D200 histogram

[welsford]

I seem to be having some troubles with my histograms. I'm getting

some serious peaks. Not gradual steep peaks but rather a series of

one pixel wide peaks. Any ideas. I've added two photos to compare

the histogram as seen on the camera and the one from photoshop for

the same photo.

[welsford]

here is the photoshop histogram for the same photo

[chris_leck]

Here's a guess: The histogram is of a JPEG, or of how a raw file would be processed into a JPEG under current camera settings. The peaks come from tonal manipulation, such as high saturation or color mode III, and represent lost tones due scrunching data (doubling-up) in that portion of the histogram. The peaks are the converse of the gaps you see in some histograms after applying a curve, and where the data values are stretched apart.

[kuryan_thomas]

Another guess to add to Chris's: high sharpening.

[welsford]

The images are both JPEG. I did not manipulate the image but there may be some settings out of whack in my camera. I'm guessing the white sky is causing some banding in color perhaps? Any thoughts on how to check or correct this problem. I have seen it now in a few different shooting scenarios. Sorry still new to DSLR and painfully making the transition.

[markwilkins]

When you shoot a JPEG image, your camera is internally doing all kinds of processing that could have this effect. I'd check out whether you have that issue with RAW mode photographs.

 

Either way, unless you can see banding or posterization, it's not a big deal.

 

-- Mark

[bruce_rubenstein]

My bet is that the algorithims used to generate the histogram are optimized for speed and are actually done for a jpg thumbnail. Even if you shoot in RAW, the histogram is of a JPG. The basic shape of the curve is the same as it is in PS. Don't worry about it.

[welsford]

I have gone into my menu and noticed I had some settings that could be improved. I had my JPEG settings to "normal". Instead I selected custom and made sure there was no color enhancements or sharpening going on. More importantly, I had JPEG compression turned on for image size maximization. I now made sure it's on "image quality" optimization.

 

My goal is to shoot everything in JPEG+RAW but I only have a 512MB card. So for now I have to resort to JPEG only.

 

More tips would be greatly appreciated.

[juan_su]

Fred, how about just buying a 2GB CF card? They are so cheap now? I can't imagine being limited by storage even with my old point and shoot canon S30. And as others have said, histogram shouldn't be a worry to you. For us long time film users, we never relied on histograms before. As long as you get the image you want, (via postprocessing or not) it shouldn't matter what it says. Good luck!

[welsford]

A larger CF card is in the queue but funds are running a bit dry right now. soon... I have only had the camera for a couple of weeks now.

 

I guess I have been reading much about banding problems with the D200. After doing more research, I have found out what the rave is about. Lukily, my 'human' eyes can't distinct that sort of minimal problem. Appears to be an academic exercise more than anything.

[patricks]

Fred et al,

 

the D200 is much like a full-blood Arabic horse, it requires more skilled handling to maximize the output. Shooting jpeg is a waste of potential and it effectively means that you are letting the camera/computer throw away the majority of the data.

 

I'm not saying I'm an expert on this topic yet, but this is what I've learned so far:

 

- JPG files have 8 bits per channel able to generate 256 tones for each color. The D200 uses a 12 bit sensor which has the capability of capturing 4,096 tones. By using jpg you are letting the camera apply some curve to make the data look like a photo, then compression to compact that data and finally throw away around 3,900 tones! Why?

- expose to the right. 2,048 of the tones in a 12-bit images are contained in the first or brightest f-stop of exposure. Next next f-stop down contains half the amount of tones or 1,024 in this case, then 512 and so forth.

- net/net: for optimal results/exposures: shoot RAW only and expose to the right (w/o blowing the high-lights)

 

Sorry to have to be the one to tell you, but there is no point in buying a $,1,700 camera if you are going to use inferior surrounding technology like cheap lenses, too small CF cards, bad post-processing software.

 

I just picked up a 2nd Sandisk Extreme III CF card from B&H which was less than $100 after mail-in-rebate. My strong advice to you is to ramp up on cards fast so you are able to shoot RAW in an uncompressed format. Otherwise you are better off using a D70 and spend the money on supporting technology IMO.

[bruce_rubenstein]

"- JPG files have 8 bits per channel able to generate 256 tones for each color. The D200 uses a 12 bit sensor which has the capability of capturing 4,096 tones. By using jpg you are letting the camera apply some curve to make the data look like a photo, then compression to compact that data and finally throw away around 3,900 tones!"

 

Here's a Science Fair Experiment for all you digital Mr. Wizards: Put a continuous tone black to white 8 bit grey scale on your screen along with a 12 bit one. Tell me what difference you see. Do the same thing with a print. Please report on what 12 bit/channel output device that you used.

 

I suspect that the people who preach that RAW always gives a better image either don't understand what's going on in the A/D - D/A process, and/or don't look at pictures.

[hique]

Buying a D200 and shooting JPG is not a good decision. Since you spend 1700 usd on a camera, you must spend another hundred dollars on CF.

[david_h._hartman]

Bruce,<br>

<br>

Youve over simplified this. When you add curves you

compress and expand the placement of discreet tones. The whole

digital darkroom process is tossing data as it goes. You want to

start with as much as possible data so you end up with enough.

You didnt mention the flexibility of NEF when first opening

nor the artifacts of JPG images. You dont what to enhance

these artifacts in the digital darkroom.<br>

<br>

You use JPG when you need a finished or mostly finished image

strait from the camera and NEF when you want to process the data

for the best possible image at a later time. With cameras like

the D2H, D2Hs, D2X and D200 you can shoot NEF plus JPG Fine in

full resolution so you can have your choice. With falling prices

on CF cards, CD(s), DVD(s), burners and hard drives I see little

reason not to saving both. One can save their last computer and

network it for uploading & burning and as a first backup.<br>

<br>

Some people dont want to be bothered with saving both and

that fine with me. Some need the ultimate frame rate from their

cameras and thats fine also. There are good reasons for

shooting NEF, JPG and for shooting both at once. That is why

these choices are built into better Nikon DSLR(s).<br>

<br>

Im not looking to scrap over this. Im just saying

there are good reasons both options and each person should

experiment and then do what works best for them or their

customers.<br>

<br>

Regards,<br>

<br>

Dave Hartman.

[stephencooper]

Well, I too recently purchased a D-200, and was originally planning on shooting only RAW.

However, since when you go to print you lose most of the advantages of 12 bits anyway and more importantly, my poor computer takes about 1 min to open a RAW file in photoshop, I'm opting for now to shoot jpg.

 

Sigh - you buy a new camera and next thing you know you have to buy a new computer and printer. :-(

[patricks]

Bruce, you are only partly right and David explained it well.

 

Shooting jpg works well in a very controlled environment. IF you have total control over 1) exposure 2) colorspace 3) custom white balance and 4) monitor/printer calibration 5) completely tested and measured camera + lenses. So if you know what you are doing and have the time to set it up correctly, shooting jpg works just fine even many demanding pro jobs.

 

If you, like I guess many of us, don't shoot in that controlled/studio environment, one is better off taking advantage of the power of RAW. RAW isn't really such a hassle if one has the work-flow and powerfull enough tools to process it.

 

RAW is becoming the standard and a first class citizen in most computing environments. Just look at the last generation apps like Aperture and Lightroom and what Microsoft and Apple are doing in their latest operating systems.

 

Net/net: shooting RAW with higher-end equipment takes an equal investment/commitment on the hard- and software side. Just last week I build my own AMD dual-core 64-bit system and man did post-processing become a lot more tolerable! :-)

[malcolm_farrow]

While on the subject of tone curves and histograms, the UK's 'Amateur Photographer'

magazine concluded that Nikon had been somewhat cautious with their image processing

settings with the D200, capturing a full tonal range but resulting in darker mid-tones and

somewhat suppressed highlights. Certainly my experience with the camera so far seems to

bear out that notion.

 

They recommended custom curves as a solution and I've been experimenting with the

Fotogenic ev3 v4.2 curve (actually intended for the D70) and so far the results have been

excellent, preferable to either the auto or normal settings in almost all instances. Most

images required no further adjustment though I should stress that this is only a few 100

images so far and of a limited range of subjects.

 

It's certainly worth trying and by shooting in RAW mode, you've nothing to loose, as you

can always revert to the normal setting in Capture 4 and adjust the exposure again.

 

Regards

 

Malcolm

[malcolm_farrow]

Doh, I meant to post in the recent curves thread, sorry... it's been a long day!

 

Malcolm

[jasonsmith]

Fred - how does the image look? There is nothing really wrong with the Histogram. The data basically falls within the (0-255) range with little clipping.

 

For those questioning how can you spend so much money on a D200 and shoot JPEG - it really depends on what you need to do with the images.

 

I own a D200 and initially shot everything in RAW. Even using shortcuts, actions and the synchronise feature in Camera RAW I was spending a lot of time tweaking the images. Even through I carry 10GB Plus of CF Cards I am always concerned about running out of card space. This tends to limit the amount of images I take.

 

I shot a daytime wedding last week and decided as an exercise to shoot JPEG only. It was a nice feeling to know that I was free to shoot 1200+ images if necessary. The quality of the files was excellent. I could see no real difference between a JPEG, and a RAW image converted to JPEG.

 

If the wedding had of moved indoors I would have switched to RAW to give me more control in Post over exposure and white balance.

 

If acclaimed Wedding Photographers such as Yervant shoot in JPEG then it cant be as terrible as some of you make out.

[jasonsmith]

BTW - for what it offers I dont consider the D200 all that expensive. It's a great camera. The build quality and large LCD is enough on it's own to justify the addional cost over the D70/D100.

[welsford]

Build quality and weather-proofing are the main reasons I picked the D200 since I do mainly climbing photography and I'm outdoors in the elements. I'm sure I could have gotten away with a D70 or D50 but I didn't want all the auto functions and the extra bucks for the D200 is certainly worth it to have a better build.