Fuji X10 Pictures

Lawrence A.

Hall of Famer
Location
New Mexico
Real Name
Larry
My experience with my own published photos is that they can look really different on different screens and devices, so I try for a middle ground as much as I can by looking at each one on the different screens. This one on my iPad Jr. tends to look like a not-so-good exposure from my first digital camera, the 1.5 mp Kodak DC260.

The first thing I would do to this is increase the density (for lack of a better term), using the Gamma slider in Paint Shop Pro v6. So that's not an increase in contrast or local contrast - I think people use the term Curves for that kind of function.

If you'll forgive, here's what I did before and after:

View attachment 27125

View attachment 27126
Like I've said, it's a 100% center crop of a (rather boring) test image. Here's a downsized 1400px image of the original RAW conversion I've taken it from.

View attachment 27124

The exposure (WB, colors, contrast, tonal distribution, ...) looks absolutely OK to me on my calibrated Dell monitor, Dale. It's not the most crunchy image there is but pretty typical for a largely unprocessed RAW conversion from the X10 and close to what I remember (I pass the place every day). Taken out of its context and viewed at 100% the center crop might look a little flat, especially on some older low-res or laptop screens, but the original downsized image above should look just fine on any calibrated monitor.

It looks great to me. Even in the cropped examples, yours and Dale's, the original looks better, as the increase in D-max in the latter accentuates the file's shortcomings, at least to me, causing it to look even more broken up. In the full image the contrast seems largely true to me for an overcast day, both on my desktop and on my Samsung Tab A 9.7 (with basic color recalibration). But to my eye a significant percent of what I see on[line has too much contrast and is over[sharpened, so I think your processing just suits my sensibilities. My desktop monitor is only software calibrated (but I can see the all the gray patches on DP Review's site), and my main preoccupation is getting what I see on my screen to match what I print. Beyond what looks good to me on my main monitor, I've given up trying to second guess what other people will be viewing it on. There is an Apple monitor that I know can do better that I friend has set to make everything look like it is viewed through yellow tinted lenses. Which reminds me of a story: In a lab I work in, we had a photographer who would come in with -- you guessed it -- yellow tinted lenses. He'd leave them on as he looked at his print and then complain that it was "too warm". We never did strangle him, though we were sorely tempted.

What I notice about this thread is the sheer quantity of really good, photographically interesting shots. The X10 just encourages looking and seeing, or it did for me. I really must get another one.
 

ReD

Hall of Famer
What I notice about this thread is the sheer quantity of really good, photographically interesting shots. The X10 just encourages looking and seeing, or it did for me. I really must get another one.

Personally 95% of the shots I show are pp'd - normally with a mix of Picasa and Perfect Effects 9 - fairly rare for me to put up a SOCC but here is another - tripod (actually Gorilla type pod) pays off
Shot in square format jpeg with photax yellow filter and a blue tinted window at side of bay - hence the green tint. Border is gratis.

25944147664_f2e8495ea4_b.jpg

DSCF6792 B
by Roger Evans, on Flickr​
 
Last edited:

SnapDawg

Rorschach Test Pilot
Location
Canary Islands
Real Name
Ken
DSCF9328-cnew-1k.jpg
 

SnapDawg

Rorschach Test Pilot
Location
Canary Islands
Real Name
Ken
It looks great to me. Even in the cropped examples, yours and Dale's, the original looks better, as the increase in D-max in the latter accentuates the file's shortcomings, at least to me, causing it to look even more broken up. In the full image the contrast seems largely true to me for an overcast day, both on my desktop and on my Samsung Tab A 9.7 (with basic color recalibration). But to my eye a significant percent of what I see on[line has too much contrast and is over[sharpened, so I think your processing just suits my sensibilities. My desktop monitor is only software calibrated (but I can see the all the gray patches on DP Review's site), and my main preoccupation is getting what I see on my screen to match what I print. Beyond what looks good to me on my main monitor, I've given up trying to second guess what other people will be viewing it on. There is an Apple monitor that I know can do better that I friend has set to make everything look like it is viewed through yellow tinted lenses. Which reminds me of a story: In a lab I work in, we had a photographer who would come in with -- you guessed it -- yellow tinted lenses. He'd leave them on as he looked at his print and then complain that it was "too warm". We never did strangle him, though we were sorely tempted.

What I notice about this thread is the sheer quantity of really good, photographically interesting shots. The X10 just encourages looking and seeing, or it did for me. I really must get another one.
I've had the chance to try a good number of compact cameras during the last couple years, among them all four incarnations of the RX100 and the X20/X30 and I'm still stuck with the bl..dy X10, can't help it, lol. Regarding the RX100 1-2-3-4, before I'd dish out the cash I've yet to try a copy with a decently centered lens - so far no luck. Reminds me of the 7! 1855 (ex-)kit lenses I've had for my NEXes - not a single one of them was anywhere close to what I'd call centered but maybe some Sony folks still believe to save some bucks that way.

and my main preoccupation is getting what I see on my screen to match what I print.
Same here. I just got an Epson P800 and I'm still messing with the profiles, settings and all sorts of paper - nerve wracking digital alchemy.
 

Latest threads

Top Bottom