My goal when editing is to make the photo look better than the JPG preview that comes from the camera. It would be easy to get lost in Python and all sorts of theories without this simple sanity check. I've figured out how to use Darktable to get what I want for the most part, but the more subjective aspects like cropping, lighting and color balance are a work in progress.
I spent years (literally, if tallied up) processing RAW files to look better (much better) than the in-camera JPEGs. My wife and I shot weddings, portraits, products, food, etc. The power of RAW and the editing software (nice choice, BTW) is really amazing.
Alas, I have come full circle now and only shoot JPEG. I switched to Fujifilm (from Canon) a couple of years back and have focused on “film simulations” and getting the shot right when I release the shutter. It’s a more “film-like” experience and it drives my creativity and enforces discipline. Having said that, I only shoot for pleasure now, not money, and sometimes I do want a second chance to get the shot (but that’s a good thing).
I am mining my first path through a mountain. It is easy to cut a path 20 feet too deep in the grind of discovering what needs to be removed next. It doesn't help that I have multiple mountains I am working on. Some overly cynical old men say that I "have something to prove". I view it as their failure to be helpful to those who are now where they once stood. Learning involves a lot of preoccupation with details and processes and knobs and controls, but that is by necessity. Simplicity is often an illusion of hindsight.
In many cases a photo doesn't need to be edited or even to look good, it just needs to show what was photographed. If one just wants to play with the programs and controls, then awareness of the subject is just a hindrance. So part of the life of a photographer is the necessary quest to find subjects to match aspirations. For some that is within walking distance, others require special permits.
In many cases a photo doesn't need to be edited or even to look good, it just needs to show what was photographed. If one just wants to play with the programs and controls, then awareness of the subject is just a hindrance. So part of the life of a photographer is the necessary quest to find subjects to match aspirations. For some that is within walking distance, others require special permits.
I tried out the Nikon Z6II with the 50mm F/1.4 AF Z lens in movie mode today. Wow, the video quality is stunning. At large apertures, there is subject separation and the continuous auto focus tracking keeps the subject sharp. It looks immediately different than an iPhone video, where the very small lens focal length makes everything in focus on videos. The increased resolution and smoothness of the color and tonal rendition is also very beautiful and apparent. I can see why YT content creators typically use full frame cameras for their videos. The in-camera image stabilization also works wonders for reducing hand-induced shakes.
Nice shots! What camera and lens? Cranes are great birds to photograph. What is the really colorful bird called?
I used to go to Michigan a lot and remember these huge sandbill cranes near the lake. They were not scared of humans and a sedge of cranes would right by us maybe 3 ft away. They were about 4ft tall - Huge. When they flew by you could hear the whooomph whoomph sound of their slow beating 6ft wings. It was something to behold.
Not my photo but from Wikipedia:
I used to go to Michigan a lot and remember these huge sandbill cranes near the lake. They were not scared of humans and a sedge of cranes would right by us maybe 3 ft away. They were about 4ft tall - Huge. When they flew by you could hear the whooomph whoomph sound of their slow beating 6ft wings. It was something to behold.
Not my photo but from Wikipedia:
Last edited:
The colorful bird is a moorhen.
When I look at these pictures, I regret that I sold my bird photography equipment
When I look at these pictures, I regret that I sold my bird photography equipment
Colorful bird is purple gallinule. I am using same old little mirrorless canon.
Last edited:
Here's something to drool over - the Fujifilm GFX100RF (https://www.fujifilm-x.com/en-ca/products/cameras/gfx100rf/). It's a 44x33mm medium format range finder digital camera.
Edit: It's not actually a range finder, but rather it's designed to look like a range finder.
Edit: It's not actually a range finder, but rather it's designed to look like a range finder.
Last edited:
The reviews are pretty good.
The sacrifice is the slow F/4 lens but not unlike a Mamiya 6 or 7 which had F/3.5 or F/4 at equivalent 28mm frame.
The sacrifice is the slow F/4 lens but not unlike a Mamiya 6 or 7 which had F/3.5 or F/4 at equivalent 28mm frame.
I like that instead of cropping an image during post-processing, you can choose the format (square, rectangular, panoramic, etc.) and see the resulting image in the viewing screen before pressing the shutter. Instead of having to mentally visualize the crop, it would be so much easier to see if the image would work. Saves time in the end, too.
Apparently, it has a leaf shutter (less shock, vibration), so it's possible to shoot at low shutter speeds without image stabilization.
Apparently, it has a leaf shutter (less shock, vibration), so it's possible to shoot at low shutter speeds without image stabilization.
No. 🙂 I wish.
From B&H Photo.
It exudes mechanical simplicity in the user interface. Looks terrific for $4800 vs a $10,000 Leica M series digital body.m
At 44x33 and 28mm equivalent. Cropping down from 100MP to 36x24mm would give about 36mm equivalent focal length FOV and still 80MP. Cropping yet further to 50mm FOV you would get 56MP. All seems great still but main problem is F/4 cannot get the narrow DOF that the F/2 or F/1.4 lenses can get.
From B&H Photo.
It exudes mechanical simplicity in the user interface. Looks terrific for $4800 vs a $10,000 Leica M series digital body.m
At 44x33 and 28mm equivalent. Cropping down from 100MP to 36x24mm would give about 36mm equivalent focal length FOV and still 80MP. Cropping yet further to 50mm FOV you would get 56MP. All seems great still but main problem is F/4 cannot get the narrow DOF that the F/2 or F/1.4 lenses can get.
Last edited:
Yes, a great cam.
I'm eyeing the GFX 50S II with interchangeable lenses and stabilizer, have good used offers...
Sometime... 😀
I'm eyeing the GFX 50S II with interchangeable lenses and stabilizer, have good used offers...
Sometime... 😀
Kwanzan cherry blossoms in DC at Haines Point. Nikon Z6II, 50mm F/1.4 Z, at F/1.4 and 1/4000 second ISO800. Downsampled from 24MPix for posting on DIYA.
