Jump to content

D700 vs. D200 Portraits problem


arthur_cargill

Recommended Posts

<p>Hello,<br>

I currently have a D200, have had it for 5 years. I haven't been able to get the portrait look I want, ever. I've averaged 300 pictures/week since I purchased it and my focus is candids/portraits. I would think, even by coincidence that I'd have come across something close to what I'm looking for. I thought it was the lens, several years ago I purchased the 70-200 F2.8. Much improvement, but still not the look I want. I thought, maybe photoshop... another improvement but not there yet. I bought some photoshop filters (Alien Skin Exposure 3 AND Bokeh 2). Again, better but not it. I bought an SB-800, SB-600, a soft box, stand, and reflector. For about 3 years I've been using them and still can't get the look I want. I came across some portrait actions I can buy for Photoshop, the persons "actions" on their unedited pictures produce it when I run them but I don't get them when I run it on the results of my camera (the person who sells the actions uses a D700).</p>

<p>Apparantly I want the look of a D700. If I do a google search and enter "D700 portrait" and then click images... almost all the images are the look I want. The pictures look alive. I do the same for "D200 portrait" and all those images are exactly what I'm getting... they're good... but seem to be lacking life. </p>

<p>Everything is telling me I should be able to get similar results but I've been at it 5 years. I hate saying it's the camera, but think it is? Thanks</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 76
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

<p>Well, before you run out and buy a D700, rent or borrow one for a weekend. Use it as you have used your D200 and compare the results.<br>

Just a hunch, mind you, but I don't think it's the camera at fault here. The one lens you did mention is not one that I would consider ideal for portraits. Have you tried a 50mm or an 85mm prime on your D200?</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Is it possible the difference you are seeing is the difference in an increased depth of field on the smaller format? This can be a tough nut to crack with DX-format cameras, but you could experiment with a 50/1.4 wide open (or an old manual 50/1.2) on the D200.<br>

Until you can explain what difference you are seeing, it's hard to help.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Arthur: If you're uncomfortable showing or linking to examples of your own work (as it relates to this issue), can you link to examples of <em>other</em> people's work that shows the qualities you're after? <br /><br />Here's my first reaction: you mentioned a couple of speedlights, a softbox and a reflector, but otherwise sort of gloss over that part. Unless your problem is the inability to get shallow enough DoF with your 70-200/2.8 (I'm doubting that's the problem), then what really distinguishes most portraits is control of the light - size, nature, and placement of the modifiers, quality of fill, ratios, etc. So please, link to some what-you-want shots, and you'll get some good pointers. The D700 will not solve this sort of challenge.<br /><br />In a studio setting with controlled light, you can use the D200 at ISO 100. Use it with a good lens (which you have), and that D200 can produce excellent results.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

<blockquote>

<p>I have absolutely no doubt that the problem is not the camera.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>+1</p>

<p>And since you have used Alien Skin's Bokeh 2...It's not a shallow DOF/Bokeh problem. I think you might check your eyes and do some blind test yourself. Technically, the images (d700 and d200) should be pretty much identical if taken with the same lens, same mode and if you used Bokeh 2 correctly.</p>

<p> </p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Thanks everyone, I'll see if I can post a portrait of my son and I think it has all the makings of something, but to me looks bland. This photo of my son has the works applied to it (exposure 3, bokeh 2, some actions by paint the moon for sparkling eyes, greener grass, perfect skin).</p>

<p>I want my pictures to come out looking like the ones at <a href="http://paintthemoon.net">http://paintthemoon.net</a> click on photos - full screen. I know she uses a D700, an 85mm F1.4, and a 35mm F1.4 for almost all of them, and I'm fully aware that is a fantastic camera, those some serious lenses, and that is a business. But that same sort of look is something I've been trying to achieve and see it when I click on D700 portraits under google images. I have a 70-200 F2.8, a 17-35mm F2.8, and a 50mm F1.4, along with the flashes, bokeh 2, exposure 3, and many of paint the moons actions but it looks to me like she just uses the camera most of the time without a flash or portrait setup, then applies an action and it looks incredible. My portraits look a whole lot better with her actions, but nothing near as good as her photos look. </p>

<p>I'm hearing the issue is the painter (me). You can give someone the same brushes and paints as Da Vinci but that doesn't mean they'll be painting the Mona Lisa. Some are going to paint as if they're using finger paint :) It's sounding like, I have a problem with my approach as it's sounding like my camera, lenses, and flashes aren't holding me back it's the user. What do I need to learn to take pictures like her? As mentioned, I've been doing about 300/week of them for 5 years. Thanks</p><div>00ZO6M-401723584.jpg.bb35eea5421ec04f0065d9714436bfe7.jpg</div>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I've looked at a number of her shots. To be honest, some of those shots are kinda creepy. The world is soft and the eyes are VERY sharp. Most of them are also in a studio with large lights, it looks like. Look at the reflections in those too sharp eyes. You can see the lights reflected in some of them. Big lights = soft light. She is also using some really sharp lenses, if the 50mm f1,4 and 85mm f1.4 are in her list.</p>

<p>I'm going to ask an odd question... what tripod and head are you using ? If you want tack sharp eye reflections, you need your camera in a solid place.</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Arthur, it looks like they've used skin softeners and all the tricks you are using, but I think they are also using the liquid tool in PS and distorting or enlarging the eyes and reshaping the head. Also, it looks like they are colorizing the eyes. </p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>If you are more a candid or portrait photographer I suggest you buy the NIKON DC 105mm or 135 mm f/2 lens. This is a lens specially made for portrait with very sharp edged to edged and the most important thing of this lens is you can create your Bokeh either in front or rear.<br>

I have used this lens for more than 15 years and this is my second after i spoiled my first one. The skin color is superb.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Looks like the topic is about post-processing. I was to tempted to write an answer yesterday (I was online when you just posted the question) , because I`m also not satisfied at all with my results, and I currently have a D700... same happened when I had a D300 and previously a D200. I decided to wait to see if you were refering to PP issues or to the "digital" look.</p>

<p>Only image sharpening is a nightmare to me. I don`t want to mean how difficult is to polish a RAW file to turn it into an outstanding image (color, noise, etc.). There are valuable post-procesing pros working on labs and graphic-art companies. There must be a reason for this.</p>

<p>There are many books about the right techniques in post-processing. I have a very thick one in CS4. The author try to help the reader to find his own style, and how to achieve it. He didn`t achieved it with me.</p>

<p>As mentioned above, the pics in the linked page could look impresive, but after a second deeper look, they could not seem that great. In fact, I find some of them to be really ugly. They remind me that interior decoration magazines with "real home samples" that look luxurious and impressive at a first sight, but absolutely silly, unpractical, tacky and ugly after checking them more slowly.</p>

<p>Right, a D700 + f1.4 lenses wide open are the tools mentioned to get this pictures. Certainly a D200 is not capable of the <em>very same</em> results of a D700 (or even D300), and you need faster (fastest) lenses... but with a D200 and your current lenses you should get very similar and satisfying results, IMHO.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Hi Arthur, your photo is alright, if you want your photos looks like the one in <a rel="nofollow" href="http://paintthemoon.net/" target="_blank">http://paintthemoon.net</a><br>

than you should do a digital manipulation using one of the software available such as photoshop CS or the others, cause the photos shown on Paint The Moon are already process and the look is according to the person taste doing it.<br>

Your photo is fine, but you can tweak it a bit in iPhoto or Aperture on your Mac.</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>there's nothing wrong with your D200. If you want to gain a look like in "paint the moon", just start messing with sliders in PP software. the one and only way is the right exposure and unique PP which makes your pictures pop (hint: dodge, burning, curves, clarity). no camera gives you this result. moreover - you can achive similar look even with an old D70 or I dare to say - point and shot camera. the one think you can't replicate is DoF.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I briefly looked at the site you mention. A number of people have commented above about differences in processing. But I don't think that is the most important difference between those photos and the (single, maybe not representative) example you posted above.</p>

<p>The difference is model direction. In almost all the examples in the "paint the moon" photos, the model is actually doing something. They have a prop they're playing with (candyfloss, for example) or the shot captures them part way through a motion. In your example above, perhaps the child is part-way through doing something, but the effect is quite similar to simply sitting on a rock. Part of the charm of children is not the way they look so much as how they behave, and a successful child portrait (which for my own part I have never made) should capture that.</p>

<p>There is a second, and in my opinion less important difference; your child's portrait is lit almost from the camera poisition, a little to the right perhaps. Experiment with some slightly greater lighting angles; use the shadows to show more detail and three-dimensionality in the face. Also try moving the camera down quite a bit. This will give the photo a different look (and, probably, amuse the child which won't hurt).</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I may be wrong, but i have a strong feeling that the colour images on the linked site have been edited using some "cross processing" filters. (that's aside from standard USM/high pass and/or blurring techniques). It has very little to do with the camera used. You will not get "better looking" images straight out of the d700 - its all about post processing. and of course, it all starts with the way light is falling on the subject, the angle of the shot, etc. I don't see anything very bad about the picture of the kid, save for the overdone vignetting. It simply does not fit this kind of picture.<br /> btw, I saw candid shooting mentioned - if I understand correctly, one of the points in this kind of photography is about "not attracting" attention. You won't be able to do that with a d700 - it is perhaps the loudest Nikon I have ever worked with (and I had all of the Dxxx series, not to mention the good old fm2 or f5). Also, when using the d700 with your current lenses, you would have to get closer to the subject to achieve the same FOV. Again, not exactly what "candid", as I understand it, is about.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>BTW, Arthur - you said that "you threw the works" at the image of your son that you posted. Would you mind also posting a copy of the original in-camera JPG, ie, before you applied *any* effects whatsoever to the image. It would be much better if you could post it at full resolution. Photo.net won't be able to display it in-line at full resolution, but it will be vastly easier for us to work with.</p>

<p>Thanks,</p>

<p>Tom M</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>If what you point to on the other site is what you want your camera is working too good and a d700 will make it worse. The problem isn't the camera. If you want your stuff to look like the other persons, start by overexposing in the camera, and maybe in processing make a curve that raises the value of skin tone. there are other things going on there too but everyone has there own style.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>It is difficult to get the look of an 85mm f1.4 without having an 85mm f1.4. The composition of many of the photos you linked to are quite different to your shot, taken much closer to the subject than what you have. Assuming you had the 85mm lens, the FOV is different between DX and FX so a similarly composed shot will have a different look as you shoot DX farther away from the subject to achieve the same composition as FX - so the background compression and the bokeh is different.</p>

<p>That does not mean to say you cannot get similar or nice images with what you have. Try shooting at or around 200mm @ f2.8 and get a bit closer to your subject and see if the results are more to your liking.</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...