roger_s

Sold my D70, and am absolutely thrilled with my new D80.

I'm thinking of getting the 18-200 for street and people photography.

 

If one likes the 18-70 range, then if you use the 18-200 mainly in this 18-70 range, is it true that the overall length is not excessive in this range? i.e. it's not a bazooka if you mostly use it in the 18-70 range.

 

If so, then this VR lens gives the benefits of the 18-70, with the added advantage of VR for low light. Plus the widest aperture in this range is pretty similar for both the 18-70 and 18-200.

 

What does everyone think?

I would be interested to hear more details from you on how the 18-200 fared for street photography, since I am minded to buy it for people photos, including street.

 

At the wide end, the lens is at its most compact, so were your subjects still reacting to the size of the lens, or was that mostly in your own mind? After all, the size of the DSLR could already be off-putting to some subjects, hence adding a medium-sized lens wouldn't add any more to the discomfort that is already projected by the presence of the large camera.

 

Did you find the 3.5 aperture not fast enough, even with using higher ISO, e.g. ISO 800 ?

 

Would it be true to say that the VR gave good sharpness of the background, but there was still blurring of the people-movement?

Another question to help me decide between PS and PSE5.

 

I'm not a professional, but have aspirations of selling my photos to stock

agencies. The agency I'm looking at requires 8 bit TIFF files.

 

Is PSE 5 sufficient for producing 8 bit TIFF files?

 

Overall, the comment I see everywhere is that, if I am going to do this

professionally, I need full PS. Why? What are some things that can be done in

full-PS that can't be done in PSE5 ?

Still deciding whether to get PS or PSElements 5.

 

I'm concerned that if I get PSE5, virtually all the tutorials and tips I see

in magazines and online relates to full PS. My question is whether those PS

tutorials can be implemented in the PSE5 environment?

 

Or are all those PS tutorials going to be useless in helping me perform the

same effect in PSE ?

p/s isn't the shoulder needed for the purpose of compressing the dynamic range of the film/dslr file so that it can fit into the narrower dynamic range of photo paper? Sure, the actual digital file is capable of a large dynamic range (a line that keeps going up), but that would exceed the dynamic range of the paper. What do you think?

Bruce, your comment provokes the question -- was the curved shoulders of good film emulsions because such shoulders were thought to produce good prints, or was it because that was the inherent nature of film emulsions, i.e. was it because film was incapable of exhibiting a completely linear relationship all the way up, as per a Nikon DSLR?

Hi, you didn't respond to Michael's question of whether you used a tripod. Tests like this require a tripod to remove the variable of hand-held steadiness. As for me, I am stunned by the quality of the images from the D80. (See my two posts in the last week or so.)

Here's the curve for the D80, as per dpreview:

 

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond80/page19.asp

 

According to this, the D80 has hardly any shoulder (as opposed to Fred's preference for a longer gentle shoulder).

 

If I work the theory, then it means the D80's inbuilt curve would have less ability to provide subtle variations in the highlights.

 

In the same dpreview test, I note the Canon 30D has a longer shoulder, but for the 30D the shoulder is not as pronounced as the one which I created for myself in Lightroom. (I compared the pictures of the D80 and 30D curves side by side).

Since the cost of Photoshop in Australia is around 30% more expensive than in the US (according to price parity), I'm hoping that LightRoom will be a cheaper alternative, which can hopefully do all the above things which have been recommended (??)

Upon further reflection:

 

In the photo which had disappointing tonality, I had shot it in raw NEF, and converted it into JPEG using PictureProject 7. Does that mean the JPEG from the raw NEF has no curve, and that the raw NEF is a straight line?

 

Whilst the typical Nikon curve is seen inside the D80's JPEG's, what about its raw files?

If that's the case, then I tried to add more shoulder.

I believe I found a solution to overcome the poor tonality of the digital print:

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00IV8p&tag=

A few days ago, I noted that, while the sharpness and grain of prints made

from the D80 were spectacular, there was a shortcoming in terms of tonality

compared to what we're used to seeing in prints made from film.

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00IS0Z&tag=

 

I found a solution, for me at least.

 

Background: many years ago, I subscribed to the Zone VI newsletters by Fred

Picker, founder of Zone VI Studios. www.fredpicker.com Fred used to write

about his preferences and dislikes about various films and photographic

papers, and would sometimes explain his stance with reference to the

characteristic curves of the films and papers.

 

Now I can't find in which newsletter he said it, but I recall vaguely

(apologies to Fred if I get this wrong) that a good film/paper has:

 

1) a short Toe: I believe it was because a longer toe would cause the darker

portions to having lesser tonal distinction in the depths of the dark shades,

whereas a short toe meant that more of the dark portions are on the linear

part of the curve, thus producing more discernible differences in the dark

portions of the print, i.e. brilliant rather than muddy shadows.

 

2) a linear Mid-portion, rather than an S-shaped mid-portion: because a linear

portion ensures more realistic relationship between higher and lower tones; and

 

3) a gentle, longer Shoulder: in order to give maximum, subtle distinction in

the highlights, whereas a short shoulder throw everything into overblown

highlights.

 

(I'm not experienced in this, and I hope I didn't get the points 1-2-3 around

the wrong way).

 

Anyway, I did the following to the DSLR photo which I had been disappointed

with the tonality. I installed Adobe Lightroom Beta 4.1, and saw that the

characteristic curve was a straight line. Not good, according to the above

theory because it lacked a toe and shoulder. I used Lightroom's curve

adjustment feature to tweak the curve according to the above "ideal"

characteristic curve, by adding a short toe and longer shoulder. And lo and

behold, the colors from the photo just leaped from the screen and the print.

 

I'm telling you honestly how I felt when I saw the print: - when I saw the

color of the resulting print, for a few instances, I felt as if I was looking

at the exact colors of how I saw it when I photographed it, albeit in a 2D

effect.

 

Bear in mind that not everyone agreed with Fred's view of an ideal

characteristic curve. In fact, Fred wrote about how some films and papers,

from the major manufacturers, had characteristic curves that were opposite to

Fred's ideal.

 

The attached photo is the curve that I used to produce the improved colors,

whereas the starting curve was a straight line (seen in dotted lines). I

recall seeing a D80 characteristic curve on one of the review sites, and it

appeared to be a straight line, without a toe and shoulder.

 

As I said, I'm not super experienced in this area. All I did was to go into

Adobe Lightroom, and adjust the curve according to the theory I learned from

Fred Picker, and immediately the colors were vibrant and realistic -- exactly

how it appears in prints made from film.

 

I believe I was able to achieve film-like quality in the digital print,

because I adjusted the characteristic curve to mimic the film-like curves

found in good film emulsions (as per Fred Picker's preferences).<div></div>

In my HP 8450, I've installed the 100 Photogrey cartridge.

 

The JPEG image has been converted to B&W, so when it prints it will be B&W by

virtue of the JPEF image.

 

However, in the HP 8450 settings, in the Color tab, there is a tickbox that

says "print in greyscale", and then ticking that box offers the options high

quality or only "black print cartrdige only".

 

Question: if my JPEG has already been converted to B&W, and I want finest

print quality, do I tick that option of "print in greyscale"?

Take the name of this website/company, that is offering the D200 for the amazing price, and search for that name in google, using quotation marks around the name.

 

Back when I was getting my D70 a few years ago, I came across similar amazing deals, but researched the company on google, and came across many posts indicating that the cheap camera company was a scam. Could be the same here.

"Why go to JPEG just to print?"

 

Marc, the answer is because I'm running on free software, i.e. the software that comes with the HP 8450, and I have not purchased Nikon Capture or Photoshop. Hence, I cannot (or am not aware of how to) print directly from the NEF raw file, so I have to convert to JPEG to print it. That's my level of experience, and if you know a better alternative, let me know.

Michael

 

Since I do not shoot 4x5, the paragraph was used to describe what 4x5 print sample I was using as a basis of making the comparison. Note the end sentence in that paragraph -- "That's the 8x10 print which I compared to the one I made from the D80". Without that paragraph, you'd have wondered how I could have made the comparison with 4x5.

 

Yes, you're right. I am not thinking of post processing. I entered digital photography less than 2 years ago, and have taken thousands of photos with the D70, but only recently got a printer, and made my first prints. I know hardly anything about post-processing. I was simply stunned at the quality of the D80's prints, as a person making his first prints using the basic bundled software that came with the HP8450 printer. i.e. I couldn't believe what quality I was getting as a total rank beginniner in this area of digital printing and post-processing.

 

I looked at my first 8x10 prints, and compared it to the Fred Picker 8x10, and was amazed, and so I made a photo.net post. Plain and simple.

It's hard to say whether a reset from the menu would work because, just on the D70 itself, I don't believe you can tell there is a curve installed. I understand you need Capture to tell there's a curve present. My question arises because I am selling the D70 (upgraded to D80) and so I wanted to give the purchaser the option of deleting the curve.

Edward, the equivalency statements, comparing 10MP and 4x5, were always restricted to 8x10 inch prints. When someone raised the issue of larger prints, see my response where I basically said I could not comment on that because I had no means of making and testing larger prints.

 

Honestly, I was surprised at the posts which poo-pooed the idea of 10MP being better than 4x5 at huge magnification, because that was never my intention to make that point. When I was drafting my post, I was careful to use the term "8x10" in the title and several places throughout the post.

 

I made it clear I have never made a print larger than 8x10, so how on earth would I be qualified to make a statement about anything larger than 8x10? Sometimes, even in a cynical world, you should give strangers the benefit of the doubt.

When I had the one month software trial for Nikon Capture, I installed the

White wedding custom curve into my D70. I did not eventually purchase the full

version of Capture. Therefore, is it possible to remove the custom curve

without using Capture?

Let me explain it, so you can see what I am excited about.

 

I could come across as a loony ... and perhaps some of you have jumped the gun .. if I tried to convince you that 10MP is as good as 4"x5" sheet film as a general proposition.

 

That's not what I said.

 

I limited my comments to 8x10.

 

All my life, with film, I've tried to get fine prints, using slow films like Panatomic-X, Pan-F and Kodak Technical-Pan films etc. But in all my attempts at fine-grain films, when I looked at the 8x10 prints, there never was ever a time when I felt it even remotely approximated the quality of large format sheet film.

 

For me, I am just thrilled that I can get that level of quality in a 8x10 print from a DSLR. I don't want to make larger prints, so the fact that 10MP will degrade at larger magnifications is irrelevant to me.

 

The point I made was solely restricted to 8x10 prints, and I was very careful to specify that in the title and in the post.

 

Many of you agreed that, at 8x10, there wasn't much difference between sheet film. That is all I am saying. Nowhere did I infer that 10MP DSLR can beat sheet film at higher magnifications.

I have a F601 and wanting to sell it. I monitored the prices in ebay, and the low selling prices made me concluded it wasn't worth selling.

My HP 8450 only prints up to 8x10, so I have no ability to test above that size, apart from getting larger prints done commercially which I haven't done yet.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if DSLR falls short at very large enlargements, but at 8x10 the sharpness and grain of DSLR 10MP is impressive, to my eye.

It might not be the best methodology, but given that I don't have a 4x5 camera to do a proper test myself, it's at least a starting point to put it out for discussion on photo.net

 

In both the prints, there are areas of very fine detail, and I was able to compare those aesthetically.