The photos in Nikon's camera pamphlets

[hal_drallmeyer]

<p>Nikon is using Canon cameras for their shots;-)..........just kidding.</p>

 

[c_o1]

<p>I think a camera manufacturer may take a picture of their camera with a better camera for a catalog. But they could not take a picture with another camera and say their camera took it. </p>

[daniel flather]

<p>Preparation of the subject, my favourite photos require near zero PP —my ¢2.</p>

[ian_gordon_bilson]

<p>I don't buy all this stuff about post-processing - I have a few Nikon Calendars from the 70's : every image was provided with the Important Details : Nikkor Lens,aperture,shutter speed,film used.<br>

The images were grain sharp ,appropriate to to the film used (all transparency) , blemish free, about 18in wide,and all landscape format..which was a design consideration I suppose- any vertical compositions would have spoiled the format of the calendar.<br>

Well before image processing,but in the heyday of high quality color printing reproduction.<br>

Judging from my collection of Nikon brochures,the images would have been harvested from the thousands of excellent images which did not make the cut for the calendars.</p>

 

[ian_gordon_bilson]

<p>I don't buy all this stuff about post-processing - I have a few Nikon Calendars from the 70's : every image was provided with the Important Details : Nikkor Lens,aperture,shutter speed,film used.<br>

The images were grain sharp ,appropriate to to the film used (all transparency) , blemish free, about 18in wide,and all landscape format..which was a design consideration I suppose- any vertical compositions would have spoiled the format of the calendar.<br>

Well before image processing,but in the heyday of high quality color printing reproduction.<br>

Judging from my collection of Nikon brochures,the images would have been harvested from the thousands of excellent images which did not make the cut for the calendars.</p>

 

[peter_j2]

<p>Regardless of the camera, it is the lighting that will make (or break) the photograph. Just look at any Playboy centrefold. </p>

[peter_stacey1]

<p>Looking at the D3x brochure specifically, there are a range of shots from studio, on location, still life, outdoors and nature and wildlife:</p>

<p>http://www.thedigitalnewsroom.com/uploads/Appareils/Nikon/D3x/english/25442_D3X_brochure.pdf</p>

<p>The shots are all professional and refined and that comes from Nikon putting the camera in the hands of some of the best in the business and letting them do what they do.</p>

<p>Take a look at the websites of the photographers and you'll see that there is no trickery in the images. It's a combination of good equipment in the hands of professionals:</p>

<p>http://www.frank-wartenberg.com/<br>

http://www.aokiphoto.com/<br>

http://www.timandrew.co.uk/<br>

http://www.johnshawphoto.com/</p>

<p>Regards,</p>

<p>Peter</p>

[Ian Rance]

<p>Interesting thoughts - thanks.</p>

<p>Whatever the subject matter I feel that such photos should show you what the camera is capable of in the right hands. I have the F100 booket and it includes a photo by Galen Rowell. Despite my best efforts I will never be a natural like him but it is nice to at least try and when I am out with the F100 I push myself a little harder knowing that it is capable of great things. Concerning the latest digital camera photos (in the booklets) I am amazed at what the various photographers are getting out of them. Yes, talent and light are the main things (as always), but seeing them puts me in my place as even being a keen photographer I know that I cannot reach such a level. It is fun trying though.</p>

[dan_south]

<p>Somewhere in Nikon's vast array of websites you can download JPEG versions of these sample photos. I'm not certain whether these files were created right in the camera, but given that they are demos of what the CAMERA can do, I doubt that much post-processing was applied. (Note that the camera can sharpen the JPEG files that it creates.)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>they are trying to goad people into buying them by making them think if they drop 8 grand on a D3x they can instantly take pictures that well. It's marketing.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>What exactly is wrong with showing potential buyers what a product is capable of? As long as these photos were actually taken with the cameras that they're advertising, there's no "goading" on Nikon's part. If someone spends eight grand on a product that they're not qualified to use, that's also not the manufacturer's fault.</p>

[plasma181]

<p>The pictures in the pamphlets were shot with film. :-) </p>

[c_o1]

<p>Thanks Robert for making me laugh out loud today!</p>

[emiliogtz]

<p>Jokes aside, I don't think Nikon needs to use different cameras (from the ones being portrayed) to take the pictures they showcase in their brochures. Too many companies have been caught red-handed doing such questionable moves. For a company with a reputation such as the one Nikon has enjoyed for so many years, maybe the consequences won't be drastic, but at least embarrassing.</p>

<p>And btw, I always liked those ads where Nikon included ads from other companies that used the Nikon F4 for their imagery. The message was that every time a company made an ad using the F4, they were also making an ad for the F4.</p>

[craig_shearman1]

<p>Nikon has been running outstanding photos in their ads and brochures since long before autofocus, autoexposure, vibration reduction or anything digital at all let alone digital post-processing. Think back to the Pete Turner photos of their 1970s ads with bright, bold color and incredible detail. There's virtually nothing they're running today that couldn't be done with an F2 body, a manual focus lens and a roll of Kodachrome provided you have the eye, the technical expertise and the subject matter. Back when ads and magazine printing were based on color slides, what you got out of the camera was what you got. The printer didn't have to try to improve on the image -- the challenge was to try to match the image on the slide. As for subject matter being so perfect, these aren't grab shots. They are a combination of 1) carefully planned and executed advertising shots where you don't shoot until you've got what the client wants and 2) for the travel, fine art etc pictures, the ability to cull through as many shots the photographer may have done til you find the single one that is perfect. As for large or medium format, keep in mind that most of these pictures are running maybe 2x3 or 4x6 on an 8.5x11 page, so you don't need a lot of pixesl to look good at those sizes.</p>

[derek_thornton1]

<p>The brochures are very nice but I dont think those photos are unatainable. I also doubt that a lot of PP was used to create them. I guess only those that create the brochures would know. Personally, I have seen many photos here at photo.net that could easily make a Nikon/Canon brochure. It astounds me the number of excellant photographers we have. The equipment and photographers are getting better every day.</p>

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>Ask yourself what camera has has not been marketed with cool images? :)</p>

<p>Here is a Popular Photography Magazine advert from July of 1939; ie about 71 years ago. (pre Top Gun:))</p>

<p>In that era the TLR was a camera marketed for shooting sports. Most camera sports pictures in contests of that era were shot with TLR's; in these ancient magazines. The TLR was also marketed to "shoot home portraits" too.</p>

<p>Today if one mentions using a TLR to shoot sports; all hell breaks loose on Photo.net with many saying it is impossible; when 7 decades prior it was the norm; what is was marketed for. In another ancient thread on photo.net folks argued about whether it was even possible to shoot a portrait with a TLR.</p>

<p>With time the user base of tools gets old; and what they were sold and used for gets forgotten and screwed up and changed. With time folks say it is impossible to use a tool for purpose X that was the sole reason folks bought the tool when it was new eons ago.</p>

<p>Maybe folks will in 2080 ponder if it is possible to have used a cellphone in a car; or have used a dial phone for long distance; or there was a thing called flashbulbs; or if film will still be around? :)</p>

<p><img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/RolleiSportsAdverts/tripods-516.jpg" alt="" /><br /><br /><img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/RolleiSportsAdverts/tripods-517.jpg" alt="" /></p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>152.20 for a TLR camera in 1939. Holy crap I wonder how much that is in today's dollars!</p>

[wade_roth]

It's $2330.79 according to http://www.westegg.com/inflation.

 

--Wade

[derek_thornton1]

<p>Very cool Wade! I have westegg in my favs now.</p>

[tholte]

<p>I think the photos in the Nikon brochures are better than the photos in the Canon brochures.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>In the early and mid 80s, I thought that the pictures in the Pentax brochures made me want to take pics the most. No lie. I thought more than anybody else, they made the camera look like an "artistic" tool (as opposed to a professional one --nothing wrong with that, though...). Thank you Pentax. I don't shoot your cameras anymore, but you got me hooked.</p>