gilbert_c1

"Afterall, it sounds like Nikon is going to have to step it up to compete with the Canon's new 20D... "

 

 

I guess the upcoming D90 next year wont be competitive against 20D in terms of high ISO noise. Canon chooses to use stronger IR filter in front of the sensor to get lower noise while sacrifice the IR shooting oppotunity. Nikon on the contrary chooses to be greedy making its camera capable of shooting IR thus having a lot higher noise at high ISO.

 

 

I myself do not shoot IR at all I prefer digital camera sacrifice IR shooting capability in exchange of better noise performance.

 

Not yet seen any spec of D90 but I am almost sure already that it will be noisy since nikon always chooses to use a non or too weak IR filter in front of the sensor. I suggest nikon to leave IR shooting to D2x, give D90 a strong IR filter making its image as clean as possible. I dont shoot IR as all dont make me a noisy camera I wont like it even it can take IR pictures.

Thank you for your opinion.

 

I sometimes wonder why B&W photographers like to purposely add some Gausian/orNormal noise (usually 5% I heard) to photos after the film is scanned. I got a feeling that photos "look" sharper crisper after adding some mono-color noise.

The attrached pic is down-sized from 4096X2713 and also include a

small 100% crop. Not very sharp. I'd like to hear you guys' opinion

if judging from the 100% crop, which comes from a 4096X2713 file,

what size do you rekon to print with "decent" quality of your

standard?

 

Thank you very much.<div></div>

1) Shoot only one NEF(raw), but you may need to firstly play with it for some time to get familiar about how to judge between what you see on the camera high-light review and what you will later-on see in NEF

 

 

2) Use this one single NEF to produce TWO TIFFs(or JPGs) of different exposure value say maybe one +0.5 one -0.3.

 

 

3) Combine the two resulting TIFFs(or JPGs) produced in step 2 in photoshop to produce the final image using "Contrast Masking" method. You can find loads of contrast-masking-how-to webpages here:

 

 

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&q=%22contrast+masking%22

 

 

 

Contrast-masking method has been usually used by many people to produce one extended-tonal-range photo from two seperate shots but for lazy people like me who hardly can bare lugging a tripod around that's not a practically useful method so another appoach is to manipulate two exposures from one single NEF(raw) then combine into the final one.

It's most of the time not a practically useful method to combine two seperate shots so another method is to shot just one single NEF then go home to produce two different exposure TIFF or JPGs from one same NEF, say maybe one +0.5 and one -0.3, then combine this two JPGs in photoshop to produce one extended tonal-range photo.

 

 

Nikon should have done it for us in-camera. Isnt it darn stupid to use only 8bits out of the 12bit AD converter?? I hope Nikon can use the above post-processing methology to create out-of-camera JPGs/TIFFs taking full adventage of the 12bit AD converter IN-CAMERA in the next generation digital cameras.

Well, 1/4 power is more than enough for sunny day fill-in.

I currently use another 4mp camera and do not have a D70 but I am

just curious. I heard that D70's shutter is a pure electrical non-

curtain shutter when shutter speed goes higher than 1/125(or some

other speed I dont recall exactly), so people can use single contact

X-Sync to sync D70 with studio strobe at ultra high spead say 1/2000

or 1/4000 or even 1/8000sec since there's no curtain blocking there.

 

D70 sync studo strobe at 1/4000sec isnt a news to me but what I am

interested to know is:

 

 

Has anyone tried using a single-contact X-Sync hot-shoe flash

mounted on a D70 and shoot with the flash in Auto-Mode at shutter

speed 1/4000?

Get D70 today or wait for the rumorred 1800USD 8MP 10D mk II. Forget about D100, it's just a one-shot camera with a better name. D70 is way better than D100 in especially shot-to-shot wait time.

I will definitely choose D70 over D100 without hesitation. Digital is very very different than films. Current digital camera have either no or too small tolerance to high blow outs, so 1005 metering is a great adventage for digital. And by the way D100 is only a one-shot camera while D70 is a true non-stop camera.

 

I continuely printed A4 size prints with very satisfying result from my 4MP digital camera so I belive you can make a good print from 6MP at slightly bigger than A4 size.

Resell value is very important since I plan to change one digital body every 2 years.

 

Sinc the past 2 years both 1D and 1Ds hold their resell value very well and all nikon digital body droped. It looks to me now Canon is a better brand to buy for people who plan to change a body every 2 years.

Nikon should use D2h body to make a film body, a no vertical grip

one, to replace F100.

 

There's still a lot of people who shoot films, especially people who

freelance for pjs. PJs who secretly use freelancers usually only

accept films because you never know whether a digital file has been

digitally manipulated thus film is the only media trusted. But if

buying a body to freelance canon eos3 is a clearly better choice

because it's a lot cheaper and F100 isnt so much better.

 

Keep losing film market, or lower F100 price, or use D2h body to

make a new film body.

Resell value is a very important factor for people to determine on a camera to buy. Nikon is very stupid to lower the price. Now it looks to me that only Fuji and Canon digital bodys hold their value better. If Nikon lower the price Nikon is telling people that Nikon isnt a good target to invest.

Ok I cant afford this beast but I have to say Nikon really did it right to make such a beast. Loads of amatures buy into a brand just because they believe it's the best brand. Nikon has to release some more beasts similar to this 200/2 regardless of being a volumn seller or not, to set a benchmarker and to prove nikon the best. Only by this way amatures would come back to nikon and praise for nikon though they may not be able to afford such beasts.

I think other than color problem, this shot is still too contrasty to create an image composed of pieces and pieces of colors.

Well the direct flash I was trying to make photos that have equal brightness and color density throughout the frame so I bounce a flash and also gave a direct flash when shooting that candid shot. I mean making the subject pieces and pieces of colors to compose a flat image instead of creating a 3D look photo. :)

Thank you guys for your ideas.

I sometimes got a feeling that a beautiful photo is always a photo with some kind of over-all color shift, but never a photo with normal accurate color. In this photo I partially PS the wood backgound of the upper-left which was originally darker, I brought it to a brighter level close to other area of the photo. I like the idea of experimenting different background in PS since I saw people partially alter the background and creat a very beautiful photo, for example making the photo a lemon-green look. Oh I should experiment compressing the tonal range aswell.

 

TY.

I got a feeling that accurate color usually makes a photo not good

looking, and a good looking photo is usually a photo with not

accurate color.

 

Do you think my photo looks too real?<div></div>

The ceiling "was" some kind of pearl white but colored by our cigarrite smoke for years I guess. :p

Wow! thank you guys!

 

What an incredible PS work!

ISO 320, F3.5, 1/250sec indoor at night-time so that partial color shift isnt caused by ambiant light that's for sure. It's introduced by non pure white ceiling so the only way I can deal with it is to PS it. But how to correct this kind of partial color shift?

Ok it's not a "work" it's just a candid shot to show the question I

am here to ask you guys.

 

This candid photo is shot with one hot-shoe flash which has two

bulbs, one direct flash, the other tilted upwards to bounce the

ceiling. As you can see the direct flash creats pretty good skin

tone but the upper, left-side, and right-side of the face of the

babe has some color shift, introduced by bouncing flash. The color

of the ceiling is some kind of pearl-white, not a real white color.

And note that this is one single hot-shoe flash with two bulbs so

the color difference isnt caused by flash that's for sure. How will

you PS this kind of photos?

 

 

Thank you!<div></div>

I will like to buy a 3200 dollar full-frame digital body but I know it's impossible because the larger the chip the more difficult to get good yield in production thus it's imposible to buy a full-frame digital body at an affordable price. I dont really complain too much about APS size since I think it too stupid to spend 8000dollar on a body. Well, if keeping 1.5 crop factor I wish nikon make the aspect ratio of D3 to be 16:9. Yup wider aspect ratio just like movie and wide TV it's beautiful!

Lots of my local people reject all digital files under 5Mega pixels. Dont waste your money on D1.

Seriously, I think it's 60% photographer's personal charm and only 40% photography expertise.

 

Good luck.

The naming of D70 means digital technology is like 1980 for film bodys. I guess when the naming goes from D70 -> D90 -> to D100 again, (Next D100 not the current D100), then Nikon will probably have a more completed digital body which would be probably D4H and D4X.

 

And judgeing from the naming of D70, having nikon film body histry in mind, my D2H is probably a F801 or F4 in film body terms.