 |
 | 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 / Digital Photo / April 2008Nikon D70 - Available Light
Can the D70 take excellent "available light" pictures like a regular SLR? I tried to take pictures with the only light coming from the fireplace and the christmas tree lights. Of course my Sony Mavica didn't do the job. Phil www.BluegrassBanjo.com www.BluegrassBanjo.org Phillip Mann escribio: > Can the D70 take excellent "available light" pictures like a regular > SLR? > > I tried to take pictures with the only light coming from the fireplace > and the christmas tree lights. Of course my Sony Mavica didn't do the > job. Of course. (with the right *Manual* settings) -- chidalgo > Phillip Mann escribio: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Of course. (with the right *Manual* settings) And with an expensive lense. I got better low light results with my Oly C3030 3MP pocket digicam. >> Phillip Mann escribio:>> Can the D70 take excellent "available light" pictures like a regular >>> SLR? >And with an expensive lense. I got better low light results with my Oly >C3030 3MP pocket digicam. Not so expensive. The 50mm f1.8 is very inexpensive. My Oly 3040 is pretty good low-light, but my D70 is a world of difference at ISO 400, and even does as good as the Oly at 4x that!  SignatureKen Tough >Can the D70 take excellent "available light" pictures like a regular >SLR? > >I tried to take pictures with the only light coming from the fireplace >and the christmas tree lights. Of course my Sony Mavica didn't do the >job. Depends on which lens you want to put on it. http://www.nikonusa.com/template.php?cat=1&grp=5 Any of the 1.4's would do it.... *************************************************************** "Americans have plenty of everything and the best of nothing." John C. Keats American Writer 1924-2000 [] > I tried to take pictures with the only light coming from the fireplace > and the christmas tree lights. Of course my Sony Mavica didn't do the > job. Why not? Put your camera on a tripod and use the appropriate exposure. It should work just fine (if the camera allows a long enough exposure and can apply any required dark-frame subtraction). Try wide-open aperture and 1 second exposure. Work up to 30 seconds. Cheers, David depends on the effect you want. Do you want it to be dark and subdued showing the color of the fire? Or do you want it to be bright and adjusted for the color from the fire? I've taken to having a hand held light meter with me especially when shooting snow. If in doubt I check the light with an incedent light meter reading and then adjust my manual settings based on how I want it to look. > Can the D70 take excellent "available light" pictures like a regular > SLR? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > www.BluegrassBanjo.com > www.BluegrassBanjo.org >depends on the effect you want. > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >> Can the D70 take excellent "available light" pictures like a regular >> SLR? It works just like any other camera that has the ASA, f-stop, and shutter speed range. This isn't quite what you were talking about and it's from an E-20, but the D-70 will do the same. You can run the ASA up to any value available. http://www.rogerhalstead.com/fire.htm Noise isn't much of a problem except for long exposures with the D-70, at least not on mine. On exposures longer than a couple of seconds AND a high ASA I do use dark frame subtraction. I've used slower ASA speeds and exposures of several seconds without dark frame subtraction. >> I tried to take pictures with the only light coming from the fireplace >> and the christmas tree lights. Of course my Sony Mavica didn't do the >> job. It should if it has a manual capability. Put it on a tripod and use a cable release, remote, or the built in timer. Experiment with shutter speeds, but I would guess using an ASA of 100 and 2 or 3 seconds exposure (lens wide open) should do it. You really don't need a super fast lens although they are nice. F2 to 2.8 should be plenty fast enough. It helps if you can get an ASA of 400 to 800 too. <:-)), but still the tripod should let you get the shots. OTOH the speeds are pretty slow for people to be in the images. They would have to be very still. Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member) (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair) www.rogerhalstead.com >> Phil >> >> www.BluegrassBanjo.com >> www.BluegrassBanjo.org > Noise isn't much of a problem except for long exposures with the D-70, > at least not on mine. On exposures longer than a couple of seconds > AND a high ASA I do use dark frame subtraction. I've used slower ASA > speeds and exposures of several seconds without dark frame > subtraction. Hey, Roger, can you give a quick overview of that? SignaturePhil Stripling | email to the replyto address is presumed The Civilized Explorer | spam and read later. email from this URL http://www.cieux.com/ | http://www.civex.com/ is read daily. > Can the D70 take excellent "available light" pictures like a regular > SLR? > > I tried to take pictures with the only light coming from the fireplace > and the christmas tree lights. Of course my Sony Mavica didn't do the > job. Personally, I think available light is generally far better than using flash. I only use flash when I absolutely have to. Yes. The D70 is very suitable for low light photography. I use the D70 successfully with up to ISO 1600. You will get some digital noise at ISO 800 to 1600, which you might want to remove with an appropriate SW tool. I use NEF and process the file first with Nikon Capture 4. I then generate a good quality JPEG, which I further process in PaintShop Pro 9 using its excellent digital noise removal filter. There are two other tools available: 1) Noise Ninja from PictoreCode (see http://www.neatimage.com/) 2) Neat Image from Neat Image (see http://www.picturecode.com/) Gregor > Can the D70 take excellent "available light" pictures like a regular > SLR? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > www.BluegrassBanjo.com > www.BluegrassBanjo.org >Can the D70 take excellent "available light" pictures like a regular >SLR? > >I tried to take pictures with the only light coming from the fireplace >and the christmas tree lights. Of course my Sony Mavica didn't do the >job. I'm a longtime Leica rangefinder shooter (king of available light, right?) who just switched to the D70. I had the same concerns, because I never use either flash or tripods, and I just wasn't convinced that digital could challenge the king in his own country. Well, I'm no longer worried. I'm getting as good, indeed in most cases better, available light images with the D70. The key to the available light prowess of the D70 is the quality of its 1600 ISO setting. Especially with a noise reduction program (I use Noise Ninja) the image quality is well beyond any 1600 ISO film I've used, not to mention 400 film pushed two stops. This lets you use 2.8 lenses in places you'd have needed 1.4 if you were shooting film. Add in a good cheap lens like the 50/1.8 or the 35/2.0 for even another stop and you're away to the races. This Christmas I shot a picture of my family around the dining table at the end of Christmas dinner. It was hand held, lit by four candles and a flaming pudding. I shot it at 1600 ISO, at f/2.8, using the 17-55 set to 17mm. I let the camera decide on the exposure using A mode. It was wonderful - the shot of the season for me. I am no longer even mildly anxious about moving away from Leica. Paul Chefurka > >Can the D70 take excellent "available light" pictures like a regular > >SLR? [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > Paul Chefurka Are you able to post a link for us to see the shot Paul?? SignatureMichael Brown Melbourne Australia www.photo.net/photos/mlbrown >> This Christmas I shot a picture of my family around the dining table at >the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >Are you able to post a link for us to see the shot Paul?? Try this: http://66.116.166.220/Xmas2004.html Sorry for the IP address, I just set up the hosting account, and the domain name hasn't propagated yet. Paul nice shot I would never get my family to sit still long enough for such a shot >>>This Christmas I shot a picture of my family around the dining table at >> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Paul >>>This Christmas I shot a picture of my family around the dining table at >> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Sorry for the IP address, I just set up the hosting account, and the domain > name hasn't propagated yet. That does have a lot of noise but hey, it is cool that such pics can even be taken & I guess there are some pretty good programs out now to clean up the noise. I'd be curious to see that run through one of those. Hmm, I just tried it through http://www.neatimage.com/download.html with auto settings & it made a big difference with just a little loss of detail but it's possible to get the camera profile & do better. > Sorry for the IP address, I just set up the hosting account, and the domain > name hasn't propagated yet. _Very_ well-done lighting, Paul. SignaturePhil Stripling | email to the replyto address is presumed The Civilized Explorer | spam and read later. email from this URL http://www.cieux.com/ | http://www.civex.com/ is read daily. >>> This Christmas I shot a picture of my family around the dining table at >>the [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Paul Who is the blonde on the right with the big shnozz? S. >>>> This Christmas I shot a picture of my family around the dining table at >>>the [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > >S. That would be my niece. Paul >>>>> This Christmas I shot a picture of my family around the dining table >>>>> at [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > Paul Tell her to get the honker fixed. She would be a 10 for sure. S. | >>>>> This Christmas I shot a picture of my family around the dining table | >>>>> at [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] | | S. Paul, Ignore this bottom feeder who signs himself "S.", he's wandered into the wrong group and is probably typing with one hand down his pants. It's a terrific photo. I've recently purchased a D70 and I hope I can do as well in low light. Rick >| >>>>> This Christmas I shot a picture of my family around the dining table >| >>>>> at [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > >Rick He didn't say the photo was bad, just that the girl has a big nose. More here: http://www.mwscomp.com/movies/brian/brian-02.htm -- Owamanga! >He didn't say the photo was bad, just that the girl has a big nose. > >More here: Crude is crude. Nice shot. Ken >>He didn't say the photo was bad, just that the girl has a big nose. >> >>More here: > > Crude is crude. Nice shot. Ken Sorry but I think comments about the subject matter is a legitimate photographic concern. When a flash picture is taken of me, the aperature needs to closed down a half stop because the flash will overexpose my bald head. In the niece's case a wide angle lens is probably in order to capture the essence of the proboscus. Again this is a legitimate point of discussion in this forum, S. >>>He didn't say the photo was bad, just that the girl has a big nose. >>> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > S. And an equally legitimate point of discussion is likely to be what a rude, bald c.nt you are. > >>>He didn't say the photo was bad, just that the girl has a big nose. > >>> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > And an equally legitimate point of discussion is likely to be what a rude, > bald c.nt you are. Right on Colin >>>>He didn't say the photo was bad, just that the girl has a big nose. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > And an equally legitimate point of discussion is likely to be what a rude, > bald c.nt you are. c.nt? No one ever called me that before. I'm fascinated why you would use such a word. c.nt is a word that would insult a woman not a man. I have been called prick, and all those sort of male words but never c.nt. Can you tell me why you would think I would be insulted by that? Are you insinuating that I am effeminate? If so, why not use the words fag, queer, or something like that? Tell you what, rewrite this response with words that would be appropriate and I can then evaluate your insult. S. > c.nt? No one ever called me that before. I'm fascinated why you would use > such a word. c.nt is a word that would insult a woman not a man. I have [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > or something like that? Tell you what, rewrite this response with words > that would be appropriate and I can then evaluate your insult. Without entering any opinion as to the merits of any name calling- which I am generally against- I'd point out that in my experience, there are both male c.nts, and female pricks. Subtle variations, perhaps, but worth noting. SignatureJohn McWilliams >> c.nt? No one ever called me that before. I'm fascinated why you would >> use such a word. c.nt is a word that would insult a woman not a man. I [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > male c.nts, and female pricks. Subtle variations, perhaps, but worth > noting. Wouldn't we tend to call a female a bitch rather than a prick? I'm not sure about calling a male a c.nt. Does that mean acting like a bitchy female? If so, I understand the context now. S. > Wouldn't we tend to call a female a bitch rather than a prick? I'm > not sure about calling a male a c.nt. Does that mean acting like a > bitchy female? If so, I understand the context now. This is a photography newsgroup; please post a link to the relevant picture for reference to stay on topic. Otherwise, please give it a rest. Rita > I'm not sure about calling a male a c.nt. That's pretty common in the UK. It can also be used between good friends as a term of endearment. "How are you, you old c.nt?" is a friendly greeting... SignatureChris Pollard CG Internet café, Tagum City, Philippines http://www.cginternet.net > >>>>He didn't say the photo was bad, just that the girl has a big nose. > >>>> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > such a word. c.nt is a word that would insult a woman not a man. I have > been called prick, and all those sort of male words but never c.nt. perhaps he feels that it fits you better. gentleman does not fit the way you behaved. > S. >Ignore this bottom feeder who signs himself "S.", he's wandered into the wrong >group and is probably typing with one hand down his pants. It's a terrific >photo. I've recently purchased a D70 and I hope I can do as well in low >light. > >Rick Thanks for the kind words, Rick. I've been on Usenet long enough that those master baiters don't get to me any more ;-) Cheers, Paul >Tell her to get the honker fixed. She would be a 10 for sure. > >S. Well, that would be her decision, wouldn't it? Not sure why we care so much about a person's outsides, anyway. Fortunately she's not that shallow. AFAIC she's an 11, inside and out. Cheers, Paul Nice shot, Paul. I just picked up a D70 before Christmas and I'm really enjoying it. Very capable machine. Add some good software and it's just fantastic! Good shooting, Bob Scott | Nice shot, Paul. | [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] | Good shooting, | Bob Scott OK, I'll bite, what software is "good"? Thanks, Rick > | Nice shot, Paul. > | [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > OK, I'll bite, what software is "good"? I wasn't trolling, really. I didn't mean any in particular. I use Nikon Capture, Photoshop Elements 3, and Opanda IExif so far. I'll be adding a panorama-stitching program, and who-knows what else in the future. What I should have said was the camera is great but you need to buy software to really get the most out of it (a program to load custom curves into the camera, a program to edit RAW files, etc.). Where my little Sony P&S digital is "just" a camera, my D70 + software (and a printer) is a camera and darkroom, so to speak. The D70 is a great photo-taking machine, but with a few software programs to go with it, it's more capable and twice the fun. I thought I'd never leave film, but playing with the D70, custom curves, image editing programs and printer has me intrigued with digital. Good shooting, Bob Scott | > | Nice shot, Paul. | > | [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] | Good shooting, | Bob Scott Thanks Bob. Sorry, I didn't want to give you the impression that I thought you were trolling. I, too, have recently purchased a D70 and an extra lens or two and have put my venerable Pentax MX and its lenses in the attic for my kid to find some day. I've been using Capture and a photo editing program that came with my scanner--Photoimpact. It's not great, but I find it to be more intuitive and less frustrating than PhotoShop, although I'll be adding Elements 3 soon. Regards, Rick > >> This Christmas I shot a picture of my family around the dining table at > >the [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > http://66.116.166.220/Xmas2004.html Good composition (actually very good), but the white balance is off (too much orange) and the shot is too dark. Is there is something wrong with the metering system of the D70 (it underexposes) ? But the biggest problem is that combination of blurriness and noise - resized for the web the image should look sharp and clean. Makes me wonder if all these claims about perfectly clean ISO 1600 DSLR images are a bit unrealistic. SignatureAlfred Molon ------------------------------ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Olympus_405080/ Olympus 5060 resource - http://myolympus.org/5060/ Olympus 8080 resource - http://myolympus.org/8080/ > Paul Chefurka says... > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > much orange) and the shot is too dark. Is there is something wrong with > the metering system of the D70 (it underexposes) ? That's _candle light_. It's orange. Nothing but orange. And not very much of it, at that. It's a flipping amazing shot, one that would be impossible with a P&S camera. David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan > That's _candle light_. It's orange. Nothing but orange. And not very > much of it, at that. It's a flipping amazing shot, one that would be > impossible with a P&S camera. I agree, absolutely great color that is highlighted by the pretty blue flame from the burning alcohol in the center. Rita >Good composition (actually very good), but the white balance is off (too >much orange) and the shot is too dark. Is there is something wrong with [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >wonder if all these claims about perfectly clean ISO 1600 DSLR images >are a bit unrealistic. As others have said, candle light has a very limited spectrum, all of it yellow and red. As the scene was lit purely with those candles, I set the white balance to reproduce the original tonality. The same comment applies to the exposure. If you look at the flames and the tops of the candles just under them you'll see that I kept the exposure at the point where the light sources for the image had started to clip. This indicates that the rest of the scene is at approximately the original intensity. The shadow areas in the background were basically (0,0,0). If anything, the meter should have overexposed the scene, completely blowing out the candles. The fact that it didn't, and allowed me to capture both some detail in the deepest shadows as well as detail in the tops of the candles, indicates to me that Nikon's matrix metering is everything they say plus a bag of chips. And the dynamic range of the D70's sensor is awe-inspiring for this old slide-film shooter. On the subject of blurriness, that is due to the wide aperture and lack of depth of field. In the original RAW image you can read the lettering on the wine bottle in the middle of the table. 2.8 doesn't give much DOF, even at 17mm. BTW, the shot was hand-held. On the noise issue, I don't think anyone is claiming noise-free images at 1600 ISO, even from the big Canon sensor. From my perspective, the noise level in this image is incredible. But that's because I'm coming from the film world. Have you ever seen the results from 35mm 400 ISO colour neg film pushed two stops? It's egregious, and the tonality and dynamic range go to hell in a hand basket as well. Frankly, one of the reasons I switched to the D70 was its available light capability. I had a Leica with a 35/1.4 ASPH and I couldn't make images like this with it. Paul > As others have said, candle light has a very limited spectrum, all of it > yellow and red. As the scene was lit purely with those candles, I set the > white balance to reproduce the original tonality. I guess the white balance is a matter of personal taste. I would have made the image less orange. > The same comment applies to the exposure. If you look at the flames and > the tops of the candles just under them you'll see that I kept the exposure [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > everything they say plus a bag of chips. And the dynamic range of the > D70's sensor is awe-inspiring for this old slide-film shooter. You could have overexposed a bit the candles and compressed the dynamic range. By the way, pushing the histogram a bit to the right would have helped getting lower noise levels. > On the subject of blurriness, that is due to the wide aperture and lack of > depth of field. In the original RAW image you can read the lettering on > the wine bottle in the middle of the table. 2.8 doesn't give much DOF, even > at 17mm. BTW, the shot was hand-held. DOF is limited indeed, with both the foreground and the background out of focus (only the centre around the candles is properly focused). > On the noise issue, I don't think anyone is claiming noise-free images at > 1600 ISO, even from the big Canon sensor. From my perspective, the noise [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > switched to the D70 was its available light capability. I had a Leica with > a 35/1.4 ASPH and I couldn't make images like this with it. That sounds plausible. A photographer sent me images taken with a film camera using high ISO film. The shots are very grainy and have a poor dynamic range - the quality is so much inferior to what you would have obtained from a digital camera. SignatureAlfred Molon ------------------------------ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Olympus_405080/ Olympus 5060 resource - http://myolympus.org/5060/ Olympus 8080 resource - http://myolympus.org/8080/ Paul, I don't care what anybody says about color balance, exposure, or DOF. It's a terrific picture. Thank you for letting us see it. I think the color and exposure are perfect for a candle lit scene. Best regards, Orrin > Paul, I don't care what anybody says about color balance, exposure, or > DOF. It's a terrific picture. Thank you for letting us see it. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Orrin It was a good picture. As far as the color balance goes, I think it's a bit naive to want perfect colors from a scene that was colored so lovely by the candles in the first place. There are times you want accurate color, and then there are times when you want the ambience of the light from the scene. This was certainly one of those times. Signaturehttp://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/ > It was a good picture. As far as the color balance goes, I think it's a > bit naive to want perfect colors from a scene that was colored so lovely [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > you want the ambience of the light from the scene. This was certainly > one of those times. I beg to differ. Let me explain. It is a good picture, AND the colors are quite accurate. They are the actual colors produced by the candles. Also the dark portions of the picture are as they should. Opening the shadows would a) kill the atmosphere and b) increase the visibility of the noise enough to kill the picture. Let us not forget that a good part of the White Balance or color balance exercises consists in mofifying a picture to make it look like it had been taken under day light rather than, say, the actual incandescent lighting. WB is most often used to produce pleasing colors rather than accurate colors. People are quite opinionated about how their face looks in pictures and they will insist on artifical changes to the color space until they think they look good enough. Isn't it striking that common fluo tubes in the West have a color temperature corresponding to 2800K? They are designed to provide this warm incandescent feeling that gives white Caucasians the slightly tanned look they think they deserve, even if they don't have it. The "cool day light" tubes climb at most to 4500K. In Singapore, by contrast, the standard, kitchen table, fluo tube boasts 6500K. Great picture, Paul! Phil Schmid > It is a good picture, AND the colors are quite accurate. > They are the actual colors produced by the candles. > Also the dark portions of the picture are as they should. > Opening the shadows would a) kill the atmosphere and b) > increase the visibility of the noise enough to kill > the picture. There is no right and wrong here. Any photographer can choose the white balance and image processing he/she prefers for his/her images. It's largely a matter of personal choice. Here is where the artistic component of photography jumps in. Personally, I would have choosen a slightly different white balance with less orange and would have made the photo a bit brighter, to make the details and the colours come out better. SignatureAlfred Molon ------------------------------ Olympus 4040, 5050, 5060, 7070, 8080, E300 forum at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/ Olympus 8080 resource - http://myolympus.org/8080/ >>It is a good picture, AND the colors are quite accurate. >>They are the actual colors produced by the candles. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > component of photography jumps in. > [....] Am I so hard to read? I said that Paul's good picture was not obtained at the expense of color accuracy, contrary to Brian's statement: >Brian C. Baird wrote: > > It was a good picture. As far as the color balance goes, I think it's >a bit naive to want perfect colors from a scene that was colored so >lovely by the candles in the first place. > There are times you want accurate color, and then there are times when >you want the ambience of the light from the scene. This was certainly >one of those times. Phil Schmid > Am I so hard to read? > > I said that Paul's good picture was not obtained at the expense > of color accuracy, contrary to Brian's statement: Am I that hard to read? I said the color was fine! Signaturehttp://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/ >>Am I so hard to read? >> >>I said that Paul's good picture was not obtained at the expense >>of color accuracy, contrary to Brian's statement: > > Am I that hard to read? I said the color was fine! So I am hard to read. You said the color was fine, but never mind if it's not accurate. I said it was fine AND accurate. No big deal. I do disagree with Alfred Molon, though. Fiddling with color temp or balance is in itself no proof of artistry on the part of the fiddler. I also gave some examples where such fiddling aims at customer satisfaction, not color accuracy. No news, really. Phil Schmid > I do disagree with Alfred Molon, though. Fiddling with > color temp or balance is in itself no proof of artistry > on the part of the fiddler. > I also gave some examples where such fiddling aims at > customer satisfaction, not color accuracy. No news, really. Sure. Then any photographer is a fiddler, because there is no such thing as the correct white balance. It's always a matter of personal choice. SignatureAlfred Molon ------------------------------ Olympus 4040, 5050, 5060, 7070, 8080, E300 forum at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/ Olympus 8080 resource - http://myolympus.org/8080/ > > It is a good picture, AND the colors are quite accurate. > > They are the actual colors produced by the candles. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > There is no right and wrong here. Sure there is: if you miss the point of the picture, you'll be wrong. (Hint: it's a photograph of a candlelight dinner party. Color balancing such an image makes no artistic sense whatsoever.) > Any photographer can choose the white > balance and image processing he/she prefers for his/her images. Only within the limits of physical possibility. You've missed the point that candlelight doesn't have enough green and blue to make it physically possible to white balance. There simple aren't enough photons. > It's > largely a matter of personal choice. Here is where the artistic > component of photography jumps in. Alfred, it's a photograph of a candlelit dinner party. There's almost no light at all, and what there is is almost entirely red. There's no artistic component when there aren't any photons to be artistic with. > Personally, I would have choosen a slightly different white balance with > less orange and would have made the photo a bit brighter, to make the > details and the colours come out better. And, had you had a camera with photon multiplier tubes in the green and blue channels, you would have missed the ambience of the scene: that it was a candlelit dinner party. It would be seriously stupid to render it in correctly color balanced color. David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan >Only within the limits of physical possibility. You've missed the point that >candlelight doesn't have enough green and blue to make it physically >possible to white balance. There simple aren't enough photons. There's a little bit of green, but the blue channel only has significant levels in the specular highlights, and in the flame itself. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< > > > It is a good picture, AND the colors are quite accurate. > > > They are the actual colors produced by the candles. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > it's a photograph of a candlelight dinner party. Color balancing such an > image makes no artistic sense whatsoever.) I tried setting the white pattern of the sweater using icorrect. it looked correct, but it did not look right as a picture. i think that there is so little light that the sensors are at the bottom limits, and no longer track colors perfectly. the original color balance preserves the feel of the moment perfectly. any artist can see that. alfred, in the context of this picture, almost everything you have said here either does not apply in this case, or is not true. > > Any photographer can choose the white > > balance and image processing he/she prefers for his/her images. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > David J. Littleboy > Tokyo, Japan > the original color balance preserves the feel of the moment perfectly. > any artist can see that. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > either does not apply in this case, > or is not true. I would have made the photo less orange, because in my opinion the photo contains too much orange, but your opinion may differ. By the way, I remember somebody said here some time ago that the human eye adjusts automatically the white balance to a certain extent which, if correct, would mean that a human would see the same scene with less orange and with truer colours. SignatureAlfred Molon ------------------------------ Olympus 4040, 5050, 5060, 7070, 8080, E300 forum at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/ Olympus 8080 resource - http://myolympus.org/8080/ > > There are times you want accurate color, and then there are times when > > you want the ambience of the light from the scene. This was certainly [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > increase the visibility of the noise enough to kill > the picture. Sorry, by "accurate" I meant "under white light". Signaturehttp://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/ > > >> This Christmas I shot a picture of my family around the dining table at > > >the [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > much orange) and the shot is too dark. Is there is something wrong with > the metering system of the D70 (it underexposes) ? try a pictue by 4 candles and a rumcake. looks good to me. you captured the feel of the event! > -- > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Olympus 5060 resource - http://myolympus.org/5060/ > Olympus 8080 resource - http://myolympus.org/8080/ >Good composition (actually very good), but the white balance is off (too >much orange) and the shot is too dark. Is there is something wrong with [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >wonder if all these claims about perfectly clean ISO 1600 DSLR images >are a bit unrealistic. Noise aside, as far as the white balance goes, in a shot like that it becomes a personal thing. I think the orange cast and the somewhat darkened setting nicely expresses the candle-lit ambience of the setting. Ken >>Good composition (actually very good), but the white balance is off (too >>much orange) and the shot is too dark. Is there is something wrong with [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > somewhat darkened setting nicely expresses the candle-lit ambience of > the setting. Ken He meant nose aside... S. > > >> This Christmas I shot a picture of my family around the dining table at > > >the [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > wonder if all these claims about perfectly clean ISO 1600 DSLR images > are a bit unrealistic. Alfred, you remind me of a (true) story about a hi-fi enthusiast, who complained to the supplier of his audio equipment about the performance of the gear. The supplier said "Stop listening to the amplifier, and listen instead to the music." Forget the noise, the orange, the dof, all the technicals, and just enjoy the picture for what it is - a lovely family shot with tons of ambience and warmth. I am envious. Especially since my 300D could do likewise, and I never thought of it. Full marks for seeing, and bothering, to take the shot. It's beautiful. Colin hi guys my name is kev. i have searched the internet for some great deals on all games,dvd,cds. i have founds great bargins that you wont find elsewhere. check em out. Find some great ideas. http://www.find-a-great-deal.blogspot.com Find great deals on games ect http://www.find-a-deal.blogspot.com Learn how to earn easy cash. http://www.niceeasy-cash.blogspot.com |
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.