Fujifilm X-mount Image Thread
/forum/topic/1097477/48

1       2       3              48      
49
       50              577       578       end

xenor
Registered: Dec 06, 2012
Total Posts: 115
Country: N/A

It was too stormy to go out the other day so I was farting around in the bathroom with my new love interest, the 35mm f/1.4;



















Brody LeBlanc
Registered: Oct 04, 2007
Total Posts: 1052
Country: Canada

Just doing some thinking,
If I used the Adobe DNG converter, would I still have the same issues with the resulting DNG as I would with the RAF file?



monkeycolonel
Registered: Jan 06, 2013
Total Posts: 7
Country: United States

Yes, exactly the same.



Brody LeBlanc
Registered: Oct 04, 2007
Total Posts: 1052
Country: Canada

monkeycolonel wrote:
Yes, exactly the same.


What would be another program that would have the same batch version?
I want to start switching all my files to DNGs.



Ssnycshoot
Registered: Nov 27, 2010
Total Posts: 244
Country: United States

Hi guys. Nice photos everyone.

I Recieved x-e1 yesterday and im super excited. Just won a contax g28mm 2.8 off eBay. I have few questions and I tried to Google it. Couldn't find any answer.

Does it have smearing or color shift issue on x-e1? If yes how should I correct it, I have light room 4 heard it doesn't work well with Fuji sensors.

Which adapter is best solution? Someone recommended metabne. I believe u can't swap lenses on metabone. Is there any alternative in case I want to add more contax g lens and don't have to buy another adapter?

Thanks in advance.



Dave McGaughey
Registered: Jul 08, 2003
Total Posts: 796
Country: United States

Brody LeBlanc wrote:
monkeycolonel wrote:
Yes, exactly the same.


What would be another program that would have the same batch version?
I want to start switching all my files to DNGs.


I wouldn't do this unless you also store the original RAW inside the DNG (should be an option for this). This will make your files quite a bit bigger, of course.



xenor
Registered: Dec 06, 2012
Total Posts: 115
Country: N/A

X-E1 with TS-E 90mm






Kit Laughlin
Registered: Mar 08, 2004
Total Posts: 3917
Country: Australia

Manual focus is very hard on the X-Pro1, since when you click the magnification wheel, it enlarges way too much (10x?). You have to sit down when you do this.
I never really liked the peak-thing on the NEX, it is all over - I prefer doing it with the 4x magnification (9x is too much - I use this for tripod work). Same with the canon, manual focus using live view is doable with 5x, 10x is for tripod. What do you guys think? Very frustrating!!!!


I find the magnification options on the X-E1 work very well, and if on a tripod, the higher mag. absolutely lets you see the in-focus zone move across the image (I was trying out the 50/1.4 Rokkor on the X-E1). From memory, the lower power option is 3x on the X-E1, too (someone correct me here, please).



KatieInTexas
Registered: Jan 27, 2011
Total Posts: 1229
Country: United States

X Pro 1 with 35 and CV 15 - Real Estate Job



Brody LeBlanc
Registered: Oct 04, 2007
Total Posts: 1052
Country: Canada

Dave McGaughey wrote:
I wouldn't do this unless you also store the original RAW inside the DNG (should be an option for this). This will make your files quite a bit bigger, of course.

What would be the reason for not doing this? [changing to DNG without original RAW]



Dave McGaughey
Registered: Jul 08, 2003
Total Posts: 796
Country: United States

Brody LeBlanc wrote:
Dave McGaughey wrote:
I wouldn't do this unless you also store the original RAW inside the DNG (should be an option for this). This will make your files quite a bit bigger, of course.

What would be the reason for not doing this? [changing to DNG without original RAW]


If you do this, you may not be able to process the RAW (now DNG files) in non-Adobe programs. I'm pretty sure CaptureOne, for example, can't read the X-Trans when in a DNG format.



justruss
Registered: Jul 05, 2004
Total Posts: 6523
Country: United States

The bigger question, Brody, is why you'd want to do that in the first place?

As I understand it you wouldn't be gaining flexibility in processing-- you'd be losing it.



Jochenb
Registered: May 25, 2010
Total Posts: 2077
Country: Belgium

X-E1 + 35/1.4 (OOC jpeg, astia):


Layers by Jochen-B, on Flickr



jjf88
Registered: Oct 21, 2004
Total Posts: 876
Country: United States

X pro 1 with the 35mm 1.4 shot raw...ACR processed with 10 points of clarity added



Dave McGaughey
Registered: Jul 08, 2003
Total Posts: 796
Country: United States

jjf88 wrote:
X pro 1 with the 35mm 1.4 shot raw...ACR processed with 10 points of clarity added


Wow. The X-Trans smearing/watercolor effect is horrific in the license plate!



carstenw
Registered: Dec 26, 2005
Total Posts: 16163
Country: Germany

I am not sure how you conclude that with such a low-res sample? Presumably any number of factors could be to blame, including the down-sizing technique, and anyway, I am not sure that I see any smearing there.



Jochenb
Registered: May 25, 2010
Total Posts: 2077
Country: Belgium

Dave McGaughey wrote:
jjf88 wrote:
X pro 1 with the 35mm 1.4 shot raw...ACR processed with 10 points of clarity added


Wow. The X-Trans smearing/watercolor effect is horrific in the license plate!


You can't see it at these sizes. What you're referring to is just the result of downsizing/sharpening.



sebboh
Registered: Nov 02, 2009
Total Posts: 12605
Country: United States

Jochenb wrote:
Dave McGaughey wrote:
jjf88 wrote:
X pro 1 with the 35mm 1.4 shot raw...ACR processed with 10 points of clarity added


Wow. The X-Trans smearing/watercolor effect is horrific in the license plate!


You can't see it at these sizes. What you're referring to is just the result of downsizing/sharpening.


i thought he was just making a joke about the licens number being edited out?



carstenw
Registered: Dec 26, 2005
Total Posts: 16163
Country: Germany

Doh! You are right of course, I completely missed that



Dave McGaughey
Registered: Jul 08, 2003
Total Posts: 796
Country: United States

sebboh wrote:
Jochenb wrote:
Dave McGaughey wrote:
jjf88 wrote:
X pro 1 with the 35mm 1.4 shot raw...ACR processed with 10 points of clarity added


Wow. The X-Trans smearing/watercolor effect is horrific in the license plate!


You can't see it at these sizes. What you're referring to is just the result of downsizing/sharpening.


i thought he was just making a joke about the licens number being edited out?


Thought it was obvious enough I didn't have to add a smiley face!



1       2       3              48      
49
       50              577       578       end