Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10 »
 on: Today at 06:20:48 PM 
Started by Petrus - Last post by AlterEgo
I'm was posting about DOF (depth of field).
me too.

 on: Today at 06:17:49 PM 
Started by Hans Kruse - Last post by Kevin Raber
Yep, it's Scotland.  That place has the most amazing light. Looks like you caught it at a magic moment.  Nice.


 on: Today at 06:16:45 PM 
Started by Dominique_R - Last post by Paul2660
Fuji files in LR are automatically corrected for distortion you cannot  turn it on or off at least with the X-T1 or Xe-1&2. The distortion info is contained in the exit info and LR makes the correction.

I believe this is true for most of the mirrorless cameras.   There is no way I know if to process a raw file from Fuji without it at least with a Fuji brand lens. I don't know how a Fuji with say a Samyang or Zeiss lens would work in LR in regard to distortion corrections.

With Nikon and Canon you have the choice to turn it on or off and pick a lens type.


 on: Today at 06:08:55 PM 
Started by Rob C - Last post by luxborealis

What is it that makes colour difficult?

Taking a scene in colour, itself, is easy enough - just point and shoot. The difficulty lies in making a photograph, a work of art, that people don't pass off as a "pretty colour picture". It's like the difference between taking a "postcard" shot and making a work of art. I run into this difficulty all the time with landscapes. Often, people don't look past the colour and into the photograph. They satisfy themselves with how well it will bring out the tones in their couch! It's one of the reasons I like B&W so much. It forces people past the façade of colour and into the dynamic of the photograph.

 on: Today at 06:04:03 PM 
Started by Hans Kruse - Last post by Hans Kruse
For what it is worth I can say that this lens is super sharp and focusses very fast with the Canon 5DsR.

 on: Today at 06:02:52 PM 
Started by alatreille - Last post by Rod.Klukas
I loved the 43.  The 35... not so much.  It got the job done, but symmetrical wide lenses are just not that compatible with the 60 and 80mp sensors.  If I had stuck with the IQ 260 I probably would have bit the bullet and purchased the Rodie 32HR.  But even that pricey-ass lens exhibits some distortion.  Given that and the fact that the 32 is the widest you can really workably go on the IQ 260 left me feeling that the whole setup was just not ideal for Architectural Photography.  If I was always going to have to carry a 17mm TS-e and a body, why not just build a system around that?


edit:  I don't see any reason why Martin wouldn't mount the XL's for you.  Also, just remembered I posted some samples here.
Hey guys,
We can mount any lens in #0 or #1 shutter between 23mm and 210mm and have precise focus as well.
And we maintain tilt capability with all these lenses, as well, at no extra charge.
Not all analogue lenses are equal however, and it is my experience that only the last series from Rodenstock or Schneider are up to the task, albeit with some modifications in technique.  Aperture choice, etc.

 on: Today at 05:55:06 PM 
Started by Hans Kruse - Last post by Hans Kruse
Thanks Smiley And yes, it was a lucky day with clouds and sun. It started out very gloomy and turned out great until the sun was rising over the cloud layer and was gone.

 on: Today at 05:50:01 PM 
Started by Mjollnir - Last post by luxborealis
Well seen and captured!

 on: Today at 05:48:52 PM 
Started by Hans Kruse - Last post by luxborealis
Love that area - the Quiraing - and you've captured it well. Although without low clouds and rain, it's not as easily recognizable!

 on: Today at 05:47:44 PM 
Started by Dominique_R - Last post by rdonson
Thanks for your replies (and in particular to David with his reference to the Adobe paper).

Therefore, I will never see what I see with Nikons like the screen scapture below?

What surprises me with all those "automatic", "user-transparent" things, is that when I check the "Enable Profile Corrections" box, nothing at all whatsoever happens to the photo displayed on the screen... When I process Nikon RAWs, even when shot with an optically nearly perfect lens, such as the Zeiss 135/2, you see small changes happening, as regards for example light falloff corrections, or distortion, etc. Here, with Fuji lenses, never anything... Does that sound normal to you?

And what happens when I shoot with a Fuji X camera but, say, a Zeiss lens? Is it also detected automatically, and are corrections so applied?

Thanks in advance.

I'm not sure if I misunderstand the issue or not.  In "Lens Corrections" I do see what you see for your Nikon.  I use a Fuji X-T1 and the information isn't correct that's in "Lens Corrections" but something IS there that indicates Fuji.  Perhaps this is Adobe not deciphering everything Fuji has in the RAW file but the corrections are performed.  I can see that by turning off the corrections.  I have 3 Fuji lenses, 10-24, 18-135 and 60mm.  All behave this way.  Fuji says they've worked a great deal with Adobe to get the demosaicing of the X-Trans sensor looking good but I'm not sure where they are on this issue.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10 »