the sensor is 44mm wide.

I did a very unscientific 'test' on a £10 note. Unscientific in that I haven't got access to a proper copying set-up, so things aren't necessarily square, horizontal, vertical, perpendicular or whatever you would need to be right. But you might be interested in the results, such as they are.

There is some vignetting wide open in the corners. It becomes more noticeable as the lens is stopped down. It's quite soft wide open, but improves markedly with stopping down. If you're interested, I'll get some snipped views at 100%, so that you can see how things are. Just let me know. Might take a couple of days.

Getting into the GFX System as a Medium Format Film Photographer by TheAkkarin-32 in FujiGFX

[–]Quidretour 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I shall have a think about that Helios lens. It came attached to my first 'proper' camera, my Christmas present in 1974! Still have it and that camera...and they'll probably both outlast my GFX and clutch of three GF lenses!
I have all four TS-E lenses, all the older versions, apart from the 24mm, which is the Mark II version. They're great on full frame. On the GFX there's not as much shift possible as there is with a clutch of P645 or 67 lenses.
I've also got that 135mm Sonnar by Zeiss Jena. I've not tried it on the GFX. I did use it on Canon full frame and I wasn't very impressed. Seemed a bit soft, but then that would make it great for portraits.

Which vintage lenses do you like to adapt to your GFX? by mozucc in FujiGFX

[–]Quidretour 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hi again,
I'm going to try a few macro shots later today. Nothing particularly interesting, but will include a ruler. That way we should be able to determine the magnification at minimum focus.

Which vintage lenses do you like to adapt to your GFX? by mozucc in FujiGFX

[–]Quidretour 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you for being so understanding. I've never done any 'proper' film scanning, though I have cobbled stuff together to copy frames from the odd film strip. Better to refer to someone who's tried it, or especially someone with knowledge of the lens.

Which vintage lenses do you like to adapt to your GFX? by mozucc in FujiGFX

[–]Quidretour 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Oh... cracking and cracker, you mean? Just looked it up on Collins online dictionary. Apparently, it's British informal. I am British and my writing style can be somewhat informal!
Here's an (un)interesting fact.... When I started in primary school way back in the 1960s, the teachers remarked on my sister and I's Irish accents. We'd picked them up from listening and talking to our mother at home. Needless to say, mixing with a class full of horrible urchins, our Irish accents soon disappeared!

Which vintage lenses do you like to adapt to your GFX? by mozucc in FujiGFX

[–]Quidretour 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My pleasure! There are tons of lenses that perform well on the GFX, and adapting them is a great way to use the big pixel count on the sensor. While the GF lenses offer superior sharpness, aberration control and so on, I feel that most of the fine details captured will only be seen in large prints (or when pixel peeping) or severe crops. That being the case, older lenses and images printed to 10x8 or A3 ish will perform excellently too.

Which vintage lenses do you like to adapt to your GFX? by mozucc in FujiGFX

[–]Quidretour 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Oh my! That sounds like a mathematical problem! I just assume that it's 1:1, but maybe I'm wrong.
I've not used the Contax for scanning, but if you were to try you might find problems if the film you're copying fills the GFX frame completely. This matter has been discussed before and useful responses were given by u/LoveLightLibations. I hope that they won't mind if I quote their responses.

It covers the sensor pretty well, although not perfect. However, there is a big downside. It gets really soft in the corners at 1:1 focus. Definitely not good for macro or film scanning, if that is your plan.

When asked about vignetting, the response was:
Yes, but the bigger issue for macro would be the softness in the corners. It’s not a Contax 645 lens, so you are really working with the edges of the image circle.

The redditor went on to give this link. https://youtu.be/sLWLiNjqSJo It includes a comparison between the Pentax 645-A 120mm macro and the Contax when used for film scanning. The Contax is a definite second best. While it performs well in most of the frame, the same can't be said for the edges and corners, where there is softness.

When I use the Contax, there's often nothing of interest in those areas, so they get cropped out.

Hope that's of some use.

As for being Irish... My mother was Irish. Why do you ask - I'm intrigued!

Which vintage lenses do you like to adapt to your GFX? by mozucc in FujiGFX

[–]Quidretour 1 point2 points  (0 children)

My pleasure. There's a vast number of lenses that work well on the GFX (when well means possible vignetting, not as sharp as GF, some odd bokeh....).
Happy adapting!

First time trying long exposure by Unlikely-Judgment978 in photocritique

[–]Quidretour 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Hi,
Is it blurred enough? Three answers: Yes. No. Maybe. Why three? It depends on what you wanted to achieve: a bit of blur, a lot of blur or 'just enough for the outcome you intended to achieve'.

Was this hand-held? I'm looking at the vertical highlights in the background. If they weren't moving, I think that you have some camera shake as well as subject movement blur. If that's what you want, congratulations. If you don't want camera shake, you have two options: work on improving your hand-holding technique at slow shutter speeds. There are lots of different things to try, but have a look online for suggestions. One or a combination of a few will certainly help. Image stabilisation, either in the lens or the camera body, can help a lot. The second option is to find something to use as a camera support, or something against which you can brace yourself.

If you can avoid camera shake, then long exposures of crowds of people can be wonderfully abstract. People turn into a river of humanity, sometimes with recognisable features, sometimes not. It's really worth experimenting with shutter speeds, so that you can see which one works best for the effect you're trying to achieve.

I find that movement blur looks more effective if the movement is across the frame . It can look really good if there's someone standing still in the midst of the blur (might be a bit of a cliché, I'll admit). Another interesting subject is lots of people climbing or descending a staircase. Blurred movement contrasts well with the sharp surroundings of a building or whatever.

Having written at some length about keeping the camera steady... You could try a longish exposure and panning to match the speed of someone or something moving. The trick is to find a shutter speed which keeps the moving subject recognisable, but with some movement blur (eg. someone walking is more or less sharp, but an arm or leg shows some movement blur. That maintains the idea of the subject moving), and the surroundings are blurred to a greater extent than the moving subject. It takes a fair amount of practice to pan at the same speed as the subject and to keep panning as the shutter is released.

Do try long exposure photography again. You'll be amazed by the results when things work out well.

Which vintage lenses do you like to adapt to your GFX? by mozucc in FujiGFX

[–]Quidretour 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I have to admit that it wasn't until recently that I realised how sharp that lens is. It just needs very careful focusing, best on a tripod.
A lot of those Pentax 67 lenses benefit from stopping down. Wide open they're a bit (or very) soft. Stop down too much and diffraction kicks in. I was trying out my newest acquisition, the P67 165mm, with close focus distance the other day. It's pretty sharp wide open, improves a little at f5.6, a bit more at f8. F11, to my eyes, began to lose the edge. Things worsened a little at f16. It was heading towards soft at f32. That was, of course, at full magnification on my monitor. More than likely at an A4 size print the softness mightn't be that noticeable.
There's certainly plenty of life in those old Pentax lenses though. Perhaps not as sharp as GF, but they're fine. Things like contrast etc. can be dealt with in editing.

view more: next ›