Photographing Beauty in the Studio with the X-Pro1

Lovely work - really different.

I am interested and surprised by your comment about DR in comparing the Fuji sensor with Nikon D800. Is this a function of sensor size?
 
zuikologist said:
Lovely work - really different.

I am interested and surprised by your comment about DR in comparing the Fuji sensor with Nikon D800. Is this a function of sensor size?
Click to expand...

It could be because of that... I'm not going to pretend to know something I don't :)

The X-Pro1 definitely has good DR, but from my own experience in using both cameras, there is a definite DR advantage with the files from my D800.
 
JSU said:
Did you notice or appreciate any benefit of having uninterrupted viewing with the XP1 as opposed to mirror blackout during your longer exposures?

Have you also done this approach with a DSLR (such as your D800)? With a Leica or other RF camera with a constant VF?

Nice images, I'm not bothered by the 50mm PoV / perspective, you have a refreshing approach.
Click to expand...

I actually use the EVF on my X-Pro1, so my viewfinder blacked out regardless. With how close I had to be to the models to fill the frame, I didn't trust the OVF to actually get focus. I've never had much luck with the OVF at close range.

As for trying this with other camera's, it was my first attempt at using this style of lighting in this way, so no, I haven't.
 
Very nice!

I don't believe the exceptional DR of the D800 is due to sensor size. My D800 has about 2 stops greater DR than my Hasselblad digital and the Hasselblad sensor is about twice the size of the D800's. The Hasselblad sensor is CCD and the Nikon is CMOS which may have some influence but my M9 is a CCD also and both are Kodak made but the Hasselblad has a better dynamic range.
 
Nathan Elson said:
I actually use the EVF on my X-Pro1, so my viewfinder blacked out regardless. With how close I had to be to the models to fill the frame, I didn't trust the OVF to actually get focus. I've never had much luck with the OVF at close range.
...
Click to expand...

The OVF will never outperform the EVF at close range. This is one of the reasons the camera has a hybrid system.

The D800 sensor design is completely different below the color filter array and dynamic range depends entirely on the analog signal to noise ratio obtained when the shutter is open. Sensor area does play a role - see this chart . There is about a one stop decrease in DR between 24 X 26 mm and APS-C sensors

I enjoyed the creative approach you employ in these portraits… nice work.
 
Correct me if I'm wrong, but generally isn't it the case that DR is a balancing act with pixel density? FF cameras tend to have better DR since they don't demand so many megapixels proportional to surface area than smaller formats. i.e. The Blackmagic Pocket Cinema easily managed very high DR despite having a small sensor because it didn't need a lot of megapixels.

But thanks for the review, there might be a lot of reviews out there but as is usually the case there's a huge flurry of reviews in the first 12 months or so of a camera being released and then it peters out. People are still buying this camera so it's great that there is some more recent feedback.
 
i don't mean to sound cynical but aren't these shots more about the Godly power of photoshop than what camera you used?

no matter what camera you had used, with that kind of processing its photoshop that is protagonist not th camera
 
Margu said:
i don't mean to sound cynical but aren't these shots more about the Godly power of photoshop than what camera you used?
Click to expand...

I think its more about the photographer's choices regarding lighting and slow exposures than the camera and/or photoshop.
 
jsrockit said:
I think its more about the photographer's choices regarding lighting and slow exposures than the camera and/or photoshop.
Click to expand...

i can assure you that no lighting can make a human skin look like that. plus look at all the shadows transitions and they're badly artifact-ed

the images are very good conceptually and models look great but the heavy PP with obvious signs of artifacts in all the shadows are distracting

that also means the RAW files from fuji are actually no good for heavy PP work. i suspect the fuji .RAF is not really a raw file in a true sense of the word. its a highly processed and compressed raw file that is no better than a jpg. all the shots in the image above lack that sense of depth and tonality that one gets with lots of RAW data, they seem heavily worked jpg files.
 
Ok Margu, but did you really expect to see straight from the camera images? Post processing choices are a part of photography.
 
Margu is making good points, they are heavily processed, too much so for many people. But for a small market or the right client they're impressive and get the job done.

I can't imagine what advantage the Fuji would have over a pro Canikon with a 85 though?

It's like the photo blogger who shot some traditional corporate jobs with m4/3s... It worked well enough but it reduces your latitude.
 
jsrockit said:
Ok Margu, but did you really expect to see straight from the camera images? Post processing choices are a part of photography.
Click to expand...

but then shouldn't the thread title be something like "look at my photos by visiting my blogs"?

or by using name of a camera its easy to get all the "gear enthusiasts" excited?
 
Great work with the X Pro one. Personally I don't care what PP was done - the photographs serve to prove that one can use the XP in a studio setting when a DSLR or MF would be the default choice.
 
According to the original post, the article was made directly in response to people asking if Fuji's X line can be used for general work in the same way as a Canikon. The article illustrates that the answer is definitely "yes." As stable as tech is now, there isn't much point wondering whether any particular m4/3-or-larger camera with a viewfinder can do studio or fashion work much better than any other - style or format considerations aside.
 
i see rff is at it again…let's attack a (new) member because we don't like how he does things or what camera he is using.
 
Margu said:
but then shouldn't the thread title be something like "look at my photos by visiting my blogs"?

or by using name of a camera its easy to get all the "gear enthusiasts" excited?
Click to expand...

Come on Margu, you having a bad day or something bud?

Like 'regularchickens' said, if you actually read the blog post I shot the photos to answer the question that I've received countless times from other photographers, which was whether or not I thought the X-Pro1 could be used as a 'working photographers' main camera. It was an exercise for fun, and being that I used the X-Pro1 to shoot it, this seems like a logical place to post the results. Maybe un-bunch those panties a little.

In regards to the post processing, yes, the images are definitley retouched, but maybe not as much as people assume. It's true, the models did not have absolutely perfect skin, but it's a beauty shot, not a practice in realism, which is made pretty obvious by the heavy makeup and crazy light :)

Here is a full resolution JPG, straight out of the camera (I shot RAW + JPG). I haven't done a thing other than take it off the card and upload it to the server.

http://www.nathanelson.com/samples/DSCF0423.JPG

Aside from some contrast adjustments, clarity, a little cloning and healing brush, there isn't much in terms of PP. I prefer to trust in the Godly power of light, not the Godly power of photoshop.

Glad I could create some discussion :) Part 2 of this test will likely be launching tomorrow. I'll update ya'll when the times comes.

Cheers
-Nate
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom