NIKON D3200 TEST SHOT: Suburban Landscape

Suburban landscape--this shot was originally over-exposed. UsedNikon' Vew NX3 to adjust exposure compensation to see if the problemswith contrast at over-exposure could be corrected. Commentswelcome.

--Lannie

Here is a 100 percent crop with no post processing.

--Lannie

Here is a 100 percent crop with unsharp mask applied at 100, with radius 1 and threshold 0.

--Lannie

The small trees (by the road) with yellow leaves were blown out in an over-exposure.  I then went back to the NEF file and adjusted exposure compensation in Nikon View NX2 software.  I wanted to see just what could be done, since this camera seemed more prone than some to exposure blowout in contrasty situations, perhaps because of the high pixel density.  (I really don't know, but I don't think that it was my imagination.) 

In any case, I see no problems with this version, which was processed as a NEF file in View NX2 with exposure compensation--after which it was finished up in PS.  Exact amount of exposure reduction is unknown--I simply eye-balled it on the screen.

I never could get the sky to show as blue, even with extreme exposure compensation, although the small circles of light coming through the trees show a bit of blue in the sky.

--Lannie

Here are the trees in question in a 100 percent crop, no post processing.

--Lannie

Here are the same trees with unsharp mask applied at 80, radius 1, threshold 0.

I can't say that exposure compensation in the Raw (NEF) file solved all problems with resolution, but I think that it helped some. 

--Lannie

Here is a 100 percent crop from the over-exposed version.

The over-exposure was not massive, but it adversely affected resolution of leaves on the small trees in the sun more than other parts of the photograph.

--Lannie

Even with some sharpening (unsharp mask at 80, etc.), the illusion of high resolution could not be restored.  (Sharpening does not increase actual resolution, but it can give an illusion of higher resolution.  One may surmise that over-exposure will not even let the illusion of higher resolution succeed, at least in some cases.)

In none of these examples were the small trees perfectly exposed, given the emphasis on the rest of the photo.

This entire "thing" started for me when I noticed how bad the over-exposed portions in contrasty photos appeared when examining the D3200 files.  I had not noticed the problem to the same extent with other cameras, and so I wanted to see if the high-pixel density sensor of the D3200 could still be used in contrasty situations.  My conclusion is that it can if one is prepared to use NEF files and apply the necessary correction through exposure compensation in the raw NEF files.

I no longer have the D3200, but I remembered the problem and thought that I would try processing NEFs in View NX2 before moving on and leaving the D3200 pictures behind.  It is still a fine little camera, but the high pixel density can create some problems.  Careful processing is required.  As for lenses, well, this shot was made with the lowly 18-105, which I think did very well.

--Lannie

NOTE: Please excuse the typo "View NX3" in the request for critique.  I meant to say "View NX2," of course.

--Lannie

One last point:  When I first noticed this problem, whether with this file or another made about the same time, the sense I got was that the pixels were "bleeding" into one another in the over-exposed areas.  The resulting effect was a kind of smear of color in the worst cases.   In those cases, the pixels made the leaves themselves virtually indistinguishable from one another--the potential high resolution of the D3200 thus seemed to have backfired and caused a lack of resolution in certain situations.

The review of the D3200 at DPReview.com also mentions problems with contrasty images.  I can only conclude that pixel density is the primary culprit.   The pixel density of the D3200 is the highest of all the Nikon DSLRs, considerably higher than that of the D7000 and the D800, which have about the same pixel density.  The D600, by comparison, does not have such a high pixel density.

High as the pixel density it on the D3200's sensor, it is still not as high as that on point-and-shoot cameras or even the Olympus E-20, which was my first digital camera.  This leads me to wonder if high pixel density is the sole source of the problem.

In any case, all of these considerations made me second guess whether the D3200 could ever do very well as a landscape camera, even with the best DX wide angle lenses, in spite of its extraordinarily high resolution.

--Lannie

Other possible causes of the "smearing" or "bleeding" in bright areas (besides my thesis of high pixel density):

(1) the lens--perhaps, but the problem seems to afflict the bright areas only, and these are near the center of the frame, which is not where problems such as smearing are usually the worst.

(2) the processing algorithm--all things are possible, I guess.

It does bother me that I never tested this little camera with better glass, but I really didn't notice this particular problem until after the last shoot that I used it on.  In fact, this picture surely was shot the last time that I used the camera before selling it to buy a full-frame DSLR--less than two weeks later.

In any case, the problem does not present itself in most shooting situations, just high contrast ones, to my knowledge.  In those situations, the D3200 cannot quite seem to deliver on the bright areas unless they are reduced in brightness significantly at the time of exposure--or in post processing using exposure compensation with raw (NEF) files.

Maybe someone else can explain the source of the problem.  I'm moving on now that I have grappled with this question.  I have to say that my spirit of experimentation was a big factor in buying this camera in the first place: what, I asked myself, was the point at which one would see significantly diminishing returns when it came to packing pixels on full frame or 1.5x crop sensors?  I also wanted to see whether the D3200 could consistently produce high quality files, and thus be a poor man's way of getting very high resolution in a DSLR.  I still don't know the answer to that question.  The percentage of "keepers" becomes the question under at least some lighting conditions, and my guess is that one ought to avoid high contrast situations when using the D3200 if one wants truly high quality results.  In other situations it can do quite well.

--Lannie

Here is the original JPEG file (resized).  One cannot see the problem at this level.  Yes, the overall image is too bright, but not terribly.  The real over-exposure begins with the bright trees just left of the middle, but even these do do not look too bad when viewed at this size.

Here is the passage in the DPReview.com article that I really did not even notice until after I had seen the problem myself on photos similar to the above:

Needless to say, there are many much worse examples that one could find in terms of blown highlights in contrasty situations.  I chose this one because I above all wanted to get the individual leaves, and that is precisely what the camera could not do in the bright areas on the original JPEG, impelling me to go back to the raw file to see what could be done.

--Lannie

Hi Lannie,

You put forth a good effort in your field tests and narrative....thus the "7".

A few short comments:

1] The use of a fixed focal length lens is best for any field test of the camera.

2] A quality lens set at F/5.6 or faster (like F/4) is preferred, as often the lens can limit the results that the camera can provide.

3] Without any doubt, all bets are off when an image is over exposed beyond the dynamic range of the sensor and its associated electronics.

No software program will ever recover the data that has been lost through saturated (bleeding pixels) or lens that have limitations in their designs and f-stop settings.

Off line, in a conversation over a drink, I could provide you an in depth lesson concerning any Nikon camera and lens combination as it relates to your presentation here.

Good job my friend.

Best Regards, Mike

Thank you, Mike.  I always appreciate your additional comments.  There was nothing rigorous about the way I proceeded, but, after the fact (of making a casual shot), I figured that I needed to learn a bit more about how to avoid that kind of blowout on the bright leaves.

I still wonder if high pixel density played a role--or not.

One thing about trying to do tests is that one does get to know one's lenses.  I have moved on from the D3200, but it was not a bad camera for the price.

--Lannie

Hi Lannie,

Your continued efforts to learn about the cameras and lens is highly commendable.

Shoot, Shoot and continue shooting. Keeping a note book on what you have done always helps down the road, too.

Even with my optical lab facility at hand, I still very much enjoy getting out in the real world to take images.

Best Regards, Mike