bill_keane2 Posted May 23, 2007 Share Posted May 23, 2007 I just got another pair of glossy 20x30's back from EL-CO in NJ. These were from upoaded JPEGs converted from TIFFs. People can say this or that about the D80/D200, but man, we've got it made. Brilliant color, no grain, sharp resolution. When it comes to affordable access to high quality equipment, has there ever been a better time for the photographer? I sincerely doubt it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simon_hickie1 Posted May 23, 2007 Share Posted May 23, 2007 Bill, how would you say your results compare with what you might have got from slow slide or print film in the past? I've certainly been delighted with 10 x 15 inch prints from my D50 & D80, and also with 35mm slides produced from digital originals for camera club competitions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
photo5 Posted May 23, 2007 Share Posted May 23, 2007 I personally have to totally agree. I've yet to make 20x30" prints from my own work, but the 12x18" prints I have made were nothing less than amazing. This looks like medium format work to me. Dave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike_R1664876643 Posted May 23, 2007 Share Posted May 23, 2007 Maybe I need to send off for prints, because so far I have to say that the ink jets I get from my DSLR are no where near as good as prints I used to have made from 35mm slides. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill_keane2 Posted May 23, 2007 Author Share Posted May 23, 2007 Simon, I got a 20x30 print from the same outfit, using a 4000dpi scan of a Velvia 50 slide. The print is beautiful, but you can certainly see the "pepper" grain, especially in the blue sky portion. So, I guess I prefer the D80/D200. BTW, I've had barrel scans done professionally, and when you open the file at 100% you can easily see the grain in the emulsion... This isn't a knock on film (I say this as one who religiously shot K25 and Velvia 50). But I think the digital stuff I'm getting back is better. Maybe if I'd done a direct apples to apples of the exact same scene film/D200 I'd think differently. But I've been getting prints done for 30+ years, and I've never felt better about what I'm getting back than I do now. Heaven knows, getting good prints from slides (without spending a fortune) was NEVER easy in any case! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lahuasteca Posted May 23, 2007 Share Posted May 23, 2007 Hi guys, I've been following the posts on D80/D200 IQ religiously. I have a D70s, and, quite frankly, I'm not happy with the IQ unless it's a bright sunny day. The images appear flat, muddy, and no depth (not referring to DOF), especially when compared to my Coolscan V scans. I spend much more time in ACR with PP, than I do tweaking the Coolscan scans. Before I go out and plunk down another $1,000, will I get the IQ I want from either D80/D200? I am hesitant after my results from D70s, but it is getting harder and harder to get film and have it processed. Here are two that I worked on today, both on tripods, and RAW for the D70s, from some shots last Oct.: http://www.pbase.com/lahuasteca/image/79289940(F100, Coolscan V)http://www.pbase.com/lahuasteca/image/79289974(D70s, shot in RAW) The D70s shot required lots of time in ACR and Photoshop to bring out any semblance of brightness and color. I need some advice. Thanks. Gene, from Brownsville, Texas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill_keane2 Posted May 23, 2007 Author Share Posted May 23, 2007 I can't speak in comparison to the D70s. I will say that I'm using Capture NX, working from RAW files, doing minimal PP -- some saturation, some sharpening -- usually that's it. I can only comment on the D80/D200, which I believe consistently produce results that are stunning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lahuasteca Posted May 23, 2007 Share Posted May 23, 2007 Hi Bill, Thanks for the comment. I may have to the Capture NX route first because I'm spending way too much time in ACR adjusting curves, brightness, etc. Gene Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mfophotos Posted May 23, 2007 Share Posted May 23, 2007 Gene -- I set my D70s to +1/3 EV compensation most of the time and it greatly improved what came right out of the camera. I rarely have to adjust afterwards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
photo5 Posted May 24, 2007 Share Posted May 24, 2007 The D80 produces files that are print-ready moreso than the D200 does in my experience. Both are excellent cameras. I love my D80. If you have a lot invested in memory cards, you may want to go the D200 route as it also accepts only CF cards. That being said, SD cards are dirt cheap lately, 4gb cards are around $50 or so. A 2gb card will store around 142 RAW+JPG Basic captures on my D80. Also battery life on the D80 is better than the D200 by a bit, and the D80 is smaller and lighter. I loved my D70s. You can't go wrong with either 80 or 200. Dave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbcooper Posted May 24, 2007 Share Posted May 24, 2007 Bill, I know what you mean. Last month I upgraded from a D70s to a D200, and am delighted with it. Looking back 5 years, what's exciting is that it only gets better and better from here on. Just today a coworker (showing off his older compact digicam while I politely listened) remarked that 'of course, digital can't out-do 35mm'. I held my tongue, and went back to my office... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simon_hickie1 Posted May 24, 2007 Share Posted May 24, 2007 Thanks Bill. Know what you mean about the pepper grain. I only have occasional access to a Nikon 4000dpi coolscan for 35mm, but would really like to try some MF scans from my Pentax 645 for a comparison. Unfortunately, when deciding which kit to take out with me, the Pentax rarely makes it, whereas the D80 is with me most of the time! Having said all of that, there is still something magical about blowing ones 35mm chromes up with a good projector & screen - digital projection technology still as a way to go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simon_hickie1 Posted May 24, 2007 Share Posted May 24, 2007 Gene, when I compared various RAW converters, I found that NX generally gave the best results - if very slowly on my machine. Sadly, the trial period expired, so it's back to Lightroom for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill_keane2 Posted May 24, 2007 Author Share Posted May 24, 2007 OK, D.B., here's what you do... Take one or two of your best/sharpest/most vibrant D200 RAW or TIFF shots (don't oversharpen), convert it/them to full-size, best quality JPEG (should be about 8-10mgs). Then click on the internet special at the EL-CO site, and upload, and get 20x30 glossies. Order two prints to get the special price...($9.95 each) When they arrive back, take them into the office and revisit the film/digital conversation. Don't say where the shots came from (DSLR), just let the results speak for themselves. Let your friend, or someone else ask, "What kind of camera do you use?" (This is like asking Monet what kind of brushes, but that's another post...) The truth is, it was grainless, sharp images on this site, shot on D80's D200's & 30D's that convinced me to switch. I would never go back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill_keane2 Posted May 24, 2007 Author Share Posted May 24, 2007 Simon, you're right on with the projection aspect. A few months ago I bought some used (but real nice) projection lenses for my Ektagraphic. Nothing like 3x5 foot Velvias of Yellowstone! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simon_hickie1 Posted May 24, 2007 Share Posted May 24, 2007 Gene, one more thing - what colour mode do you use? RGB IIIa tends to give more vibrant images - definitely more so than Adobe RGB. Dave, definitely agree that you cannot go far wrong with either the D80 or the D200 - and the price difference between the two pays for one of those nice Tamron 17-50 f2.8 jobs! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lahuasteca Posted May 24, 2007 Share Posted May 24, 2007 Simon, I shooting in RAW, Adobe RGB, with contrast, saturation, and sharpening all on low. I find I don't have to use much unsharpmask, boosting contrast in Photoshop is no problem, but I am having trouble geting the colors to punch. I'll experiment around a bit trying RGB IIIa. I shoot in RAW because my goal is 10/11 x 15/16 display prints. Definitely the RAW helps in adjusting white balance. My problems seem to be limited to bad light - mixed indoor lighting or dreary overcast days. In bright sunny light, images are clear and crisp. Some examples of D70s with good light, shot in RAW, Adobe RGB, converted to sRGB for web: http://www.pbase.com/lahuasteca/image/74843946 http://www.pbase.com/lahuasteca/image/74844033 It does appear, despite all my griping, I'll be moving to D80 or D200. Obtaining slide film, sending it out for development, and waiting for the return is just not in the "lots of fun" department Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilkka_nissila Posted May 24, 2007 Share Posted May 24, 2007 Well it might seem like medium format work to someone with no direct comparison. With actual medium format, e.g. 6x7 printed properly, you can immediately tell in the difference in detail. One has it, the other doesn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simon_hickie1 Posted May 25, 2007 Share Posted May 25, 2007 Gene, on my D80, I set auto contrast, but leave saturation on the mid setting. Love him or loathe him, Ken Rockwell has interesting words to say about Adobe RGB! http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/adobe-rgb.htm As you have indicated, a bit of experimentation sounds good! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_burns2 Posted May 25, 2007 Share Posted May 25, 2007 Gene: If you're shooting raw, those in-camera settings ("Adobe RGB, with contrast, saturation, and sharpening all on low") don't mean much UNLESS you're using the Nikon software to convert the files. ACR and the other third-party converters are pretty much limited to reading the as- shot white balance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now