Jack Flesher
Offline
Upload & Sell: On
|
 Re: Fuji GFX Image Thread - all cameras and lenses | |
Makten wrote:
Jack Flesher wrote:
Makten wrote:
Jack Flesher wrote:
ruthenium wrote:
Danpbphoto wrote:
ruthenium wrote:
I have not done much bird photography lately... but when my wife order duck, I was tempted!🤓
(hand-held, SS 1s - I like the IBIS of this camera)
Delicious!!!
Yes to IBIS! I have hand tremors that can get pretty bad at times but the IBIS in the GFX is fantastic!
Happy New Year!
Dan
Dan, you are too generous. I spent three weeks with this new to me camera, and to be honest, I am not sure I get the results right. Working with the raw files from the GFX100S II & GF20-35mm F4 feels like new territory to me. The color profiles in Capture One (the default, Cobalt, and some others) feel different from everything I experienced before. I have this sense of uncertainty - am I getting the colors right? Am I biased toward the warm colors, or maybe the color profiles I am using are biased? Is the white balance of the camera biased?
So much of my photography are travel snapshots. This means that often the photos have extreme highlights and shadows. With the GFX100S II, the raw files allow me to recover the shadows, but then I am left wondering is this has been appropriate. That is, I am concerned that my processed images may look fake HDR-like, also lacking contrast. However, when I add contrast, I get the feeling that I may want the processed images to be softer. And, the ultimate question, I often cannot tell if it was worth it to process some images, or maybe they had to be culled and I wasted my time. Obviously, I am not making sense.
Here is a random example of what I am talking about. First, the image with lens correction applied, but no further processing.
The second is a rendering of the raw file, processed to my taste.
Are you by chance using DR200 or 400? If so, try turning this setting to OFF in the menu for all your recipes and you should find your raw files are (a lot) more appropriately exposed. It's a jpeg highlight saving tool useful for retaining highlights when shooting jpeg, not useful at all for high-bit raw.
It's very useful for RAW too, at least on the 50 mpix sensor. Looks way better than trying to recover shadows at ISO 100 (with the exact same shutter speed and aperture to retain highlights).
Edit: By the way, for those using C1, try lowering "clarity" to below zero. I've found that default is too much, making images look harsh and unnatural. I usually end up at -20 or thereabout.
Perhaps on the 50’s, I never owned one. But all it does in raw is underexpose by 400% or 2 stops. With auto iso set, it may use iso for the reduction, or shutter speed at base iso, so all it amounts to is having to regain in raw to get proper exposure back. There is more than enough headroom in the high-bit 100 raw files to not need to underexpose the raws, even in extreme high contrast scenes. IOW, by using it, you’re creating extra and unnecessary work, and potentially diminishing the shadow end of DR in the raw. But it can be advantageous if shooting 8-bit JPEGs.
It does the same on the 50. What i mean is that _if_ you expose lower to not blow out highlights, you might as well use the DR200 or DR400 modes, because it looks better than lifting the shadows in PP.
ISO doesn't really matter in the end. What matters is how much light you let in on the sensor. Underexposing 2 stops at ISO 100 is effectively the same as normal exposure at ISO 400. Because you will (or at least can) use the same shutter speed and aperture.
If there is two full stops of "headroom" above white in the files from the GFX100, that's a really strange decision they did. Then you are throwing away two bits of depth every time you expose "perfectly". Makes little sense. Up to one stop is quite common, but never heard of two.
I wouldn’t say two stops if headroom. But around 12 stops total DR in raw 14 bit, and 12 stops is broader than most scenes you come across. Hence, you have ample highlight data to pull it back if so desired. Re your argument re iso, in normal light, the camera might not need more than iso 100 while maintaining adequate shutter speed, so under exposure becomes more potentially damaging than beneficial. Any way you slice it, most of the time all DR400 accomplishes is adding more work in post and potentially harming shadow detail in some cases. IMHO FAR BETTER to use Exposure Comp if you're worried about protecting highlight details.
|
