Vivid mode: is using the Vivid mode on the D200 "cheating"?

Is using the Vivid mode in my D200 "cheating"?

 

I recently got the Nikon D200 and I am thrilled with it. I use it primarily

for nature photography and it has replaced my usual set-up of Nikon SLRs with

Fuji Velvia film. For nature photography, I've been shooting in the Vivid

mode (as opposed to Normal or More Vivid).

 

When reviewing some recent sunrise shots, I saw the raw NEF file preview side

by side next to the JPG preview and was astonished at the difference. The NEF

shots looked very flat, and the JPG shots looked very punchy with bright,

saturated (unrealistic??) colors, perhaps better than what I saw. I'll attach

an example.

 

So two questions:

 

1. So, am I "cheating" by using the Vivid mode? Am I distorting or enhancing

reality by doing so? Or is it no worse than shooting with Velvia, which was

clearly acceptable to pros and the nature photography community? I guess I'd

like to shoot in a way that represents reasonably closely what I saw, and I am

questioning if Vivid mode crosses the line.

 

2. When you shoot nature photography on the D200, what settings do you use?

Which settings would best approximate Fuji Velvia?

 

Many thanks,

Jonathan<div></div>

This has been discussed here

 

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1020&message=19818242

 

There have also been attempts at tone curves to add more color punch to the D200.

 

I just added a tone curve to mine last night to experiment. Haven't had a chance to shoot any pics yet though.

 

As far as cheating is concerned that would mean that I cheat when I take pictures in B&W mode (opposite of vivid I guess). Images only approximate reality so shoot how you like. :)

 

The D200 is a great camera. Have fun experimenting.

Dan

My vote, it's no worse than Velvia.

You're only cheating if Ansel Adams was cheating when he applied all his darkroom

technique to his masterpieces.

 

I susect that there is a way to process the NEFs so that they will apply the "vivid" setting

and look more like the jpeg. I like bright saturated colors myself.

 

And if you like those colors, why would you want to shoot in a way that represents what

you saw in reality? Wouldn't you rather create a beautiful image that captures the mood of

the moment?

 

I don't think it's cheating at all.

I shoot in normal mode and adjust saturation in post processing. This is the same thing. I don't over saturate to make things look ultra colorful, I adjust it to make it look realistic, for some reason digital cameras default to flat and boring. It's not cheating it's fixing problems.

Thanks for the early responses. For what it's worth, personally, I'd like to shoot photos that are reasonably close representations of what I see, not big distortions.

 

As to getting Vivid results from the NEF file, I tried doing minor boosts in saturation or contrast to the NEF file but could not replicate the Vivid JPG. What does the Vivid setting do? I'm not sure but I think it's doing quite a bit, hence my concern.

 

I'll be curious to see what others say as well. Any suggestions on how to shoot rich, saturated shots without "cheating" or over-doing it will be much appreciated.

To get similar results from NEF files, just use Capture to convert the file. It will use the in-camera settings that you applied.

I guess it kind of feels like cheating, but no I don't think your cheating.

Just pointing a camera at something destorts reallity so don't feel bad about wanting vivid color saturation! If you like it, who cares.

Do you consider shooting black and white "cheating"? With the exception of a small number of us who are color blind, B&W is nowhere close to what we normally see.

"And if you like those colors, why would you want to shoot in a way that represents what you saw in reality"

 

Thank you Peter! At last some honesty in this issue. The idea that I first recall reading in an article by Galen Rowell that velvia "most closely represents what I see with my eyes" seems to me to be marketing hype (as an aside, other than this comment I highly respect Mr Rowell, and believe he made a huge contribution to the philosophy of photography, as well as capturing many stunning images).

 

 

Unfortunately this idea has almost become imbedded in photography lore. I think super saturated images most closely represent what we would have LIKED to have seen with our eyes.

 

 

However, IMHO photography is sometimes about playing little tricks on the viewer. many of us have (with some satisfaction) framed a shot to exclude unpleasing detail or evidence of human involvement in a scene, transporting the viewers to an isolated wilderness in their minds eye.

 

 

We cannot achieve perfect colour rendition in reflective media - what we want is pleasing colour rendition. If you like super saturated - go for it.

 

 

to answer your question about what the camera is doing in vivid mode:

 

your d200 images are captured in black and white, with a bayer filter in front that blocks out various amounts of Red Green and Blue (the amounts are not equal because our retinas have serious colour bias issues). the sensor then records a linear amount of light - that is if a sensor pixel recieves 8 times the light, it makes 8 times the signal. Images are printed/projected in stops of light - 8 times as much light should be 3 times as bright on the reproduction (2^3 = 8). Thus massive amounts of processing are required to convert what the sensor chip sees to what makes a colour image, and this is before noise reduction and sharpening. "saturated" colours are more "pure" (the opposite of pastels). when the sensor makes a guess as to what colour a pixel is based on the pixels around it, the processing algorithm can choose to ignore some 'polluting' colour values. For example the signal can be calculated to be predominantly red with som green and blue based on the pixels surrounding it, or with a different algorithm the same pixel can be calculated to be pure (ie saturated) red.

 

most importantly, your camera does not see the image in normal mode and then decide to 'push' the colours, it just applies seperate processing algorithms calculated to be pleasing to the eye.

I think the RAW NEF file can be altered with Capture NX with more or less the same effect. And no, it isn't cheating, it's learning what your camera can and can't do.

 

Dave

I have heard of people who think that photography can represent "reality". I find that hard to believe. But then many think what we see is reality. We should know better since the days of greec philosophy.

Reality is overrated

in line with dave lee's words, it's expressing what you and your camera can and can't do as a team or you and the camera as single entities................not cheating, but rather learning and having fun.

Reality is much larger than most of my prints.

Come to think of it, "reality" is 3D (three dimesional, not a new camera model number :-) ). Photography as we know it today is 2D. So strictly speaking, none of this stuff is "reality."

 

I wouldn't worry about it.

It's all a matter of workflow. Plenty of people prefer JPEG, and plenty of those prefer more vivid colors, which is why the Vivid mode is offered. If you think it's cheating, fine, but why let moral considerations stop you?

If you're interested in duplicating the look of Velvia, the best way to do it is to shoot NEF, load it into PS, and fiddle with the image in Curves. There are recipes for duplicating the look on the Web, but I'd recommend trying it yourself--you're much better off discovering through trial and error precisely what it is that you like about Velvia.

Furthermore, the PS actions for duplicating the Velvia look are cheating, and I forbid you to use them on moral grounds. ;-)

Thank you all for sharing your thoughts. I guess I feel somewhat better about using Vivid mode having heard what people think.

 

That said, altering the image to be significantly different than reality still feels like cheating to me. Altering the image to appear more like reality is clearly ok, and we all know that cameras don't record images the same way we see them. Cropping is clearly ok, as is black and white, which is obviously a different representation of reality. However, juicing the colors way beyond what you saw seems deceptive to me, and therefore if not disclosed, cheating of sorts.

 

I sort of wish I felt differently but that is my current thinking on the subject.