The Fabulous Fuji X owners thread

Took a stroll around Grimsby with my good lady yesterday and took the X-T1 along. Here's a few of the results:

Sadly this is now a Macdonalds.
ImageUploadedByTalk Photography Forums1457944080.875219.jpg

A couple of old Grimsby trawlers.
ImageUploadedByTalk Photography Forums1457944123.589717.jpg

Old cafe.
ImageUploadedByTalk Photography Forums1457944175.043707.jpg

Waterscape.
ImageUploadedByTalk Photography Forums1457944195.290121.jpg
 
Mr Perceptive said:
Lightroom, Photo > Photo Merge -> HDR just worked :)
Click to expand...

Just tried this on my stand alone LR. it worked, but only after importing the images into CS6 to use the HDR process in there. Maybe the CC version does something similar as you get both programmes at once.
Results were OK but nothing special. Only benefit seems to be that I can proces directly from RAW/DNG files where my normal HDR convertor only uses JPEGs. Still needed tweaking of the final image so the jury is out.
 
mickledore said:
Just tried this on my stand alone LR. it worked, but only after importing the images into CS6 to use the HDR process in there. Maybe the CC version does something similar as you get both programmes at once.
Results were OK but nothing special. Only benefit seems to be that I can proces directly from RAW/DNG files where my normal HDR convertor only uses JPEGs. Still needed tweaking of the final image so the jury is out.
Click to expand...

Should work from standalone http://lightroomtricks.com/hdr-photo-merge
 
Mart61 said:
Took a stroll around Grimsby with my good lady yesterday and took the X-T1 along. Here's a few of the results:
...
A couple of old Grimsby trawlers.
View attachment 59431

...
Waterscape.
View attachment 59433
Click to expand...

Last one seems to have a bit of halo problem, but the trawlers are just wonderful! The mistiness adds a huge amount. Great stuff.
 
ChrisR said:
Last one seems to have a bit of halo problem, but the trawlers are just wonderful! The mistiness adds a huge amount. Great stuff.
Click to expand...

Thanks. The last one I used the HDR filter on Snapseed on. I may have overdone it a little. :)
 
After going back and forward on this one waaaaaay to many times I decided to just do what I usually do..... buy and be damned. The X-pro 2 doesnt offer me enough to justify the additional expense. So the X-T1 is on its way.

Anyone got a 23 or 35 1.4 they want to sell? Ive posted a wanted.
 
Last edited:
twist said:
After going back and forward on this one waaaaaay to many times I decided to just do what I usually do..... buy and be damned. The X-pro 2 doesnt offer me enough to justify the additional expense. So the X-T1 is on its way.

Anyone got a 23 or 35 1.4 they want to sell? Ive posted a wanted.
Click to expand...

I'm putting a 35mm f2 in the classifieds tomorrow, if that's any use.
 
ukaskew said:
I'm putting a 35mm f2 in the classifieds tomorrow, if that's any use.
Click to expand...

Wouldve preferred the 1.4 but may still be interested. If you could let me know your price on my thread that would be great. Thanks
 
ukaskew said:
I'm putting a 35mm f2 in the classifieds tomorrow, if that's any use.
Click to expand...
I quite fancy one of these, but I already have the F1.4 hmmmmm I'll keep an eye out for your posting.
 
so whats the consensus on the F1.4 versus F2 on the 35mm,a friend offered to sell me his 35mm 1.4 because he wants the F2 weatherproof one.on the review Ive read 1.4 touch sharper at the edges but not a lot in it and the F2 is faster to focus,quieter and lighter?
 
I have had both versions and there isn't much to choose between them, strangely though my f/1.4 version is better wide open than for instance at f/5.6, very odd

One other difference is that the newer lens has its distortion corrected in software rather than optically as in the older model, end result is the same though.
 
dave.hallett said:
Something's gone totally wrong there. What did you start from??
Click to expand...
Started from RAW images. Opened in LR then chose to merge to HDR. LR didn't do it but transferred me to CS6 to use the HDR convertor in built in there. This is the result with just a few tweaks to the sliders then converted to JPEG for on here. Waste of time. I don't know if LR6 or the CC version has a different engine but I won't be using this method again. I'll stick to my stand alone programmes for HDR.
 
mickledore said:
Started from RAW images. Opened in LR then chose to merge to HDR. LR didn't do it but transferred me to CS6 to use the HDR convertor in built in there. This is the result with just a few tweaks to the sliders then converted to JPEG for on here. Waste of time. I don't know if LR6 or the CC version has a different engine but I won't be using this method again. I'll stick to my stand alone programmes for HDR.
Click to expand...
I think it's generally agreed that the PS6 and earlier HDR engine isn't up to much, but even so, something looks wrong here. Were they actually bracketed exposures? How many stops? The scenes look rather low contrast for using HDR at all.

Either way, you can still use Lightroom to tonemap your HDR images with good naturalistic results. Just follow your usual workflow in the standalone HDR program (Photomatix is the only one I really know), then stop when you get to the 32-bit image and rather than tonemapping it, save as a 32-bit TIF. Bring that TIF file into Lightroom and use the usual controls to get a good result. Natural-looking tonemapping, and works well with any version of LR from (at least) 4 onwards. I don't do so much HDR these days, but when I do, I never use Photomatix for tonemapping. It does funny things with yellow saturation, and I find the tonemapping controls difficult and the preview unreliable.
 
Yes three bracketed exposures. Normal, +1, -1. Shot in camera with the bracketing setting.

I normally work on my HDR images in either LR or CS6 as appropriate. I too find yellows and to some extent reds over saturated so usually tweak them.
 
mickledore said:
Yes three bracketed exposures. Normal, +1, -1. Shot in camera with the bracketing setting.

I normally work on my HDR images in either LR or CS6 as appropriate. I too find yellows and to some extent reds over saturated so usually tweak them.
Click to expand...
Hmm. In that case, no idea what's happened, but I agree the results aren't good. But try the Photomatix ->32 bit Tif -> LR method some time, it may work for you. If you want better instructions, there's a guy out there called Keith Cuddeback has some webpages with good step-by-step instructions http://www.essenceinphotography.com/beginning-your-journey-to-perfect-hdr-photography/. His writing style is a bit over-excited and his pictures are not quite my thing, but the technique is definitely useful.

Edit: of course, this doesn't fix the yellow/red issue. I am easily confused! But it has its merits nonetheless.
 
Last edited:
tijuana taxi said:
I have had both versions and there isn't much to choose between them, strangely though my f/1.4 version is better wide open than for instance at f/5.6, very odd

One other difference is that the newer lens has its distortion corrected in software rather than optically as in the older model, end result is the same though.
Click to expand...
Thanks Rich ,scuse my ignorance when u say optically versus software,how does that work? And if you dont use software that recognises the fuji would that point to getting the 1.4 version?
Thanks
 
Thanks Rich ,scuse my ignorance when u say optically versus software,how does that work? And if you dont use software that recognises the fuji would that point to getting the 1.4 version?
Click to expand...

My understanding of it Chris is its only raw that needs specific software and you need that just to view them so you will have to use something or other that recognise your files. The correction is I believe embedded in the file so no settings need activation, all done automaticaly when the converter opens it.

As ever please feel free to correct me if I have the wrong end of the stick, wouldn't be the first or last time
 
Last edited:
SsSsSsSsSnake said:
so whats the consensus on the F1.4 versus F2 on the 35mm,a friend offered to sell me his 35mm 1.4 because he wants the F2 weatherproof one.on the review Ive read 1.4 touch sharper at the edges but not a lot in it and the F2 is faster to focus,quieter and lighter?
Click to expand...
It looks like the F2 is sharper in the center but the F1.4 is more consistent across the frame. I know which one I'd prefer.
 
frod said:
It looks like the F2 is sharper in the center but the F1.4 is more consistent across the frame. I know which one I'd prefer.
Click to expand...
I find the f2 to be superb, and I've owned the f1.4. If I'm shooting wide-open I rarely concern myself over edge sharpness. It's what I focus on which needs to be sharp.
 
Stephen L said:
I find the f2 to be superb, and I've owned the f1.4. If I'm shooting wide-open I rarely concern myself over edge sharpness. It's what I focus on which needs to be sharp.
Click to expand...
True but sometimes edge to edge sharpness is crucial, for instance if your shooting a landscape or a structure, especially one that fills the frame.
 
tijuana taxi said:
My understanding of it Chris is its only raw that needs specific software and you need that just to view them so you will have to use something or other that recognise your files. The correction is I believe embedded in the file so no settings need activation, all done automaticaly when the converter opens it.

As ever please feel free to correct me if I have the wrong end of the stick, wouldn't be the first or last time
Click to expand...
At the moment im back to using Photos to process raw and im not sure that does lens correction ,thanks.
 
jakeblu said:
True but sometimes edge to edge sharpness is crucial, for instance if your shooting a landscape or a structure, especially one that fills the frame.
Click to expand...
In those instances I wouldn't use f1.4 or f2. Which was my point. :)
 
Ok , im goibg to dl a free trial of a mac hdr program , fogot the name right now but to but its sbout 99 dollars or pounds which seems expensive, wat do u use Mickey?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top