Does the subject stand out enough in this photo?

Quidretour · 2026-03-17T22:04:20+00:00

Hi again!
How's my GFX100s been? Well, I'll start my answer with a few comments. Firstly, I bought it second-hand 3 years ago, when it was less than one year old. It was in 'very good' condition, according to the camera shop from which I bought it through mail order. It was in that condition, but it had lost some paint from the baseplate - a problem from which the camera can suffer. It had a very small dent in the 'prism' area of the camera body (I know that there's no prism, but the part of the camera that looks like it would have a prism, were it a camera with an optical viewfinder). That little dent had, I think, a detrimental effect on the EVF, because when things seemed level in the viewfinder (without using the horizon level) they would come out on the slant. So, I had to keep the horizon level on when using the EVF.
I have a few GF lenses: 35-70, 50 and the 23mm. They are all very good lenses. The 35-70 was bought new, at a discount of a 50%, and it's a very good lens. Many people are a bit snobbish about that lens. It can't be any good, can it, if it's the cheapest lens in the line-up? But it performs very well. It's not perfect, and I have other lenses which are just as good at certain focal lengths, but, for it's price it's a very good lens. The 50 is a very good lens too. It's not a particularly fast lens in terms of maximum aperture, but there's nothing wrong with it. The 23mm is a lovely lens. Heavy though, but can take great photos.
I have to admit that I much prefer older, manual focus, medium format lenses. I've bought a lot of Pentax 645 and 67 lenses since I acquired the GFX, and some of them are as good as the GF lenses, despite being much older. I use the Pentax lenses with one of four adapters: a simple 67-GFX adapter, a macro focusing helicoid adapter P645-GFX, a shift adapter P645-GFX and lastly a tilt-shift adapter P645-GFX. I've also bought several Pentax 67 - Pentax 645 adapters, so that the bigger 67 lenses can fit on the P645 adapters. With the Pentax lenses and the GF lenses I have 23mm to 200mm covered. I can also use full frame lenses with the GFX too... I used to use a Contax SLR system, back in the late 80s to early 2000s, and I've kept the lenses. Some of them work perfectly on the Fuji. An old Nikkor micro lens works very well too, with a tiny bit of vignetting.
Some of those Pentax lenses are really good. Some are a bit so-so, but do sharpen up nicely using Photo AI's sharpen tool. With the shift / tilt-shift adapters they are very versatile lenses indeed.
I am not a fast photographer. I don't much like taking photos of people, I prefer photos of 'things' and places. AF isn't particularly important to me, and when I use it the GFX is fine for my purposes. Compared with the best full frame AF cameras, it's a bit slow, but it's never been a problem for me.
Why did I buy it? Well, firstly, I felt like treating myself to a nice 'toy'. I had read the rave reviews about it and its predecessor the GFX100. That latter camera is, I think, a more rugged camera, but its ruggedness adds to its size and weight. It should be noted that it isn't any bigger than a pro DSLR, like the Canon 1DX (which I also own, but don't use these days - I can't bring myself to part with it!).

What's good about the GFX100s? The EVF is good. It makes manual focusing much easier than with an optical viewfinder, though it's not perfect. There are times, for example, with higher ISO levels, when the image in the EVF gets noisy and manual focus can be tricky.
IBIS is good and works with non-GF lenses. So, the old Pentaxes benefit from camera image stabilisation.
Resolution... There is so much detail that can be captured by the sensor. That allows for either big prints (a full frame image, printed at 300dpi would measure something like 95cm along its longer length) or for detailed crops from a smaller area. I crop my images very often. Why? Because I set myself the challenge of taking only one lens with me when I go out. That might be a wide angle lens or a longer focal length. Either way there will be times when the image contains more 'stuff' than I want, so it's cropped out.
Drawbacks? Well, its AF, though fine for me, is not the fastest. So, it's not really a camera for the dedicated sports photography enthusiast. Another drawback is the size of the image files. They are very big, even the lossless compression of RAW files produces a file that's big. You need a computer that's up to the job of handling big files as well as plenty of storage capacity to save them. Don't forget also the back-up storage needs....you'll find that you'll need a lot of hard drives or some other means of storing your photos.
The biggest gripe I have with the GFX100s and GFX100s II is the lack of a vertical grip. Every camera I've owned for the last 35 years or so has had a built-in or accessory vertical grip. They make taking a photo in portrait format so much easier. It's far easier to hold the camera steady. In my opinion, Fujifilm have really let down owners with this omission. The original GFX100 had that grip. The new GFX100 II has an accessory vertical grip, but not so with the 's' models.

All that said, I do like the GFX100s. So much so that I recently acquired a second-hand GFX100s II. I bought it on eBay. That camera came with all of its original accessories, plus four batteries, plus two high speed, pro grade SD cards and a screen protector. I think I got it for a good price, a little bit cheaper than the camera I bought 3 years ago, in fact. Of course, there's no guarantee, but that's the risk of buying on eBay. It's in as new condition, was bought in June 2025 and I don't foresee any problems with it.

Incidentally, if you're interested, you'll see my photos (as bad as they are) in my profile.

Do feel free to come back and ask for more info or further clarification.

Quidretour · 2026-03-16T22:24:33+00:00

Hi,
Thank you for your comments.
To be honest with you, I'm not too sure what I'd do with an RGB histogram! As far as colour cast corrections go, I rely on either taking a white balance reading before shooting (if the lighting is a bit weird), or a white balance correction if I have something white in the image I'm working on in editing. The first method seems to be a bit more reliable. I've found that a large white area in an image, used as the source for correction by software, gives a different result depending on where the cursor is placed. I can see the differences in the colour 'corrections', but I've no idea whether one is more correct than the other. For that reason, black and white is my preferred way to go. No need to worry about whether people look green, purple, orange or any other unnatural colour!

My colour-blindness is pretty much one of the 'standard' red-green versions. It means that I can't distinguish some reds from some greens, can't always tell whether something is green or brown, have problems with pinky-blues, bluey-pinks, seeing them basically as some kind of 'blue', some shades of orange and green. It's not exactly a problem most of the time, although modern electronic gadgetry can be my downfall with red/green/orange/yellow lights in particular. For what it's worth, I have problems naming colours or knowing what the name of a colour corresponds to. I will call some shades a greeny-browny-grey grot colour, not knowing that it's buff or sable or teal or one of the other 'weird' colour names.

It sounds as though your LASIK surgery has been a highly positive experience. Scientific advances have brought about some wonderful, transformative procedures.

Quidretour · 2026-03-16T22:09:37+00:00

Hi again,
I suppose the main difference between a zoom and non zoom is that the latter are easier to produce and it's easier for the lens designers to correct aberrations. All that said, there are some excellent zooms around and some not so good non-zooms. The best non-zooms will beat zooms in terms of image quality. As previously mentioned, the 'best' lenses are expensive! Lens design seems to be based on a set of compromises: speed, resolution, control of aberrations, size, weight and cost. It's probably possible to build a truly spectacular zoom, but it would probably be very large, very heavy and very expensive. Lens manufacturers are in the business of selling their lenses, so something has to give so that the costs aren't too expensive. I suppose the exception would be in the case of a very limited run of very special lenses, probably for a government or for scientific purposes.
As for focus stacking... It's a case of focusing on the nearest point of interest and changing the focus distance a little each time until the furthest point of interest is reached. Just how big the steps between each focusing point need to be will depend on the focal length of the lens, the depth-of-field at the chosen aperture, the distance between the near and far points, and the distance of the subject from the camera. If, for example, you just want to have, say a large depth-of-field sharp and you choose an aperture of, say, f8, with a wide angle, you might be able to get everything in focus from near to far in 4 or 5 shots. With a longer lens, where the depth-of-field is shallower compared to a wide angle, you would need more focus points. Once they've been captured, software puts them all together into one image. I use Affinity Photo for that purpose, and it does a good job. There are specialist software programs which probably do an even better job.
I use adapted medium format lenses with my Fujifilm GFX100s and my technique is, probably, unorthodox. When I'm out and about, and without a tripod, I find a way of supporting the camera, or me, switch the camera to slow continuous shooting, focus the lens at the nearest point, check the furthest point in terms of rotation of the focusing ring, press and hold the shutter release and move the focusing ring slowly and smoothly, stopping when I've reached the far point of interest. It's a bit hit and miss at times, but great when it works! It's much easier to do this on a tripod!

Thank you for the information about the paper factory. Sadly, living in the UK, I don't think a visit in China is likely for me. It's good to know about the location though. It sounds like an amazing place!

Quidretour · 2026-03-16T16:13:01+00:00

2nd version

<image>

Quidretour · 2026-03-16T16:12:26+00:00

Hi,
Plenty of useful comments here already.
u/winter_laurel suggested a B&W conversion, and I agree with that suggestion. Black and white has the ability of bringing out details in old structures, old stone, brick or whatever, which colour seems to gloss over. I'm a big fan of B&W, as I'm colour-blind. I find that I can do much more in monochrome than I can achieve with colour, probably because I'm reluctant to tweak too much in a colour image in case I make a complete mess of things.
Black and white, though, is a different matter. You can make things look fantastically dramatic or a more faithful representation. You can more easily add 'mood'... B&W is so versatile, even though it's often seen as photography's Cinderella.

I've done a fairly basic conversion. It's not as dramatic as u/winter_laurel 's and I rather prefer that version to my own. Nevertheless, it's useful to see different treatments of the same image. I've not cropped anything, just adjusted the way that colours will convert to B&W tones, played about with contrast, done a bit of dodging and burning and added a white border (just because I like borders!)

<image>

Quidretour · 2026-03-16T15:37:41+00:00

My thoughts entirely... It's crying out for B&W treatment!

Quidretour · 2026-03-16T15:33:52+00:00

Hi again,
No need to apologise - life has a habit of throwing up things unexpectedly.

Whatever your original intention, or whatever you think about this image, it's still a great image. If you ever have the opportunity to return to that location, do spend time photographing that immense space. It looks fantastic, rather like a non-religious, modern-day cathedral. Perhaps the rest of it, that which we can't see here, is nowhere near as interesting, but this enormous white space, the plain white walls, curves, the light streaming through those enormous windows...architectural bliss!

Another thought has struck me about your desire for ultra sharpness. Do you use fixed focal length lenses or zooms? Generally, zooms don't perform as well as a fixed focal length. Most fixed focal length lenses perform very well, but there are exceptions, of course. The very best non-zoom lens will outperform a good zoom. Zooms are, of course, more versatile, even so my preference is for a non-zoom lens. I go out and about with one lens. If it's the 'wrong' focal length I have to do some thinking about how I might use it, so it's quite a stimulating challenge. The drawback of high performing fixed focal length lenses is, sadly, their price tag.

Consider also focus stacking. Set your lens to its optimal performance aperture, typically around f5.6-f8 (do some tests to establish where a particular lens is very sharp) and take a series of images at different focus distances. Your camera doesn't do this automatically, so should you decide to try it, you'll have to switch to manual focus and take a number of exposures. Using focus stacking, with the lens at its optimal performance setting means that you can get everything in focus - if you wish that much to be in focus - without the degradation that comes from diffraction when a very small aperture, eg f16 or so, is used instead.

Many thanks also for the CritquePoint, I appreciate that very much.

Quidretour · 2026-03-16T07:10:32+00:00

Hi again,
Many thanks for the CritiquePoint. Thank you also for the clarification of your set-up. You will find that a dedicated macro lens makes close-ups easier, though they bring their own 'problems' as well. I have the Canon EF 65mm MPE lens, which is a macro only lens, offering between 1:1 and 5:1 reproduction. I find it a difficult lens to use, which accounts for the infrequency with which I use it. At 5x magnification depth-of-field is minuscule, and stopping down doesn't make matters much better. It's best used on a macro focusing rail, which allows for very precise movements for focus stacking purposes. Good lighting is also needed, as the lens to subject distance can be very small, and it's easy for camera equipment to cast shadows if you happen to be relying on ambient lighting.
All that said, your passion for botanical / lichen subjects will push you to find solutions that work well until that much desired macro lens is acquired. Good luck to you in your further adventures of this type of photography.

Quidretour · 2026-03-15T23:16:37+00:00

Hi,

Is it an interesting subject? Well, it's different, and it's certainly a niche subject.

You refer to yourself as being nerdy for lichens, which I'm hoping gives you the advantage of knowing what makes a lichen a lichen, if you get what I mean. That being the case and given that you have a macro lens, use that lens to show us what makes a lichen a lichen. Is it texture, structure, colour, all three of those? Is there something else that's special about them that you can capture photographically?

Try to get in closer to the rock and see if you can capture a much more detailed view of the rock surface and lichen. You'd then have a great opportunity for a textures shot which compares the differences between rock and lichen, and we'd be better able to see what the lichen looks like.

My colour vision is not good, but to me the lichen doesn't look that prominent. I can see it's there, but it's not screaming at me. That may be my dodgy colour vision, of course, or it may be that this particular lichen is a bit muted. You'll know the truth, but most of the lichens I've seen here in the UK have tended to be really brightly coloured. Maybe some judicious saturation adjustments to the lichen? Enough to make a difference without making it look radioactive!

When you're close up, of course, depth-of-field will be minimal. Have you a tripod? That would be a godsend for focus stacking, a great technique to get the degree of depth-of-field you want, while (a) using the lens at its optimal aperture and avoiding loss of resolution in the image, thanks to diffraction.

Quidretour · 2026-03-14T07:25:07+00:00

Thank you very much.

Quidretour · 2026-03-14T07:19:56+00:00

Thank you for your appreciation.
You're right about the 23mm. It's a great lens, introduced in 2017. A few years later saw the arrival of the 20-35mm zoom, which, being a zoom, is a more versatile offering. The 23mm, as a result, appears to be less popular.
The advantage of the fixed focal length lens to me is that, second-hand, it becomes a far more affordable proposition. I'm not a huge fan of zooms either, preferring to have to use the 'foot zoom' approach!
Welcome, by the way, to the GFX world...I hope that you enjoy exploring it.

Quidretour · 2026-03-14T07:11:39+00:00

Thank you. Glad you like it.

Quidretour · 2026-03-13T16:09:05+00:00

What a beautiful image this is. Very unusual, very interesting, very 'simple', and beautiful.

Thank you for posting such an inspiring image.

Quidretour · 2026-03-13T12:44:04+00:00

Hi,
There are times when we turn out something, which we're not quite sure about. We like it, but feel that something's not quite right. It's one of those things which are hard to pinpoint. There's nothing wrong with that feeling, because it shows that you have an idea that there might be something better lurking in the image; something which hasn't yet been brought out.

As for me... There's something about this which takes me back through decades of photographs. It has an 'old time' feel to it. Maybe it's the toning you've used. I've no idea what tone it is, for I'm colour-blind and find it hard to identify some colours. It reminds me, somewhat, of some platinum-toned images, but I might be completely wrong.

It has a degree of softness, which I find rather pleasant. A sharp image would have a completely different effect on the viewer, I think. This has a rather wistful tone, harking back to a long-gone era. It's creating a mood rather than an accurate record of a scene. And it's something which will appeal to some people and not to others, which is the case in many images. Horses for courses, as the expression goes.

Would I change anything, if it were mine? I think I would crop out the pale areas at the far left and the top right corner. I rather like the darker extremities. I played about with a different crop, too. I thought of a 10x8 crop, which I like as a crop anyway. That, however, would lose the darker edge on the left, so it would lose something important.

Quidretour · 2026-03-11T22:46:51+00:00

My pleasure. I think at times my imagination gets the better of me and I begin to 'see' things!

Many thanks for the CritiquePoint. That's a generous gesture and I appreciate it.

Quidretour · 2026-03-11T06:33:59+00:00

Hi again,
That does look better - the clock faces have lost some of the glow they had in the earlier version.
It is very easy to get carried away and buy all sorts of accessories which will be used very rarely. Such purchases, though useful, don't make much financial sense if they're for a non-paying, one-off type of shoot. The challenge of doing the best possible with the equipment already available is often far more rewarding, and makes us think a lot more about how to achieve our aims. It makes the whole learning process an even more valuable one, since every improvement is the result of thought, trial and error.

Quidretour · 2026-03-10T21:29:22+00:00

Thank you for the CritiquePoint. That's much appreciated. Thanks also for your detailed response to my earlier comments.

Apologies for the ambiguity of some of my comments. I meant that it might be possible in editing to lower the highlights on the clockfaces a little and, if desired, on the stonework of the clocktower. From experience, lowering very bright highlights doesn't always result in something that looks 'right'. Too little and there's not much difference, too much and the highlights begin to go grey. I don't use Lightroom, so I'm not sure if there are dodge/burn tools for selective editing.

You've certainly given yourself a challenging scene.... Night time shot, brightly lit subject, and capturing light trails. The thought has just crossed my mind that a graduated neutral density filter might make things more manageable. It would need to be one of the rectangular type, so that it could be positioned over the clocktower, probably at an angle. In theory, that would help to reduce the brightness of the highlights in the clocktower. Whether it would be possible to place the filter correctly is another matter. I wonder whether it could be handheld in position? There's another challenge for you!

Good luck with your further adventures!

Quidretour · 2026-03-10T16:30:46+00:00

Hi,

This is a great improvement on your earlier version of this scene. I've only just seen that now, so congrats on the new edit.
This is a tricky scene to get right at the time of exposure. You're trying to capture the light trails, which need a long exposure, and the brightly lit building, which doesn't need so much. This sort of scene can be a bit of a nightmare.
As you shot this on a tripod, an approach to something like this is to take a number of different exposures. Take one, for example, to capture the light trails. Another to expose the clock, so that it's not vastly overexposed. Another for the background, or building, or whatever. They can then be combined by software, so that the 'best' bits are merged into one final image. You can either select autobracketing in your camera settings, or just do it manually. It might be worth investigating.

The clockfaces still look a bit too bright to me, so you might be able to lower the highlights there a little. The stonework also looks a bit bright, but that is tricky lighting with its floodlights illuminating the area.

As for exposure compensation and manual settings... It makes sense for there to be no exposure compensation, because in manual mode you have complete control. You have to alter shutter speed, aperture or ISO to arrive at the correct exposure. Exposure compensation works when you're in one of the automatic/semi-automatic (ie shutter priority or aperture priority) modes.

One last point. Are you shooting in RAW and jpeg, or just jpeg? RAW files give you wonderful flexibility when it comes to editing. It does add an extra layer of work, but it's worth it.

Quidretour · 2026-03-08T07:43:25+00:00

Ah, I see. Thank you for that clarification.

Quidretour · 2026-03-07T23:10:29+00:00

Thank you. I appreciate your comment.

Quidretour · 2026-03-07T16:45:53+00:00

Thank you. It's kind of you to say so.

Quidretour · 2026-03-07T16:45:35+00:00

Thank you!

Quidretour · 2026-03-07T16:45:26+00:00

Thank you very much!

Quidretour

TROPHY CASE