Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
PhotoKB Home
Discussion Groups
Digital Photography
Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot Cameras
Film Photography
35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther Equipment
Photo Technique
Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique General
General Photo Topics
General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK Photography
DirectoryPhoto Clubs

Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / January 2005

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

dSLRs absolutely require digital darkrooms

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
bmoag - 15 Jan 2005 00:01 GMT
I do not think you can get better than snapshot quality images out of the
D70 without a lot of post-exposure work. Apart from adding more pixels in
the next generation sensor or eventual improvements in exposure latitude I
am not sure how this will change in the near future. I was kind of surprised
and put off by my initial experience with the D70 but I am growing to
appreciate the engineering and aesthetic considerations that made Nikon set
the camera up the way they did.

If you compare D70 jpegs (the snapshot setting) to identical D70 raw images
(I just happened to spend the last hour doing this) the differences are
striking. I can get nice looking pictures from either jpeg or raw but I
cannot find a way to make them look identical. The images I get from raw
files have better color fidelity and tonal range. When you compare jpegs and
raw images you may realize that not only do you, and not the camera, want to
control sharpening but different techniques for sharpening are better for
different types of images.

It was never like this with film, even scanned film, because the essence of
the image was already determined by the characteristics of the emulsion. Raw
digital images are far more mutable than scanned film images.

If you want to get the highest quality images out of a dSLR you have to
realize, as the engineers designing the camera realize, that outside of raw
images the algorithms that are used to process any other format involve
arbitrary decisions about color, contrast etc. that are always going to be a
compromise and may never be the best choices for any particular image. Even
if the camera makes good choices they are not YOUR choices and once jpegged
the flexibility of the data becomes much more limited.
sid derra - 15 Jan 2005 00:52 GMT
> I do not think you can get better than snapshot quality images out of the
> D70 without a lot of post-exposure work. Apart from adding more pixels in
[quoted text clipped - 24 lines]
> if the camera makes good choices they are not YOUR choices and once jpegged
> the flexibility of the data becomes much more limited.

ummm - have you done any research on raw/jpeg differences before? you
described pretty much some of the essential differences- and obviously raw
will give you the most bang for the buck of your d70. i am still not sure
how the subject and "I do not think you can get better than snapshot quality
images out of the D70 without a lot of post-exposure work" still fit into
this topic though.

sid
Will D. - 15 Jan 2005 04:15 GMT
> I do not think you can get better than snapshot quality images out of the
> D70 without a lot of post-exposure work. Apart from adding more pixels in
[quoted text clipped - 24 lines]
> if the camera makes good choices they are not YOUR choices and once jpegged
> the flexibility of the data becomes much more limited.

You used bangshooter mode for a benchmark?  And then you are getting
detailed about the results.  Sure you can choose your own algorithms if
you use the raw data.  But why?  You didn't assert your own control in
the taking, why bother with the post processing?  

You say you like the Nikon's default taking algorithms; is that
regardless of scene?  You think the Nikon can't be fooled?  I doubt that
very much.

Seems to me that you're starting in midstream with your analyses.

Or did I miss something here?

Will D.
Roger - 15 Jan 2005 08:18 GMT
>I do not think you can get better than snapshot quality images out of the
>D70 without a lot of post-exposure work. Apart from adding more pixels in
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>appreciate the engineering and aesthetic considerations that made Nikon set
>the camera up the way they did.

I have only used the D-70 in (to quote another poster) "bang shooter
mode" on a couple of occasions.  

I really can't think of any reason to do so, unless maybe I wanted to
shoot a whole series of rapid fire snap  shots, but then that's what
they'd be.  Snapshots.

The D-70 does a very nice job pf putting a 6 megapixel image into a
relatively small file using lossless compression.  With the camera
settings I can come up with pretty much what I desire without
requiring a lot of post processing. (you should try scanning for
requiring a lot of post processing and those are huge files).

Even at full resolution the camera is fast and doesn't take a lot of
memory although I prefer to use I Gig CF cards.

You can configure the camera to give what you want in the NEF mode
which isn't exactly RAW.  It takes into account the white balance as
well as the other parameters you can set in or leave as default.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
C J Campbell - 15 Jan 2005 17:26 GMT
> I do not think you can get better than snapshot quality images out of the
> D70 without a lot of post-exposure work.

I think I disagree with this statement.

Now, if anybody had reason to use bang-shooter mode (what a neat phrase;
thanks!) I would have thought it would be Roger Halstead. After all, he
likes photographing aerobatic displays and the faster shooting mode might be
helpful. But even he avoids it. Roger's pictures, btw, are incredible. I
don't know how he does it.

The thing that digital photography gives you is incredible post-processing
control. Black & white photographers were very reluctant to switch to color
because they did not like losing control of the finished product. Now we
have that control back. Digital photography has begun a renaissance where
the artist has absolute control of the finished product from beginning to
end.

Go back and look at some of your old film pictures and you will start
thinking, "these are no better than snapshots." You will start wanting to
adjust saturation here, adjust some vignetting there, maybe adjust exposure
slightly. What has happened is that digital photography has greatly raised
your expectations of the finished photo.

The other thing is that digital photography is allowing you to risk taking
terrible pictures, knowing that you can correct their errors later --
cropping out unwanted material, fixing backlighting, etc., maybe even
adjusting the composition. So, yeah, you are willing to take bad pictures
that you were not willing to take before, because you know you can turn them
into good pictures later. That is not the camera's fault that the original
picture is bad; it is just that digital has changed the way you think about
a picture.
Roger - 16 Jan 2005 18:13 GMT
>> I do not think you can get better than snapshot quality images out of the
>> D70 without a lot of post-exposure work.
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>helpful. But even he avoids it. Roger's pictures, btw, are incredible. I
>don't know how he does it.

Alright, now you've done it.  I'm probably going to receive a bill for
publicity, but in return you're going to get a bill for my new
hat.<:-))

But seriously, when the NEFs are on an average of the mid 5 megabyte
range (they do vary from close to 5 to just over 6 with the vast
majority being in the mid 5s) I see little need for shooting in a
lesser mode.

In the D-70 as well as the Canons you have control over white balance,
sharpening, contrast, saturation...It may not be quite as simple to
get at as in a P&S, but once you learn the menus they are relatively
easy to navigate.

I have nothing against using JPGs, but when using a camera and lens
combination that cost near $1500 USD (My F4S body cost more than that)
I can't see a reason for economizing on memory when it cost me less
than $100 per Gig.  I think it's still around the $100 USD mark for 1
gig and about $170 for 2 Gig.

I've mentioned before I do use jpg mode at the highest quality in my
E-20N, but that is mainly because the thing is so darn slow.  It takes
10 seconds to write an image from the buffer to memory. The D-70 can
empty a full buffer in 3 seconds or less.

So, I could double the number of photos from around 190 to near 400 by
going to jpg and losing some quality (not much)or I can do the same
for another $100 and keep the full quality.

400 is a lot of images, but I have come close to that at AirVenture
(the big fly-in at Oshkosh Wisconsin every summer with which CJ is
well familiar<G>)

As a comparison, in 35mm it costs me over $100 for a single 100 foot
roll of ASA 400 E6, and the last ASA 100 of E6 ran near $65.  I get
roughly 20, 36 exposure rolls out of that including leaders.  It costs
me about $2 a roll to develop the stuff not counting time, or mounts.
That's $7 USD a roll or 20 cents per shot.  Double, or triple that if
you are purchasing by the roll and using a commercial lab.

Now the CF cost basically $100 for 200 shots or 50 cents each for the
one day, two days makes that 25 cents and three days makes that 17
cents and at 5 days I'm down to 10 cents per shot.  Sure I have to
store those on something long term, but CDs are almost free and in
some instances are.  Figure 25 cents each.  That's 50 cents to store a
days worth of shooting.  DVDs are now about $1 USD and that'd be good
for over 4 days shooting.  At these prices make two. Its good
insurance.

No, I haven't printed many, but I hadn't with the film either.

But again the advantages of full resolution, lossless storage gives
you more power when it does come to post processing.  You can enlarge
cropped areas without artifacts from the compression.  It gives the
ability to make big prints.

As to quality, I shot 6,883 images in 2004 (not counting a few rolls
of film). I have gone through 1000s of feet of 35 mm film over the
years.   If you shoot that many a few are bound to turn out good
<:-)), but thanks CJ<G>

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>The thing that digital photography gives you is incredible post-processing
>control. Black & white photographers were very reluctant to switch to color
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
>picture is bad; it is just that digital has changed the way you think about
>a picture.
Anker Berg-Sonne - 15 Jan 2005 17:59 GMT
>I do not think you can get better than snapshot quality images out of the
>D70 without a lot of post-exposure work. Apart from adding more pixels in
[quoted text clipped - 24 lines]
>if the camera makes good choices they are not YOUR choices and once jpegged
>the flexibility of the data becomes much more limited.

Here's how you should think of it:

Non-RAW is equivalent to a Polaroid camera. Once you hit the shutter
you have zero control. Everything from that point is automated and you
have to live with the results.

RAW is equivalent to film processing. Exposing the film is only the
first step in a process. The next step is processing the film and the
print.

I have to agree somewhat with you, I thought a DSLR would have
processing firmware that's superior to a point-and-shoot camera. As
far as I can judge, that isn't the case.

The conclusion I have reached is that is you invest in a DSLR you also
must invest in learning how to use a digital darkroom properly.

My 2 cents worth/Anker
Bob - 16 Jan 2005 02:30 GMT
>I do not think you can get better than snapshot quality images out of the
>D70 without a lot of post-exposure work.

I get lots of excellent images from my D70 without processing them... I had to
process other cameras much more.

> Apart from adding more pixels in
>the next generation sensor or eventual improvements in exposure latitude I
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
>the image was already determined by the characteristics of the emulsion. Raw
>digital images are far more mutable than scanned film images.

Depends on the film... I have plenty of crap film images!!

>If you want to get the highest quality images out of a dSLR you have to
>realize, as the engineers designing the camera realize, that outside of raw
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>if the camera makes good choices they are not YOUR choices and once jpegged
>the flexibility of the data becomes much more limited.

Don't forget - if you want the highest quality out of film you absolutely need a
darkroom...

Unless you like drugstore prints...
 
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



©2009 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.