JadedWriter wrote:
Dan, that thing is a landmark. I either basically work that thing into the shot or I don't shoot there at all. I actually referenced some of my older shots there and I will concede I worked it in better, but there's a good chance that I had more maneuver room since this is public space. Poop happens, I have other shots of her better than this and i'm moving from critiquing said shot since I really don't have time to get into a 3 page session with you and even if I did I'd still drop the conversation at some point.
It might be a landmark, but the first thing I saw when I looked at that photo was a very large and very unusual hat! I think the issue is centering it right above her head, and having the circular shape where a hat might be… and the fact that the statue is essentially the same color as the hat.
Some ways you could include it might be to put more (or less?) distance between the subject and the monument, possibly to raise the camera position so that it is higher, or to move it off to one side. My preference, since the person is the subject, would be to not include it at all.
They always want that thing. I think I just got tired of dealing with the crowd in the background and eventually just moved off of that thing. I don't claim to be perfect and I know not everything I produce is a banger. She was the first one I was dealing with and it's just "whatever" at this point. gdanmitchell wrote:
It might be a landmark, but the first thing I saw when I looked at that photo was a very large and very unusual hat! I think the issue is centering it right above her head, and having the circular shape where a hat might be… and the fact that the statue is essentially the same color as the hat.
Some ways you could include it might be to put more (or less?) distance between the subject and the monument, possibly to raise the camera position so that it is higher, or to move it off to one side. My preference, since the person is the subject, would be to not include it at all.
I had to work with 12 out of 24 students from multiple campuses, plus group shots. People are going to get shake and baked at that point. Plus it was drizzling. That full album is in there. gdanmitchell wrote:
It ain’t a rule. it is an observation. But..
… if it doesn’t bother your clients, then whatever…
Someone did that to me in Paris, but I wasn’t paying them, so we had a good laugh over it. ;-)
JadedWriter wrote:
I had to work with 12 out of 24 students from multiple campuses, plus group shots. People are going to get shake and baked at that point. Plus it was drizzling. That full album is in there.
Stop with the ego, man. Somebody pointed out a mistake you did, take it to heart and learn from it instead of trying to prove you're some big shot photographer.
A lot of your photos are out of focus too, by the way.
Like I get that photography rules are a thing, but I honestly don't subscribe to them.
You should probably try to follow the rules more, not less. They exist for a reason. Once you've mastered the basics, you can start breaking the rules.
jaygould wrote:
Stop with the ego, man. Somebody pointed out a mistake you did, take it to heart and learn from it instead of trying to prove you're some big shot photographer.
A lot of your photos are out of focus too, by the way.
You should probably try to follow the rules more, not less. They exist for a reason. Once you've mastered the basics, you can start breaking the rules.
The guy's photos speak for themselves. They're bad and his excuses don't make them any better. Don't waste any more time on him.
Says two people that when I search their posting history I can't find a single thing that they have taken a picture of. I don't care honestly if you like what I photograph. I literally said, "whatever at this point" to Dan. I moved on. You chodes did not. Shit happens nobody is perfect, we all mess up. Get over yourselves. TENOG wrote:
The guy's photos speak for themselves. They're bad and his excuses don't make them any better. Don't waste any more time on him.
I agree on the 16-50! It's amazing, but I just sold it. Petty, but the multi-aperture drive's me bonkers. I have always and continue to shoot fully manual and when I zoom and the aperture changes it always stumbles me. I guess we all have our quirks. I initially bought it thinking it would be a great lens for my wife for the few times she wants to take a few photos and doesn't have a clue how a camera works. Then I realized, she can just move her feet.
acroback wrote:
The OG 23mm 1.4F is the best fuji lens I have.
I recently purchased the new XF *kit* lens 16-50mm and boy is it sharp. This is the finest kit lens I have used in 18 years of using Cameras.
I also have the OG aperture ring less Fuji 28mm 2.8F prime and that thing is also pretty sharp wife open.
Thanks
I have that 23mm f/1.4, and I love it for night street photography, though two minor nits: it is larger than some of the other somewhat similar lenses I use, and it has the unusual sliding barrel feature that does a hard switch between AF and manual focus. If you aren't careful you may accidentally move it to the wrong position!
I had the original 27mm (not 28mm) f/2.8 lens (w/o aperture ring) and loved its optical performance, too. I now use the newer model with the aperture ring and it is the lens most often found on my XT5.
I think that some people fail to realize how good a lens it is because, well, it is just hard to accept that a small, not-too-expensive pancake lens could perform so well.
A minor point on "best optical performance" and how it relates to Fuji X 40 mp sensor cameras, as well as 60mp sensor Fx cameras (as well as with 100mp large sensor cameras, although they have a slightly lower pixel pitch with lenses that aren't as capable as the best APS-c or Fx lenses, so the net point is similar.)
Mathematicians named Nyquist and Shannon gave us a formula for practical, maximum sampling required to reconstruct a signal as 2x the highest possible frequency. The pixel pitch on a 40mp APS-c camera is 3.04 um. (A micrometer, um, is 1/1000th of a mm.) This translates to a peak resolution capability of roughly 330 linear pixels per mm, or as used for lens resolution measurements per Nyquist-Shannon, the 40mp sensor has a maximum resolving capability of 165 Line-pairs/mm.
On an optical bench, which has the lens locked down on a high-mass table, with an ultra-fine wire cross hair positioned at the focal plane and using this system via aerial projection to interpret resolution, the best photographic lenses can achieve just over 200 LP/mm. Unfortunately environmental factors do not allow for this level of precision in normal use, especially as it relates to photography even using the most robust tripods and image taking protocols.
While the best lenses can achieve over 200 LP/mm resolution, the typical "excellent" photographic lens is probably closer to 120LP/mm and the typical "really good" lenses are probably down around 100. The point here is theoretically speaking there are a few lenses that can out-resolve the 40mp APS-c sensor, but not many. Moreover, in order to achieve that level of performance, you'd need perfect laboratory capture conditions. You might get close in a very good studio in a remote, vibration-free location, but it's going to be nearly impossible outdoors; and certainly not possible hand-held.
I suspect the best Fuji X lenses can resolve close to the above Nyquist limit at ideal apertures in the center. But the second major point is now how can you display it? 200% crops placed side-by-side from comparative images is typical, and does in fact show some of the minute technical gain the superior optic offers; but that gain remains difficult to see even in a very large 40" print at close viewing distances; and then you'd have to have an identical print from the superior lens right next to it for comparison in order to see the warts.
In film days a lens that would do 100 lp/mm was a nice thing to have. But you needed the low speed films like Panatomic X (and a very heavy tripod) to see the benefit. They were the very best lenses for 'normal' photography. Higher resolution lenses were generally high contrast process photography lenses, used on very stable process cameras in the making of lithographic plates etc for printing, tones between black and white (a density of close to 3 to record white and clear film to record black on the negatives) were decidedly not required. Anything else was produced by half tone screens. I used one for a few years, up to 20x16 inch sheet lith film.
What exactly is the right focal length for a portrait?
I don't believe there is one definitive answer to this question. I've seen great portraits taken with focal lengths from 28mm to 400mm. For portraits, I personally prefer a portrait range from 85mm to 200mm with the sweet spot being around 135mm. If I had to select an ideal Fuji lens for portraits, I'd go with the 90mm f2.
gyoung143 wrote:
In film days a lens that would do 100 lp/mm was a nice thing to have. But you needed the low speed films like Panatomic X (and a very heavy tripod) to see the benefit. They were the very best lenses for 'normal' photography. Higher resolution lenses were generally high contrast process photography lenses, used on very stable process cameras in the making of lithographic plates etc for printing, tones between black and white (a density of close to 3 to record white and clear film to record black on the negatives) were decidedly not required. Anything else was produced by half tone screens. I used one for a few years, up to 20x16 inch sheet lith film.
Gerry, I remember the “list” of 4x5 LF lenses that could resolve 90 LP/mm — they were the holy grail of film capture. Atlas shrugged as soon as we achieved 16 megapixels on a full frame digital sensor, and lens resolving capability became an addictionss. And of course a few notable manufacturers embraced our desires
