The Official Fuji X10/X20/X30/XF1/XQ1 Thread

[Billy]

Thanks Billy Not to everyone's tastes I know but I want to keep working on perfecting the style.

I would like to see the EXIF on these so I could see your setting etc, are they uploaded to Flickr?

 

[Piscator Pete]

I have been getting a "?read error" when viewing images. I thought it was the card so changed to another. Its been ok for a week or so but now it is showing
'?read error
' again.
Both cards are Sandisk. Has anybody had similar problems?
Allan

Hello Allan,

I've had this happen often, and in my case, it seems to be down to my editing a shot straight from the SD in the computer's card reader instead of downloading to a folder on the hard drive first.

I'm trying to get into the habit of removing everything from the card after each session, and, on returning it to the camera, formatting the thing as Martyn suggests. My cards are not Sandisk.

Pete

 

[Organnyx]

Having acquired a mint secondhand X10 around a week ago, I'm now in a total quandary about the dreaded "orb" thing - I've been in touch with Fuji, originally on another matter that I've not seen mentioned in this thread or elsewhere.....

Firstly, when I set the camera to give raw and jpegs, the jpegs were showing as 4,000x3,000 pixels, the raw files as "only" 2848x2144 pixels - thankfully they were able to assure me that this was a vagary of the "raf" files of actually being the full size, but only showing as the smaller size in many imaging programmes. I was bowled over by their friendliness and efficiency, and they made contact with the company in Japan to check on it for me.
While I was awaiting the reply I'd read a great deal of this epic thread, and it put flesh on the "orbs" thing, so I mentioned it to the guy at Fuji (Dale - nice bloke), and he promised to send me the box to return the camera for a sensor change - I'm now awaiting arrival of it, but have read the rest of the thread, had a natter with a friend who has an unmodified sensor version (who's quite happy to stick with his as is), and am now very much in two minds as to whether to have it done or not.
The camera is utterly superb in all respects, and I've only managed to persuade one "orb" out of it so far, and am wondering whether it's worth all the hassle to go for a transplant - as my friend put it, "why risk some techie mucking it up?" - I'm not keen to spend weeks yoyoing it in and out of the service department, and risking not trusting it's accuracy upon each return........Am I alone in wondering whether it's better to "live with it"?

 

[allanm]

Quite a few people are happy to live with it and I suspect even more know nothing about the orbs or sensor change and are quite happily using their x10's
I had mine done as well as the upgraded software and to my eyes, the images are better than pre orb and look to me to have less noise too
I had it done because the orbs were pretty obvious to me after I spotted that I had some and that made me look even harder to spot them on any subsequent image
But, it's your call. Use the camera as it is for a while and see if you see any and if they bother you
Allan

 

[souldeep]

Chris and Dave - I'm guessing that's a thanks

Chris - glad to oblige. By explaining thinking behind a shot I guess it helps share certain insights into how a picture is approached. You say you'd struggle to articulate - but I'm guessing you get influenced by different things at different times. Sometimes that will creep into your photography sub consciously, other times consciously. Same is true for me

Hey Billy - yeah sure. Set is here (with EXIF data) - http://www.flickr.com/photos/souldeep/sets/72157632031561914/detail/

BTW - set includes a few candids of Yv as she didn't know what I looked like before I introduced myself

 

[Piscator Pete]

Having acquired a mint secondhand X10 around a week ago, I'm now in a total quandary about the dreaded "orb" thing - I've been in touch with Fuji, originally on another matter that I've not seen mentioned in this thread or elsewhere.....

Firstly, when I set the camera to give raw and jpegs, the jpegs were showing as 4,000x3,000 pixels, the raw files as "only" 2848x2144 pixels - thankfully they were able to assure me that this was a vagary of the "raf" files of actually being the full size, but only showing as the smaller size in many imaging programmes. I was bowled over by their friendliness and efficiency, and they made contact with the company in Japan to check on it for me.
While I was awaiting the reply I'd read a great deal of this epic thread, and it put flesh on the "orbs" thing, so I mentioned it to the guy at Fuji (Dale - nice bloke), and he promised to send me the box to return the camera for a sensor change - I'm now awaiting arrival of it, but have read the rest of the thread, had a natter with a friend who has an unmodified sensor version (who's quite happy to stick with his as is), and am now very much in two minds as to whether to have it done or not.
The camera is utterly superb in all respects, and I've only managed to persuade one "orb" out of it so far, and am wondering whether it's worth all the hassle to go for a transplant - as my friend put it, "why risk some techie mucking it up?" - I'm not keen to spend weeks yoyoing it in and out of the service department, and risking not trusting it's accuracy upon each return........Am I alone in wondering whether it's better to "live with it"?

Hello Organnyx - Martin,

Good to hear from you - I wondered about that 'pixel thing' too, and now you have explained!

As always, the advice from Allan is sound, but you might appreciate something from someone who came to this forum a few weeks ago with a bit of an obsession about "orbs". I had already had a sensor transplant before discovering this thread - the camera came back behaving the same way as before, but with an introduced focus error ("Dale" - excellent chap - subsequently discovered that the lens system had been misaligned - I understand your misgivings therefore).

If you haven't already, have a look at pages 143 to 145, and especially Duncan's contribution on page 145 with excellent photos displaying orbs 'proper' - hard-edged perfectly circular discs. This put me straight, making me wonder if my camera with an 'early' S/N 21... ever did display the problem. It seems to me that there might be a variation in performance among the early sensors, if that is possible.

Anyway, to echo Allan, I should give it more time, and try to provoke these anomalies. My advice, such as it is, is to eschew sensor change unless you can reproduce the sort of effect that Duncan suffered with his camera. If I knew then what I know now, I doubt I would have sent the camera back in the first instance, making it vulnerable in the way you fear.

This is an excellent forum, the expert contributors here putting me straight on many points. Only a few weeks ago, I didn't know that in a digitial camera, the analogue to film was called the 'sensor'!

Pete

 

[Billy]

Hey Billy - yeah sure. Set is here (with EXIF data) - http://www.flickr.com/photos/souldeep/sets/72157632031561914/detail/

BTW - set includes a few candids of Yv as she didn't know what I looked like before I introduced myself

I've just had a quick look there's some great images in the set, it's always nice to get a little more info on the camera setting especially as I've just got an X10 and have not yet tried it outdoors maybe today

 

[james n]

I've only just noticed it, I'll use another card from my X100 and see if it happens with that.

Allan

I found the X10 not quite as sensitive as the X100 with regard formatting but I've got into the habit with both of them to format the card as soon as it goes back in the camera.

James

 

[allanm]

Thanks James. I always format the X100 cards but I have a feeling I have been a little lax with the X10. I noticed there were some previous images on the card when I last got the error and it happened as I was deleting these in the camera. Can't remember the circumstances when I first noticed the error showing but I suspect it was because I had other images on the card that time too
I will be formatting the card every time from now on and see what happens

By the way, the sun is shining down here today .......🌞
Haven't seen that in a while
Allan

 

[DuncanDisorderly]

Here's a few from yesterday's enjoyable, but slightly surreal day in Bath.
I went specifically to see the Mummers Unconvention and most of the shots were taken using the 135mm f2 on the big camera.
But here's a few notable shots from the X10.

Mummers killing each other...

The pigeon man....

The group shot...

Occupy Bath...

Empty barbers shop...

Bath on a Bike tours...
Note the Orb free highlights on the chrome - YAY

Admittedly, the 'wow' shots came from the big camera, but the X10 made an excellent contribution...
You can see the full set at http://www.wild-landscapes.co.uk/Blog/2012-11-17-Mummers/26584473_HBVxwv

 

[DuncanDisorderly]

Very nice set Duncan. What I really like it there seems to be a lot of detail in the images. I seem to recall that you shoot RAW but what editing software do you use to process them? I had been using lightroom 4.1 and it never seemed to get that much detail from the images. Especially foliage looked a bit mushed. Are you using 4.2?

Sorry for not responding earlier.
Yes, I take in RAW and only use Lightroom 4 for my post processing.
The main thing is that I don't do any sharpening in Lightroom and rarely lean very hard on the sliders.
Then I use the Mogrify plugin to size to 800x600 for the forum, add the border and do the export sharpening (very gentle settings).

If you are interested, the full set is now up at http://www.wild-landscapes.co.uk/Blog/2012-11-10-Snowdon-and-Moel/26585203_LTKzVM
That whole gallery was taken on the X10 and it did remarkably well

 

[DuncanDisorderly]

I said I would illustrate the refinement I go through when I find something to take a photograph of.
It's from yesterday and it's not a great photo, but you should get the idea

1) I spotted a tourist leaning on the railings in front of the Royal Crescent in Bath and quite like the composition. This shot is a quick grab in case she decides to move off.

2) Looking at the screen to review the image, it looks like the green bush on the left could cause a problem with the composition, so this shot zooms in fractionally to place the bush nearer the edge of the frame.

3) Having another look at the screen, the most obvious problem is the big blank area of green. So I took a couple of steps to the right and snapped this image.

4) Once again, reviewing the image on the screen I decided that although I'd thought using the double yellow lines as a lead-in from the corner might work, it didn't! So I zoomed in a little to crop out the double yellows being careful not to cut off the roofline, or her feet.

Back home looking at the images in Lightroom 4 on the big screen.
They are all sharp, but in the second image she is blinking, so image 2 is not a keeper.
I still don't like the double yellows, so image 3 is not a keeper either.
It's a tough call between 1 and 4, but I prefer the simplicity of image 1 as the railings are quite dominant in 4.

Post processing consisted of a tiny (0.2 stop) increase in exposure and forcing the white balance to daylight (slightly warmer than chosen by he X10).
Here's the image I kept

Then I rated the image.
After all this work, I only gave it 3 stars! :bonk:

My rating scheme is as follows...
5 - Wow, it's a cracker!
4 - Not perfect, but it might scrub up with a little extra effort.
3 - Being kept to share with friends or to tell the story of the day.
2 - for information only (e.g. artiste running order)
1 - superseded image, usually because I've edited it in Photoshop and this is the original. Giving it a score makes sure I don't get rid of it accidentally.

 

[DuncanDisorderly]

Here's another image from the same set.

1) Oooo - nice sky - click!

2) Turn the camera around and try landscape.

3) That was better, but still not there.... Let's try sticking a tree over it.

4) Hmmm, the tree looks odd squashed into the blue bit. Lets try making the tree more of a feature.

Back home at the computer, they are all sharp.
I gave three stars to 2 and 4, and deleted 1 and 3.
This shot still feels like a missed opportunity and I should have done something more dramatic.

 

[Lindsay D]

And being the kinda cheeky chap I am - perhaps you could suffer me for a few hours if I tagged along

More a question of whether you could suffer ME - I'm a right bossy cow!

Yes, you're welcome to join me any time.

 

[Lindsay D]

Hi Lindsay - carry on up the A283 past the main entrance another mile or so and you'll see a sign post to the car park through a gate in the wall. Opens at 8am till dusk. £2 all day or free to NT members.

James

Thank you James!

 

[Lindsay D]

To be honest I think it's crazy the way the UK has become regarding innocence. It's so wrapped up in cotton balls that it's losing the freedom that came with it. I won't panda to such things. I may get flamed for having a strong view on this, and expressing it on line, but I truly believe it's things like that worth fighting against and I should not feel guilty about capturing a moment of innocence - ever

I like to put the stats into perspective - its very unlikely your child will be abducted. Do we choose to wrap them up or encourage there freedom and independence?

I just feel strongly about my personal view on this and I don't want to be scared away from capturing something because it may be sensitive - today with the PC brigade it seems everything offends everyone. To freedom I say

Very well said mate.

I get slated too for refusing to pander to popular paranoia and I *****ing hate anything PC. Sorry for swearing but it's a real pet hate of mine!

 

[DayDreamer]

John - anything goes legally, including nudity, in public space. I never get grief with kids shots but then I'm a right brudey mutha and I've never had parents have a negative reaction to me photographing children where ever I've been in the world. Sometimes just a smile is enough to put a parent at ease if they spot you photographing their children in candid. I've taken piccies of kids screaming and running around in parks, or by the sea, in the nude and it looks in the photos just as it was - an honest expression of young innocence and freedom.

To be honest I think it's crazy the way the UK has become regarding innocence. It's so wrapped up in cotton balls that it's losing the freedom that came with it. I won't panda to such things. I may get flamed for having a strong view on this, and expressing it on line, but I truly believe it's things like that worth fighting against and I should not feel guilty about capturing a moment of innocence - ever

The thing is - there have always been wrong'uns out there, throughout history. What is changing society now is the way that the media make you feel connected to an incident that happens 150 miles away from your home. It's always happened but the news never used to report it, and before that people would only know about stuff that happened in there local area. Nothing like a child incident to sell papers - sad but true. Media makes us feel connected to these incidents, like they have happened to someone connected to us and makes us feel like we need to live in fear of letting a child run around naked at the beach. I like to put the stats into perspective - its very unlikely your child will be abducted. Do we choose to wrap them up or encourage there freedom and independence?

Anyway sorry - I digress It's a subject close to my heart! I don't mean to offend anyone on this matter - especially if something has happened to someone you know - I just feel strongly about my personal view on this and I don't want to be scared away from capturing something because it may be sensitive - today with the PC brigade it seems everything offends everyone. To freedom I say

Souldeep as it was me that first raised this and so I feel the right to respond but not in great detail as this really is not the thread to outline/debate these views. But you need to realise others may have totally opposing opinions - I do but enough said by me - sorry.

 

[souldeep]

Hey Duncan - Thanks for the explanations! Great insight. I love the group shot btw - something always gets me when the philosophy of a picture pulls you outside the box

Cool Lindsay... bossy don't bother me... I need to be whipped into shape anyway PM when you are planning to head there and I'll make space. Thanks

John - sorry mate - I didn't mean to upset anyone. You have a right to take offence at any of my shots as I'm posting them publicly. I was just explaining in return my feeling on that specific subject. To be clear - when I travel I am culturally sensitive and if anyone objected to my images and asked me to remove them on the day - or there after I would certainly do so as well. What is worth noting is that I'm an in your face type of photographer. People know when they've been got. Yv can testament to that after seeing how I work last Sunday. No one has complained so far but if they did be assured, that after a chat explaining why I was taking a shot, I'd respect their request to delete photo if they still felt uncomfortable. BTW John - it's great to hear opposing opinions - how else will we learn about others

 

[Piscator Pete]

Last week, I posted an image taken with the "Sunset" feature in the X10's SP mode, and wondered if it held any real advantage over 'dialling up' suitable settings in, say, Aperture mode. There's been so little sun for months, that the opportunity to make comparisons have been few. However, in this part of the world, Saturday evening saw a rather magnificent sunset that found me in Wells (Somerset) with the camera in my pocket. I still didn't make any effort to compare, and just chose the SP setting - the winter sun goes down so quickly, and I didn't want to muck things up.

The twin towers of the cathedral's west front as I approached from what remained of the Saturday market, reminded me of John Betjeman:

"A whacking great sunset bathed level and drain
From Kirby with Muckby to Beckby on Bane.
And I saw as I journeyed my marketing done,
Old Caisterbury Tower take the last of the sun." or similar!

So I got a shot of the towers? - well, no: since it was tea time, I popped along to the moat adjacent to the old drawbridge of the Bishop's Palace, to check whether the swans would perform their trick of ringing the bell to summon 'tea' from the window above. Sadly the pull cord had been tied up out of the way, tiffen apparently unavailable:


Time for tea! by wylyeangler, on Flickr

So having failed there, I turned to the cathedral's west front towers for my epic shot, and guess what: the sun had gone down! Failure number two.

However, the residual light of the now set sun was doing wonders for the clouds, and so I began the 20 min or so anticlockwise circumnavigation of cathedral and palace in light that was failing fast:


Bishop's Palace moat by wylyeangler, on Flickr


DSCF027(2) by wylyeangler, on Flickr

You have had 'Spot the helicopter' and 'Find the float'; now try 'Hunt the Tor'! Easy this one, but I didn't spot it until I was editing the photo, or I might have done something about composing the picture properly (didn't you know that Glastonbury is that close to Wells?):


Spot the Tor! by wylyeangler, on Flickr

Emerging on to the road SE of the cathedral presents you with a subject which is impressive, but for me, difficult to make anything of photographically during the daytime. At dusk, the silhouette of this lovely building is wonderful, but someone had put the best of those lovely sunset clouds in the wrong place:


Cathedral from ESE by wylyeangler, on Flickr

With very little light available, my little walk around the cathedral took me past the arch that leads into what is said to be the oldest street in Europe that has been in continous occupation since mediaeval times. Of course, this is often photographed, and yesterday, for the first time by me:


Vicars Close, Wells by wylyeangler, on Flickr

If anyone does have views on the Sunset feature in SP mode, I should be delighted to know. I think the rendering of the clouds is very nice, but I'm not very happy with my ability in PP to 'bring up the shadows' in a way that is at all life-like. It needs an Yvonne to do that (no hint intended!).

I have to point out that I have no connection with the Wells Tourist Board if such a body exists!

Pete

 

[souldeep]

Pete you're an absolute asset to this thread!

The write up is spot on - the shots even better

Glad you've joined and share.

 

[Piscator Pete]

Many thanks for your comments Martyn - very generous as usual.

Thanks too for your photos from that afternoon with Yvonne. You have an arresting style that seems uniquely your own; I always look forward to your contributions.

Pete

 

[DayDreamer]

Pete I love your Wells set especially as I used to live in Somerset for about 18 months 2008-2010 and part of which was a weekly trip to Wells.

First stop was Starbucks as I like their coffee despite them not paying their dues. Next, for my wife, was looking around the shops but for me it was clockwise and anticlockwise walking around the moat and around the Cathedral area generally always including Vicars Close chatting to the tourists. I never saw the annual moat boat race but heard the Bishop of Wells was one of the most enthusiastic of participants.

Souldeep your Camden set contains some of the best shots seen on not only this thread but TP. If I could still make use of a camera I would be aspiring to take them as good but know I would fail.

PS Duncan I still love anything you show us so don't get jealous - mmm sounds a bit rude that

 

[allanm]

Pete, lovely shots
I spotted the Tor, can I claim my £5?
Allan

 

[DuncanDisorderly]

Pete you're an absolute asset to this thread!

The write up is spot on - the shots even better

Glad you've joined and share.

Agreed!

Pete - now you are getting the hang of this shadow lightening thing....
A couple of tips for symptoms I'm beginning to spot in some of your images.

First - halo's.
Bright rings around objects that have been lightened.
Some HDR programs are prone to this, but it is usually caused by hand-editing.
Once you spot halos in an image, they cannot be ignored.
In this case, it's the only niggle with this superb shot and it spoils it for me!
They are around the chimneys on the right hand side of Vicars Close.
An alternative approach to PPing this shot would be to leave the chimneys with no lightening but keep the brightness from the windows down. The trick is to blend them so they look like it is natural caused by light from the street lights.
Another thing to try is to leave the edges un-lightened as dark inner halos are very hard to spot. This is how some of the sharpening algorithms work as the technique reinforces the edge contrast without it being obvious.

Second - over cooking the PP.
The shot with the Tor is lightened too much and like you could have stuck two images together, a sunset and another taken in daylight and darkened down. Again, for me, this spoils an otherwise excellent image.
Edit: Ooops - I'm meaning the shot with the two boys in the foreground. The one with the Tor is not lightened as much.
Lightening the shadows works best when it is kept subtle, so it still looks like it is against the light. Just cos the X10 'can' do it, does not mean you 'should'.
Here's a trick for those occasions when you need to lighten this much......
I reckon you only used the exposure slider to lighten the foreground; if you also play with the contrast (more) and clarity (some) of the lightened bit, then magically it looks far more natural. There's no hard and fast rules as each image is different. But the goal is to try and make the PP look natural.
Also - you shouldn't have told us the Tor placement was accidental as we'd have assumed it was genius at work - it's perfect!

Pete - a reminder....
A lot of people don't mind images with these PP artefacts in them.
I'm pointing them out to you as you are keen to learn.
Please take the feedback as I intend it; as constructive feedback and not being negative about your images - which are wonderful.
Duncan

 

[Piscator Pete]

Pete, lovely shots
I spotted the Tor, can I claim my £5?
Allan

Thank you Allan. To quote an uncle again, "Please find £5 in the post - I can't"!

Pete.

 

[DuncanDisorderly]

First stop was Starbucks as I like their coffee despite them not paying their dues. Next, for my wife, was looking around the shops but for me it was clockwise and anticlockwise walking around the moat and around the Cathedral area generally always including Vicars Close chatting to the tourists. I never saw the annual moat boat race but heard the Bishop of Wells was one of the most enthusiastic of participants.

Starbucks is going soon - YAY!
There is currently a plague of coffee shops in the high street, all offering excellent coffee in pleasant surroundings, and all of them considerably cheaper than Starbucks.
Despite the competition, it doesn't stop Starbucks being popular.
But despite Starbucks high prices and popularity the shop isn't making as much profit as Starbucks would like.
I say hooray!

 

[DayDreamer]

Starbucks is going soon - YAY!

Well I guess the Costa Coffee, that was coming to Totnes, is spending it's money on taking over the Starbucks in Wells

I am gutted as I like a Costa Coffee who have planning permission here but who have pulled out. There are dozens of coffee places in Totnes but the quality is very poor in most and even those that get it right one day get it wrong the next.

By the way thank you so much for freely sharing your knowledge on here you should get an award - perhaps a Starbucks voucher

 

[Yv]

Jeez, you lot have busy while was I working for a few days!! So much so, I have two tabs open so I can scroll through the thread whilst answering.

ok, souldeeps first - just mega, what can I say, I was there while you were taking them and seeing the results, remembering the moment is just something I could never match with this kind of photography. I know that is in part because I just don't have enough interest in street shooting to make more effort, but I am also very aware I just don't have the 'eye' of the successful street photographer. Mind you, given the discussion we touched on briefly about photojournalism, just keep shooting, you are on the right street

Duncan - the sky set - just to demonstrate different mind sets too - I would have stopped at 3 personally - simply because the the way the lines of the tree branches mimic the lines of the clouds, for me that simply works exactly composition should. I do see your reasoning for moving it on, and a great explanation as to why.

Pete, the Wells set, aside from the pp issues Duncan has mentioned which there is no need to repeat, I think your chosen angles and composition are spot on - and yes, I spotted the Tor! I would also sugest in those situations, that it is not always a bad thing aiming for a complete silhouette either, especially if the shape of the architecture/landscape is particularly attractive, so you can look at both options for a given scene.

John - Costa coffee... beats starbucks into a pulp


I am afraid I have nothing to share atm, the X10 has been left at home with J all weekend while I was busy earning the pennies, but it is great to see this thread continuing in such a positive and friendly manner.

 

[Piscator Pete]

Pete - a reminder....
A lot of people don't mind images with these PP artefacts in them.
I'm pointing them out to you as you are keen to learn.
Please take the feedback as I intend it; as constructive feedback and not being negative about your images - which are wonderful.
Duncan

Duncan, many thanks for taking time and trouble to post such invaluable advice - it really is greatly appreciated by me, and, I suspect, by others out here who might have similar problems. I have printed off your words, and will keep them close to the computer!

You have already warned me about over-sharpening - slow learner, see - remember the fishing rod?

Although I really am a sensitive soul, no critique of my limited photographic efforts can ever offend me: as I think I said before, my vanities lie elsewhere.

Pete

 

[souldeep]

Agreed!

Pete - now you are getting the hang of this shadow lightening thing....
A couple of tips for symptoms I'm beginning to spot in some of your images.

First - halo's.
Bright rings around objects that have been lightened.
Some HDR programs are prone to this, but it is usually caused by hand-editing.
Once you spot halos in an image, they cannot be ignored.
In this case, it's the only niggle with this superb shot and it spoils it for me!
They are around the chimneys on the right hand side of Vicars Close.
An alternative approach to PPing this shot would be to leave the chimneys with no lightening but keep the brightness from the windows down. The trick is to blend them so they look like it is natural caused by light from the street lights.
Another thing to try is to leave the edges un-lightened as dark inner halos are very hard to spot. This is how some of the sharpening algorithms work as the technique reinforces the edge contrast without it being obvious.

Second - over cooking the PP.
The shot with the Tor is lightened too much and like you could have stuck two images together, a sunset and another taken in daylight and darkened down. Again, for me, this spoils an otherwise excellent image.
Lightening the shadows works best when it is kept subtle, so it still looks like it is against the light. Just cos the X10 'can' do it, does not mean you 'should'.
Here's a trick for those occasions when you need to lighten this much......
I reckon you only used the exposure slider to lighten the foreground; if you also play with the contrast (more) and clarity (some) of the lightened bit, then magically it looks far more natural. There's no hard and fast rules as each image is different. But the goal is to try and make the PP look natural.
Also - you shouldn't have told us the Tor placement was accidental as we'd have assumed it was genius at work - it's perfect!

Pete - a reminder....
A lot of people don't mind images with these PP artefacts in them.
I'm pointing them out to you as you are keen to learn.
Please take the feedback as I intend it; as constructive feedback and not being negative about your images - which are wonderful.
Duncan

As always from Duncan - All great advice

Can I offer another alternative to think about for next time you're in the field?

Set up drive to bracketed exposure. 1 stop each. Then when you download the images you'll have three different exposures. You'll probably notice one is exposed for the sky, one for the midtones (the buildings in your shot) and one for the darker areas of the image like the shadows.

Open them in Photoshop on three different layers. Bottom layer is the exposed for the sky shot, next layer on the stack is the exposed for the midtones, top layer is exposed for the shadows. Then taking the eraser tool with a soft setting, erase away the sky on the two top layers that overexpose the sky. Then erase away the top layer for the building – and on the top layer you’ll be left with the exposed shadows.

Save this away (flattens the layers) and then chuck it into a PP package if you want to – will save on the halo’s that Duncan mentions as the PP won’t need to be as extreme – in fact none of the sliders will need to be pushed much at all

I know it sounds a bit time consuming – but it’s actually quite quick when you get used to it. It’s a great technique for landscape type work. Pete – I’d definitely put the photo’s you post into that category.

 

[souldeep]

Souldeep your Camden set contains some of the best shots seen on not only this thread but TP. If I could still make use of a camera I would be aspiring to take them as good but know I would fail.

very very kind words. I must say though - alot of this is just a state of mind. Thats why with that way of thinking you might fail. Positive thinking equals positive results trust me on that

 

[Piscator Pete]

Thanks Martyn - I shall print your advice off too!

I think what you say about bracketed exposure is spot on, and is what I have set up in C1 and C2. I don't take many photographs, and so am not overburdened with redundant images. For some reason or none, the feature doesn't seem to be available in SP "Sunset", hence already a deficiency found for that mode!

Yvonne has given me similar advice about the use of 'layers', and so I'm really going to have to take time out to get my old head around this PP lark.

Pete

 

[souldeep]

Jeez, you lot have busy while was I working for a few days!! So much so, I have two tabs open so I can scroll through the thread whilst answering.

never a dull moment on the X10 thread that's for sure.

ok, souldeeps first - just mega, what can I say, I was there while you were taking them and seeing the results, remembering the moment is just something I could never match with this kind of photography. I know that is in part because I just don't have enough interest in street shooting to make more effort, but I am also very aware I just don't have the 'eye' of the successful street photographer. Mind you, given the discussion we touched on briefly about photojournalism, just keep shooting, you are on the right street

:yv:

I think you forget - but you were reacting to all sorts of interesting happenings YV. You have the eye! I think it's more about your statement related to lack of interest in street (although I didn't notice that last Sunday) than anything else however I really liked your FLICKR set so there :razz:

 

[Piscator Pete]

Pete I love your Wells set especially as I used to live in Somerset for about 18 months 2008-2010 and part of which was a weekly trip to Wells.

First stop was Starbucks as I like their coffee despite them not paying their dues. Next, for my wife, was looking around the shops but for me it was clockwise and anticlockwise walking around the moat and around the Cathedral area generally always including Vicars Close chatting to the tourists. I never saw the annual moat boat race but heard the Bishop of Wells was one of the most enthusiastic of participants.

Thank you John; although being brought up in Bristol, I've had a soft spot for Wells since I was a kid. Like you used to, I go there for my weekly shop and more.

On Saturday I was there, not really to take sunset photos, but to pick up provisions for my sandwiches to be packed along with my tackle for an assault on the R.Brue chub yesterday.

That lead-in is partly a device to show some 'illicit' photographs of a mate catching a fish. You might remember him as the possible subject of a 'bridge shot' last week, dejectedly and hopelessly fishing with rod at a despondent angle. In reality, he is a brilliant trout and coarse angler, and being well-known in the tackle trade, has something of a reputation to maintain. Posting images available on the worldwide web brings certain dangers I had not previously recognised, and now feel it incumbent upon me to neutralise any calumny that my picture may suggest.

Here he is then, waiting for a bite, unaware that I was way downstream of him, my camera on maximum zoom:


Awaiting events by wylyeangler, on Flickr

I didn't have to wait long before his rod top nodded, and he was into a reasonable fish. The banks are difficult here, and you struggle with even a long-handled landing net:


The trouble with steep banks. by wylyeangler, on Flickr

The chub though not big, is in perfect condition. My friend, anticipating icy blasts on the Somerset levels, chose this 'silly hat':


Chub, 2lb. 10oz. by wylyeangler, on Flickr


"Illicit" photographs but why? - they were taken with a little Lumix DMC-LZ4 given to me by over-generous friends 5-years ago. It has 6X zoom and other amazing (to me) features, representing my only previous encounter with digital photograpy. There's no way my X10 is going to be committed to rattling around in my tackle bag.

I now expect censure from Duncan, or will it be Yvonne - do you detect a strong disciplinarian Martyn? - regarding misuse of the thread, and deliberately posting photographs that can only fall into Duncan's category 1,2, and 3. In mitigation I can only say that my mate's feelings of self-worth may be at stake; level 4 is only achievable by me with much good luck, and after that filter, level 5 by sorting me PP! Mind you, in attempting to preserve my friend's reputation, I feel rather like the editor of a newspaper, who, incorrectly recording a name in the 'deaths' column, offers a free insertion into 'births' to neutralise the matter.

Pete

 

[Ed Sutton]

There's no way my X10 is going to be committed to rattling around in my tackle bag.

Oddly enough that was originally what I bought my X10 for. Unfortunately I've not been catching much worth photographing this year. Just as well it's good for macro...

 

[Piscator Pete]

Nice one Dave!

Not quite enough of it to be sure, but is that a roach? Looks like a decent fish if it is.

I like your alarm set-ups. I'm guessing that the set of 3 are out for carp, and the bottom one for pike, on what looks like a canal.

When the X10 gets that battered look, it'll go in the bag!

Pete

 

[Ed Sutton]

Hi Pete

Probably a roach, maybe with a little bream in it's genes, and only about hand sized.

The three rods were actually out trying to catch a bigger (albeit possibly mythical!) roach on mini-bolt rigs. The pike rod was on a small drain towards the end of last season. I blanked...

It was the threaded shutter button which initially attracted me to the X10 to use with a bulb release for self-takes. But like I said, I've not had much worth photographing this year, and what I have has been shot with a DSLR.

 

[Piscator Pete]

Dave,

Ah, I thought the eye might be a bit too big for a true roach.

Golly, bolt rigs for roach! Like my photography, I'm 40 years out-of-date!

Don't talk to me about pike - Chew Valley Lake is now stuffed with 'em, achieving enormous weights feeding on the trout put in there at huge expense.

Yes I liked the idea of the threaded shutter button too - I've still got my cable release from the old days, ready to go. As a young man, I liked to get out at Christmas and photograph the lights and shop windows after dark.

Pete

 

[Ed Sutton]

Don't talk to me about pike - Chew Valley Lake is now stuffed with 'em, achieving enormous weights feeding on the trout put in there at huge expense.

Now now, Pete, let's not start that debate argument on here!

Back on topic.

I had my X10 out today and someone I know asked me if it was a Leica.

One thing I have noticed is that black and white conversions have quite a film-like look to them at times. Not that this small pic demonstrates that too well. If only I could suss out how to make a better job of the conversions...

 

[james n]

Just catching up with the thread after a few days in Norfolk. Some great pictures to look at i see after a casual browse. Really enjoying the X10, so much so that my second X100 has gone back to Amazon. I want to evaluate the XE-1 to see if it's a replacement for my D7000. These Fujis are rather lovely things and something with the IQ of the X100 with interchangeable lenses could be ideal.

James