Home · Register · Software · Software · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Fuji Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1       2       3              11      
12
       13       end
  

Fujifilm GFX 50S Images
  
 
highdesertmesa
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On
p.12 #1 · p.12 #1 · Fujifilm GFX 50S Images


A few recent GFX 50S images:




© highdesertmesa 2017

  GFX 50S    GF120mmF4 R LM OIS WR Macro lens    120mm    f/4.0    1/420s    100 ISO    -1.3 EV  





© highdesertmesa 2017

  GFX 50S    GF120mmF4 R LM OIS WR Macro lens    120mm    f/4.5    1/125s    250 ISO    -1.0 EV  





© highdesertmesa 2017

  GFX 50S    GF120mmF4 R LM OIS WR Macro lens    120mm    f/4.0    1/125s    200 ISO    -1.0 EV  





© highdesertmesa 2017

  GFX 50S    GF120mmF4 R LM OIS WR Macro lens    120mm    f/4.0    1/180s    100 ISO    0.0 EV  




Dec 07, 2017 at 07:32 PM
JLRII
Offline

Upload & Sell: On
p.12 #2 · p.12 #2 · Fujifilm GFX 50S Images


Several landscapes shot over the past 3-4 months:







Grand Canyon of the Yellowstone (Canon TS-E 17mm f/4 w/ Kipon EF-GFX E adapter - @17mm f/11)

  GFX 50S    f/1.0    1/160s    100 ISO    0.0 EV  







Maroon Bells Alpenglow







Satanka Cove, after sunset

  GFX 50S    GF32-64mmF4 R LM WR lens    32mm    f/8.0    100s    100 ISO    +2.0 EV  







Dawn at Snake River Overlook

  GFX 50S    GF32-64mmF4 R LM WR lens    53mm    f/22.0    120s    100 ISO    0.0 EV  







Smoky sunrise at Bright Angel Point (Grand Canyon north rim)

  GFX 50S    GF23mmF4 R LM WR lens    23mm    f/11.0    4s    100 ISO    0.0 EV  







Dawn at Mesa Arch

  GFX 50S    GF23mmF4 R LM WR lens    23mm    f/11.0    60s    100 ISO    0.0 EV  







Sunset at Coyote Ridge (Canon 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II w/ Kipon EF-GFX E adapter - @400mm f/9)

  GFX 50S    f/1.0    1/200s    100 ISO    0.0 EV  







Moonset at Dead Horse Point

  GFX 50S    GF32-64mmF4 R LM WR lens    32mm    f/4.0    480s    3200 ISO    0.0 EV  




Dec 08, 2017 at 09:23 PM
Steve Spencer
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.12 #3 · p.12 #3 · Fujifilm GFX 50S Images


Here are three recent shots. The first is with the Minolta MD 135mm f/2. The next two are with the Leica R 80 f/1.4

















Dec 11, 2017 at 02:34 AM
dwood
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.12 #4 · p.12 #4 · Fujifilm GFX 50S Images


first snow of the season: Bar Harbor, Maine
GF 32-64








Dec 14, 2017 at 07:22 PM
highdesertmesa
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On
p.12 #5 · p.12 #5 · Fujifilm GFX 50S Images


Velvia profile. No saturation or vibrance added.




© highdesertmesa 2017

  GFX 50S    GF23mmF4 R LM WR lens    23mm    f/4.0    1/60s    160 ISO    0.0 EV  




Dec 20, 2017 at 08:18 PM
chez
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.12 #6 · p.12 #6 · Fujifilm GFX 50S Images


That Velvia profile is way too over the top for my likings. That blue in the sky is just not natural.


Dec 20, 2017 at 10:37 PM
highdesertmesa
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On
p.12 #7 · p.12 #7 · Fujifilm GFX 50S Images


chez wrote:
That Velvia profile is way too over the top for my likings. That blue in the sky is just not natural.


The Velvia profile is not what's making this so saturated – it's the contrast, dehaze, and gradient mask white balance adjustments that I made.

Shooting at 5500' in the New Mexican high desert with thin air, near zero particulate matter, and extremely low humidity yields incredible sunsets with deep color saturation. None of the color profiles, even Velvia, render the colors with the intensity I see when I take these photos.

People who live in New Mexico understand the colors in my images. If you see sunsets here, "These colors can't be real!" is exactly what runs through your mind. And I can't scientifically prove it, but I believe that the memory of sunsets such as these are even more vivid – the feeling of the experience of it if you will. I can't explain it really – it's something spiritual perhaps. This is why I push the color to the limits of good taste without (hopefully) breaking them.

The end result reminds me of the experience of the moment, and typically landscape photographers not working in this area don't get it. On the other hand, painters, artists, and others native to this area react positively to my work. I've lost count of the number of comments I've gotten expressing, "You're the first person's photos I've ever seen that truly show what a New Mexican sunset really looks like." While I know many other New Mexican photographers taking the same kind of photos, the point still is images like this strike a chord with the audience I'm trying to reach – perhaps the audience on this forum, not so much.



Edited on Dec 20, 2017 at 11:41 PM · View previous versions



Dec 20, 2017 at 11:29 PM
chez
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.12 #8 · p.12 #8 · Fujifilm GFX 50S Images


highdesertmesa wrote:
The Velvia profile is not what's making this so saturated – it's the contrast, dehaze, and gradient mask white balance adjustments that I made.

Shooting at 5500' in the New Mexican high desert with thin air, near zero particulate matter, and extremely low humidity yields incredible sunsets with deep color saturation. None of the color profiles, even Velvia, render the colors with the intensity I see when I take these photos.

People who live in New Mexico understand the colors in my images. If you see sunsets here, "These colors can't be real!" is exactly what runs through your mind. And I
...Show more

I guess I just need to take your word on it. The reds I believe as i’ve seen sunsets as brilliant...but the blues in the sky i’ve only seen when people over used a polarizer.




Dec 20, 2017 at 11:41 PM
highdesertmesa
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On
p.12 #9 · p.12 #9 · Fujifilm GFX 50S Images


chez wrote:
I guess I just need to take your word on it. The reds I believe as i’ve seen sunsets as brilliant...but the blues in the sky i’ve only seen when people over used a polarizer.



I totally get what you're saying. I do push these files past what I saw, just not past what I experienced. Not sure that makes sense, but there it is.

There's also a deeper exploration I enjoy of finding the colors available to me in a scene. Sometimes I ask myself, "What colors is this sensor seeing, and can I bring them out in a pleasing way?" In doing this, the sensor becomes the "mind's eye" if you will, showing me what it saw, rather than what I think it should see.

Veering a bit off topic, but I've always been fascinated with people's reaction to strong color. Strong color warms some people, yet offends others. I'm also fascinated when people react negatively to photos they deem "unnatural", as if they are somehow being cheated by being shown something that is not real. It's interesting that the same person who reacts negatively to oversaturated color in a photograph often has a completely different reaction to an oil painting that goes even further. I suppose many people have an implied "trust" in photographs. Photographs have a duty to show them reality, and when their brain tells them they are not seeing reality, the aesthetic opinion of the work is diminished.



Dec 20, 2017 at 11:53 PM
gdanmitchell
Online
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.12 #10 · p.12 #10 · Fujifilm GFX 50S Images


highdesertmesa wrote:
Veering a bit off topic, but I've always been fascinated with people's reaction to strong color. Strong color warms some people, yet offends others. I'm also fascinated when people react negatively to photos they deem "unnatural", as if they are somehow being cheated by being shown something that is not real. It's interesting that the same person who reacts negatively to oversaturated color in a photograph often has a completely different reaction to an oil painting that goes even further. I suppose many people have an implied "trust" in photographs. Photographs have a duty to show them reality, and when
...Show more

There is a lot to think about in that paragraph, and it aligns with much of my thinking and that of quite a few photographers.

The "implied 'trust'" issue is a tricky one. I'm not one to set objective boundaries around what a photograph can and cannot do. There is an element of "honesty" and "truth" in art and in photographs, but that is more complex than some attempt at objective reality in a photograph. (In my view, and objectively real photograph is an impossibility.)

As an example of how complicated this is, and perhaps of how some principles can work across a wide range of work, consider a couple of things we may have seen.

In the first case, think of some of those photographic images that, for example, add a gigantic and obviously impossible moon into a landscape photograph. While we can't (or at least I can't) say that this is wrong or shouldn't be done, I/we can think about how this works in the relationship between the photographer and viewer. Most viewers — as long as they aren't photographers or astronomers — simply find such things "spectacular" and see them as extraordinary "captures" of something in the real world that normal people simply don't see. Some photographers may go even further and — as in one famous example that I won't identify — accompany the image with text describing the incredible lengths the photographer went to in order to find and capture this spectacular and elusive phenomenon.

The problem that such photographs bring is that the extent to which they "work" depends almost wholly on a deception that is made particularly strong when the image of the moon is presented in photographic form, using a medium that most viewers trust to represent the reality it captured. Take away the deception — tell the viewer that it was a photoshop trick — and the power of the image is gone.

In a second case, consider the work of photographers such as Jerry Uelsmann or others who "construct" fantastical images using photographic techniques. (A couple years ago I saw marvelous prints by a Chinese photographer that edited together large numbers of photographs of buildings in order to create impossible architectures.) Uelsmann, using film technology, produces imaginary landscapes which, for example, may combine the nude human form with natural landscapes.

What he does is no more or less unreal than what the "giant moon" photographer does — so it can't simply be the use of manipulative techniques that is the problem. It is the context. Uelsmann is not trying to trick anyone. His work is utterly honest and truthful. It presents his own subjective reality, constructed photographically. It would be absurd to object to it because it involves manipulations. The answer to that would be, "Of course!"

I have a friend who once reminded me that the simplest and least sophisticated response to a temptation or a challenge is to resort to simple rule following, and that a more sophisticated response involves considering complex and sometimes contradictory elements and then making a case-by-case judgment. I think that is true of photography, too.

Speaking for myself, I'm very put off by the giant moon school of photography, but I'm very impressed by the kinds of imaginary work done by people like Uelsmann.

And finally, for me, the goal of simply recreating some sort of objective photographic recording of "the thing I saw" is both impossible (all photographs lie) and pointless (it can never be more real than the thing itself). To me, the most interesting photographs show me how the photographer sees the world, and even includes me in that constructed world.



Dec 21, 2017 at 03:48 AM
 

Search in Used Dept. 

        


rbf_
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.12 #11 · p.12 #11 · Fujifilm GFX 50S Images


gdanmitchell wrote:
There is a lot to think about in that paragraph, and it aligns with much of my thinking and that of quite a few photographers.

The "implied 'trust'" issue is a tricky one. I'm not one to set objective boundaries around what a photograph can and cannot do. There is an element of "honesty" and "truth" in art and in photographs, but that is more complex than some attempt at objective reality in a photograph. (In my view, and objectively real photograph is an impossibility.)

As an example of how complicated this is, and perhaps of how some principles can
...Show more

I've also wondered why these same photographers who are allergic to vivid colors as "not what I saw" although we encounter and see them often in real life are also often romantically attached to Black and White photography. I like B+W photography myself but I've never seen anything in B+W. It seems to be an inconsistent position to hold. It's probably also prudent to note that people perceptions and biological ability to see color varies a bit and isn't standard.



Dec 21, 2017 at 03:56 AM
minolta200
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.12 #12 · p.12 #12 · Fujifilm GFX 50S Images


I used a Fotodiox to large format adapter on my GFX. I was able to take three images and merged into one. 132.8 mp file. The large format camera was an old Graflex Speed Graphic with a 1942 Kodak Anastigmat 6 3/8 inch lens at F8. Below is a link to download this image. The lens is not the sharpest, but it worked well. Generally, I do like the adapter. I like the look of large format images. I wish the adapter comes with a dark slide so the sensor is protected when no using though.

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/0vksmnp7nvnzs4y/AAC-mwDo0HpZiYf4UVWS4hkxa?dl=0



Dec 21, 2017 at 05:20 AM
highdesertmesa
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On
p.12 #13 · p.12 #13 · Fujifilm GFX 50S Images


gdanmitchell wrote:
There is a lot to think about in that paragraph, and it aligns with much of my thinking and that of quite a few photographers.

The "implied 'trust'" issue is a tricky one. I'm not one to set objective boundaries around what a photograph can and cannot do. There is an element of "honesty" and "truth" in art and in photographs, but that is more complex than some attempt at objective reality in a photograph. (In my view, and objectively real photograph is an impossibility.)

As an example of how complicated this is, and perhaps of how some principles can
...Show more

Some great points made. It’s a mysterious process by which our brains divide and conquer when it comes to judging artwork. I could try and say it much more eloquently, but in the end it boils down to deciding, “Do I find this interesting and beautiful, or do I find it irritating and tacky?” — and — “Do I understand it?”

I also wonder if as a society, do we truly value traditional color landscape photography as art and not merely artwork? As was just mentioned in the post below yours, black and white photography helps give landscape shots an artistic classification that I think most people find more willing to accept them as a higher form of art. So with color landscape photography, in order to climb out of the mirey clay so to speak, how to we propel our photos beyond simply something pretty to frame and hang on the wall of a hotel lobby? What makes our landscape shots any better than the photo of a windsurfer on the wall inside a Whataburger during the late 1980s?

For myself, I try (and don’t always succeed) to find some sort of “character” in a landscape - some sort of drama like a cloudform that reminds me of a bird or rolling apocalyptic clouds that remind me of the end of days. And without something like this on a shot, I have a harder time selling myself and others on an over-the-top color and contrast rendition of the scene. But if I can come up with an image that reminds me of say a William Blake painting or an old oil painting (something Canon sensors lend themselves toward IMO), then I can feel really good about it.

— and apologies for posting non-GFX images in a GFX images thread, but I haven’t had the GFX long enough to get shots like theses.




© highdesertmesa 2017

  Canon EOS 5DS R    EF100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM lens    100mm    f/5.0    1/400s    100 ISO    0.0 EV  





© highdesertmesa 2017

  LEICA Q (Typ 116)    28.0 mm f/1.7 lens    28mm    f/1.7    1/500s    100 ISO    0.0 EV  





© highdesertmesa 2017

  Canon EOS 5D    EF100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM lens    100mm    f/8.0    1/1250s    100 ISO    -1.0 EV  




Dec 21, 2017 at 05:34 AM
highdesertmesa
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On
p.12 #14 · p.12 #14 · Fujifilm GFX 50S Images


rbf_ wrote:
I've also wondered why these same photographers who are allergic to vivid colors as "not what I saw" although we encounter and see them often in real life are also often romantically attached to Black and White photography. I like B+W photography myself but I've never seen anything in B+W. It seems to be an inconsistent position to hold. It's probably also prudent to note that people perceptions and biological ability to see color varies a bit and isn't standard.


I think the key lies in the concept of “suspension of disbelief” whereby black and white photos innately telegraph their intent to the viewer saying, “This is not reality, but you like it, don’t you?”

Another big win for black and white is even though it’s less real than a color photograph, it is simpler, less complex. The viewer can make aesthetic observations about the scene they may have overlooked in a color photo. People seem less likely to fault a b&w shot for a dramatically-black daytime sky than they are to criticize an overly deep blue sky in a color photo — even though both may have been shot with the same level of polarization.



Dec 21, 2017 at 05:57 AM
gdanmitchell
Online
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.12 #15 · p.12 #15 · Fujifilm GFX 50S Images


rbf_ wrote:
I've also wondered why these same photographers who are allergic to vivid colors as "not what I saw" although we encounter and see them often in real life are also often romantically attached to Black and White photography. I like B+W photography myself but I've never seen anything in B+W. It seems to be an inconsistent position to hold. It's probably also prudent to note that people perceptions and biological ability to see color varies a bit and isn't standard.


I've been able to occasionally stop those folks in their tracks by pointing that out. I can't think of a day when it was black and white outside.

Left unsaid in your comment is the fact that many (though not all) of them are "romantically attached" to Ansel's work. I like to share a few things with them if I think this is the case:

1. Ansel was deeply into image "manipulation" in the darkroom and, for that matter, in the camera. He was quite open about the fact that the negative was just the starting point for the interpretation that arrived in the print. He dodged, he burned, he used a variety of contrast-level papers, he pre-exposed negatives, he used filters, he applied movements when using view cameras.

2. Some of his most famous and successful photographs are some of the most highly manipulated. "Moonrise, Hernandez..." arguably his most famous photograph, began as an awful looking negative. (You can search on this and find a contact print online.) The beautiful and dramatic print that we know was the result of relatively extreme work in post. The sky is burned down to almost black, clouds are "disappeared" in some interpretations, a distant mountain range is made much brighter, and so forth.

3. His interpretations of specific photographs evolved over time, in ways that are plainly obvious if you get to see different versions of the same image printed at different times in his life. In general, later prints often used higher contrast levels.

4. He wasn't above literally changing the content of a photograph. One of the most famous examples is a well-known photograph of Mount Whitney, with a horse caught in a beam of light in the foreground. The photograph was made near the California town of Lone Pine. If you look closely at the left end of the foreground hills, you can probably make out the faint letters "LP," placed there by local high school students. In most versions of the print he has rendered these letters essentially invisible.

You could pick any of a huge number of other well-known and well-regarded photographers doing classic black and white work and discover similar things.

Like I wrote earlier, things are complicated.



Dec 21, 2017 at 06:17 AM
molson
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.12 #16 · p.12 #16 · Fujifilm GFX 50S Images


highdesertmesa wrote:
The Velvia profile is not what's making this so saturated – it's the contrast, dehaze, and gradient mask white balance adjustments that I made.

Shooting at 5500' in the New Mexican high desert with thin air, near zero particulate matter, and extremely low humidity yields incredible sunsets with deep color saturation. None of the color profiles, even Velvia, render the colors with the intensity I see when I take these photos.

People who live in New Mexico understand the colors in my images. If you see sunsets here, "These colors can't be real!" is exactly what runs through your mind. And I
...Show more

We would often have similar sunrises and sunsets in southern Alberta. I would seldom post those kinds of images, because of comments like the one Harry (chez) made - the colours really are unbelievable at times, no matter how much you dial down the saturation.



Dec 21, 2017 at 03:34 PM
rbf_
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.12 #17 · p.12 #17 · Fujifilm GFX 50S Images


molson wrote:
We would often have similar sunrises and sunsets in southern Alberta. I would seldom post those kinds of images, because of comments like the one Harry (chez) made - the colours really are unbelievable at times, no matter how much you dial down the saturation.


I was shooting a sunset west over Boston Harbor from the tip of Cape Cod and had one so brilliantly vivid that the Velvia film sim was causing massive detail loss in the sky. I had to dial it down to the much less saturated film sim Classic Chrome for the jpeg's to show the detail that was there. I shoot Raw+jpeg to have quickly shareable pics plus Raws to develop later.



Edited on Dec 21, 2017 at 04:48 PM · View previous versions



Dec 21, 2017 at 04:09 PM
rbf_
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.12 #18 · p.12 #18 · Fujifilm GFX 50S Images


highdesertmesa wrote:
Some great points made. It’s a mysterious process by which our brains divide and conquer when it comes to judging artwork. I could try and say it much more eloquently, but in the end it boils down to deciding, “Do I find this interesting and beautiful, or do I find it irritating and tacky?” — and — “Do I understand it?”

I also wonder if as a society, do we truly value traditional color landscape photography as art and not merely artwork? As was just mentioned in the post below yours, black and white photography helps give landscape shots an
...Show more

Love these photos! They do have an ominous moodiness to them



Dec 21, 2017 at 04:18 PM
rbf_
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.12 #19 · p.12 #19 · Fujifilm GFX 50S Images


gdanmitchell wrote:
I've been able to occasionally stop those folks in their tracks by pointing that out. I can't think of a day when it was black and white outside.

Left unsaid in your comment is the fact that many (though not all) of them are "romantically attached" to Ansel's work. I like to share a few things with them if I think this is the case:

1. Ansel was deeply into image "manipulation" in the darkroom and, for that matter, in the camera. He was quite open about the fact that the negative was just the starting point for the interpretation that arrived
...Show more

Yes, utilizing process to create artwork has long been an integral part of photography. In the portraiture studio I worked in we would often retouch the final prints to get the result we were looking for. Particularly the larger ones where small blemishes in complexion would be much more noticeable.



Dec 21, 2017 at 04:38 PM
highdesertmesa
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On
p.12 #20 · p.12 #20 · Fujifilm GFX 50S Images


gdanmitchell wrote:
I can't think of a day when it was black and white outside.


That would make a good signature.



Dec 21, 2017 at 04:56 PM
1       2       3              11      
12
       13       end






FM Forums | Fuji Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1       2       3              11      
12
       13       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username     Reset password