View Full Version : This Guy Knows How To Use An X100
willie_901
06-26-2011, 21:00
Here is a series of portraits from the X100 taken by a professional wedding photographer.
Every shot was done wide open.
X100 Portraits (http://www.prophotonut.com/2011/06/23/fujifilm-x100-first-findings-and-fuji-x100-high-iso-pictures-full-res-download/)
Think about these the next time somebody posts about how the X100 can't focus, is soft wide open, etc, etc.
?? pretty awful in my opinion. (i mean the photos.)
back alley
06-26-2011, 21:07
no matter what you think of the content...the images are damn sharp!
?? pretty awful in my opinion. (i mean the photos.)
http://i45.tinypic.com/2w65m4y.jpg
Great light and the camera is obviously pretty incredible in terms of IQ. I love the wide open 'look' from it.
I need to get one of these cameras I think..
Leigh Youdale
06-26-2011, 21:30
That's pretty damn impressive!
Can I hold out for the X101 or is this it?
no matter what you think of the content...the images are damn sharp!
well, so are images from any decent point & shoot like an LX3 when displayed small on a computer monitor
well, so are images from any decent point & shoot like an LX3 when displayed small on a computer monitor
Not in the same way. If that guy had used an lx3 instead, I would be able to tell the difference between the images with the 2 cameras immediately - even on screen.
well, so are images from any decent point & shoot like an LX3 when displayed small on a computer monitor
I've been using my LX3 for a few years and I'm dissapointed with noise above ISO80. But it's really nice at 80. Of course DOF with P&S is always a problem, except for the macro stuff. That's great.
willie_901
06-27-2011, 06:01
well, so are images from any decent point & shoot like an LX3 when displayed small on a computer monitor
The full-sized versions are available for viewing.
softshock
06-27-2011, 06:05
I'm really not impressed.
capitalK
06-27-2011, 06:22
There's 2 or 3 shots I really like. Really its most important that his clients like them.
His B&W processing is really decent.
rdeleskie
06-27-2011, 06:25
These are some of the best shots I've seen with the X100, and the first to really pique my interest. The photographer put the camera up against some tough situations (backlight, high contrast lighting/mis-en-scene) and the camera performed admirably at least in black and white. If they made an interchangeable lens version even with three lenses (28/2, 50/2 and 90/f2 equivalents) I would be on it in a New York minute.
adamjohari
06-27-2011, 06:33
maybe i'm a newbie. but i thought they were great.
I can't see that the type of camera made them any better or any worse that they are. If it's a good portrait it's a good portrait, whether made on a P&S, a DSLR, or an X100. FWIW I don't think they are good portraits but they do definitely look like wedding photographer portraits.
Steve
jsrockit
06-27-2011, 07:01
One man's cheese is another man's gold...
M4streetshooter
06-27-2011, 14:46
There's a few nice images in there but that's not the point.
It was his first shoot with the camera. He trusted it wide open and it didn't let him down.
I think that speaks a lot for the camera as well as the shooter.
All of us with the X100 eventually find the comfort zone.
He just jumped right in. Pretty ballsy move but he did it.
Give him a few weeks and see what he does with it.
Many thanks to OP, it's a good post.
?? pretty awful in my opinion. (i mean the photos.)
Why do you say that? Its easy for you to say something negative. But it would be interesting to see WHY you think that.....
http://i45.tinypic.com/2w65m4y.jpg
More like :
http://i647.photobucket.com/albums/uu192/krosya/misc/stirringpot.jpg
They are the product of the ABC Bachelorette era. The look of these photos is a record of the current reality.
Yeah, that's funny...and sad...
Jamie Pillers
06-27-2011, 15:09
I think this guy is doing an excellent job of getting people to pose in ways that I suspect the clients are really happy with! It takes talent to be able to make subjects feel comfortable with what you're asking them to do. And I think the images are really successful showing what's going on with these couples.
I doubt it really matters what camera this guy uses. I suspect he could do these with just about any rig. :-)
Thanks for the link, Willie.
Initially I was not struck by the pics but after going back and having a second look I think he's done a great job with the subjects and the camera.
Personally they are not the type of pics I would take but he was the photographer ... not me!
Why do you say that? Its easy for you to say something negative. But it would be interesting to see WHY you think that.....
Because they are crass, vulgar, stereotype-reinforcing, superficial pictures that tell us nothing about the subjects but that pander to an esthetic convention –"ABC Bachelorette era"– constructed by media and industry to be self-serving.
Oh, never mind, they are not that bad and the clients are surely happy because they buy in to the whole esthetic. The images are just fodder, visual swill, infinitely forgettable.
Since you asked, that is my opinion, and yes, it was easy to say. I hope you find it interesting and I fully expect not all will agree, which is perfectly fine.
Anyway, the post was about the camera. I'd have to agree they look "sharply focused" and they have "smooth tonalities."
^^ Ok - I don't like that type of shot either, but lots of people do. Not the point. When the OP said the guy knows how to use an X100 I took that to mean he had used it well, and to his intent, to produce successful images. He did. Looking at them I was impressed - the photographer knows what he's on about and has demonstrated that the X100 is a great tool.
It happens that a certain breed of client comes to a photographer with preconceived notions of how the pictures should be staged ... and the photographer simply obliges.
Did the photographer do the posing/staging or was this the client's idea? Just looking at the results makes it difficult to know what exactly happened.
Nevertheless, the pictures are crisp!
Lawd, the snooty sneers are all out today!
Those photos are not art. They are craft. And they are superior to the vast majority of wedding photos, which are usually taken with flash. They are not HCB, or Martin Parr, or James Ravilious, but to my knowledge none of the three shot weddings.
Hang on... didn't HCB shoot Brad and Angelina's?
djonesii
06-28-2011, 04:28
Lawd, the snooty sneers are all out today!
Those photos are not art. They are craft. And they are superior to the vast majority of wedding photos, which are usually taken with flash. They are not HCB, or Martin Parr, or James Ravilious, but to my knowledge none of the three shot weddings.
As near as I can tell from reading the posted link, these photos were paid for. By people willing to use the photographer as a teacher. We can't tell if this guy makes a living at it or not, but in that sense, it does not much matter if I like them or not, the clients clearly did. Having worked with more than a few clients in my day job, they [clients] may be dumb as a post, but they are always right.
Dave
Woody Allen:
Alvy Singer: You look like a really happy couple. Are you?
Woman on Street: Yeah.
Alvy Singer: Yeah? So how do you account for it?
Lol! Something about both being shallow, empty, without ideas, and having nothing interesting to say, IIRC. :p
Let me play my part in this relationship:
I think the author (blogger/photographer) has hit on something by shooting the X100 wide open. In the short time that I have had the camera, I've noticed that it gets special at f2 and really seems to shine with some interesting subtleties occurring around highlights.
Btw, I like image #10. Initially, I thought the images were ho-hum for wedding photos (still think some of them look a bit like stock photos), but they get better further along (down) in the blog.
thanks for the link, willie!
/
Looking only at the sharpness (not the aesthetic), I didn't think that they were particularly impressive.
Jack Conrad
06-28-2011, 06:16
Those photo's rubbed me wrong with the very first shot when the photographer wrote,
1. I shot this confrontational portrait with a Fuji X100 compact camera with it's fixed 35mm equivelent lens. I thought this camera would make a good street and cafe portrait camera.Confrontational? Bah! It was posed. A fake expression by a hired model.
I feel duped. Hustled by his lead in.
Now, even though the shots are technically and aesthetically fine, although not memorable, I can't lose the taste of that vague deception in my mouth.
I realize this is an emotional reaction on my part, but there it is. My first impression.
Beyond that, I'm sure the X100 is a fine camera, but that photographer didn't sell me on it. He may as well have been selling beer or viagra. Just another deceptive and annoying commercial to filter out like traffic noise.
Basically spam.
Benjamin Marks
06-28-2011, 06:21
I really don't think the content of the pictures is germane to the discussion. The question is really whether the camera can do what you want it to. Sounds like the original photographer was happy with the results. They seem snappy -- a little less mid-tone than I like with my portraits, but that is a matter of personal taste.
Some of these comments in here have made me laugh, quite literally, out loud.
To call the shots vulgar or deceptive - really? :eek::rolleyes:
Welll.. a close family member has an album of his wdding. THe cover is a photo of the happy couple looking at a bottle of champagne. And on the label of the bottle of champagne is... a photo of the happy couple.
It ain't Magritte.
OK -- Humor an old bachelor, what exactly are modern wedding photos used for? i have lately proposed they were put away for use in court during the divorce, as evidence of misrepresentation?
I prefer the wedding photos from my grandparents' wedding, just the couple in their best clothes on their wedding day. Proof?
Seriously?
Maybe you're just not the romantic type. Thats ok, but a lot of people pay a LOT of money for these kind of photographs, and IMO they're no less worthy then any other photograph that's ever been made.
jsrockit
06-28-2011, 07:55
Don't quote me, but I believe I heard the photographer say he didn't really know how to use the the X100, but did a good job of faking it.
anu L ogy
06-28-2011, 08:24
Uh oh! Wedding photos where the couple isnt ...traditional???!!! Clearly terrible.
M4streetshooter
06-28-2011, 08:57
Hang on... didn't HCB shoot Brad and Angelina's?
Come on, we all know Kertesz did that one.
I'd love to know what he got paid for the shoot.
My ex gal gets $10,000.00 to start a wedding. I would think he's doing good. His images are made for the client, not shooters.
At any rate the camera nailed the gig. It's not my cup of tea but for the right $$$, I'd do it.
Oh, Kertesz used a 3F Red to do the Wedding.
emraphoto
06-28-2011, 09:04
$10,000.00!!! that ALMOST makes me consider shooting weddings.
echoing a few here, i have seen so many of these particular photographs it makes my eyeballs burn
PS 'hi' Don!
$10,000.00!!! that ALMOST makes me consider shooting weddings.
To put you over the edge emraphoto, a relative shoots weddings and starts the discussion with the bride and groom at $20000, and goes up from there.
emraphoto
06-28-2011, 09:32
arrgh! for the record i know it's (wedding photography) a hard job and you need to know your stuff. the problem is i just have zero interest in doing it. i usually take that as a hint insert smily face here
SimonSawSunlight
06-28-2011, 10:07
I agree with you, john.
Faintandfuzzy
06-28-2011, 10:37
Because they are crass, vulgar, stereotype-reinforcing, superficial pictures that tell us nothing about the subjects but that pander to an esthetic convention –"ABC Bachelorette era"– constructed by media and industry to be self-serving.
Oh, never mind, they are not that bad and the clients are surely happy because they buy in to the whole esthetic. The images are just fodder, visual swill, infinitely forgettable.
Since you asked, that is my opinion, and yes, it was easy to say. I hope you find it interesting and I fully expect not all will agree, which is perfectly fine.
Anyway, the post was about the camera. I'd have to agree they look "sharply focused" and they have "smooth tonalities."
Maybe you could grace us all with some examples of your work...so we all know how it should be done.
... they are superior to the vast majority of wedding photos, which are ...
Those are prenuptuals and not wedding photos!
These photos are very much Damian's style and if you love or loath them won't worry him at all. (He is a very experienced wedding and portrait photographer who now makes a good income teaching people around the world.)
I really think that photographers these days have forgotten the purpose of a camera. If you look through a lot of HCB's work you'll find sharpness quite lacking but it really didn't matter because he was capturing moments than meant something. He was also stuck with one film speed (once he loaded the film anyway), while easy his menu system was lacking a lot of options, the AF system on his cameras was crap, the AE was rudimentary at best and his photoshop work was seriously unimpressive.
As ever virtually every camera can take great images if the trained eye is pointing it in the right direction with understanding of the subject, light, aperture and shutter speeds and the shutter is released at the right time. All the arguments over what a given camera can't do or how the menus are set up seem to me to be a cover for a lack of understanding of the fundamentals of the art of photography.
Rant over.
Cheers,
Craig.
Stuart John
06-28-2011, 12:40
Yep sharpness is not always the most important thing.
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/rffgallery/gallery/3357/U3357I1308041337.SEQ.0.jpg
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.