D700 vs. D200 Portraits problem

<p>I would say Arthur the OP's image of his son is not exactly exciting has nothing to do with any one of the following factors:</p>

<ul>

<li>Camera, be it the D200 or not</li>

<li>Lens</li>

<li>Post processing</li>

</ul>

<p>I took his image and first added 100x100-pixel yellow squares to the four corners, and then I drew an orange rectangle joining the four inner corners of the four squares.</p>

<p>Does that help you notice the problem?</p><div></div>

<p>Thanks all, this has been very helpful. It was uplifting to hear Jose's story, sounds like we're in the same situation. I do think some of Paint the moons pictures are taken with the 35mm so things get a little warped.</p>

<p>I'll work on angle, lighting, and intentionally not doing what I normally do. I'll take some at 200mm and F2.8. Martin, I found your image too bleached, and Tom M yours was pretty darn close to the look I want how'd you do it?</p>

<p>Shun, thanks and here's the original direct from camera. I'll post some more portraits tonight as I'm at work right now but I feel that is the best of the best I've done. It seems the issue is, PP and to work on lighting. I think I'm very good with using flash (especially bouncing) I'll be sure to include those tonight. I'm now thinking, I should make a blog which will force me to really think, analyze, and report and possibly get me out of my rut. Maybe now I can progress knowing it's not my equipment :) </p><div></div>

<p>I've noticed that everyone on this forum has made of point of saying its not the camera. I am in general agreement, as your technique is what is dramatically lacking. It is none the less this photographers humble opinion that the D200's color reproduction is noticeably weaker than the D90, D7000, D300, D700, D3\s\x.<br>

However any camera regardless of color reproduction ration is not going to be enough to make your shots dramatic. I think that's the key word here. "Paint the Moon's" photos are as Elliot said, dramatically framed, i.e. the photographer was much closer to his subject.<br>

Arthur, have you ever heard the phrase "No guts, No glory"? I think if you put this phase to use, it would help you grow as a photographer. I challenge you to get close to your subject. To get so close its scary, for your subject to completely feel the frame. I challenge you to only shoot in dramatic light, sunset or sunrise when your contrast is very high. Be dramatic, be bold! For boldness has genius, power and magic in it! (JW Goethe).<br>

I think the biggest problem with your image, is its perfectly "normal". If you want a dramatic shot that takes your breath away, then you are going to have to be dramatic when you shoot it, you are going to have to go way over the top, only shoot stuff this is very extreme, extreme light, extreme frame, if it isn't extreme, don't shoot it. I don't recommend shooting this way forever, but see if this isn't what you are lacking.</p>

<p>Concerning the original crop of the OP's image, the lighting is very flat and there is clearly a lack of contrast.</p>

<p>But I think the image is not exciting because it is full of symmetries. The boy is facing the camera straight. There is equal amount of space on top, to the right and to the left, and it is almost the same to the bottom too. The only thing that is not completely symmetrical is that his left foot is further out. As a result, the subject is right in the very center of the image.</p>

<p>Symmetrical things tend to be boring. That is why a lot of portrait photographers prefer to pose a subject to have a front shoulder and a back shoulder.</p>

<p>The look of a final portrait can have a lot to do with the lens, lighting, posing, composition, the way it is printed (either in the wet darkroom or post-processed on the computer) but it seldom has much to do with the camera body. The paintthemoon photos could have originated on anything from a Pentax K1000 to a Nikon D3x, even a Mamiya TLR or a view camera. Camera bodies play a bigger role in situations where you need to be able to shoot at high ISO in low light, or need a high fps rate to capture fast action, or need fast autofocus (combined with the appropriate lens). But those generally are not factors in portrait work, even photographing kids.</p>

<p>I think Shun has hit the nail on the head... it's (mostly) not an equipment issue, it's a posing/framing issue. There are several books on the subject of posing and framing, and a lot of it depends on what you want out of your final image so I'll allow you to develop your own style rather than tell you what's right and whats wrong.</p>

<p>The only equipment issue I can pin down is your lighting. The photographer for Painthemoon.com is obviously using high powered studio strobes with softboxes and umbrellas. This gives big, soft light...something your hot shoe flashes just aren't capable of when competing with a light source as powerful as the sun.</p>

<p>RS</p>

<blockquote>

<p>It is none the less this photographers humble opinion that the D200's color reproduction is noticeably weaker than the D90, D7000, D300, D700, D3\s\x.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is a double-blind test result? :) Because if it was, I doubt you or anyone could tell the difference between images from a D200 and a D90 at low ISO. If there was a difference, it would be in the profile used to convert the RAW image, not the sensor itself.</p>

<p>I don’t think the basic shot is that bad. When doing outdoor portraits like this I think it’s important to frame the shot in a way that removes a lot of distracting elements, especially around the edges of the frame. The use of a shallow focus lens is nice because it softens the background which you did here. I myself do not hesitate to do a lot of cropping in order to get the viewers eye to be pulled towards the subject. If I had done this shot myself I would probably crop it and do a little post-processing such as these examples shown here. BTW I have been very satisfied with first the D70 and now my D80. I agree with all the others who believe its how you use your tools. I also feel personally that way too much post processing is being done and it is often "over the top" to my eyes, much like the over use of HDR when it was a fad. I do a lot of post processing, but it is usually subtle and for the purpose of directing the viewer towards the subject. I like to think of it as more "subliminal." The person viewing the photo should just "like it" and really doesn't have to know why.</p><div></div>

<p>Here's what I think:</p>

<p>1) the paint the moon shots are less posed, more candid...<br>

2) the shots shown from paint the moon are definitely over exposed - either in camera or in post. Since you have Alien Skin - Try the blown highlights settings. (Polaroid 669 creamy is a personal favorite of mine). You can try this in camera by exposing for the skin or bumping the exposure comp up...or you can do it post.<br>

3) The eyes are enhanced in most of the photos shown. While that works fine for blue, grey, green, etc... It really doesn't work for darker eye colors.<br>

4) rule of Thirds...<br>

None of the above are dependent on the camera body. And some would argue that while the PTM photos are certainly trendy and current - will they stand the test of time? or will everyone look at them in 5-10 years and say - Yep another 2011 mommy-tog! ?</p>

<p>Dave</p>

<p>I think I know what you're looking for, the 'pop-up' 3D effect. Well, true, the D200 sort of kills it in portrait (the color and overall style fits landscapes much better), however more important is to have an appropriate lens with the 'old-style' look. The mentioned Sigma 85 1.4 is a good example, as are some other Sigma lenses (50/1.4, 30/1.4), also Carl Zeiss glass, but Nikkor 85/1.4 is fine too. PP helps as well, of course.</p>

<p>Try renting some of the 85/1.4 lenses and check.</p>

<p>Hey there Les,<br>

Well, I did say in my humble opinion, which was both the extent I could manipulate the color with Raw files and how it looked in JPEG files (same default profile). :) Your question did get me curious though, and I looked up the sensors on dxomark.com and according to their tests the D90's sensor has a slight edge in color depth and dynamic range. I'm not familiar with measuring colors by depth, so I don't know much this accounts into real world pictures, all I know is that it is measured exponentially so a small percentage number would make a much bigger impact than it may seem.<br>

Arthur's image, and where he wants it to be, is limited by his composition, well, really his distance from the subject with the lens he has. The people on Paint the Moon are clearly much closer to their subjects at similar focal ranges and as was pointed out, have much larger diffusion sources. Ultimately I don't think there is anything wrong with Arthur's picture, on the contrary, I think its plenty decent shot. Personally I feel the image is a bit loose in composition and the lighting is pretty flat. In this situation if he had a D700, I do think it would have made a difference, two fold, one because of the sensor size, the same frame with the D700 would have required he be twice as close thereby increasing the depth of field, and because the extra color and dynamic range that he got out of the D700 would have given a bit more added life into his image. Between the extra color and the extra blur, I would consider the exact same shot taken with both cameras would have made a noticeable difference.<br>

Now this is the one place I do disagree with almost everyone on this forum, and I myself am even guilty. Every photographer has a style, our friend Arthur here, has what I consider a loose frame, however no one here could point something specifically wrong with the image. If he is looking for a more dramatic look, then indeed a tighter frame will help. But I also wish to point something out to everyone criticizing these images, Arthur has been doing this a long time, and after as many pictures he's taken I would assume at some point he had tried closer up, or he had tried different things. So perhaps, his style is shoot a wider framed portrait? Perhaps he likes to see the area around his subject. In which case, would it not be advisable to help him find the best tools to suite his style of shooting? Would not the D700, which because of its sensor size require he get twice as close as the D200, significantly increase the depth of field thereby making the same shot much more dramatic while still preserving his frame? Isn't Ryan Brenizer famous for developing a method along those very lines, (in his case by stitching a bunch of images together thereby emulating a huge sensor, which I would recommend Arthur looking into, it might help him find a new way of shooting), a wide frame with limited depth of field, as his style? Are you all not criticizing the artist (while I notice no one by Shun has been able to pin point anything wrong with the image, and even that is merely opinion). Maybe a full frame body and a long fast (faster than 2.8 that is) will suite Arthur's shooting style?<br>

I think Arthur, you should take into consideration everything that people have said here, but I would, despite everything that has been said about the camera not being your issue, I would rent a D700, and I would do what Mike suggested at the very beginning, and see if the D700 suites your style of shooting better, while at the same time, using both cameras and try all the suggestions that have been said here. Maybe you will find a new way of shooting after trying what has been recommended, and maybe you will find the D200 is just fine for that style of shooting, or maybe you will find that with the larger sensor of the D700, you will have a totally different way of seeing the world that was never possible with the D200. Just because of a bunch of photographers stand up and say the camera isn't your problem, simple means it wouldn't be a problem for them at this point in their experience, you need to find out what is really best for you, and none of us know what that is, so I would highly recommend you try what has been said in addition to being able to experiment with a new camera.</p>

<p>Arthur,<br>

<br />This was quick and dirty, but is it any closer?<br>

Danny</p><div></div>

<p>A few things about what you want to achieve, according to what you posted in athat links (some photos are nice, some so so):<br>

- higher contrast<br>

- soft light<br>

- creamy bokeh, but not too much of a blurred background, it still has texture<br>

- sharp and bright eyes (IMO almost too much, I call them "vampire eyes")<br>

- many images seem to have a oneor a few few dominant colors in the mid range that "pop" while the highlights are pastel creamy</p>

<p>It is not the camera. It is not the lights necessarily (many pics there were taken outside it seems, that light is free). The DOF of a 50mm lens at f1.4 on DX shoud get you close - hey, a 85 1.4 won't hurt but other than Harry Potter's wand, equipment usually does not make magic happen.</p>

<p>If your son is willing, grab him for a session, get close, experiment with composition, make sure the eyes are in focus and then try to work selectively in photoshop on what you want to achieve, rather than throwing a "action" at it. And heed what Shun said about symmetry. Just some thoughts.</p>

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=6778545">Skyler Proctor</a> writes:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>D700 would have required he be twice as close thereby increasing the depth of field</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think you mean <em>decreasing</em> depth of field there.</p>

 

<p>+3 Skyler</p>

<p>+1 when I was reading your first post, and started getting a whole lot of different ideas like try using my 17-35mm F2.8 and see what happens, stay away from my 50mm which is what I use most.</p>

<p>+1 for realizing I've been doing it for many years. It's been 5 years with the D200, but I've tried closer, further, different settings, high, low, far, near, different ISO's. I think I have over 100,000 images I've taken with the D200 and felt none have the look I want. I tend to be conservative though, I'm inspired to be risky now!</p>

<p>+1 for making me realize, the portraits I have hanging up that I love, and carry with me were taken with the Nikon F5 film camera before getting the D200. I used my F5 for so long previously (8 years before I got the D200), maybe my problem is my brain is hard wired into my F5.</p>

<p>I suppose my style may be I'm a full frame photographer. This is the last portrait I took, that I love. Taken with my F5 film camera, on b&w Tri-X, and an SB-28 with a reflector underneath, in 2003. I've forgotten how much I loved portraits on the F5. I should rent a D700 and see if perhaps I start getting the results I did on my F5, or get the results I like. Thanks!</p><div></div>

<p>Agree... it`s not the camera, nor the lights, nor the composition... it`s a sum of all this elements. But IMHO the lesser here is the camera.</p>

<p>Straigh out of the camera images use to be dissapointing for many; personally, I use to work for a good RAW material to develop (post-process). The good image came later. Sadly, my knowledge is very limited... hence my results are not good to my taste. The most expensive camera will give the very same thing (but bigger, or with lower noise levels... but the same image).</p>

<p>I have been looking for a sample to show this; a pic that look specially ugly straigh from the camera, and something different after processing. Here it is (posted on the WeD PiC two years ago):</p><div></div>

<p>Now, the final pic, after the developing process:</p>

<p><img src="http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00S/00SBWb-106095684.jpg" alt="" width="700" height="499" /></p>

<p>With a D200 + 50/1.4 I`m pretty sure you should get the very same looking than in that linked site; a D700 will provide a shallower DoF, maybe, but... is it noticeable, definitive, or necessary in a good "final" pic? I think it isn`t.</p>

<p>Your F5 isn't going to help any more than a D700. You say you have taken 75,000 photos over five years and not been happy with any of them. That points to a problem that has nothing to do with any camera. I would recommend some classes at a local school that will teach you basic lighting, composition and post-processing.</p>

<p>Great portraits have been taken with pinhole cameras, toy cameras, Holgas, cheap digicams, cheap DSLRs, homemade large format cameras, expensive DSLRs, cheap film cameras, expensive film cameras. What the history of photography shows us is that the camera is not the primary factor in most photography (exceptions being specialized applications like professional sports, etc.) and that any camera change is irrelevant for what you are trying to do. A photographer masters the equipment, not vice versa.</p>

<p>Arthur, I think there is one possibility that has not yet been mentioned. It occurred to me that you may have dialed in some customization setting (say, low contrast) when you first got your d200, have forgotten that you did this, and every JPG out of your camera since then has had that setting applied. Take a test shot, do a full reset of the camera and take the same shot again to see if there is any change. However, if you are shooting RAW files and processing them yourself, most of the customizations that can impact the JPGs won't make any difference in the RAW files.</p>

<p>BTW, if you hadn't stripped the EXIF and IPTC data before you posted the unprocessed example image, I wouldn't have had to ask you to do this test - anyone could simply read your settings. In general, the more information we have, the better we can help folks.</p>

<p>Obviously, at best, some long-forgotten, strange customization would probably be only a small part of the overall problem, but it could certainly be a contributing factor. I say this because even on a completely overcast day, I wouldn't expect the unprocessed example image that you posted to be quite that low in contrast and saturation.</p>

<p>That being said, let me add my voice to the chorus of folks who have suggested that better lighting, posing, framing, etc. are certainly contributing factors, as well as those who think the problem won't go away with a different body. IMHO, don't waste your money on a new lens, either. You have enough good glass to convince me that the quality of the lens is NOT a major factor. </p>

<p>BTW, when you were shooting with your F5, were you shooting slide or negative film? If the latter, can I presume you did not do your own color printing?</p>

<p>Tom M</p>

 

<p>A couple of thoughts from the cheap seats. I own a D200 and was curious about the differences between the D300, D700 and my camera so I took my 70-200 VR1 to a local Best Buy with a compact flash card and did some shooting around inside the store. The clerk was gracious and offering to let him shoot with it gave me some freedom. I have to say that I was impressed with the overall look coming from the D700. I didn't have the magnification of the Dx format but there was a quality and clarity to the photos that was more pleasing to my eye than I was familiar with in my D200. I didn't have the cash to buy (and still don't) but I would have bought the D700 over the D300 if I had the money and the choice.</p>

<p>On another note, I notice in the OP's original shot more yellow than looks natural to me. Same as I am used to from <em>my</em> D200. I have had to avoid increases in saturation at the capture level to avoid what I consider to be slightly unnatural coloration... to my eye and to my liking. I don't set a white balance each time I'm out but I am sure it would solve the 'problem'... at least in jpeg captures. I correct this in PP with a slight desaturation of yellow if it bothers me.</p>

<p>Like others, I took the liberty of working your shot and in addition to the various filters I applied, I cropped the photo to add some 'lean' to the subject. For me, it appears this might be a moment, either coming or going rather than a staged, 'sit still while I take your picture shot'. This is not a criticism of your shot but something I might have done to a similar shot I might have taken to add a little drama. A very slight amount of thinking outside the box, if you will.</p>

<p>Tom </p><div></div>

<p><em>"... On another note, I notice in the OP's original shot more yellow than looks natural to me. ..."</em></p>

<p>I noticed the same thing, and was about to comment on it when I realized that we couldn't take anything at face value in the 1st image he posted because, as he said, <em>"...This photo ... has the works applied to it (exposure 3, bokeh 2, some actions by paint the moon for sparkling eyes, greener grass, perfect skin)..."</em>. His in-camera JPG (captioned, <em>"Portrait Original"</em>) looks a lot less funky. </p>

<p>Tom M</p>

<blockquote>

<a name="00ZODN"></a><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=112337">Les Berkley</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="../v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub10plus.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="../v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, Sep 27, 2011; 11:56 a.m.

</blockquote>

 

 

<blockquote>

<em>It is none the less this photographers humble opinion that the D200's color reproduction is noticeably weaker than the D90, D7000, D300, D700, D3\s\x.</em>

This is a double-blind test result? :) Because if it was, I doubt you or anyone could tell the difference between images from a D200 and a D90 at low ISO. If there was a difference, it would be in the profile used to convert the RAW image, not the sensor itself.

</blockquote>

As an owner and/or frequent user of all the cameras on this list aside from the D3 series, I can attest that the D200 is indeed weaker at lower ISOs. The D200 is the only one that uses a CCD (the rest are CMOS), which results in much greater noise and less colour information in shadow areas, regardless of ISO. This effectively limits the amount of "extra" information that can be brought out during post-processing.

<blockquote>

Before you say it, I will freely admit that low-ISO RAW files without any processing look almost the same. But that's like saying that cat food tastes just like pate if you fry it and add hot sauce. Since people don't shoot RAW and <em>not</em> edit the files, the similarity of unedited RAW files is totally irrelevant.<br /><br />

</blockquote>

For what it's worth, I'm a hard-core film shooter, generally preferring FP4 on my Hasselblad, and the D700 and D7000 are the only affordable digital cameras I've ever used to produce a black and white image that <em>didn't</em> make me wish I shot it with the Hassy.

<blockquote>

Also, I use the 70-200 VR as my go-to portrait lens. It's awesome. I still miss my 85 f/1.4 and will probably replace it as soon as I switch to an FX camera, but the 70-200 is just so much more useful.

</blockquote>

Sorry for the awful formatting. For some reason photo.net doesn't want to see my line breaks. My words start with, "As an owner..."

 

 

<p>Total amateur here - but just looking at the F5 picture you like vs the picture you posted I was reminded of something I have a problem with too in portraits. Looking at all the portraits I've liked best that I have taken, it's usually the ones that are closeups rather than full length and part of that is because with closeups, it's more the expression in the eyes rather than trying to pose people.<br>

<br /> Even with dog pictures I usually like it's the expression that makes the picture (unless it is an action shot)<br /><br /><br />I hope that made sense and helps!</p>

<p>I have no idea what they did on that website tho.</p>

<p>Rent a D700 for a weekend. Then you'll know.</p>

I have portrait professional software that I use on some pictures of older subjects. I don't use it often but I can do things like really sharpen eyes and make them more intense while softening skin or overexposing it. I can whiten teeth and intensify lips etc. I also have had the same studio lights since 1988. I use the software because it cuts down considerably on time in any PS retouching that I have to do. I use four lights usually --A main, A fill, background and Hair. As everyone does I can vary each of these lights by distance or conrol and use light modifiers, namely softboxes, to get what I want. I settled into what was comfortable light conifigurations a long time ago. I have used probably fifteen or more bodies including medium format to do portraits over this long period. The quality of my photos has stayed the same throughout, perhaps getting better and easier when I went from darkroom to digital because of the increased flexibility afforded by digital. Although Kodak and Fuji portrait films were really great. I have used a variety of lenses all of which have produced salable results. I suggest that the OP learn more about lighting and invest money in better lights and more knowledge rather than trying to get results from a different body. In my humble opinion I don't think a new body although it maybe better will substantially make the changes the OP is looking for.