X100 in Chinatown

LOVELY...very NICE
I actually Love the ORIGINALS Best but would just Crank Up the 'Contrast' a tad....Nothin More...Simplicity & Ease of Workflow

Me Thinks I May Now WANT one....:cool: am Lucky 8 on the List
The Question is: Will this FILM Gal Really succumb ???

hard Choice when I think of all the Film & Prints I can do with that $1299.00

CONGRATS ...!!
 
Last edited:
Helen,
I am settling for an Olympus EP2 with EVF to use my lenses with.
It also costs less than a Fuji X100 with a fixed lens.
I sold my Hexar AF because it had a fixed 35/2.
 
Helen - I got my X100 to complement the MP & M2. My old Digilux 2 is getting tired now. The X100 sits in the bag with a film M perfectly and takes up less room than the Digilux so I can now carry more rolls of Double-X. It will slide in your purse easily.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I fyou look at #1 in the originals there's a beautiful reflection of the player's face, in the foreground of the picture. Details of that are lost in the Silver Efx version, at least on my monitor. I'm with Helen -- just bump the contrast a bit in PS Camera Raw and you're done.
 
I have been keeping my eye on this camera for weeks, but until now I hadn't seen anything that looked like the film pictures I prefer. Also, I have a bunch of nice film camera bodies and lenses, and after seeing these pictures, it might be time to start auctioning them off...well, maybe I'll just sell the bodies for now...great pictures.
 
AM*shoots*SF said:
P.s. How the heck do I add a signature line to my posts? I looked in udder profile and found nada. Help!
Click to expand...

There is a "quick links" tab on top right (between "search" and "log out") with a drop down menu, click on that drop down arrow and you will see "edit signature".
 
Is it my monitor or do I see some distortion (stretching horizontally) in most of the photos?:confused: Especially the corners, but the images appear to be wider than proportionally expected.

5519449089_8ac1efa3f3_b_d.jpg


Note the upper left corner of #3...as well as the one above.
 
Last edited:
Agree that the SilverFX versions are a step too far -- the originals looks great. A tiny touch more contrast, and a little teeny tiny bit of SilverFX grain would be great.

I use SilverFX all the time, but the presets are too extreme for my taste. Subtlety is key! Adding grain is like sharpening: the right amount does wonders, but too much is a disaster.
 
I don't know, but I am not seeing much in the way of apparent distortion in the photos.

Bob
 
dave lackey said:
Is it my monitor or do I see some distortion (stretching horizontally) in most of the photos?:confused: Especially the corners, but the images appear to be wider than proportionally expected.

5519449089_8ac1efa3f3_b_d.jpg


Note the upper left corner of #3...as well as the one above.
Click to expand...

Dave, I think that is not distortion so much, rather it is diverging verticals caused by the camera not being kept level. If you check the exact centre of the frame on this shot you'll see the camera is pointed downwards. In fact I think all the shots shown have been taken this way - camera pointed slightly down.
 
Yeah, noticed that too. The heads of the people seem abnormally wide. especially in the left upper quadrant. Is this an effect from the wider lens? Maybe I have been shooting 50mm lenses for way too long but the heads, bodies and even some of the lines in other images appear to be stretched somehow. I dunno.:confused:

5519022979_2f97d97983_b_d.jpg
 
X100 at the ball game (colors)

X100 at the ball game (colors)

Chanced upon this ball game and decided to shoot some test shots in colors. Don't really know how to shot colors but here goes...

Shot using ASTIA preset.
PP in LR: some cropping and reducing of Vibrance and Saturation

#1. between shadow and light
5521616635_a3de922074_b_d.jpg


#2. eighty-nine
5521615745_e087711cba_b_d.jpg


#3. player #16
5522205164_0713da2b9d_b_d.jpg


#4. 10.02.13
5521614087_b4715eab1e_b_d.jpg


#5. dry leaves
[Not using Macro mode. Focusing distance is about 0.4m which is only possible with MF. AF minimum focusing distance is 0.8m]
5522202718_5fce73a4d8_b_d.jpg
 
jonmanjiro said:
thanks for posting these, wongsan! both the b&w and the colour shots are great. i'm really surprised how much the x100 was able to throw the background out of focus in the above shot. very nice!!
Click to expand...

Hey Jon, hope things are OK for you back home.

Yeah...the bokeh in that shot is pretty good.
 
From these posts and similar ones on other forums, it seems to me that there is a misconception that equates strongly o-o-f background with "good bokeh": actually bokeh refers to the quality of the o-o-f back ground whether it's a bit or a lot o-o-f. The bokeh in the picture above does not look good to me, but that is, of course, a matter of taste. On the other hand, focus on a subject as close as 0.4m will throw the background o-o-f, although much more mildly, even at f/8.

—Mitch/Bangkok
Paris au rythme de Basquiat
 
Indeed. Those leaves are so close that the background would be OOF even with a small sensor camera.

But, the people shots show you can get just about enough blur behind the subject. The bokeh would be good enough for me; although the smaller sensor means you would get less blur than with, say, the Hexar AF in subdued light, the ND filter will even the fight somewhat given the Hexar's max shutter speed.
 
A lot of very promising stuff here. But the discussion about #5 (leaves) is a bit weird. I know that it's only a testshot but everybody talks about the quality of the oof-area and no one talks about the lack of sharpness of the main subject.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom