 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Film Photography / 35 mm / October 2008Nikon v Canon Color
I am a photojournalist shooting a Nikon D200. I notice my peers that are shooting Canon seem to have less trouble getting good color. I am looking to upgrade bodies, the D700 would be my first choice, but I don't want another D200 experience. Has Nikon fixed the color issue or is it just time to bite the bullet and switch to Canon? On 9/23/2008 3:44 PM patrick.oden@aggiemail.usu.edu spake thus: > I am a photojournalist shooting a Nikon D200. I notice my peers that > are shooting Canon seem to have less trouble getting good color. I am > looking to upgrade bodies, the D700 would be my first choice, but I > don't want another D200 experience. Has Nikon fixed the color issue or > is it just time to bite the bullet and switch to Canon? This post is off-topic for this newsgroup, rec.photo.equipment.35mm, which is concerned with film cameras that use 35mm film, not digital cameras that look like 35mm SLRs (DSLRs). Since this post concerns such cameras, the appropriate place for it is rec.photo.digital.slr. Please post there in the future.  SignatureWashing one's hands of the conflict between the powerful and the powerless means to side with the powerful, not to be neutral. - Paulo Freire On Sep 23, 12:44 pm, patrick.o...@aggiemail.usu.edu wrote: > I am a photojournalist shooting a Nikon D200. I notice my peers that > are shooting Canon seem to have less trouble getting good color. I am > looking to upgrade bodies, the D700 would be my first choice, but I > don't want another D200 experience. Has Nikon fixed the color issue or > is it just time to bite the bullet and switch to Canon? Before you jump ships you might want to spend some time with a raw converter and learn how to get the color you are looking for. You are likely to find your peers have more skills at converting raw files then better cameras. Scott On Tue, 23 Sep 2008 15:44:57 -0700, patrick.oden wrote: > I am a photojournalist shooting a Nikon D200. I notice my peers that are > shooting Canon seem to have less trouble getting good color. I am > looking to upgrade bodies, the D700 would be my first choice, but I > don't want another D200 experience. Has Nikon fixed the color issue or > is it just time to bite the bullet and switch to Canon? First, you might get more response by posting in rec.photo.digital.slr- systems, the appropriate group for your query.* But to answer your question... Before you abandon your Nikon and incur the great expense of switching to another system, set your color space to AdobeRGB, if you can, to gain a larger color range; adjust the in camera contrast and saturation to fit shooting conditions; ditto for white balance. In other words, don't leave everything set to "auto." For example, I use a Nikon D50 with the SB-600 flash to supplement ambient light for documenting architectural interiors and exteriors for real estate agents, contractors, etc. I greatly improved the quality of my images by changing the color space from sRGB, the default, to AdobeRGB, and lowering the contrast to -2, the lowest setting. With mixed lighting sources like one finds with interiors, I leave the white balance set to auto, but for daylight exteriors with clear blue skies I set it to "Flash," otherwise, the images are decidedly blue. For "night" lit interiors mostly by incandescent lights, I use the "incandescent" or "tungsten" settings, and put an 85B "gel" filter over the flash for color balanced fill. With my few adjustments, my Nikon D50 images compare favorably--color and contrast-wise--with a friend's Canon 5D, although his images have less noise. He was actually surprised that my D50 did so well under the same shooting conditions. So, before you switch, run some tests. Stef *FWIW: rec.photo.equipment.35mm was originally established 20+ years ago or so, long before digital photography came to prominence, for ANY still camera (not just SLRs) that used 35mm film, hence the name. Although, over the months this year, it has been slowly commandeered by digital users. Why the need to, I don't know. There are, after all, 3 or 4 groups dedicated specifically to digital systems. > Stef > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > users. Why the need to, I don't know. There are, after all, 3 or 4 > groups dedicated specifically to digital systems. Isn't it obvious, David N has attacked so many people and they got their backs up, if he had simply never said anything many would have just never bothered and would have gone away. So before you blame everyone else have a few words with the broken record himself. It is not what he has said in this group so much, it is because he has multi-crossposted to just about every photo group he can every chance he gets, the cure is far worse than the disease. Cheers. Pete Pete D wrote,on my timestamp of 25/09/2008 10:02 PM: >> *FWIW: rec.photo.equipment.35mm was originally established 20+ years ago >> or so, long before digital photography came to prominence, for ANY still [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > backs up, if he had simply never said anything many would have just never > bothered and would have gone away. That is a load of bullshit. First of all, it's not just David. Second, the digital crap in here is promoted SOLELY by a group of crap "photographers" from pbase who do this all the time: find a low volume newsgroup and take it over with their totally off-topic rubbish. Mostly to shill for pbase, but also for their own little digital camera concerns. It's called a scam. But of course you'll never give it the proper name, preferring instead the rubbish about "David-the-bad-guy". > So before you blame everyone else have a > few words with the broken record himself. He heard him. That is why he replied. And demonstrating the point that you and your other pack of digital-heads have no place here. > It is not what he has said in this > group so much, it is because he has multi-crossposted to just about every > photo group he can every chance he gets, the cure is far worse than the > disease. He only "multi-crossposts" what is already "multi-crossposted", usually by your band of misfits. > First of all, it's not just David. > Second, the digital crap in here is promoted SOLELY by [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > digital camera concerns. > It's called a scam. Noons, your brain is due for a firmware upgrade. Maybe you can send it to Canon? OK folks, you heard it. ALL of you people talking about digital are just PBase shills. Busted! Guess we'll have to go find nother group to infiltrate now. On 9/25/2008 9:08 AM Annika1980 spake thus: >> First of all, it's not just David. >> Second, the digital crap in here is promoted SOLELY by [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > just PBase shills. > Busted! Guess we'll have to go find nother group to infiltrate now. Yes. Like rec.photo.digital.slr, like I've been saying all along. Go for it! SignatureWashing one's hands of the conflict between the powerful and the powerless means to side with the powerful, not to be neutral. - Paulo Freire > On 9/25/2008 9:08 AM Annika1980 spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Go for it! OMG you have finally won. Nah just kidding, you are still a loser. Oh and take the advice below, fight the fights you can win. > Washing one's hands of the conflict between the powerful and the > powerless means to side with the powerful, not to be neutral. > > - Paulo Freire > Noons, your brain is due for a firmware upgrade. Maybe you can send > it to Canon? > > OK folks, you heard it. ALL of you people talking about digital are > just PBase shills. > Busted! Guess we'll have to go find nother group to infiltrate now. Why do you waste your time even replying to him? He's said the same thing a hundred times. You've replied essentially the same thing to him a hundred times. Surely this is not making you smarter and he is a lost cause anyway. Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. -- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out. Annika1980 wrote,on my timestamp of 26/09/2008 2:08 AM: >> Mostly to shill for pbase, but also for their own little >> digital camera concerns. >> It's called a scam. > > Noons, your brain is due for a firmware upgrade. Maybe you can send > it to Canon? Narh, the imagery is working fine: sending it to Canon would make it a lot worse. > OK folks, you heard it. ALL of you people talking about digital are > just PBase shills. How come your buddies ALL WITHOUT EXCEPTION post their photos in pbase, then? > Busted! Guess we'll have to go find nother group to infiltrate now. Piss off then? > How come your buddies ALL WITHOUT EXCEPTION post > their photos in pbase, then? That's simply not true. Alan Browne, for example, posts on photo.net. Rita uses flickr. Others, like Jim Kramer, Troy Piggins, Paul Furman, etc. have their own websites. So who are you talking about? Scott W? Ok, that's 1. Annika1980 wrote,on my timestamp of 30/09/2008 12:00 AM: >> How come your buddies ALL WITHOUT EXCEPTION post >> their photos in pbase, then? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > So who are you talking about? Scott W? Ok, that's 1. Stop lying, Bret. It's pathological, with you. And you are convinced no one else knows what goes on just because you yell "it's not true"? > Annika1980 wrote,on my timestamp of 30/09/2008 12:00 AM: > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Stop lying, Bret. > It's pathological, with you. Uh, where did I lie? I produced 5 examples off the top of my head that refutes your LIE. Now who's the liar, liar? Annika1980 wrote,on my timestamp of 30/09/2008 1:17 AM: >> Stop lying, Bret. >> It's pathological, with you. > > Uh, where did I lie? > I produced 5 examples off the top of my head that refutes your LIE. > Now who's the liar, liar? you, w.nk. Can you understand that "having a web site" means and proves absolutely nothing? Annika1980 <annika1980@aol.com> wrote in news:3925a62f-1bd6-4a7a-b4e1- b1bec413170c@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com: >> Annika1980 wrote,on my timestamp of 30/09/2008 12:00 AM: >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > I produced 5 examples off the top of my head that refutes your LIE. > Now who's the liar, liar? Hey Bret... How many Pbase sites have you (fraudulently or not) set up since Christmas 2006? > Hey Bret... How many Pbase sites have you (fraudulently or not) set up > since Christmas 2006? Hey D-Mac... How about letting it be already, or at least take it to aus.photo? The newsgroups have been so much more enjoyable without all this bickering and other nonsense. I can finally open a subject and find something photography related now. Hell, even the SI is a total success and there is so much enjoyment watching everyone participates and get along. It's been hard work, but I finally got these groups to where we are all getting along and happily coexisting. Try being nice to everyone for a change and you'll see how much better off you are. Rita >> Hey Bret... How many Pbase sites have you (fraudulently or not) set up >> since Christmas 2006? [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > getting along and happily coexisting. Try being nice to everyone for a > change and you'll see how much better off you are. Agreed about letting it go, also a shout out to Mark! And, thanks so much, "Rita", for all the great work you've done to straighten out the photog. news groups. Signaturejohn mcwilliams > And, thanks so much, "Rita", for all the great work you've done to > straighten out the photog. news groups. Glad to help. See how easy it is when we stick together to clean up a neighborhood. Now all we need is to have a community picnic and a few yard sales. Rita >> And, thanks so much, "Rita", for all the great work you've done to >> straighten out the photog. news groups. > > Glad to help. See how easy it is when we stick together to clean up a > neighborhood. Now all we need is to have a community picnic and a few yard > sales. As long as there are crab rolls. Signaturejohn mcwilliams John McWilliams wrote,on my timestamp of 5/10/2008 2:06 AM: >> It's been hard work, but I finally got these groups to where we are all you? how about Bret just shutting up? that worked. On Sep 29, 9:19 am, Noons <wizofo...@yahoo.com.au> wrote: > How come your buddies ALL WITHOUT EXCEPTION post > their photos in pbase, then? That's simply not true. Alan Browne, for example, posts on photo.net. Rita uses flickr. Others, like Jim Kramer, Troy Piggins, Paul Furman, etc. have their own websites. So who are you talking about? Scott W? Ok, that's 1. Stop trying to be rational with the insane; it won't work... -Jim jimkramer wrote,on my timestamp of 30/09/2008 12:18 AM: > Stop trying to be rational with the insane; it won't work... get lost, Jim. and stop lying. For once, make real on your claims and don't reply: your posts are boring... On Sep 29, 10:18 am, "jimkramer" <Newsread...@NOFSPAMjlkramer.net> wrote: > Stop trying to be rational with the insane; it won't work... > -Jim I'm the cat. He's the string. On Sep 29, 10:18 am, "jimkramer" <Newsread...@NOFSPAMjlkramer.net> wrote: > Stop trying to be rational with the insane; it won't work... > -Jim I'm the cat. He's the string. So you swallowed him and he's dangling out your a.s?!?! Stop using Google and KF the idiot. -Jim >> How come your buddies ALL WITHOUT EXCEPTION post >> their photos in pbase, then? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >So who are you talking about? Scott W? Ok, that's 1. (subject changed to eliminate the Canon vs Nikon controversy) I've asked this before, but not received an answer: What are some good sites to use to put up images? Preferably free. I've tried pbase, but I wasn't impressed. It was OK, but nothing special. I use flickr sometimes and photobucket most of the time. I like to put my images up at 700 to 800 px wide, and I'd prefer that the viewer see only the images that I link to. I don't like "private" links, but I don't like to make my family snapshots available to just anyone. I'd like to have links to this group separate from links to family members. Photobucket is the easiest to use, but the viewer can back up from a direct link and view all images. I've tried some of the other sites, but I've not found anything special. Smugmug is good, but too expensive. If anyone wants to respond, I'd like to know the names of some good sites, but - more important - why they like that service. I can create a website, but changing the img src is too complicated to be worthwhile for me. It's not that I don't know how, but there are too many steps compared to just uploading a few images. Maybe I'm doing it wrong, though. SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida tony cooper wrote,on my timestamp of 30/09/2008 12:25 AM: > I've asked this before, but not received an answer: What are some > good sites to use to put up images? Preferably free. > > I've tried pbase, but I wasn't impressed. It was OK, but nothing > special. pbase has one fundamental flaw: it's not free. not enough value there to justify its prices. > I use flickr sometimes and photobucket most of the time. I like to > put my images up at 700 to 800 px wide, and I'd prefer that the viewer [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Photobucket is the easiest to use, but the viewer can back up from a > direct link and view all images. Keep your private stuff in a private folder. Only general consumption shots end up in a public folder, which itself is in a private one. Works for me... > If anyone wants to respond, I'd like to know the names of some good > sites, but - more important - why they like that service. Flickr ain't half bad, I've been tempted often. Mostly because of the moderated groups that get rid of the scam and shill crap going on in Usenet. A lot of the old Usenet folks have gone there. Photobucket is the best for me for general purpose. Deviantart as an open public site and a source of inspiration. > I can create a website, but changing the img src is too complicated to > be worthwhile for me. It's not that I don't know how, but there are > too many steps compared to just uploading a few images. Maybe I'm > doing it wrong, though. Anything that spares me having to fight html and all its maniacal flavours and idioms: I like photography, not web-site untangling! >tony cooper wrote,on my timestamp of 30/09/2008 12:25 AM: > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >public folder, which itself is in a private one. >Works for me... I don't want a private folder. The family snapshots go out to widely dispersed family members many of whom have extremely limited computer savvy. It's an ordeal just teaching them to click on a link. Sometimes those family members forward the link to other family members. (This is an Irish-American family with more cousins than you can imagine. I can't send all of them a link.) >> If anyone wants to respond, I'd like to know the names of some good >> sites, but - more important - why they like that service. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >Photobucket is the best for me for general purpose. >Deviantart as an open public site and a source of inspiration. Man! I couldn't use a link to "deviant" anything! Not with my family or my wife's family. They'd think it was a porn link. SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida tony cooper wrote,on my timestamp of 30/09/2008 1:34 AM: >> Keep your private stuff in a private folder. >> Only general consumption shots end up in a [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > members. (This is an Irish-American family with more cousins than you > can imagine. I can't send all of them a link.) Well, if you don't want others to see the shots but still want a public folder, that's a bit harder... I don't think any commercial site can do that. > Man! I couldn't use a link to "deviant" anything! Not with my family > or my wife's family. They'd think it was a porn link. Wait until they see the rest of dA! LOL! You got a problem there! > tony cooper wrote,on my timestamp of 30/09/2008 1:34 AM: > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > but still want a public folder, that's a bit harder... > I don't think any commercial site can do that. Get two flickr accounts. Or two different services. >> Man! I couldn't use a link to "deviant" anything! Not with my family >> or my wife's family. They'd think it was a porn link. > > Wait until they see the rest of dA! LOL! > You got a problem there! SignaturePaul Furman www.edgehill.net www.baynatives.com all google groups messages filtered due to spam > *FWIW: rec.photo.equipment.35mm was originally established 20+ years ago > or so, long before digital photography came to prominence, for ANY still > camera (not just SLRs) that used 35mm film, hence the name. Although, > over the months this year, it has been slowly commandeered by digital > users. Why the need to, I don't know. There are, after all, 3 or 4 > groups dedicated specifically to digital systems. WIW? not much. Most of the DSLR posters who post here did not magically materialize. They were film shooters who migrated to digital using equipment that is essentially unchanged other than the film being replaced by a digital sensor. Thad Lipshitz (with my support) created .slr-systems to be focused on DSLRs. It would be the preferred place for such discussion. OTOH I have no real objection to DSLR posts here for the simple reason that the "D" in DSLR is simply an evolution of the film based SLR camera. Specifically, the lens system for 35mm SLR's is _driven_ by the film dimensions and has been for a century. And the DSLR reflects that by having a sensor size reflecting the lens system, most so in the FF sensors that have come out in greater number of late. Finally, since the inmates run these asylums, people have little choice but to: - KF those who don't conform to your belief over the use of the NG. - KF those who troll complaints as a hobby or in defiance of their therapists other remedies. - Just try to get along. Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. -- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out. > I am a photojournalist shooting a Nikon D200. I notice my peers that > are shooting Canon seem to have less trouble getting good color. I am > looking to upgrade bodies, the D700 would be my first choice, but I > don't want another D200 experience. Has Nikon fixed the color issue or > is it just time to bite the bullet and switch to Canon? You're not a photo journalist. No photo journalist would have such poor command of English or ask such a pathetically naive question. Why bother with the BS? Just ask a question if you wish, but do it without pretense. Auntie Auntie Establishment wrote,on my timestamp of 25/09/2008 11:15 PM: >> I am a photojournalist shooting a Nikon D200. I notice my peers that >> are shooting Canon seem to have less trouble getting good color. I am [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Auntie pssst: it's called a Canon "shill". Very common. >> I am a photojournalist shooting a Nikon D200. I notice my peers that >> are shooting Canon seem to have less trouble getting good color. I am [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >You're not a photo journalist. No photo journalist would have such poor >command of English or ask such a pathetically naive question. I see one comma splice. Where is the "poor command of English"? Don't tell me it's the "that" instead of a "who", 'cause "that" ain't wrong. SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida On 9/25/2008 7:01 AM tony cooper spake thus: >>> I am a photojournalist shooting a Nikon D200. I notice my peers that >>> are shooting Canon seem to have less trouble getting good color. I am [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Don't tell me it's the "that" instead of a "who", 'cause "that" ain't > wrong. Technically not wrong, but no decent journalist would use that word there. ("That" generally refers to objects, "who" or "whom" to persons.) SignatureWashing one's hands of the conflict between the powerful and the powerless means to side with the powerful, not to be neutral. - Paulo Freire >On 9/25/2008 7:01 AM tony cooper spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >Technically not wrong, but no decent journalist would use that word >there. ("That" generally refers to objects, "who" or "whom" to persons.) What a bizarre conclusion. You have used "decent" to mean "qualified" or "professional", yet you criticize him for word choice. You equate a casual newsgroup posting with writing for publication. You admit the usage isn't wrong, but you don't admit that your hyperbolic statement about his poor command is English was wrong and that his question was inappropriate. SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida On 9/25/2008 1:19 PM tony cooper spake thus: >>On 9/25/2008 7:01 AM tony cooper spake thus: >> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > statement about his poor command is English was wrong and that his > question was inappropriate. I didn't say anything about his poor command of English. That was someone else. And the guy *did* claim he was a journalist, after all. (A profession that would seem to require a certain level of writing skill.) SignatureWashing one's hands of the conflict between the powerful and the powerless means to side with the powerful, not to be neutral. - Paulo Freire > And the guy *did* claim he was a journalist, after all. (A profession > that would seem to require a certain level of writing skill.) David, I have to disagree with you on this one. He did say he was a journalist, he never claimed to be fluent in English. I got the impression reading his post he was not. Despite what "us" native english speakers think, English is spoken by relatively few people in the world. Geoff. SignatureGeoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel gsm@mendelson.com N3OWJ/4X1GM |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.