D-300 Settings

[pete_harlan1]

<p>Wasn't really sure if I should have posted this in digital Darkroom, but being shot with the D-300 I thought this would be a good place for discussion.</p>

<p>I am uploading two photos (Before & After)</p>

<p>Settings:<br>

RAW 12 Bit<br>

ISO .3 EV under 200<br>

Speed 1/180<br>

F/8<br>

Center Wt Metering<br>

Manual Flash<br>

In Cam Sharpening=4<br>

Pic Control= STD<br>

_______________________________________________</p>

<p>Although I somewhat enjoy post processing and am quite adept with it, I prefer to do as little as possible.<br>

I am one of those who's battle cry is "Expose it right the first time" LOL Nor am I a fan of loading custom curves into ANY camera.</p>

<p>In the unedited photo, although it is a half stop over exposed, I have noticed what I describe as a "VEIL" or "HAZE" in the entire image...<br>

a loss of contrast if you prefer to call it that.<br>

Not only this image, but all images that come from the D-300/D3.<br>

Some will argue this is simply a contrast problem or exposure problem etc..etc. While there may be some truth in that, my question is to other D300/D3 owners who may experience this as well?<br>

It is MY belief that while nearly all digital images require some PP, I wonder if they require that much.</p>

<p>The "After" version required:<br>

Curves in mid tone plus B&W points set.<br>

LCH in lightness AND Chroma<br>

Slight contrast increase..+4</p>

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

[pete_harlan1]

<p>After Image</p><div></div>

[jannekaakinen]

<p>I know what you mean, Pete. My friend calls it "the ugly gray digi-veil" (roughly translated from Finnish, he's a film shooter btw) and, it seems to be present in pics taken with all digital cameras I've ever used (D40, D50, D60, D80, Fuji S5 Pro) and the in-camera settings don't seem to affect it much, although Fuji S5 seems to have it a bit less than the Nikons. Overexposing just makes it more prominent. I have not used the D300, but seems to be there as well...</p>

<p>So indeed all the digital pics seem to need at least some post processing, and while I am not very experienced nor good at it, here's a tip I've learned to get rid of that "ugly gray digi-veil". I've heard that this tip comes originally from Thomas Knoll, the lead developer of Photoshop:</p>

<p>Use Unsharp Mask on following settings:<br /> Amount: 20%<br /> Radius: 50 Pixels<br /> Treshold: 0 levels</p>

<p>That should clear up some of the grey haze without doing that much to the rest of the image, but of course the image might need some more PP'ing to get the result you want. It works so well, that I almost do it to every image I edit. But I must say that it does not go well with every image, so use with caution. :) This should work with scanned images as well. I'll attach the image you posted with before and after versions, only the unsharp mask applied to it with the descibed settings. Hope that's OK by you Pete.</p><div></div>

[joe_a2]

<p>Pete.... I believe you have answered your own question. The first picture has that slightly washed-out, "veil" look caused by too much exposure. I think it shows itself best in the blacks of her dress, which are no longer black in the Before shot.</p>

<p>You can try a little test of your own on any willing subject, even informal or still-life. Shoot a series of shots 1/3rd stop apart, spanning 3 or 4 full stops around "perfect", and you'll see first-hand how much exposure affects colors and brightness/contrast </p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Pete's original image is a bit over-exposed. Just bring it back down a little and slight increase the contrast will fix it nicely.</p>

<p>Personally, I think Pete's fix is way too saturated; the colors are too vivid for a portrait. Some people like that kind of saturation for landscape shots, but not for people shots.</p>

[tobey_bilek]

<p>Digi works perfectly if you do not overexpose.<br>

Someone started the expose to the right to minimise grain, and it may work for that, but the downside is a step in PP to bring the exposure to where it is supposed to be.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>I agree with Shun here. Shooting RAW means some post processing is usually required. If using NX (like Pete does it seems), one could optimize the in-camera settings and have them applied in post-processing. Defining and optimizing the ACR profile settings can improve things when using Photoshop or Lightroom. Overexposure to minimize grain will entail an additional step in post-processing - question is what you want - a perfectly exposed image SOOC or a bit of leeway when shooting RAW - this is an either/or.</p>

[pete_harlan1]

<p>Thanks for the input all.</p>

<p>Janne, Ive used the "unsharp" mask technique in the past...Ya; it works but really screws with MY workflow. Long story there, but essentially I will not often sharpen more than once and then it is a selective sharpening with either High Pass or unsharp mask.<br>

As far as experimenting; believe me, I've done tons of experimenting with the D 300/D3 long before I hit the field to earn money with it.<br>

The gray fog or dinge or whatever we want to call it is almost always present.</p>

<p>I agree Chun, Saturated portraits are not everyone's cup of tea, I guess that's why we call photograpy more art than science. Depending on the subject, I can go either way.</p>

<p>What I am gleaning from the posts so far, is that there really is no way to reduce the amount of work in PP concerning this overcast, fogged look; there will ALWAYS be a minimum of work to eliminate this phenomena. This is so true with RAW images and I'm fine with that since I am one who shoots 95% RAW anyway. Even in my highly controlled studio setting, while not as pronounced, is still present and requires "cleaning" it up prior to further editing.</p>

<p>I've played the (in camera) contrast game and am adverse to it since it often will clip the black point in a non predictable manner.<br>

I may indeed have to create a mild custom tone curve to overcome only this deficit. It's not a probalem in PP whatsoever, I'm just trying to eliminate one more step in PP. Seems the more I shoot, the busier I am, the less time I want to hang out in Capture or PS. LOL</p>

<p>Thanks again and a Happy 4th to all.</p>

[glenn_c1]

<p>I have found in my own experimentation that gray skin tones are usually the result of an imperfect white balance.</p>

<p>Also, if you are using Nikon's Picture Controls, I am not usually happy with the results of "Portrait" mode. I actually find that "Landscape" gives more realistic and healthier-looking skin most of the time. With NX2 you can always switch the Picture Control after the capture, which can be a handy shortcut to achieving a realistic and appealing look in the final image.</p>