Digital portrait output

[michael_tam1]

I am very new to digital photography despite many years with the film medium. My question is not about which

medium is superior, but rather how to produce a comparable result between the two medium.

 

 

I purchased a digital body, Nikon D90, the first time last fall. While very satisfied with the result in landscape and

nature photography, I was not able to produce a comparable image to negatives or slides medium, with

identical technique and equipment in the same location. I am humbly assuming that I have the basic understanding in the aspects of lighting, perspective control, etc. through various photo competitions in the past. I have experiemented by using Picture Control on SD, Vivid

and Portrait mode, sharpness at 5, default saturation, use of incident meter or even preset WB on grey card. When

compared with all my previous natural light portraiture, I could not reproduce a

similar sharpness/contrast/tonality as a in-camera result.

 

My question is what I should be trying next before learning all the RAW and post-processing skills. I was told

by the camera store that perhaps a Full Frame sensor with less pixel density than a Crop sensor will produce in a

closer image result to the film medium. Please advise what should be my next step in improving my digitial

portrait photography.

[amber_carroll]

<p>Learn how to post process from RAW. Sorry, I don't know that there is a better way.</p>

[bobcossar]

<p>Raw won't help you. Consider how utterly different the two technologies are.....You can certainly get <em>equivalence, </em>but not<em> identicality</em>. Consider too, that if you use film and then <em>scan </em>it to get a file to print, edit, etc, then you are dealing with a really hybrid file. It's now a digital file produced from a non-digital original.<br>

FF sensor will not remedy the situation either...you are comparing oranges and tangerines. Close, but not the same.</p>

<p>"Comparable" results are to be expected, but I think you are asking for "Identical" results, which are not. Regards, Robert</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>I think that's a bit of a false choice there, Robert. No, the results won't be identical ... but RAW will help, because it presents so much more latitude (than does a JPG out of the camera) for adjusting tones, saturation, etc.</p>

[bobcossar]

<p>I'm not going to start another endless discussion here, but I believe that in terms of the <em>final print</em>, raw gives no advantage provided the exposure and wb are close in the first place. Sure, raw lets you juggle more information,(not MUCH more), in finer grades of adjustment, BUT these fine grades cease to matter when you go for a <em>print.</em> Regards...and peacefulness.....Robert :)</p>

[john_a5]

<p>Well, hate to say it Robert, but raw is a better choice. I shot some comparisons on my 1dsmkIII and the results aren't even close! I actually found some really unexpected results doing this.</p>

<p>But to the point, film is organic and guess what, digital isn't. So, it will be different. As to a film scan versus a digital capture, the former will be closer and generally better than the digital capture. There will be much more resiliency and color depth in the scan--totally different technologies--digital capture versus scan!</p>

<p>Early digital was really awful with people(skin tones) and I still find that the choice of the proper raw processor can make a huge difference in the look of the same digital file. I don't care if it is landscape or skin tones, I have 3 converters and sometimes all are substantially different in their results. You just need to find one that makes satisfactory results and not try to match it. Or, you just continue to shoot film, which although I shoot more digital these days, is superior still in so many ways, but not all!</p>

[swilson]

<p>

<p>It would help if you could post some of the photos you are disappointed in, along with the raw files that go along with them.<br>

　<br>

It is hard to comment on what might help if we can’t see the problem.<br>

　<br>

Even if you are not using raw right now, which you should IMO, it would be a really good idea to shoot at least raw + jpg, so you have the raw files to go back to at a later date.</p>

 

<p>

 

<br>

 

<p>

<p>

 

</p>

</p>

</p>

</p>

[twmeyer]

<p>"You can certainly get <em>equivalence, </em>but not<em> identicality</em>."... exactly. Don't consider digital as a substitute artform. If you love film for what it does, keep doing it till it disappears or you have to make your own. But I suggest you also look at digital photography to find what is <em>there</em> to love as well... believe me, there's plenty.</p>

<p>I started with film 40 years ago... loved the incredible range of what was possible, like Kodak's HIE Infrared 4x5 sheet film, or Tri-X with Edwal FG& and a shot of Sodium Sulfite. Local print toning by spot applying sepia and selenium toners with a q-tip. And skin tones with Fuji and Kodacolor films was a no brainer. Just pick your flavor.</p>

<p>I now love the spontaneity of digital capture. I have any iso I want, any white balance I need within seconds and can change it from one exposure to the next... and getting excellent b&w or color from the same frame, as well as Photoshop's unbounded local and global controls. Give it a few months before you throw your hands up. I mean, how long did you work with silver processes before they became eloquent processes for you?</p>

<p>And now with Lightroom there's no reason to avoid using raw capture. You can make any skin tone you want and save the process as a preset to correct the next 100 images with one click. Welcome to the 21st Century... t</p>

[michael_tam1]

<p>I appreciate very much for the advise up to now. It seems the notion that Full Frame instead of Crop Frame will produce a closer image to film medium is not a route to pursue, but instead post-processing. As with posting sample of photos, there is some difficulty with model permission to post it on the web.<br>

From several of the advise posted, it seems that shooting RAW through post-processing may be the route to improve the final product. In other words, with my elementary knowledge in digital photography by shooting Jpeg only, the in-camera result will never be comparable to what I saw with Kodachrome 64 (warmer) or Fuji negatives (more vibrant). The major difference I noticed are: 1. the tonal difference. This includes the skin tone as well as the whole scene with inaccuracy and less saturation; 2. the resolution of the hair and eye. The sharpness or high resolution on the computer monitor did not come out through the 4x6 prints compared to film medium and 3. an overall impression of duller or lack of richness in the image compared to slide and negative. What I hope is digital images that resembles that of wedding pbotographers or magazines (well, it could be a while from now!).<br>

I need to update my desktop before purchasing a photo software, most suggesting Lightroom or Aperture over Element. The software I am working with are Nikon Transfer, Nikon ViewNX and Picasa 3. I understood Nikon Capture is one the best RAW convertor. Yes, I need to learn to shoot in RAW + Jpeg combination :)<br>

For now, is there any camera parameters adjustment or shooting technique that I should do to improve my result a baby step further?</p>

 

[john_a5]

<p>Well, if you are seriously going to shoot with digital, you probably need to get photoshop. Adobe Raw is there and if money is limited, better to have the whole suite of tools than just what Lightroom offers.</p>

<p>I am sure Nikon's raw software is really good. Canon's is too, although some earlier versions were awful in sharpening, probably why so many think there shouldn't be any sharpening in raw! Each converter I have seen to date has some deficiencies compared to another and certainly differences.</p>

<p>Remember that most images you see in media these days are in fact digital shots, not film. It is just a matter of learning the new media and if you are going to use it, get the best basic tools and then add on the extras as you move forward.</p>

[bobcossar]

<p>Ah Michael.....tell you what....you e-mail me a jpeg which is correctly exposed and close for wb, tell me what it lacks, and I'll fix it and send it back to you. Fully cooked. Not raw. Robert</p>

[garypeck]

<p>Michael, embrace the new technology - I to grew up pulling Polaroids on a Hassy. I truly enjoy the freedom of limitless shooting and don't miss the 12 ex limit!<br>

Yea, it's a little different - contrast ratios are similar to E-6 and colors look a little different but your perspective will change in the near future. Here's why, right now you've only mastered half the new medium. It is a totality of shooting <strong>and</strong> post processing. Now we shoot <strong>for</strong> digital where before the scans were secondary and we could always blame the scanner.<br>

You will discover much more control while at the same time freedom to express an image unlike anything you've done in film.<br>

Get the software and dive in!<br>

g</p>

 

[michael_s10]

<p>Michael - </p>

<p>Gary is spot on - for fashion and beauty - operating the camera is only part of solution.</p>

<p>Retouching is a must, and if you are going to use professional retouchers, expect them to ask for RAW files.</p>

<p>I can't debate on whether they could or should do their work on JPEGs - but I do know that's what I'm asked for when I work with retouchers. </p>

<p>Mike</p>

<p> </p>

[michael_tam1]

<p>I am truly indebted to the advise and encouragement on how I should move forward. The consensus is that in the digitial world, there is the camera but also the post-processing aspect to make a good picture. <br>

I have asked my old Camera Club friends to give me some hands-on lessons to launch me to the "behind the camera scene"! Over the weekend, I took some test shots at home with RAW and RAW+Jpeg, then processed them on Nikon ViewNX and Picasa with different outcome. A hands-on lesson will clarify my confusion at this point as well as finalized my plan on the new desk-top and software to move forward. </p>

[twmeyer]

<p>"<em>e-mail me a jpeg which is correctly exposed and close for wb, tell me what it lacks, and I'll fix it and send it back to you. Fully cooked. Not raw.</em>"</p>

<p>This proposal misses several critical aspects of the capacity of a raw file. It's not just that a well exposed and balanced jpg is as good as a raw file. Among other things, a over exposed and mis-calculated raw file is more versatile and has greater creative potential than the above described jpg. Many different interpretations and exposures can be created from one raw file (even one overexposed to a degree that would produce a jpg with unrecoverable highlight detail). These various renderings can be excellent full tonal range images on their own, or creative personal interpretations, or combined in unlimited fashion to achieve a wide variety of excellent images limited in their scope only by your imagination and your facility with good raw conversion and photo editing software... t</p>

[bobcossar]

<p>Well Tom......I did say I wasn't starting anything here.....so I wont. But the conclusions you make in the post above are, for the most part, wrong. People need to try things <strong>both </strong>ways.....and find out what truly works......'s all I'm going to say.....Regards to all, Robert</p>

[twmeyer]

<p>try anything you want... t</p>