|
|||||
Fujifilm S5 PRO against everyone!In 2021 Fujifilm FinePix S5 Pro everything haunts bloggers. More one opinion about Fujifilm FinePix S5 Pro from the channel 'Full Frame'. Comments: 92, on the topic: Fujifilm S5 PRO against everyone!Add a commentComments are closed |
|||||
|
|
|||||
Copyright © Radojuva.com. Blog author - Photographer in Kiev Arkady Shapoval. 2009-2023
English-version of this article https://radojuva.com/en/2021/07/fujifilm-s5-protiv-vsekh/
Version en español de este artículo https://radojuva.com/es/2021/07/fujifilm-s5-protiv-vsekh/
Perhaps many will find fault with the not ideal technical comparison, but the author's conclusions are very competent and not biased.
Is Vadimka a healthy person?
The comparison technique is a bit incorrect.
The RAW of each camera had to be developed not in Lightroom, but from each camera - in its native program. That's when you can compare color, DD, detail.
Not slightly incorrect, but not at all correct, I would say. In fact, it was not the colors produced by the cameras that were compared, but their interpretation by Lightroom. If they took Capture One or some other developer, then everything could change again.
That's for sure. Lightroom does not handle Fuja Ravas poorly. Checked. Best of all, a native developer for fuja and the first. And here we see an excellent DD s5pro. The picture is just a fairy tale for me (with the right camera settings and thoughtful work with it)
There is no objectively _ best_ color. There is only a SUBJECTIVE best color that EVERY person will have their own. So it is interesting to watch such comparisons, but they are not very useful.
Also, do not forget that the colors that you see on the monitor are the result of processing by the camera, plus the choice of the shooting mode and intra-camera style by the photographer, plus the interpretation of the RAV developer, plus the color rendition of the monitor and the operating system software (if no calibration has been carried out) plus external lighting when viewing plus the features of your eyes and brain. There are so many variables that it is damn hard to bring them all to the same denominator. And without this, any comparison will be incorrect.
Who needs the _ideal_ color rendering, as it was in reality, simply shoots in RAW with the Color Checker in the reference frame with ANY CAMERA and already equalizes the color according to it.
I completely agree with your comment. 5 points out of 5.
The flares in the sun forgot to mention. These are all excuses, just not to admit the obvious. There should be a balance of colors that is pleasing to the eye, purity of color.
To see a good color, you need to look / see good examples.
And then the adherents of the sects “I see it this way” and “it was so in reality” do not even want to think that there is something wrong with their photo in terms of color.
"Each has its own color." Uh-huh, and gender too ...
What do you mean by the concept of "color purity", but without esotericism?
Just clean. When, when enlarged, it does not consist of multi-colored porridge; the photo does not turn red / green / blue / serit ... Clean, as if looking through washed glass.
I asked without esotericism. And you mixed up several problems at once.
Reds-blues-greens are color cast and white balance problems. Actually, the matrices have nothing to do with the color rendering, the matrix is enough as it is, then the processor calculates the BB and can make mistakes in difficult conditions.
Serith? How is it in general? If we talk about saturation, then raised saturation and real color rendition are opposite approaches.
Porridge with an increase ... That is, color noise. Well, in general, you cannot get rid of it in principle, especially in low light - quantization noise and photonic noise + debayering, even when shooting a monochromatic fill, the color will be inhomogeneous. Plus, this noise grows as the ISO rises, "colorful" cameras should sin even more with this.
That is, like audiophiles, there will be no adequate, measurable description, because it is pure subjectivity. You want adequate color reproduction and pleasing colors. What if the original image has unpleasant colors? Watchfulness and film color? Well, I like the film color, but I'm old, I'm used to it. So a habit is not an oversight. I'm just old and I remember film colors from good printing. And examples from painting - so sorry, you see most of the paintings already yellowed, and when restorers restore the original colors, it turns out completely different from what the artist intended. But the artist also realizes the color based on the pigments that he has.
Serite is exactly “serite”, that is, instead of a pure shade of color, you see a dirty one, with an admixture of gray and the devil knows what else. And the point here is not the color saturation, and overclocking the “gray” saturation of the pure color cannot be achieved.
Here it is really either necessary to see and understand what is at stake, or ...)))
I do not understand. Spectral colors - I understand. Non-spectral colors - I understand. Saturated and desaturated colors - I understand.
Overclocking gray saturation? Grayscale has no saturation. A dash of gray is called de-saturation. An admixture of some color gives some other color on the color wheel.
If one cannot explain, but one can only feel, some vibrations, then either the conceptual apparatus is bad, or esotericism.
By the way, Roman, you also easily operate with “spectral colors”, but you don't have “colors” in the photo anywhere. This is your 500px: https://500px.com/p/rkurbatov?view=photos and your Instagram https://www.instagram.com/thecapricornus/ and your Facebook https://www.facebook.com/rkurbatov/photos_by... (everything seems to fit, Lviv, photography, Canon, deep knowledge in software development, etc.).
If there is no color in the photographs - how can you talk about it? This is a common trap for those who go into theory and break away from practice. I have about 200 comments from you here on the site. How can you take them seriously now without crying?
I will probably repeat myself in this thread - it's good when there is a technical understanding of what is happening. And it's very bad when this understanding is not implemented in any way and remains only a theory, but in practice we see what you have on 500px or Instagram.
I here somewhere a little higher or lower wrote about Vadim's color errors, these errors easily fit your photos (probably, right to everyone). And I repeat once again - this is a common occurrence. I very often (almost every day) meet people in my personal correspondence who push very smart thoughts (yesterday's example is also attached here with a screenshot), but they do not understand anything about color or photography. I remember myself in 2009-2011 when I was confident in some theoretical calculations and proved something to someone behind a laptop monitor. Therefore, I wish everyone experience and good pictures. All these thousands of lines are worthless. Good photography is the essence. And good photography comes only through hard, constant work, not through theory. Etc. etc.
I thought that Vadim's treatment was a complete shit, but after Roman's photos I want to wash myself. Cleverly noticed about these home Internet connoisseurs - give them spectral colors!
This reminds me of old notes, to quote with smeared mats:
“The overwhelming audience of the sites is technical students from third-rate universities. That is why there are so many discussions about iron and glass, a detailed classification of devices, complex and very sober calculations. Every second person knows the price by heart and can write a formula for light distortions on a piece of rock crystal of such and such curvature. The discussions are almost religious in their fanatical intensity, measured in coordinates of years and thousands of pages. And not a single, NOT ONE, B______, good photo. NONE, E ______ Ь, GOOD PHOTOS IN THE SECTION !!! "
This just very well characterizes what it was about.
Thank you for attention.
Is it clear now. It will be easier to speak in pictures))
Give your opinion a good picture with clean, saturated (but not embossed, of course) colors and a pleasant color scheme in general.
Look, I answered there to Roman with links to his 500px and Instagram. As in the challenge with Vadim (suggested somewhere here in this thread), look for a good color from Roman (either correct, or neutral, or normal, or calibrated - there is no color at all). There is only creative processing in a certain way. Creativity is good, but I repeat, the one who caught a good color will always strive for it. In this case, the desire is directed towards very specific treatments, typical of beginners.
You want to speak in pictures, but you propose to start me.
And in general - an absolutely inappropriate proposal - it can be a photo, illustration, stylization, reportage - I have to take into account the context. We can photograph something initially unpleasant in color or color combinations - too bright or dull, saturated or desaturated.
For you, a camera with “good” color is a camera that, as a result of internal processing of 1000 images, will give a more subjectively pleasing image in terms of colors than any other camera in the hands of the same person taking the same images. The S5 Pro is supposed to have such images. Here we have a review by Vadim. I don't like all the images from it, whether they are developed correctly or not. How does this happen?
The proposal is usual - I just would like to know what you mean by color photography, and we are talking about the same things or not. The photo does not have to be exactly your authorship, but one that will be exactly color, in your understanding))
And no, for me a color camera is not one that gives a good result right away (yes in any conditions), but one that allows you to extract the desired result with minimal effort.
Of course, with minimal effort you can spoil the result from any color camera in the same way :-) This is the question “how so”.
> but you don't have “colors” in the photo anywhere
Because I don't shoot color, Arkady. I'm primarily interested in plot and form. I'm looking for them. And I distort the color quite deliberately so that it creates the mood I need.
This is somewhat different from the “buy an old camera and shoot everything you see with it, getting beautiful color out of the box” approach. It is assumed that when color is present, all other aspects of the photograph instantly disappear.
> Because I do not shoot color, Arkady
But how well you talk about it, about all these curves, channels, spectra. I constantly encounter the fact that the color is distorted to madness only by those who cannot get it. I know this firsthand.
Agree with Arkady, you have bad pictures, either it was shot on a mobile phone, or on some kind of compact, but really everything is bad, both with the shape and with the color. Amateurishness is the toughest.
Now the phase has turned on - you yourself are a fool and you yourself are not good at shooting. Also, a classic escape from the problem. It's so commonplace and predictable that it's not even interesting.
> the one who caught a good color will always strive for it
For the one who beheld the Lord, hereinafter referred to in the text.
It doesn't matter anymore. I can’t take any seriously to your conclusions after what I saw. Anyways thanks for trying
Unlike most of my interlocutors, I do not hide my name or my photos. You once again found my profile, Arkady, and once again said that there was no color in it. Some of the distinguished photographers who also took pictures of Brezhnev for the Government Courier, once again found your Facebook profile and once again stated that you do not have color either, because white should be white, and on wedding photos from the USA, which he saw in the 80s, the groom was in a black suit, and the bride was in white and all the details were visible there. Like any other expert opinion, all this is extremely informative and valuable. Thank God I can afford to shoot what I want, not what the client wants.
But you are talking about color here, but you do not at all understand what it is. This is the dilemma. And you are not alone. This is massive distribution (I repeat myself again)
Sorry, the question to Roman is off-topic.
You are probably mistaken about the newspaper "Government Courier", if I understood correctly, which began to be published in 90, 8 years after Brezhnev's death.
Roman.
I read your explanations. I could not resist looking at the links to the profile.
I think that talk about color in this case is meaningless))) Moments, events, of course, are present, but a beautiful natural color (at least in the photo with people) was not found.
Arkady. Let's be honest. I am an amateur who can afford to take a camera once or twice a month, I very rarely get the opportunity to shoot something regularly, at least during the holidays. You are a type of professional photographer who captures most of your conscious life. You are already sick of your endless mothers in churches with their ugly children and sickening brides, from these studios with sugary family photos.
I skimmed through your feed, and to be honest - if at first you were still trying to shoot something interesting, trying different genres, experimenting, now you have slipped into continuous pictures of leaves, flowers and boring semi-professional models. This is an Upcoming level of 500px and then more slag gets there, but more than something worthwhile. None of them reach Editor's choice. You see, a photographer who has devoted years of his life to shooting has nothing to look at. I stared at literally a dozen photos out of a thousand - and no more.
You can tell as much as you like here with knowledge about your color and criticize mine. But I enjoy what I do, even if it's trash. Photography is about noticing or saying something. Even a low-quality loose trash is better than an endless inexpressive splint. Let your grandfathers pray for you, comparing the variations of Helios, but for me it would be a curse to shoot what you are shooting - whatever color it is. Thank you for the years on this site and thank you for not growing up to it.
No problem
Roman, since such a situation has arisen, let's talk with photographs)) - for example, your photograph (of your wife?) On the beach, under bright sunlight.
https://500px.com/photo/259549203/Donuts-donuts-by-Roman-Kurbatov/
And just below ...
Fuck, it's all at 7dm2, 5dm2, 20 / 2.8, 200 / 2.8, 85 / 1.8, 35 / 2.8 macro, 105 / 2.8 macro, 135 soft focus, 40 / 2.8, 100-300, 17-55 / 2.8 , and also fisheye, converters! Yes, with such a technique and shoot this! Now I understand why Arkady walked through your color! This is needed in the Runet quotation books
* when restorers DO NOT restore
Arkady, you actually explained Roman’s photos (although he never stated that they are the standard of the correct color), but you didn’t explain what exactly this correct color is. Either you yourself do not really know, or you simply cannot explain (which is ok, since subjective opinion is really difficult to explain).
Do you assume that Roman can really say something sensible about color?
It can say it is possible, but it is most likely not to show it by example.
By the way, in my commentary about the challenge for Vadim, I specifically indicated what is not “correct”, what spoils the color, specific remarks, mistakes when working with color. And he immediately foresaw that any criticism or remarks could be regarded in “our” countries in a negative way. And so it happened.
Arkady, here is your text from paragraph 24:
“Not so long ago I was thinking about color, looking at the original images from the 'canonically correct' cameras. Then, continuing to ponder, he went out into the street on business. By chance, my gaze stopped at a yellow minibus-minibus. For some reason, I thought this bus was 'shot' with a Canon 1 Ds Mark II, and I didn't like the color and didn't seem natural. But in fact, I looked at the bus with my own eyes and did not trust them. Then I am absolutely sure that the often-dense perception of color in a photograph is subjective. "
(https://radojuva.com/2019/09/sindrom-obzorshhika/)
yes, but not always, you do not need to pull by the ears what you want
Ivan, thanks for the link to the note.
I read the note, but most importantly - I read the comments to it, a lot began to become clear)) Arkady's reaction becomes clear))
And by the way, here is Roman's article on the color model:
https://radojuva.com/2018/07/color-profile-space/
This is exactly what we are all talking about here. When there is knowledge, mat of models, abstractions, but there is no practice and vision of what is really at stake while working as a photographer
Nice article by a techie who fumbles in computers, but does not fumble in color. It's like knowing a programming language and trying to tell a photographer about color without ever picking up a camera. Different people look from different angles. I photograph and I know that this technical topic will still be commented on for a long time. Techies on their part, photographers on the other. An example about crystal is right in the subject
Well, I understand Roman and even Vadim. And not by hearsay. I myself am an applied mathematician (such a higher education, and my specialty according to documents from the Kiev Polytechnic University is exactly that). At one time I had more than 10 higher mathematicians, and I prepared some of my works just on coding images (photos and videos, something like jpeg / mpeg). He worked as a programmer at the university. So - mathematical abstractions, curves, alpha channels - these are methods. It is desirable to know them. But these methods and concepts are very remotely related to the image that the photographer is engaged in. He deals with the final product. Despite the fact that now almost everything is “digital” - and everything is tied to algorithms, numbers, Fourier series - this is not a photograph. If you don't walk around and try to generalize - imagine that I need advice on a good color (even if I don't know how to process a photo, or I can't decide in which key to take a photo, or I want help so that someone can process or develop RAW for me) ... Will I go to Roman or Vadim for advice? No, because they cannot tell me or others anything about color. Nothing, because they themselves do not own color. I'm not being clever here, I share my personal experience and commonplace problems from this area
Arkady, I didn’t "pull by the ears." I just remembered that I remembered this phrase well. I shared it without any ulterior motive.
yes everything is ok
Nei, well, in the comments to the article "Reviewer Syndrome" Roman writes to himself:
“When I was doing watercolor painting and choosing a palette of pigments, I read a lot about paints, did paint ... So I already looked at the shadow and imagined how I was mixing ultramarine with umber in what proportion.”
It doesn't look like he's just a techie programmer.
Looking at his photo on Instagram, I do not believe in this and have not seen a single picture of him. I walked near Andreevsky recently, did not see a single picture similar to the treatment of Roman. And I see a techie from afar, they all write the same “right” and shoot the same “wrong”
The branch has moved heavily on the discussion of personalities, you need to tie it up. All this only annoys the readers and does not give any answers or advice.
Here is the classic story of Roman, where he makes it clear that he knows everything about color, but the color itself does not interest him.
……
Further - RAW processing either by means of the camera, or by means of the converter. Debyerizing and applying a color profile that translates an image from the color space of the camera (abstract RGB) to the target space (AdobeRGB / sRGB) through an intermediate XYZ. For fotik, there’s just a matrix with coefficients selected by the manufacturer. For the converter, most often too, but someone can rest and build a more complex matrix with piecewise curves. Perhaps this is what you call LUTs. Taking into account the recorded BB, further transformations are carried out (channels are scaled). Then begins the malicious colorophilia, not related to photography, and it is not interesting to discuss it.
...............
That is, the photo itself does not interest him, only channels, loot, converters and other equipment. And it’s strange, why does he then bring his photos to that hell, what about the links? Techie!
Not a bad old lady's dd
Nice dd and good color, especially compared to some modern cameras.
Everything else is not very good.
Used D3200, D7000, D5300, D750.
D3200 changed to D5300, D7000 to this FujiS5.
Before changing to a fuji, I twisted a dozen raves from it exactly from the specimen in question (mileage a little over 100 thousand). And directly say “on fire”. It's so unusual and pleasant to twist its colors.
My (of course subjective) conclusions about fuji:
1. As the only camera, very few people will suit.
2. The leader in DD (and probably ISO) among all CCD-matrices.
3. Color rendering is really very different from the indicated nikons (especially from the D3200 and D7000).
4. Probably the only Nikon-mount camera that allows you to influence RAW files by changing settings (film profile settings). I personally did an experiment: I photographed my juicy pomegranate-colored car in the courtyard entirely on manual settings (including BB and autofocus) - as a result, all RAW images had a difference in colors and a little in highlights. This is neither bad nor good, just as an additional tool for the amateur to adjust for himself.
5. It is quite convenient to operate (the same body and AF from D200).
6. AF after D7000 - I didn't really feel the decrease in the number of points, but I felt an improvement in AF accuracy, even in the dynamics behind moving targets.
7. High-sounding shutter sound.
8. At times the reduction of shake. For example, on the old 80-200 µ2 at 200mm at 1 / 125s, I often get static frames without shaking. But also, of course, with a strong decrease in detail. I develop it in C1, it always allows me to work with only 6mpix without options. I also tried other developers, incl. and relatives, but still remained on C1, tk. I did not see any advantages in obtaining color, or in additional 6MPs, tk. I did not see an increase in detail, and in most cases, besides, I still reduce the photo to 2mpix for a family album and social networks.
9. Loves a lot of light. And only with this camera I have ceased to be afraid of overexposure on people's skin, overexposed areas are really felt more natural than CMOS matrices from the listed cameras do.
The main result, which many have already voiced in the same way: FujiS5 - for an amateur on a Nikon bayonet, it is an ideal option to get an additional CCD camera (as they say “for the soul”) with a DD level of a good modern cropped CMOS matrix with excellent familiar ergonomics and really different ( original) color, which, moreover, can be customized with film profiles in RAVs.
Let these old fotik die quietly. What color, what dd. Give it up.
The color that the overwhelming majority will never see (correctly say - will not learn to see)
For example, here is your (like yours?) Photo- https://www.instagram.com/p/CQu83u6HThs/?utm_medium=copy_link
What "special color" talk about)). Normal high quality photography. Color and color.
You can never understand from individual photos. Even ff cannot be distinguished from a crop)))
The difference becomes obvious when you shoot a lot with a technique (and compare it with the one with which you also shot a lot).
I also say that the overwhelming majority will never see (it is correct to say - it will not learn to see). And here it is also worth adding - that he will stubbornly prove it
Color is leica sl, sl2, leica s. The rest - well, it will go for commerce. It's good of course that this old fujik gives a picture that is quite modern and no worse than the average figure. Well, you make the color yourself - in the editor. There is already little fotik, creativity is needed.
played nicely
I was glad that “no worse than the average figure”))))
Rather, this is an average figure that is not particularly worse than fuja (in color)
No worse, I just do not see some supernaturally beautiful or unique color, number and number. Moreover, these old fotik will soon begin to break down massively, old fotik = a problem with batteries. It is most likely not suitable for repair - where can I get spare parts? I saw an offer from c5pro for 700 €, but it's better to take a fresh foveon "for the soul". I had nikon d3, I also somehow bought it "for the soul" to play with, the color is shit, the battery began to die, I sold it for 300 € And I do not regret it))
Arkady, this phrase of yours about “the overwhelming majority will never see (correctly say - will not learn to see)” sounds literally like from the manual of some religious sect. Because it carries zero specifics, but in passing elevates a certain minority of the “knowers”.
If there are OBJECTIVE criteria for the "correctness" of the color - voice them. If not, do not stand as a bearer of secret knowledge :-)
This is not from the sect's manual, it just is)) True, I do not agree with the "minority", yet many recognize the superiority of the color of the heel (I am one of them) over the MOST modern cameras, but many do not)) There are no objective criteria here , here either the color is BEAUTIFUL, and you understand it, or SO YOURSELF, and you either understand it too, or you are talking about “penetration is no better than modern cameras, there is no superiority”, “I have dies and 5 minutes, I will give you a profile. like a hedge ", and so on and so on))) Well, it will not work to build such a profile for all conditions, because color is not only a profile, but also a symbiosis of their work with iron)))
A profile will fall under one plot, but not under another. It's the same with the preset. Under the sun - a miracle, under the flash - hell. So often techies write to me in a personal note, who tell me about labs, about the fact that in the lights I am losing something in photographs, etc. Then you go to their page, look at the photo and you understand - the person does not understand what is happening at all. Just the other day. Then you think, okay, on the page in the fb, maybe he just has trash and frenzy for the sake of fun. You ask to show good pictures of yourself and you get a stream of unconscious about the technical part.
And this ... I must admit that the penetration is far from the most versatile camera, and there are conditions when it simply does not drag, and it really does not get better (or even worse) than many modern cameras.
It seems that the ideal conditions for her are bright (or not so) sunlight, where she manifests herself in all her glory.
S5 Pro only ISO 100-400 (and better only 100-200). 800-1000 you need to do a lot of magic. ISO above 1000 cuts out R-pixels. It can hardly do anything compared to today's full frame. I write everywhere that this is a chamber for the soul, very specific. But people don't read, they think that I RECOMMEND this camera to everyone and that I shoot everything and everything with it. In the 5 C2012 Pro review, there are a million of her problems and features, a million comments about her age. The number of negative features of her sensor is several times greater than the positive DD and color. But it seems that people are really in a sect. The sect of the unconscious.
Yes, it's simple. If you do not see, then you do not see. If you see, then this would never have been written. In general, young adepts learn to see light for about 2 years, and color for about 4 years. No secrets, just a skill that comes with experience. Newbies who have passed their license are also thinking about cars, but no one really knows how to drive.
Arkady, again you are catching up with the fog. What does it mean “if you don’t see, then you don’t see”? What are the other 4 years for color vision? Don't you yourself see that you are not able to indicate OBJECTIVE criteria, although I am asking you about this again? Maybe it's time to admit that all this “correct” color of yours is a common taste?
4 years of practice. I have not written anywhere for objective criteria, this was not the goal. The goal was to show Roman a little that his theory does not coincide with practice. Here I have already answered that taste is part of the truth. Another part of the truth - “good” (in brackets, because this is a broad understanding) color is quite an objective reality. I'm already so tired of this, you also point out that Vadim was offended here (I'm talking about the challenge).
wj, maybe you can show an example of a correct, nice color? I am turning to you with a request, with the same one with which I addressed to Roman - give at least a couple of examples, NOT NECESSARILY YOURS, ANYONE where, in your opinion, the color will be beautiful. It will be clear whether we are talking about the same things when you write about “I will take off the color plates and the color will be right”, or not))
The criterion of simplicity is the number of incidents. Chim more vidtinkiv (for example) blue - Tim is more beautiful. Ditina painted with 6 felt-tip pens - it's simple and simple. Vistachaє. Garniy clean color. The grass is green, the sky is blue, the sun is zhovte. Isn't it smart? It was whitewashed three.
In maestro painting there are hundreds of examples of the same blue, which smoothly transition into greenery from the ideas of all those who do not know.
Similarly to relish - hto say "not wine, but sour yakis", and іnshiy utter three dozen words. The good news is that it is possible to change the size of the bed. Ale on the tse needs a singing hour.
All this is pure subjectivity. What a person wants to see is what he will see. Proof of? I have them. It is enough to put two identical monitors of DIFFERENT manufacturers next to each other in any computer store, connect them to ONE computer and display the same photo - and most people will see the picture DIFFERENTLY. So let's keep poking around in cockroach asses in search of magic.
Subjectivity is one thing. But when the photographer “grows” he begins to understand color, to understand it. And if neophytes really do not see the difference, then the photographer sees this difference and strives for it. This has been verified more than once. And the difference is in the subtleties. A client or a beginner - does not see the difference. Unfortunately, only an experienced eye understands this. Therefore, yes, I agree, in some conditions all this does not matter. But in other conditions, for some reason in magazine design studios people do not sit at monitors.
I'll wedge in a little. I worked on different monitors with an ips matrix, their color is also different, tk. matrices are also different with different color gamut. I had several nikons and shot with several canons. Yes, on some camera I liked the color more, but ... still there is post processing of the photo and the color is very easy to do as it is necessary, the main thing here is that the person feels the “color” or knows what color is needed. Since most photographers do not have this feeling, or do not have a prof. art education - this is where the conversation arises on which camera the color is better (and as a subsection of the topic - skin tone is better on canon)
There is also a nuance that it is not always possible to do post-processing and it may not always take an adequate amount of time.
Another nice feature of this fujik is the native ISO 100 (+ shutter max 1 / 8000s). Do CCD-nikons seem to start with ISO 200?
Nikon CCD with 10MP matrix has native ISO 100.
These are d200, d80, d60, d40x, d3000.
Of these, 1/8000 are owned by d200.
- Talk about the color of cameras
- Appreciate the color from Ravok
Are you serious? Or is it a review from connoisseurs of the color of negative films?
An old joke about two photographers:
- Do you have a beautiful wife?
- It depends on how you put the light on.
Vadimka I hope will shoot the fourth video
What happened to Vadim is what happens to many photographers who go into the jungle of the technical part. The connection with the aesthetic part is lost. In short, here's a challenge for readers: find a good / pleasant / correct (at least some!) Color in Vadim's pictures.
Here is his Instagram, VK, Telegram... I talked to him and other sources where you can see his work - no. Modern photographers are just like that: only social networks!
I got acquainted with his work in Instagram and came to a single and unambiguous conclusion: there is no good color there, and Vadim himself cannot be at least the slightest expert in color.
Usually I am very loyal to users and try not to criticize their creativity. Criticism in the countries of the former CIS can be perceived as an act of aggression towards the "artist", and therefore it is best to avoid it.
So, in his Instagram classic color trash. I asked Vadim to dump his portfolio that he sends to clients. As it turned out, he mainly shoots sports events. Vadim gladly sent me a selection on Google Drive, in which there were about these are his pictures... This is the standard color for beginners - excessive contrast, dirty color, overcooked processing, accentuation of one or two key colors. This is a common treatment for many who have made their way to the RAW converter presets. In 2009, I also suffered like this and wonderfully see the reason for this. Perhaps a "hard" treatment is suitable for sports (emphasizes the brutality of the sport), but still it hurts the eye and causes a sense of dissonance. Also, beginners indulge in huge signatures (watermarks) of their works, which, in fact, we observe. If the photographer does not always follow the color, does not practice constant “extraction” of this color, then he simply does not own it (worse - does not understand) color.
Let the experts who talk about color here in the comments try to look at Vadim's “color” for themselves. I really hope that this will put a definite end to Vadim. Let me remind you that the first part of the analysis of his "review" here.
Looked! It's just f **** c! Is he also getting paid for it?
It's strange, there are so many unsubscribed, but no one has yet announced the unconditional superiority of c3pro over c5pro :)
Arkady, bring Pokemon back!
He will tell us about his experience in Fujikov color rendering.
Yes, if he writes, then he gets to pre-moderation. If the text of the rules - I leave.
Yes, without Pokemon trouble
Roman: "I asked without esotericism."
So I, like, explained corny.
It feels like you are sitting in front of the monitor, and on the screen, like in the movie "matrix", numbers are flowing, life is without esotericism :). The colors of your photos make me feel heavy at heart, although the plots are designed to please. I don’t want to look a second time, and you probably don’t reconsider, since you are rolling up all your photos in faded turquoise tones. photography is always feelings, sensations ... Why bad sensations?
On the question of color perception:
http://spp-photo.ru/2019/06/07/menee-1-lyudej-mogut-projti-etot-tsvetnoj-test-polnostyu/