alistaircotton

<p>A RAW file is also a reasonably convincing proof of copyright. I know of a stock photographer who had his portfolio frozen at an agency because a third party company cliamed the image was theirs. The first thing an agency asks for is a RAW file to prove ownership.<br>

This is a specific case involving a specific area of photography - but disputes over owernship will probably only increase with the easy of image transfer in the digital age.</p>

I've only been using the S3 for about a month now but regarding point 2, will agree that the best results have come from 50mm prime 1.8.

That said I've not been at all impressed with the sharpness of 12mp images at 100%. Sometimes they seem to be okay. But more often than not they are a bit fuzzy. I'm comparing to previous results with a D70, which produces absolutely tack sharp images at 100%. Agree again, some noise is visible at 100% with 12mp images, although for most purposes it would probably be okay.

I've not had the camera long enough to work out an optimum picture quality process. However, what I do note is that all 12mp images from the S3 benefit substantially from a post process downsize back to 6mp. Overall sharpness is now at least comparable with the D70 and what noise there is gets further reduced. Personally, I'd rather shoot RAW - but there is a bit of a nagging question in my mind that it's quite possible that out of the camera 12mp jpg files reduced to 6mp, or even native 6mp jpg files straight from the camera will produce very similar results without post process gymnastics.

So most of the time it does not seem like the S3 is a 12mp camera at all because image quality is more acceptable when downsized back to 8mp or 6mp. But then every now and again an image in a batch pops out which is just far better in terms of quality than all the others.

So it's a bit like golf then. When it all comes together you are left wondering what you did right.

Overall I've been very impressed with noise from the S3. I've found the D70 to be shocking with anything other than the minimum 200 iso and even then there is a lot of noise in areas like blue skies. So far with the S3 I've had very good and saleable images at up to 800 iso. Who knows, that could even be pushed further.

As I said, I've only been using the camera for a short time and so can only offer personal findings so far. Any other suggestions?

Thanks again Garry

I'll take a look at the newer software (CS3 already?).

Regards

Alistair

Thanks Garry

But are you able to work with full 12mp files in CS2, or are they just the 6mp files without an extended dynamic range?

Hi All

I've just taken delivery on an S3 Pro at a great price due to the impending

release of the S5 Pro.

I'm still testing and trying to figure out the best workflow solution and was

hoping to get some comments on a few questions:

Shooting the maximum RAW file produced a file about 25mb in size. When opened in

Adobe Lightroom, the application only recognises it as a 6mp file. It would

appear that Fuji's software needs to work with the data in the RAW file in order

to produce a 12mp file.

It would further appear that Fuji should stick to making cameras . . . the

bundled software is horrendous. The only good thing this software seems to do is

convert the 6mp file into a 12mp file with that extended dynamic range smoke and

mirrors.

The trouble is that now it's a 12mp tif file - not a RAW file. I like to change

exposures slightly, sharpness, noise and WB as a RAW file level, not in PS as a

tif file.

Then there is this Hyper Utility software which is not sold with the camera,

does not appear to be available anywhere as an online download, or even as a

boxed product (BH, Calumet). I did find it through more luck than anything else

at some kind of Fuji online store in the US. I don't live in the US and don't

have the requred zip shipping code.

(Why, oh why, don't they just sell the thing as a download?)

Upon reading further about this Fuji software product, it would appear that it

does not sound like the kind of product one really wants as a professional

solution. Seems to be a lot of bad reviews about it.

So what does everyone else do? I see other reviews about people using ACR and

other with Capture 1. Fine - but if the demo version of Lightroom is not able to

convert the Fuji RAW file from 6mp to the 12mp dynamic range file, why would

either of these other third party products be able to?

12mp jpg files straight from the camera is starting to look like the best

workflow option for my work - but then I don't get to tweak WB, noise, sharpness

in RAW.

Thanking you for comments and assistance in advance.

Regards

Alistair Cotton

Personally, I think that many of the nudes are fantastic photographs and are well deserving of all the accolades. However, when I search the top rated photographs over the past year by sum, I note that just about all of the top images I see so far are nudes.

This can either mean that:

a) There is a disproportionate number of highly skilled photographers shooting nudes, as opposed to say, nature or landscape pieces. This is surely most unlikely.

b) The overall viewing market (apparently more men) are way, way more interested in being titillated (as it were) by great pictures of the naked female form, than they are, say, of a fantastic dragonfly image.

Personally, I really enjoy submitting images for international review, simply becuase I don't have the time to join a club and go tearing around the country side looking for steam engines to photograph. It's also a great way to rate your work and to see how best to go about improving your skill as a photographer.

That said, it would appear that if you really want to get the best ratings for your images on this forum (and face it, everyone does), you will need to ditch the wildlife and landscapes and take a keener interest in nipples and gooseflesh!

Surely this cannot be the case. But, based on the undeniable results of a democratic and open judging regime, it would seem that it is.

I really enjoy the standard 18 - 70mm that came bundled with my Nikon

D70 but have decided that the 70 - 300mm lad is just not sharp enough

for anyone who has the slightest interest in picture quality.

I was keen to purchase some good glass from Nikon (some kind of

reasonably fast fixed 105mm or 150mm or similar) until I looked at

the price tag.

In the happy book which came with the camera, I see that I can use

older Nikon glass with the camera. However, a second hand camera

dealer over here has suggested that while you may be able to use

older Nikon glass on the D70, it renders your light meter impotent.

I'm far more interested in utilising good quality glass - no matter

how old it may be - than gizmos like autofocus and auto apeture. I'll

even be happy to thumb suck or use another camera body's light meter

for setting the f stop and shutter speed.

My question is what old Nikon glass can I use for the Nikon D70? Is

anyone else out there using old glass on a D70, and if so, what have

their experiences been in terms of picture quality?

Thanks for all your comments and suggestions with regard to my query. On seeing Christian's image sample I ran a quick test to see how a seriously enlarged RAW image would cope with a massive bicubic enlargement.

Flower 1 (lower quality) was sharpened to a medium setting in Nikon's Picture Project and then imported to PS. Once in PS I resized the image to a square (effectively losing pixels). I then enlarged the image to 1mx1m. This picutre is viewed and saved at 100% in PS.

Flower 2 (slightly higher quality) was sharpened in the same way, but to the maximum setting in Nikon's PP. It was imported to PS and enlarged directly to 1m wide (a happier solution for 35mm but not really a direct comparison).

I would not want stand right next to either of these images, but it may view okay from a distance and does not appear to compare too unfavourably with Christian's drum scan with 120 film.<div></div>

I have an A1 poster print job to run for a client and it looks like I

will need to generate/work with a 300dpi image at 837mm x 590mm. I

was hoping that my new Nikon D70 would do the trick but suspected

that around A3 would be a tall ask from the camera, let alone looking

at A1.

So I've run some bicubic interpolation tests with Photoshop and am

highly impressed with the results. Arguably this poster picture

should preferably be shot with a medium format camera, but a 35mm

tranny should suffice. So I've scanned one of my older 100 ISO

trannies with a CanoScan 4200f. I know it's not a drum scanner or

anything, but in theory should have sufficient grunt to produce a

better quality image than an interpolated 6 megapixel Nikon image.

Not!

I scanned the tranny in a variety of ways, including using sharpening

masks and the like at more or less 837mm x 590mm. I then took a Nikon

RAW image into Photoshop and enlarged it with a standard bicubic

transformation to the same size.

I then zoomed into both of the resulting images at 100%. On screen

the interpolated Nikon image appears to be at least a little bit

cleaner and sharper than the scanned tranny.

Then for the crux - I sharpend the Nikon image first with the bundled

Picture Project software before importing to Photoshop and then

running the bicubic transformation.

I kid you not, zooming into the image at 100% produces a near-perfect

photograph on screen.

So here is the question:

On screen, the sharpened and interpolated Nikon image beats the

panties off the scanned tranny. Should I even bother about spending

money on slide film and a drum scan to A1 when it looks like my Nikon

D70 is more than up to the task?

On second thoughts, is there something I'm overlooking with regard to

this?