Web Hosting Sites for Photography

[Mike Farley]

I know that a lot of people are very pleased with the results from the various Fuji X-Trans cameras, especially now that Fuji is starting to fill out the range of lenses available. The X-E2 does not qualify as a point and shoot, of course, but is a reasonably compact package and offers the advantages of an APS-C sensor at at price similar to a high end fixed lens model. An alternative might be the 100S or 100T, which use the same sensor as the X-E2 and have a fixed 35mm full frame equivalent f/2 lens. The 100T is pricey, but the older 100S can be obtained for around the price of the X-E2 and 18-55 lens.

A couple of years ago, impressed by what I was hearing about the lenses, I made a concerted effort over a few months to like the cameras, but did not find myself getting on with them. Mainly I had concerns about the speed and accuracy of the AF, which has long been an issue for Fuji. Even last week at The Photography Show I briefly picked up a X-T1 with a 50-140 zoom attached and it hunted, which suggests that Fuji's long running efforts to resolve the problem still have a way to go. This might be specific to this particular lens as the prime lenses I tried all snapped into focus quite smartly.

The X-Trans sensor, which uses a colour filter array which differs from the usual Bayer pattern, has caused third party Raw conversion developers a lot of issues and in the past there have been examples of smearing posted on-line when elements in the image have not been clearly rendered. I do not believe that this occurs with the Silkypix software supplied by Fuji, but it is not particularly pleasant to use. Capture One is supposed to give good results nowadays, but it is expensive and I do not find the interface very intuitive. There used to be a more affordable budget edition (called Express) until it was discontinued last year. Adobe struggled initially, but did have a significant update a while back which moved things on considerably and there are reports that there were further improvements with Lightroom 5.7/ACR 8.7.

The omission from DxO Optics Pro is quite surprising and the list of Fuji cameras supported is very short, comprising just a few legacy models with even those current models which have conventional Bayer sensors left out. It suggests that there might be some form of disagreement between the two companies.

[Mata]

The balance I am looking for is a size that looks good to want to look and appreciate but not too large for anything else, i.e. printing.

I was thinking along the lines of about 1400px x 1000px max and about 150 to 200 Kb. That would fit most computer screens? I can then standardise them for ease of storing and adding them on different outlets at the point of processing?

[davidc]

It looks like my previous reply was lost. I can recommend either the RX100-3 from Sony or Canon's new G7X.

Here's a link to my Rx100 review - http://davidcandlish.photography/sony-rx100m3-review

If I had to choose I'd go for the Canon though, overall I think it's the better camera. Neither are bad choices though and for compacts they are quite capable in low light with some good results possible. They aren't in the same league as a full frame camera of course but still I was impressed.

The G7X review is still being written up but should be done later today. The Rx100 review is missing images because of the emergency change of web hosts (zenfolio being dreadful - as I may have mentioned) so please bear with me while I add those onto my new site.

[davidc]

Ignore the file size, it's really irrelevant these days - focus on the resolution and the quality setting in photoshop which produces final images you like. Try it at quality level 10 for starters maybe.

[Mike Farley]

The balance I am looking for is a size that looks good to want to look and appreciate but not too large for anything else, i.e. printing.

I was thinking along the lines of about 1400px x 1000px max and about 150 to 200 Kb. That would fit most computer screens?

File size is one way of restricting non authorised use, but you would need to double what you are suggesting to ensure reasonable quality at 1400 x 1000 px. That resolution would fit most computer screens, but many these days are HD, i.e. 1920 x 1080, so you will not fill the viewing area. And that's before you factor in 4k or 5k monitors where the longest edge can be over 5000 pixels where the higher pixel density will mean that the images will be displayed smaller. OK, such screens are expensive at the moment, but will come down in price and if you are thinking of selling your work that is what prospective clients will already be using.

There is another school of thought is to go full size and then monitor for transgressiions, using Google Images or TinEye. It's more hassle, but some photographers have found clients this way. You could also think about setting up a password protected client area where you put high res images for those you trust, with the low res stuff only on general display.

I can then standardise them for ease of storing and adding them on different outlets at the point of processing?

I am not sure that I really understand what you are trying to achieve. Can you provide more information?

[davidc]

My review of the Canon G7X is now online if you are interested in a top end prosumer compact camera. I was impressed by the low light performance.

http://davidcandlish.photography/reviews/canon-g7x

[Mike Farley]

Thanks, Dave, an interesting review. One thing which I would have liked to have seen is some exposure details, especially as you praise the low light capabilities. It would have been useful to have seen the settings, but even the EXIF data has been removed from the images which makes it impossible to assess its performance.

[davidc]

That's interesting, many of the images are the straight out of camera JPGs, I haven't touched most of them. I wonder if squarespace stripped out the exif.

There's a low-light long exposure shot in there, of the HDB flats at night.

The snake, dog/pram/walking scene and the shot of the city skyline are all higher-ISO examples. I'll try and dig out the settings.

[Mike Farley]

I have just looked at your site and the links from the blog landing page to the reviews are broken, although it is still possible to get to the reviews via the dedicated link at top right.

Looking at the other reviews, lack of exposure information is a general issue which makes it difficult for the reader to assess visually a number of important aspects about how the equipment performs.

[davidc]

Without delving into the depths of your 365 days project to find the Farley Quote (tm), I thought that "posting technical details of a shot were of no use without knowing the lighting environment and post-processing that had been applied"

Still, if adding it is useful it's easy to do. I've also been taking a load of dark images with each camera at a range of standardised settings to allow relative comparisons of ISOs at given shutter speeds so you get an indication of noise. Almost like a database of noise. While I don't want to waste time replicating what DPReview do - shooting test scenes, pixel peeping and looking at MTF charts is amply covered by them other sites - I'm giving a more day to day insight over how the units feel to use, and the kind of results you can get in the real world and if more info is useful I will look to include it.

What info would you find useful for each image as a starter?

Many thanks about the info about the site links too, I'm still finding and fixing problems like that. I had to get the site and reviews ported over first so I can promote the results and get more kit in to review, given deadlines and such like. Any other site hiccups you alert me to are very much appreciated, I've had to take the articles & projects sections offline completely while I smooth out the kinks.

Just back from Bali where I was going to review the shockproof and waterproof Canon D30 compact. Water resistant to 25 metres meant it was better qualified for scuba diving than I am! Except - it died completely about 2m underwater