 |
 | 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 / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / July 2006nikon d200 vs d70 and photoshop vs nikon capture
I currently use the Nikon D70 and have generally found when working in RAW that printing from nikon capture produces better results than from photoshop in the absense of exposure or color correction work. I was recently told by a photo retailer that this would not be an issue with the D200 as the RAW conversion in the D200 now takes place in the camera as opposed to the external software product. Is this true? Aside from the obvious hardware benefits offered by the D200 vs the D70, this alleged issue between the camera and photoshop re Nikon raw being resolved in the D200 would be very compelling. I would appreciate any clarification on this issue. Thanks. >I currently use the Nikon D70 and have generally found when working in > RAW that printing from nikon capture produces better results than from [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > being resolved in the D200 would be very compelling. I would > appreciate any clarification on this issue. Thanks. I believe that your dealer is either very confused or wishes very much to sell you a D200. The only "RAW conversion" that takes place in a D200 (or a D70) is if you tell the camera to save as a JPG. I have both the D200 and the D70 (and Capture and Photoshop CS2) and the D200 is considerably better, but not for the reason your dealer told you...I'd buy from a dealer that is either more knowledgeable or more honest. >I have both the D200 and > the D70 (and Capture and Photoshop CS2) and the D200 is considerably better, George, Before I splurge on CS2, I gather from your comment that the problem (?encryption?) of Photoshop reading some Nikon NEF files has been resolved between these two companies? Tien >>I have both the D200 and >> the D70 (and Capture and Photoshop CS2) and the D200 is considerably [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Tien At least for the time being, there is no problem with PhotoShop CS2 and D70 and D200 RAW files. >>I have both the D200 and >> the D70 (and Capture and Photoshop CS2) and the D200 is considerably better, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > (?encryption?) of Photoshop reading some Nikon NEF files has been > resolved between these two companies? Then only encryption issues I am aware of are related to the white balance setting that is chosen in camera. This value is encrypted on the D200 (and perhaps the D70s?). It is not a big deal though as you can adjust the white balance setting freely in software with no fear of damaging the picture, so the value that camera used is nearly irrelavent. I have read that the white balance software in the D200 is quite superior to that of the D70 and maybe to that of Photoshop, and thus, the chosen setting that the D200 uses might be *better* than that chose automatically by the Photoshop software, but it is still up to the photographer to determine the optimum value for their final print.  SignatureThomas T. Veldhouse Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1 >>>I have both the D200 and >>>the D70 (and Capture and Photoshop CS2) and the D200 is considerably better, [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > setting that is chosen in camera. This value is encrypted on the D200 (and > perhaps the D70s?). This was a D2x issue, not D70 or D200. It is not a big deal though as you can adjust the white > balance setting freely in software with no fear of damaging the picture, so > the value that camera used is nearly irrelavent. I have read that the white [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > still up to the photographer to determine the optimum value for their final > print. >>I have both the D200 and >> the D70 (and Capture and Photoshop CS2) and the D200 is considerably [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Tien RAW conversion is not a reason to buy CS2. I have PhaseOne for that, and it's great. I thought RAW was a joke when I was only using Photoshop. SignatureRegards, Matt Clara www.mattclara.com >RAW conversion is not a reason to buy CS2. I have PhaseOne for that, and >it's great. I thought RAW was a joke when I was only using Photoshop. Matt, I've just started to read Peter Krogh's DAM book, which gets universal praise and recommendations as a must-read book in this area. Krogh states early on that Photoshop is his image-editing tool of choice, including ACR and Bridge, in part because it supports good digital asset management. (By the way, I hate overblown terms. "digital asset?" How about "digital photographs." ) Anyway, I keep reading that people seem to prefer other RAW convertors besides ACR. So how do you (and other readers) use Photoshop in your workflow but with a different RAW convertor? Plug-in? separate programs? Pere Kodak > Anyway, I keep reading that people seem to prefer other RAW convertors > besides ACR. So how do you (and other readers) use Photoshop in your > workflow but with a different RAW convertor? Plug-in? separate > programs? I have access to pretty well any raw converter (at least for Mac) I like, as a tech journalist, and have full C1 Pro, Aperture, etc. Guess what I use - Photoshop ACR. Main reason is that ACR is not channel clipping limited when it comes to recovering dynamic range by altering 'exposure', and it uses quite subtle and effective exposure and brightness controls - not just adding values or multiplying values. It also gives the lowest artefact levels and has intelligent sharpening, based on analysis of the export file enlargement or reduction size and the provided camera data. I use zero sharpening, but even this is a 'setting' since zero is not possible when deBayering a raw file. It is best thought of as no USM component only a frequency enhancement. 'Digital asset management' is a valid term, and means control of the metadata, colour management and file format. Adobe DNG conversion (provided by the SAVE function), metadata entry, exported file resizing, varying bit depth, rating via Bridge for your own sorting purposes, etc - all this is DAM stuff. All's that's really missing is catalogue file creation. For this, I use iView Media Pro, and actually nearly all the DAM stuff (captions, copyright, keywords, metadata) ends up being handled by iView. Other raw converters generally have better colour conversion. The default camera profiles of ACR 2.4 to 3.x are a bit dodgy and the WB conversions can be strange. C1 Pro has superior skin tones, but often less dynamic range. Most makers' own converters are extremely slow (C1 Pro is not fast) but adhere closely to in-camera JPEG colours and gamma for their conversions. ACR does not. It is entirely different. I can live with that in return for its convenience, speed, and interpolation to larger final file sizes directly from raw. David > > Anyway, I keep reading that people seem to prefer other RAW convertors > > besides ACR. So how do you (and other readers) use Photoshop in your [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > David AND... what is your take on Aperture? Regards, David >>Other raw converters generally have better colour conversion. The >>default camera profiles of ACR 2.4 to 3.x are a bit dodgy and the WB [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > AND... what is your take on Aperture? Regards, David I only have a humble 2 gig ram 1.8 ghz single processor G5, and I tend to run most of the Adobe CS2 at once all the time, so Aperture is like treacle but as far as dynamic range recovery goes, it has the right tools. Interestingly, its definition of what constitutes correct exposure and what a 'stop' of exposure correction is beats ACR any day. ACR tends to want to start with minus loads if you set it to auto. I've been checking out some difficult Nikon D70S files and Aperture handles these better than C1 Pro, and with a more natural look close to colour clipping o/ex level than ACR. Downside is that despite its ability to batch a set of conversions, if you are into major tonal corrections different on each shot, the process is still too slow to make it commercially acceptable. It's not even that hot on our twin 1.8 machine. I'd have to rate its colour rendering superior to ACR, its sharpness and detail with noise suppression superior, but then there's a load of other stuff missing. I am looking forward to seeing the new DxO Optic Pro release, which they have pre-announced although it won't be shipped until after photokina. This has all the other controls needed. We were using the Aperture/core services raw converter on a laptop today to view raw files via PREVIEW - tedious but good full screen conversions, not over slow, singly or a slide show. Another laptop was running the same images using iPhoto (again, with the core service new raw convertor) as a lightbox, with Fn+PageDown neatly moving between views of twelve pix at a time. A second or two for the sharpness to build. I'd say the default Apple core conversion for these files - Canon 300Ds mainly - was looking almost as good as in-camera JPEGs. All that Aperture is adding is a considerable level of conversion control. I wonder whether other developers will be able to access the same core raw support, and add controls? And of course new Intel-based Macs may remove some of the sluggishness of the G4/G5 generation which we are sticking with for at least a year or two more. David >>RAW conversion is not a reason to buy CS2. I have PhaseOne for that, and >>it's great. I thought RAW was a joke when I was only using Photoshop. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > digital asset management. (By the way, I hate overblown terms. > "digital asset?" How about "digital photographs." ) Never rely on a single source. Many such sources get paid for having a specific opinion. >> I've just started to read Peter Krogh's DAM book, which gets universal >> praise and recommendations as a must-read book in this area. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >Never rely on a single source. Many such sources get paid for having a >specific opinion. Jeroen, I agree with you 100%. That's why I'm asking this question. For everyone else: I have read other postings saying that the overall speed and workflow convenience of ACR outweighs other factors, like greater color fidelity from the manufacturers' own RAW convertors. Is it possible to write a script that batch-converts (overnight?) RAW files using the manufacturer's own software? Father Kodak >Is it possible to write a script that batch-converts (overnight?) RAW >files using the manufacturer's own software? The better software programs should have batch conversion built-in. >I currently use the Nikon D70 and have generally found when working in > RAW that printing from nikon capture produces better results than from [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > being resolved in the D200 would be very compelling. I would > appreciate any clarification on this issue. Thanks. You might consider downloading the manual and get the real facts. > I currently use the Nikon D70 and have generally found when working in > RAW that printing from nikon capture produces better results than from [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > being resolved in the D200 would be very compelling. I would > appreciate any clarification on this issue. Thanks. Every digital camera (except the Sigma DSLRs?) can do the raw conversion in the camera -- that's what shooting in jpeg mode does. The D200, I can tell you from my own experience, has a normal RAW mode, where the RAW file is put on the card and you do the conversion externally. That's the whole *point* of RAW mode -- you get more control, at the cost of more effort. It also supports shooting in jpeg mode. Sounds like the camera store guy is confused, or you misunderstood him. Many camera store guys *are* confused, in my experience. SignatureDavid Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/> RKBA: <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/> Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/> Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/> > Every digital camera (except the Sigma DSLRs?) can do the raw > conversion in the camera -- that's what shooting in jpeg mode does. TIFF would be a raw conversion as well. You can shoot TIFF with the Nikon D2X and D2Xs. There are benefits to adjusting exposure BEFORE you do the raw conversion and this is one good reason to develop a decent RAW workflow and to shoot your images in RAW. > The D200, I can tell you from my own experience, has a normal RAW > mode, where the RAW file is put on the card and you do the conversion > externally. That's the whole *point* of RAW mode -- you get more > control, at the cost of more effort. It also supports shooting in > jpeg mode. A note; JPEG is an 8-bit color depth format and RAW in the D200 is a 12-bit color depth format, which is the difference between 256 and 4096 graduations of color for each channel (red, green and blue). Thus, we are talking an enormous amount of extra leeway in dealing with color, which means you can manipulate and correct your images more than you can with JPEG without significant damage to the image. SignatureThomas T. Veldhouse Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1 >The D200, I can tell you from my own experience, has a normal RAW >mode, where the RAW file is put on the card and you do the conversion [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Sounds like the camera store guy is confused, or you misunderstood >him. Many camera store guys *are* confused, in my experience. Or more likely, the camera store guy thinks _you_ are _confusable_. They are paid on commission, and that explains a lot of sales people's behavior. A sales guy once told me, "We're coin-operated. If you want me to raise my hand, put a quarter into my shoulder!" Abu Kodak |
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.