Critique Welcomed Just Another Sunrise Photo At the Beach

[Keith Hollister]

Sunrise at the Sunglow Fishing Pier in Daytona Beach, FL. Olympus E-M5 mk II, 12-40 f2.8 PRO lens and Hoya ND1000 10-stop filter.

Sunrise at the Pier by Keith Hollister, on Flickr

 

[Rob MacKillop]

Wowzers! Amazing. Incredible. Etc!

 

[Keith Hollister]

Don't get those kind of sunrises in Scotland?

 

[Rob MacKillop]

Haha. Not quite!

 

[Rense Haveman]

Wow, great one!

I like the composition very much (and I don't speak about the colours, they are spectacular), but personally I would have lightened the pier (?) a little more. My eyes are drawn to this construction, but the blacks have to less detail to see what I'm looking for....

But, saying that, it is a very good one as it is!

 

[Ivar Dahl-Larsen]

Seeing this I probably was wrong about what I said about the Olys, but the em5 mrk ll is very special in that respect and Rense has a point. Lovely image again.

 

[John Holland]

Stunning image, Keith.

 

[Keith Hollister]

I don't disagree about the shadows on the pier, but A) the original in LR isn't quite as contrasty - Flickr and then the forum software slightly modifies the appearance of most files, and B) the underside of the pier is unrecoverable in the raw file. I was dealing with dynamic range issues (this is a single exposure - no blending or grad filters) and couldn't really do much else with it.

 

[Keith Hollister]

Seeing this I probably was wrong about what I said about the Olys, but the em5 mrk ll is very special in that respect and Rense has a point. Lovely image again.

Ivar, you are not wrong about m43. The E-M5 mkII is no better than any of the other recent bodies with regards to IQ. The reason you don't see noise in these images is because I ran the raw files through DXO Optics Pro and used their PRIME noise reduction. It is some convolution based algorithm that magically removes the noise with no impact on image sharpness or detail. However it is really sloooooooow - a single image takes about 30 sec to process and export as a TIFF back into LR on my recent i7 quad core Retina Macbook Pro. It does solve the "noise problem" with m43, but you are still left with the other compromises that ultimately resulted in me deciding to not use the Olympus gear as my primary cameras.

The E-M5 mkII is at Life Pixel right now being converted to a dedicated 590nm Super Color IR camera (to be used with the 12-40 PRO lens, which is quite good with IR) and the E-M1 is used with the 60mm macro lens as a dedicated insect & flower camera (small sensor DOF and built in focus bracketing). I sold all the other lenses and ordered the Fuji 16/1.4 and 90/2 with the proceeds

 

[Ivar Dahl-Larsen]

Thanks for the answer Keith and the confirmation on my suspicions. I really love the xt1 and xt10 actually, quite frankly, they are much the same, but it seems I need the 14mm. I have at present the 18, 35/2, 18-55 and the 55-200/3,5-4,8.

 

[Keith Hollister]

Thanks for the answer Keith and the confirmation on my suspicions. I really love the xt1 and xt10 actually, quite frankly, they are much the same, but it seems I need the 14mm. I have at present the 18, 35/2, 18-55 and the 55-200/3,5-4,8.

You probably need something wider than 18mm (at least if you are into landscapes, among other things), but you do have several choices:
XF14
XF16
XF10-24
Zeiss 12
and a whole bunch of manual focus alternatives (native and adapted)

The Fuji 16/1.4 is the best wide angle optically for Fuji. In fact, it puts a lot of pricier 24mm FOV glass to shame from Nikon, Canon & Zeiss in my opinion. And it is sharp and contrasty right out of the gate @ f/1.4. It is an amazing piece of optical engineering. And of course it is weather sealed.

The 14mm is not too far behind the 16, and the 10-24 is very good for a zoom, but is a touch behind the primes at the wide end and a bit more dodgy at the long end (20-24mm).

The Zeiss 12 is nice and wide but it is not well corrected optically for distortion and the edges suffer once extensive software correction is applied.

I have the 16 on order (arriving this week from B&H) because I'm a lens junkie, a wide angle junkie and a sucker for fast, wide lenses. I will likely carry the 16 when I plan on doing interiors in low light, want the close up, wide open look or want to minimize perspective distortion for architecture. I suspect the 14 will still be my go to wide angle for landscapes though unless the 16 blows me away image quality wise. I was going to get the 10-24, but just couldn't see giving up on the stellar 14, 16 and 23 primes - 3 of Fuji's strongest lenses.

There's no wrong choice, really. I don't have the 16 in my hands yet, but if I could only have one, it would still likely be the 14 because I like the focal length so much.

 

[Ivar Dahl-Larsen]

Well. occasionally I do landscapes so 14 would be more interesting to me as I already have the 18. 16 would be too close to it and not as good for what I do most, namely street and portraits, people in environments actually and travel.

 

[Keith Hollister]

Well. occasionally I do landscapes so 14 would be more interesting to me as I already have the 18. 16 would be too close to it and not as good for what I do most, namely street and portraits, people in environments actually and travel.

Well actually, given that portfolio, I would say the 16 f/1.4 would be right up your alley. You really have to be careful with people and the 14mm - a little too close or off center and oops ... its the dog with a big nose thing. Plus it has the MF clutch for zone focusing. The best IQ of any wide angle Fujinon, close focusing, f/1.4 (and sharp wide open), nice bokeh, MF clutch and arguably the ideal focal length for environmental portraits, PJ work or street (maybe tied with the 23 for that). You might have noticed I don't have many people in my 14mm shots.

Might want to rethink this (but it's your money and camera so let your conscience be your guide)

 

[Ivar Dahl-Larsen]

We may have passed each other there Keith, in my attempt to explain. I mean, 18 and 35 for street, 55-200 for portraits together with 35 and 14 for landscape. I feel 16 is too close to my 18 and I find 18 more suitable for streets.. The last may not have been said on the matter though

 

[Keith Hollister]

We may have passed each other there Keith, in my attempt to explain. I mean, 18 and 35 for street, 55-200 for portraits together with 35 and 14 for landscape. I feel 16 is too close to my 18 and I find 18 more suitable for streets.. The last may not have been said on the matter though

Ah - probably that British/American thing again I understand now. Perfectly good reasoning. I'm probably just overly excited about my incoming new toy.

 

[Pete Askew]

Simply beautiful.