Six Months with the X-Pro2

In article , Me
wrote:

But the shots in the above video could have been taken with any
camera, right?

My first thought after looking at this video was: did Holga start
making lenses for Fuji?

Discounting the fact that I am not impressed by ballerinas in a
derelict industrial setting, I'd like to see at least a couple sharp
photos.

Is this an artifact of Vimeo, or is it his "vision"?

This was sort of my point. None of the shots are SOOC, and all are heavily
post
processed in Lightroom. I have no problem with that of course, and the end
result is aesthetically pleasing, but also quite possible using any modern
camera with enough dynamic range to give post processing tools data to work
with.

There is one simple reason.
Some photographers get paid to blog about cameras - by camera companies.

or post on forums, namely dpreview, under the guise of being a 'very
satisfied user' or similar.

of course they're very satisfied. they're getting free equipment and/or
other perks.

IMO they should disclose this when posting their blogs.

they're legally required to disclose that, otherwise they may face
rather stiff fines.

unfortunately, enforcement is weak, so they often get away with it.

It's especially
silly when as you point out, there's nothing at all technically
remarkable about those photos - they're all achievable with a cheap
camera phone.

In article , Bill W wrote:

Sandman:
You're taking this way too personally. And I am still curious in
what way this supposed "point" manifested itself. Is this a
photographer that usually use Hasselblad cameras and his point is
that he can make what he consider equally great images with
something smaller and cheaper?

I believe that really *is* the point, and the exact reason Duck
posted this. It's a tough decision moving "down" from a DSLR to
mirrorless, so the point is that the Fuji's IQ is easily good enough
for those who are used to DSLR's, and are thinking of switching for
the weight and size benefits. No one is claiming that the IQ is
better, or that the output has some qualities that are missing in
better cameras, or that better overall photos will spew from a
Fuji..

Yes, I assume you're correct. It's a pity it was only a video and not some form
of commentary from the photographer about the purpose of the video.

Oddly, I thought the photos at that link were unimpressive in every
way. And I think it was you who made some remark about ballerinas in
industrial settings. A good example of "trite", eh? The photos Duck
has posted have all been much better examples of the strengths of
that camera series.

Well, to each his own I suppose. There was some overuse of micro contrast in
some shots. Since it's a video about a camera and its capabilities, the
subjects chosen should be secondary, i.e. try to view the photos more from a
technical viewpoint rather than an artistic one. Which of course led to my
question, since there is nothing technically impressive with them really. We
see the Fuji has no problem producing images with a wide dynamic range to make
post processing easier. But other than that, this was not something that
"showed off" the camera too much.

But as I said, perhaps it's just commentary on making DSLR-level photos with a
small compact ASP-C mirrorless which is the real topic here, which of course is
important to a lot of people of course.

--
Sandman

tconway wrote:

Unless, of course, the new camera comes with a chip that produces a
voice saying "Look! Over there, dummy. There's your shot."


This reminds me of a description of many of the new crop of consumer
cameras. They have been called ,"Ph.D" cameras, = Push Here Dummy. Very
few camera-wielding consumers these days know the meaning of f stop,
shutter speed, depth of field, ASA/ISO/DIN, etc..

It is painful and humorous to watch people with cellphone cameras or
tiny pocket cameras with a one-mousepower-watt built-in flash attempting
to take photos of the distant stage or the interior of Carnegie hall.

Good photo shooting,

Mort Linder

On 06/11/2016 11:49 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2016-06-11 15:13:56 +0000, Ken Hart said:

On 06/10/2016 09:00 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2016-06-11 00:39:50 +0000, Ken Hart said:
On 06/10/2016 05:59 PM, Sandman wrote:
In article 2016061014364568872-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:
This is the work of Dutch photographer Piet Van den Eynde in the six
months he has used his X-Pro2. https://vimeo.com/169992597

Not sure what this shows, tough. I mean, what did the X-Pro2 bring to
these photos?

I mean, if someone made a video of shots they took in six months with
the Sony A7S II, you'd expect a series of crisp low-light photos
that are hard
to take with any other camera.

But the shots in the above video could have been taken with any
camera, right?


My first thought after looking at this video was: did Holga start
making lenses for Fuji?

Discounting the fact that I am not impressed by ballerinas in a
derelict industrial setting, I'd like to see at least a couple sharp
photos.

I must admit that I don't get too many opportunities to shoot ballarinas
in derelict industrial settings. However if you actually got to his
Indian set there was much sharpness and clarity to be found. His
photography might not be of a style you and I might shoot, or even be
capable of shooting, but even if they are not to our taste, they do have
a particular quality.

Is this an artifact of Vimeo, or is it his "vision"?

It is probably an artifact of your expression of your particular taste
in images.


No, I have to disagree with that. In another post, there was a link to
the old Indian(?) gentleman holding a camera with the view screen
toward this photographer. That image was tack sharp on my monitor. Not
like the video- it seemed very soft. And an industrial setting should
have plenty of opportunity for sharp images.

I posted that shot to show that he had produced sharp images, there are
others. So there might be something in how vimeo is being rendered on
your display. Did you adjust the HD settings to 1040 by clicking on the
'HD' in the video window and then go view in full screen?

No, I did not- Thank you for pointing that out!
I clicked on the "HD" icon and it was set at "auto", so I changed it to
1080 and maximized the image. There was an improvement, although I hoped
for better. I am going to attribute it to the way it was handled as a
video, either by vimeo or the photographer creating the video.

I won't disparage the photographer's body of work, as I haven't seen
it. But IMHO, the _technical_quality_ of this video pales in
comparison to PeterN's "Liberty" or Tony Cooper's "Dock Pilings".

As I said, opinion and/or taste.

I just appreciate that with his Indian shots, at least, he has captured
images that I probably will will never have the opportunity or skill to
capture, regardless of whatever photo equipment or post processing I
might use.


As for opportunity, that's a tough one. Not everyone gets to do a
photo-excursion to various regions of the world- we have bills to pay
and kids to take to little league games. (I just have the bills, not the
kids!)
But concerning skill, I think you under estimate yourself. I've seen
some of the work you've posted here.



--
Ken Hart

On 06/11/2016 12:37 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Sat, 11 Jun 2016 08:49:38 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

I won't disparage the photographer's body of work, as I haven't seen
it. But IMHO, the _technical_quality_ of this video pales in comparison
to PeterN's "Liberty" or Tony Cooper's "Dock Pilings".

Just for clarification, I did not process the photographs of the
pilings at Lake Monroe. I presented RAW versions and the Duck did the
processing.

Understood.

And I was not able to see the RAW versions as I can't read the DNG
files. But I assume that Mr Duck did not make _serious_ changes in the
technical or compositional aspects without a caveat.

Especially considering the "McCurry Thread without End"!

--
Ken Hart

On 12/06/2016 00:55, Savageduck wrote:
On 2016-06-11 09:51:16 +0000, Me said:

On 11/06/2016 20:03, Sandman wrote:
In article , Ken Hart wrote:

Savageduck:
This is the work of Dutch photographer Piet Van den Eynde in the
six months he has used his X-Pro2. https://vimeo.com/169992597

Sandman:
Not sure what this shows, tough. I mean, what did the X-Pro2 bring
to these photos?

I mean, if someone made a video of shots they took in six months
with the Sony A7S II, you'd expect a series of crisp low-light
photos that are hard to take with any other camera.

But the shots in the above video could have been taken with any
camera, right?

My first thought after looking at this video was: did Holga start
making lenses for Fuji?

Discounting the fact that I am not impressed by ballerinas in a
derelict industrial setting, I'd like to see at least a couple sharp
photos.

Is this an artifact of Vimeo, or is it his "vision"?

This was sort of my point. None of the shots are SOOC, and all are
heavily post
processed in Lightroom. I have no problem with that of course, and
the end
result is aesthetically pleasing, but also quite possible using any
modern
camera with enough dynamic range to give post processing tools data
to work
with.

There is one simple reason.
Some photographers get paid to blog about cameras - by camera companies.
IMO they should disclose this when posting their blogs. It's
especially silly when as you point out, there's nothing at all
technically remarkable about those photos - they're all achievable
with a cheap camera phone.

"They're all achievable with a cheap camera phone."
Perhaps you could demonstrate that for us. Especially since "there's
nothing at all technically remarkable about those photos".

If you provide me with a selection of attractive young ballerina models
and a letter of explanation for my wife, I'll happily oblige.

On 12/06/2016 04:36, nospam wrote:
In article , Me
wrote:

But the shots in the above video could have been taken with any
camera, right?

My first thought after looking at this video was: did Holga start
making lenses for Fuji?

Discounting the fact that I am not impressed by ballerinas in a
derelict industrial setting, I'd like to see at least a couple sharp
photos.

Is this an artifact of Vimeo, or is it his "vision"?

This was sort of my point. None of the shots are SOOC, and all are heavily
post
processed in Lightroom. I have no problem with that of course, and the end
result is aesthetically pleasing, but also quite possible using any modern
camera with enough dynamic range to give post processing tools data to work
with.

There is one simple reason.
Some photographers get paid to blog about cameras - by camera companies.

or post on forums, namely dpreview, under the guise of being a 'very
satisfied user' or similar.

of course they're very satisfied. they're getting free equipment and/or
other perks.

IMO they should disclose this when posting their blogs.

they're legally required to disclose that, otherwise they may face
rather stiff fines.

unfortunately, enforcement is weak, so they often get away with it.

It's usually quite transparent.

What laws are there to prevent shilling? I'm not aware that there are
any where I live, apart from formal advertising standards and the risk
that if you were doing some paid blogging and telling lies (as opposed
to doing some "personal opinion" unpaid blogging), then you might get
sued. As it's nearly impossible to enforce, nothing happens.
Political parties/movements are probably the worst offenders. Unpaid or
paid, it's very clear that they have teams of people saturating the
comments sections on news sites etc, and in a very nasty kind of way
take the concept of "dog-whistle" politics a further step from the old
"are you thinking what we're thinking" to saying exactly what they want
to say under the cover of anonymity.

In article , Me
wrote:

Some photographers get paid to blog about cameras - by camera companies.

or post on forums, namely dpreview, under the guise of being a 'very
satisfied user' or similar.

of course they're very satisfied. they're getting free equipment and/or
other perks.

IMO they should disclose this when posting their blogs.

they're legally required to disclose that, otherwise they may face
rather stiff fines.

unfortunately, enforcement is weak, so they often get away with it.

It's usually quite transparent.

sometimes it's obvious, sometimes it's not.

the problem is that some of them flat out lie about any association.

What laws are there to prevent shilling? I'm not aware that there are
any where I live, apart from formal advertising standards and the risk
that if you were doing some paid blogging and telling lies (as opposed
to doing some "personal opinion" unpaid blogging), then you might get
sued. As it's nearly impossible to enforce, nothing happens.

it's not that it's impossible, it's that almost no effort is put into
enforcing it. even if you report it, nothing happens.

https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/fi...-releases/ftc-
staff-revises-online-advertising-disclosure-guidelines/130312dotcomdiscl
osures.pdf

https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/busi...ftcs-endorseme
nt-guides-what-people-are-asking

Political parties/movements are probably the worst offenders. Unpaid or
paid, it's very clear that they have teams of people saturating the
comments sections on news sites etc, and in a very nasty kind of way
take the concept of "dog-whistle" politics a further step from the old
"are you thinking what we're thinking" to saying exactly what they want
to say under the cover of anonymity.

yep.

On 11/06/2016 20:01, Ken Hart wrote:
[]
And I was not able to see the RAW versions as I can't read the DNG
files. But I assume that Mr Duck did not make _serious_ changes in the
technical or compositional aspects without a caveat.
[]

IrfanView reads .DNG files nicely - try it!

--
Cheers,
David
Web: http://www.satsignal.eu

In article , Me wrote:

unfortunately, enforcement is weak, so they often get away with
it.

It's usually quite transparent.

What laws are there to prevent shilling? I'm not aware that there
are any where I live, apart from formal advertising standards and
the risk that if you were doing some paid blogging and telling lies

There are regulations governing sponsorships, i.e. when you have a contractual
obligation to a sponsor to endorse their product. I.e. you are paid (in money
or products) with the expressed purpose of endorsing their product. Then you
have an obligation to disclose that when writing about it, regardless of media
(forum, tweets, blog, youtube, etc)

If you're a blogger/reviewer that is given free products in the *hopes* of the
company that you will endorse them, there is nothing regulating you. This of
course is very common (more common among bloggers/reviwers than sponsoring) and
the reviewer need not disclose that the products were given for free.

--
Sandman