Відео

Thank you! And it certainly has, within my ever growing collection of ambient music. Sadly it's a reissue. My dad however has an original pressing!

Thank you! 🪜

Thank you! The average person is forgotten after just 2-3 generations, that is the exact problem I want to solve with this business 🤞🏻

Cheers man, I appreciate it!

Thank you and thank you!! The lighting at the moment is just the sunlight through the windows, but soon I'll have some video lights so it's only going to get better from here!

You're welcome! I think that's a perfectly fair take, and I can see where you're coming from with that. I agree you have to be careful with cropping, orientation, and even aspect ratios to some extent. I personally think, in documentary photography, that portrait/vertical images are perfectly fine used in the right way. To focus in on an item or a feature, to capture a portrait that focuses on the individual and their clothes rather than the environment. It's a way of embedding some context and somewhat of a guide for the viewer, so they know which information is relevant/important to the narrative being told. Certainly something to be used sparingly and thoughtfully, as you are correct in saying it's not as natural. That's just my take on it though.

I am not familiar with the A6100, but I have done a little research, and It seems like a pretty good camera, especially for your level if you're just getting into photography. The A6100 and the X-T4 have a lot in common spec wise - both APS-C sensors, the XT4 has 26.1 megapixels vs the A6100's 24 megapixels, so not a major difference. Both shoot 4k. With those similarities I'd guess it would come down to lens choices, build/holdability/aesthetics, and what you want out of a camera (with fujis film sim offerings etc...). Honestly, I'd recommend you stick with the A6100 for a good while, really learn the camera inside and out and experiment with it. Explore photography/videography, find the things you love and hate (about photography and your camera) and then look for a an upgrade that solves your problems going forward. I have been shooting now for almost a decade, and only upgraded from my Canon 650D to the XT4 about a year ago, so there is no rush to move on to the next camera.

@@FirbyPhotography thank you for that that helps so much! Love your videos!❤️

No problem at all, happy to help. Thank you for watching!

This video is about the XT4, not the XT20. The XT4 doesn't have a built in flash, only a hot shoe for an external flash, unlike the XT20 which if I'm not mistaken does have an in built flash. I can't comment specifically on the XT20, as I've not used one myself, but I think the single shooting speed/buffer speed comes down to a few factors. The first of course being the cameras capabilities, and the second being the writing speed of your card. I'm guessing you've either got an XT20 or are looking at buying one. If you've got one already, and you would like the fastest single shot shooting speed you can get, make sure you have a fast enough card to get the full speed out of your camera. And if you're looking for a fast camera, then make sure you're looking at the cameras buffer time, and the compatible card wrote speeds. Hope that helps!

@@FirbyPhotography thank you a lot for twist Long message!! Very helpful!

There's certainly something about Fuji. From what I've read there seems to be a bit of a Canon to Fuji pipeline that we've found ourselves in!

Really is a great camera, looking forward to getting more lenses for it in the future and seeing just what it's capable of. How long have you been using it? And what lenses do you have?

Thank you!

Thank you, and you're welcome!

You're very welcome!

Now that surprises me, I've heard only good things about Ricoh

🚇

Liminal train piece

sorry about that x

I do remember that, vividly actually. The way it bounced off the living room floor. Not as bad as the time I broke the screen with my head by falling off the toilet though...

​@@FirbyPhotographyLOL

Might as well try it. I think the restrictions (in quality, functionality, usability etc...) they come with force creativity, so no doubt you'll end up with something fun/interesting. Thank you!

Might as well try it. I think the restrictions (in quality, functionality, usability etc...) they come with force creativity, so no doubt you'll end up with something fun/interesting. Thank you!

Thank you!

Thank you! 🙌🏻

@@FirbyPhotography 👍

Thank you! Certainly an interesting concept you don't see too often. I'm planning on playing through Umurangi Generation at some point in the future!

This is a GX850, not the GX85. If I'm not mistaken, the GX85 is a level above this camera (specs/quality/ price wise). The GX850 doesn't have a viewfinder. That's one of the sacrifices for the small form factor and the lower price point. All is shot and seen through the flip up screen on the back, which is perfect for me. Even on my Fujifilm XT-4, which has a flip out screen and a viewfinder, I never use the viewfinder. The screen is just easier and allows for a far greater range of angles, far quicker. In the whole time shooting with the GX850, I've never once wished it had a viewfinder. All that said, I do believe the GX85 does have a viewfinder, but from what I've read opinions on it seems pretty mixed. Hope that helped!

That's a lot of photos to wear out a camera, never mind two. There's definitely something about having a pocketable camera that just feels freer. Have you got any of those photos posted anywhere? I'd love to see some if so!

Thank you! And 100%, those are good suggestions. At the moment I'm working on a mini doc of my Grandad, covering fishing - he's a lifelong hobbyist fisherman, many stories to tell. Hoping to get it live next week!

@FirbyPhotography Oh, that should be great fun. In college, I had to interview an older person. The fellow I got assigned to had landed on Normandy. He had stories for sure .

I've never really gotten into urban exploration, the odd place but that's it. It's interesting that you can get that feeling from it, especially places you've already been. I'd love to explore some of the old local industrial sites round where I live (Teesside), I've seen a few urbex videos from round here, and there's definitely some insane photo opportunities.

It's true, being able to use a standard memory card would be a decent upgrade. And a longer lasting battery wouldn't go amiss.

@@FirbyPhotography I have GF8 the previous version of GF9/GX850 and it has standard memory card slot. It is very strange move for Lumix to change to micro sd since phone users espcially flagship phones are moving away from micro sd slot.Most phones are not easily pop out from the phone anyway even if they do have one.

Don't ask such questions, you'll make my head implode!

Couldn't agree more, great bit of kit for everyday use.

I do really enjoy the XT-4, for me it provides a great balance when it comes to photo and video, and since I need to do both of those (but don't have much money) it provides all I need. I've not used Sony, so I can't comment too much on that (I've heard only good things other than overheating issues), but I love this little Lumix camera. No luxuries, sure, it's certainly a lean system. But it doesn't need more, and it does what I need it to, so I can't complain. The Fuji definitely has a style and a feeling that the others don't touch.

My bad. Fuller frame*

Can't beat those M43s for the convenient form factor. Also, I thought I was the only one shooting B/W just to edit them in full colour. Always a pleasant surprise, and allows you to concentrate more on composition and contrast when shooting.

Thank you! And thank you for commenting!

You're welcome, thank you for watching! There is certainly something about Lumix's M43 cameras and Fuji cameras that makes them great to shoot with. The little Lumix would greatly benefit from a mic jac though, you're right there.

Depends on what part of the world you're in. The same camera I have goes by all 3 names for different regions. m.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonic-lumix-dmc-gx850-gx800-gf9 ^ as written here on DPReview. When I purchased it from MPB, they had it listed as a GX850 (the regional name here in the UK), the box it came in says GX800. Same camera.

Can't disagree with you there. I definitely think you're onto something with the cons/megapixel thing. Only when large sums of money are on the line, and images are going to be blown up huge can I imagine such things actually matter to that extent - in casual/personal photography, I really couldn't care less. As long as the image looks good to my eyes, I don't care about the make of the camera, the kind of sensor, the megapixels, etc... I even enjoy shooting on older digital cameras, there can be something charming to the lo-fi quality they spit out - great for creating a feeling of nostalgia, or for deadpan/liminal images. I'm working on a video at the moment shooting on a PSP camera, the quality is about as bad as digital comes, but when used right it can have a pretty cool effect!

Thank you! And no worries, glad to share them.

@@FirbyPhotography nice one, fellow X-T4 user here 😊

If only. Whilst a lot of it creates messes like this, some of them out there are scarily convincing. Plus the rich are investing the money into these things, so our futures are looking a little rough...

Could easily create a creature for one like this to be fair

No crumbs, cheers mush. 🚾

@@FirbyPhotography yes sir, you lowkey left zero crumbs, no problem charva 👍

*highkey

@@FirbyPhotography my bad king

Nee bother

That certainly sounds interesting, I'll have to try and find an English version if such a thing exists. Thanks for the comment!

Like I said in the video, "art is art and tools to make it are tools to make it". But photojournalism is not the place for art. The news is not the place for art. Documentary photography is not the place for art. Political campaigns are not the place for art. They are the place for undoctored images with the correct context. I would also argue that social media, with models looked up to by young girls, body builders looked up to by young lads etc... are dangerous places for art. Selling off their doctored physiques as real, lying to and deceiving their viewers, and contributing to record numbers of eating disorders and anxiety in children. There is nothing wrong with art, and I did not at any point say that there was (as an artist of many mediums that would be foolish of me). But not all photography is made in the name of art, and it is undeniably important in many areas of photography that it be as honest, undoctored, and preserves as much truth as possible. The entire conversation boils down to intention. Firstly, is your photographic work being created as art or as documentation? If the former, then this topic is not relevent. If the latter then this conversation is undeniably important. If it is intended to be documentary in nature (or viewed upon as such) then the photographers intention should be to remove as much bias as possible, and capture the important information as accurately and wholly as possible, presented in such a way that provides the viewer with the correct information, coupled with the relevent context. Whilst it is impossible to create an image of "objective reality" or the "perfect truth", as such a thing doesn't really exist, under the above circumstances, it is the photographers duty to aim for those ideals. I shoot photography to make art, and I shoot photography to document. I have two photographic modes, two mindsets, two sets of rules, two methods, two thought processes, two editing processes. Because art is free to be art, but documentary is far more limited in order to protect the information it is capturing and sharing. Based on your comment, I think we agree on photography as art. But I wonder, when made specifically for photojournalism, or for a documentary project for example, do your views change?

@@FirbyPhotography It's funny because, as a former photojournalist, I know that pictures were often HEAVILY manipulated before printing to ensure the BEST presentation. This wasn't done every time, but it was common practice. As long as no new meaning or interpretation of the event was created, it was generally considered acceptable. For example: - If someone had their eyes closed in a group photo, we'd "transplant" eyes or the whole head from another picture. - Clutter in the background would be removed. - If something important was cropped out, it might be added from a different picture or even drawn from scratch. - If no open eyes were captured at scene, we’d draw them in. If one eye was closed, we might mirror the other eye. - Skin imperfections on close-ups would be removed unless they were recognizable features, such as scars or pronounced wrinkles. - Overexposed skies could be replaced with skies from a different picture. - If an important detail was obstructed by a passerby or vehicle, we might return to the scene to take a shot from the same position and blend it in. - Rearranging people in a group, removing some individuals, to make the group appear smaller with faces relatively larger in the photo as result (and same with moving other object closer to make more compact shots). - And the most controversial practice: stitching together images of the crowd and the speaker if you only have place for one photo. So if the crowd and the speaker are from the same event and speech, this was typically permitted. Not to mention "normal" manipulations like cropping, panoramic stitching, contrast, sharpness etc. Even the text in a news article is always an interpretation of the author. There's always some bias and things left out of focus. Art can serve as a document as long as the artistry doesn’t involve legally harmful alterations, like making someone appear where they weren’t or attributing actions they didn’t perform. Also, in courtrooms, artists are allowed to draw the proceedings and people, which serves as a form of documentation, but it also includes artistic interpretation. For any possible legal matters, it’s important to retain the originals (or film rolls) to demonstrate that no legal or ethical boundaries were crossed during editing. Just in case. But these originals are not intended for presentation purposes, that's not what the viewers like. And don't worry, no court would use an image from a news article as-is. They would require documented archived originals, witnesses, and other evidence.

Interesting mechanic. Not heard of that game, will have to look into it!

100%. I've got a lot of memories that are only so vivid in my head because I've got photos to reinforce them. It's almost as if the photos become the memories. Travel and photography are a perfect pairing, it's good that you've made the most of your job/travels through the lens. Do you post your photos anywhere? I would love to see some!

Don't worry, I'll be covering exactly that in part 2!

I tried pretty much everything you said. I fixed the focus and tested it with the paper, fixed a bunch of other things. Honestly I think it's just a mixture of the camera being a bit old and gone, and user error on many small levels.

A sentiment I hope can be spread to many