The Fuji X100 NYC Pictures Thread!

sper · 05-13-2011

HERE WE GO!

Untitled by marksperry, on Flickr

Jamie Pillers · 05-13-2011

Nice photos, Mark. Are these in-camera b&w or post processed somehow? The b&w looks really good. I'm still using mine for color... haven't yet tried the b&w setting.

Thanks for posting them.

GSNfan · 05-14-2011

Sper, I assume you used silver efex pro?

these images have a pleasant b&w look. I think the low contrast lens of X100 along with its tendency to overexpose makes it a decent candidate for digital b&w.

sper · 05-14-2011

Silver Efex Pro 2 from raw. Still trying to decide if these are over shopped...I used to hate fake boarders, but on this other hand, this is literally exactly like what my silver prints used to look like, in terms of formatting. It's a tough call.

As far as the Fuji lens...I have not found it to be low contrast. In my experience it is very snappy from the raw, and very smooth in tonality. Finally I'm coming to understand what people meant when they said that "Fuji color.". The jpegs are low contrast though, unless you're in velvia mode. It is my honest opinion that this is one of the finest lenses I've ever used. Even impressing me further than the Zeiss 35mm 2.8. The color images I'm personally seeing coming out of the X100 stun me every time. They're so dimensional, sharp, and show extremely low distortion.

Also, my X100s meter is spot on as far as the way I'm using it. Sometimes it gets fooled by backlit subjects but that's about it. If exposure is an issue I'd advise notching it down a third on the exposure compensation dial.

GSNfan · 05-14-2011

These are pretty credible digital b&w shots and with perhaps less sharpening (so the digital grain don't pop up) and a little dodge and burn here and there so the highlights don't look blocky, they'll be very close to the real deal when it comes to the 'look'.

Pickett Wilson · 05-14-2011

Great B&W conversions. Looking forward to seeing me. Some color stuff would be great, too.

You mentioned the lens. Since the lenses on these mirrorless cameras are being corrected digitally rather than optically so much, I wish the camera makers, perhaps through the RAW converter, would give the user complete control over the "correction." It would give us a great deal of creative control over the ultimate look of the images.

bwcolor · 05-14-2011

Good eye, but I vote for film rather than trying to make digital look like film. My X100 comes on Wednesday and I'll give color digital another try. I do intend on trying some high ISO raw converted to monochrome.

sper · 05-14-2011

Quote:

Originally Posted by bwcolor

Good eye, but I vote for film rather than trying to make digital look like film. My X100 comes on Wednesday and I'll give color digital another try. I do intend on trying some high ISO raw converted to monochrome.

I too would 'vote' for film if it were that simple. If you look at my NYC gallery on my website, that's all Tri-X in a Bessa-L. My reality now is that I shoot a lot, and like to share. I shoot far too much just for fun than I could keep up with for processing in my sink, and obviously having a lab do it has cost considerations. I had to ask myself, what do I like more? Photography, or Tri-X? Photography won.

And as for the look, faking the boarders and grain have 2 real utilities for me:

#1. The 'surface' if you will of digital is very smooth, and sometimes texture will cover up this smoothness. Any digital artifacts, or even shortcomings of bad lenses, can be nullified with a little grain. Plus I find that it makes skin tones look great. 400 speed film was always great for portraits for this reason.

#2. The black boarder is a great end point to my images. If I ever blow out a highlight, the black boarder is better than no boarder. It keeps the eye IN the image, at least in my experience.

And if I think back to when film was king, photographers then did all kinds of little effects. Anything to add some kind of interest or 'edge' to their portfolio. Cross processing, Polaroid, especially Polaroid Type 55, and actual film edges then were more or less cool image making tricks of the trade.

While it's true that the boarder and the grain here are essentially fake, they're not gaudy. It's not like I'm putting a Type 55 boarder on a color image (seen that done, not pretty). I'm really just trying to do digitally what I like to do with film. So that's my case for my digital B&W post processing scheme.

Color images are coming, and for the record, I'm using Color Efex on those too. Their Portra NC simulators are off though, way too contrasty for Portra NC films.

bwcolor · 05-14-2011

That all makes sense. Sorry, didn't mean to push you to defend your conversions, but I'm glad that you did in that I'm curious about efex for color. I look forward to your posting of the color conversions.

I should say that I rarely get time off, so don't do that much shooting, but after eight years of only digital and then returning to film, I discovered that had lost all shooting discipline. My present goal in returning to digital is to shoot as if each shot cost me money. I hope not to lose my regained discipline. .. oh.. and rear screen off.

DanP · 05-14-2011

These are pretty good.
Waiting for some color however..

sper · 05-14-2011

Quote:

Originally Posted by bwcolor

That all makes sense. Sorry, didn't mean to push you to defend your conversions, but I'm glad that you did in that I'm curious about efex for color. I look forward to your posting of the color conversions.

I should say that I rarely get time off, so don't do that much shooting, but after eight years of only digital and then returning to film, I discovered that had lost all shooting discipline. My present goal in returning to digital is to shoot as if each shot cost me money. I hope not to lose my regained discipline. .. oh.. and rear screen off.

Oh no offence taken. I'm a little hypersensitive about it, being a big film guy for a while and now slowely embracing digital. I just can no longer deny that new cameras and printers out there now are more than adaquate. *shrug*

Color coming soon! Just gotta work through the images in Aperture and get em on flickr.

:-)

peripatetic · 05-14-2011

Quote:

Originally Posted by sper

I had to ask myself, what do I like more? Photography, or Tri-X? Photography won.

I love that way of expressing it!

I have the additional pleasure actually loving the look of mid-high end digital prints. Printing on proper inks with proper papers I actually mostly prefer digital prints to silver. And I can do them at home!

sper · 05-15-2011

COLOR!

Untitled by marksperry, on Flickr

DanP · 05-15-2011

Nice colors..are we talking Kodak Portra??

sper · 05-15-2011

I think the last one with the girls is the Portra 160VC filter. I still don't think the Portra presets are accurate at all. Alien Skin does a much better job, but Color Efex is a little easier to use. *shrug*

DanP · 05-15-2011

Mark (hope I got the name right), even though I have no desire to obtain this camera, I love what you are able to produce with it.

sper · 05-15-2011

Quote:

Originally Posted by DanP

Mark (hope I got the name right), even though I have no desire to obtain this camera, I love what you are able to produce with it.

Haha that's so democratic of you. :-)

GSNfan · 05-16-2011

Those colour photos look very good, especially 1st, 2nd and the last one.

The lens in X100 shows what can be achieved when a decent dedicated lens is used for a sensor.

hunz · 05-18-2011

yeah were the first two colour shots post processed in colour efex?

i think they look real good, very interesting

sper · 05-18-2011

The first two color images were not, actually. Definately not the cupcake picture. Just Aperture 3. I always tweak the color a little bit.

kermaier · 05-18-2011

That last outdoor shot looks pretty flare-y. Do you use a lens hood?
Ari

sper · 05-19-2011

I was not, because it hasn't shipped to the states yet. But I was effectively shooting straight into the sun so it wouldn't have helped.