I'm struggling with my Nikon D100

[peter]

<p>In some senses I think digital is less forgiving than film. If you get the exposue just a little wrong for example it can have a big effect on the image. (Digital cameras have typically poor dynamic range - much like slide film in this respect although again different.) So be very careful about your exposure settings. This takes practice and you will have to relearn how to expose best for digital.</p>

<p>More over I am of the firm view that with digital you have to be prepared to undertake at least some basic post processing. No digital image is up to its full potential when it first comes out of the camera. You need to reduce noise, adjust tone, adjust color and sharpen EVERY image that you wish to make as good as it can be. Sorry but this is how it is. If you do not do this, then be prepared for mediocre results in most cases. This is a bit of a chore but the benefits of digital are many. It does allow you to shoot more prolifically and to get instant feedback. (This is not an invitation to "spray and pray" Quite the opposite.) If you are prepared to learn then you will become a much better photographer than you probably ever could be with film - most of us amateurs just do not get enough practice when shooting film so we do not advance as much as is possible when shooting digitial. If you are reflective and think about what you are doing you will get better. BTW you do not need photoshop for post processing if you do not wish to buy and learn it. You can downlaod simpler tools (free)from the internet and these will get you by.</p>

[lorenzo_luc]

<p>I would recommend trying Bibble too. Every raw converter has its own look, and some converters naturally create polished files more easily. I've tried some open source products, and struggled with making things look as nice with them as I could with a purchased product. I also own a D100, and it's a fine camera. </p>

[zoid]

<p>@Eugene and Lorenzo: Much thanks for your input. I will give Bibble a trial a try.<br>

@John: GIMP with it's plug-ins give me quite a bit of control. I can create and load my own curves, view and work with the Histogram as well as all of GIMP's filters, noise, gaussian, sharpen, and a LOT more. Contrast, color, hue, and a lot more. I'm still learning what all GIMP will do, but so far, I've been able to tweak a lot of my files, including RAWs with it. Not to mention I can convert the final image to just about any image format out there. I've been talking to several folks out there and they say that GIMP can do just about anything that Photoshop does.<br>

@Ted: I'm finding that a lot of what you are saying is true about the D100. I'm shooting it in RAW now, and I'm much more satisfied with the untouched results. They aren't spectacular images, but I'm still tweaking the camera. I will say that I am VERY satisfied with my current results thanks to the help on this forum.<br>

@Oskar: Yep, Digital is a step down. My friend stopped by the other night. He has a D40 and he wanted to experiment with a couple of my prime Nikkors. So, I got an opportunity to work with the D40 a bit. In JPEG format, it outperforms the D100 hands down. I have found that in terms of RAW it does some things better, but still not enough of an improvement for me to buy it, and lose my AF Nikkor capabilities. The D40 is a bit nicer with Red and Green subjects, but it still doesn't have the punch of color I found with the D50.<br>

@Joe: I used Ansel's zone system quite a bit when I was in the camera club in college. Spent many a night in the club's darkroom too. Wish I had a better eye for subjects, but that is part of the fun. Film is better, in my mind, and thanks to the forum here, Digital is becoming fun for me as well.<br>

@Peter: So far, I have found the same thing you have mentioned. Especially in blacks. My current photos with my D100 do pretty well, but it does have a bit of an issue with contrasty subjects. It's very easy to overblow whites while trying to expand the blacks in the subjects and vice-versa. Noise is also something I'm coming to recognize as well.<br>

@:Lorenzo: I'm really enjoying my D100 now. I think I will probably invest in Thom Hogan's book on the D100 before I consider buying Bibble. I would buy Linux software before I would buy Windows Software, but there's this 20MM AF-D Nikkor lens that I have been looking at, and I'm sure you can understand the rest.<br>

I would like to thank everyone for taking the time to comment. My learning curve has taken a steep turn upward and I really appreciate all of the knowledge you have shared with me. In a matter of a couple of days, my struggle with the D100 has become almost non-existent. Now, the camera and I are communicating a lot better . . . thanks to you guys.</p>

 

[edwardchen]

<p>I have used D100 for years since the first time it came out. I am still using it now. I agree that D100 with Auto Everything would not give you straight good results like film cameras do. You need to tweak the digital settings like white balance and other features. With D100, it tends to underexpose so I usually compensate what the camera meters by +1.<br>

Don't get caught up with all the comments saying it's a bad camera. Sure it has many limitations compared to modern DSLRs theses days. But for some applications, like studio shots, portraits, modeling, fashion, I find it fully capable giving me professional results.</p>

[AndyMiller]

<p>Hi there, I use a D3 and a D700, but I still have a D100. Shoot RAW and large, ISO 200, Exposure +1 and colour setting to III. My D100 is now converted to Infrared, but those were my settings. In one respect I think you will find something in common with all DSLR's - post processing tweeks make all the difference.</p>

[vivid light photography]

<p>Zoid,<br>

My first experience with digital camera's was with a Nikon D100 also over five years ago. I struggled with exposure, color, sharpness, etc. at first as well. The one thing that I've learned is that with film you did not have the color options; it was depedent on the film used so you new what to expect. Once you get used to the camera settings (they're all different even from one model to the next) you learn how to set the camera for what you want and you'll soon get expected results. Also, keep in mind that with film some exposure and color errors were corrected at the lab and you never saw the corrections or had to deal with it. With digital you are the lab for every image printed unless you hire that out. Stick to it and you'll soon enjoy the increased capibilities of the digital camera. There is nothing wrong with the D100. I've taken and printed plenty of great images from it. I currently use a D300 and do like it better but it still comes down to how well you know your camera. Also keep in mind that you have other things to consider as well now such as a decent computer, monitor, calibrating that monitor, etc. You are now responsible for the intire workflow. Good luck.</p>

[zoid]

<p>I think the D100 and I are starting to understand each other. Not much of an image, but it was a subject close by (in my front yard). Resized in GIMP, no rework, or touch up. EXIF data should be attached.<br>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/9691115-lg.jpg" alt="" width="600" height="399" /></p>

<p> </p>