laurentlacoste

<p>Fantastic lens, outstanding quality. I use it for sports too with my D2X. It works great. I guess it has to be tried on with a body in the same quality range to be at its best in IQ and AF speed.</p>

<p>Patrick, I stick to Firefox too on my Imac, but I must say that my sRGB files lose a lot of punch once uploaded on Pnet. With the PC, under Explorer, as I mentioned above, colours tend to be more saturated than what I'd done in PS (My Mac and Sony monitors are both calibrated with the eye1) .</p>

<blockquote>

<p>To better troubleshoot we've got to figure out what's going on at the printing stage and why there is visible banding there.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Roger, thanks. I have an Epson 1800 printer using Ultrachrome inks. My workflow from monitor to printer is calibrated and I use ICC profile for the papers I use. I've never had any problem with the printer so far. Basically, what I saw on the screen was reproduced on the prints.</p>

<blockquote>To me, the most likely culprit for this kind of problem is some sort of post processing adjustment that amplifies otherwise minor differences in tonality and color across the area of the sky.

<p>(I'm wondering if the hazy conditions could have played a role)?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>John, I tend to think that the explanation lies there. I must have done something wrong somewhere. I'll work on the images checking again all the raw files first to see if either I've pushed levels too far or if atmospheric conditions might have played a role during shooting, but I don't think I will have the opportunity to revisit the place soon. it is true that the lighting conditions were quite special, very intense sunlit end of day seashore light with a hazy white layer. Thanks again for helping me out here.</p>

<p>Planning to purchase a new camera body, I was wondering whether Nikon was about to release new models in the short term. Are we going to have improved versions of the D300, D700, D3 soon? I must admit that I'd love to see as good a DSLR as the D700 with more pixels...</p>

<p>Hello Patrick,<br>

About the web, I noticed a few differences in color rendering whether I used Safari, Firefox or explorer to upload pictures to Photo.net. Firefox seems to make colors less saturated than Safari or Explorer. I think I got the most saturated colors from uploading with Explorer, maybe a little more than what I'd done in PS. I would say that Safari comes between the two and that Firefox makes pics looks less punchy and saturated than what post-processed version before uploading. Did you come to the same conclusions?</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>If other people are not able to see it, perhaps you should do a screen capture of the image, and upload that, instead of uploading the JPG itself.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Rob, here's a screen capture. I tilted back the monitor on my laptop to exaggerate the effect for you to see. As I said, it is quite discreet and one has to pay attention to notice it, but it's here nonetheless.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Questions: What raw converter did you use and did you use any sort of highlight recovery? The highlight recovery in Adobe Camera Raw can be very effective but since it depends on recovering information from other color channels, it can lead to some unfortunate color effects.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>John, thanks for the info and the tips, very much appreciated. I used NX2 to convert the image to 16-bit TIFF before opening it in PS for editing. I just did small curve adjustments before noticing the band effects. No highlight recovery done.</p><div></div>

<blockquote>

<p>I'm not really seeing banding on my calibrated CRT. I'd guess it's your monitor.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Roger, I don't know because as I said the ugly edges and yellow and red bands appear on my two monitors and also on the prints. Plus, I'd never had that kind of problem before with my previous camera (D2X). Although discreet, the defect is still here and visible when one pays attention. But then Guido might be right when he suggests that the way the sensor responded there is the cause. This was a strongly backlit sunset scene, hence the overexposed sky (not clipped though). I must say this is quite disappointing, all the more since the D5000 seems to be a really good camera. I'd like to find out what happened then.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><br /> If you mean the slight red/cyan hue differences in the left upper area of the sky, which is overexposed - that's simply because with digital sensors, the three (R/G/B) channels blow out differently, resulting in color shifts in highlights as one channel after the other clips. You can verify this with the Levels dialog in Photoshop.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Guido, thanks for the explanation. I'd never ahd that kind of problem so far with the D2X. Does that mean that the D5000 handles the problem in a less efficient way? Judging from my settings the sky wasn't clipped, except for the extreme left-hand side of the picture. Thanks for the PS tip. I'll try that.</p>

<p>Ben, Vasilis, It is clearly visible on my monitor (24 Imac, calibrated with the Eye One Display). I'm surprised that neither of you sees the effect? I tried to print the picture, it is also visible there.</p>

<p>I've just bought a new camera and went to try it yeasterday on the beach. On a few of the pictures, strong and large color fringing appeared on the raw files. What could be the cause of it? How can I solve the problem?<br>

Here's an attachment of a cropped picture as an example.</p><div></div>

<p>Nothing can compare with those pro-bodies regarding all the features they offer in one single camera. Yet, as other posters pointed out, you might consider the fact that it is not always practical to carry around such bulky and heavy cameras.<br>

I've used the D2X since 2005 and I'm still impressed today by its IQ, but miss the higher ISO capabilities and better dynamic range of more modern cameras.<br>

Last little nitpick about the D2X. Mine is now four years old and the rubber grip around the body needs to be stuck again in various places as its original sticking device has begun to dry and has to be replaced. This of course is a minor inconvenience, but surprised me when it began to happen.</p>

<p>I've used the D2X since it came out back in 2005. It produces great images, and I'm still surprised today at how it captures light and details on some occasions. Yet, it is true that it is not really good beyond ISO 400 and that its dynamic range keeps you struggling with the highlights.<br /> A real plus of course is the pro SLR body, the speed and overall features. Nothing can compare with those pro bodies, if you don't mind carrying around a bulky and heavy camera like this one.</p>

<p>Dan, thanks a lot for completing my phrase, and for your very detaiked pieces of information and ob servations about the 5DII. Very helpful. Thanks everyone again.</p>

<p>Thanks, John. I think you perfectly summed up what I wanted to know about the 5DII. I've always been a Nikon guy so far, but have been wondering about Canon for a while now. Actually, I could've gone Canon at the time when the 5D came out but bought a Nikon DSLR then as I had already had Nikkor lenses. Now that the 5DII is available about 3 or 4 years after, I'm asking myself the same question again.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I don't think there's anything special at all about the linked "cars" photographs. They just look like the sort of minor adjustment easily made in your raw converter of after in your image editor using curves or contrast/saturation.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>David, I chose the car slideshow at random but this could be said of any other slideshows on the NYTimes' website. As I wrote above they all seemed to have that particular quality, a certain intensity in light, as though for instance they were back lit or as though one was looking at backlit slides on a photo table. I noticed that particular thing on other photographers' sites too and was wondering what was the explanation for it. Most of us seem to agree with what you've stated too, that is adjustment on curves and saturation during editing. I also tried a few different settings on my camera and you can get pretty close to that using the built-in camera settings too BTW.</p>

<p>Jacopo, thanks for taking the time. This really makes a difference. The overall brightness looks improved. I also tried different sorts of fusion modes in PS, which gave good results too mixed with appropriate curve settings. I also tried merging pictures. Of course each image has their own specs. Thanks everybody again.<br>

Here's an example:</p><div></div>

<p>Thanks everybody. So, according to you, the 5DII is superior to the 5D in every respect. Do you get exactly the same kind of response in terms of tonal curve etc.. and IQ with the Mark II?<br>

<br /> Beside its outstanding IQ, it seems the 5D had that kind of little extra touch that makes a difference between an excellent and a truly great camera. For instance, I've met photographers who would rather use the 5D than their 1Ds mark II. Would you say the same thing about the 5DII ?</p>

<p>After a few months using the 5DII since it came out, what could be said about the differences between 5D and 5DII mainly as far as image quality is concerned? way of handling exposure, noise, light, color, dynamic range, etc... Has anyone seen improvement in any of those fields?</p>

<p>John, thanks a lot for the tips. Much appreciated.</p>

<p>I have experienced exactly the same problem with my printer, which is the same model as yours.<br>

I have given up using the Photo Pearl Rag, as it is apparently too thick for the machine. Eventually, my printer wouldn't even accept it. I now use use the Matte Photo Rag (only 308mg!) and it is OK.<br>

If I want Pearl or glossy papers, I stick to Moab papers which I find very good too.<br>

I also had inkspots on the trailing with some other lesser quality papers and simply stopped using them. Inkspots disappeared when using the proper kind of paper for the Epson to digest.<br>

I agree that this is very annoying. I like the Photo Pearl Rag very much too and hate wasting shheets worth that price.</p>

<p>P.S.: to complete my answer above, here's an example of one of my own images from series of documentary shots I did at Le mans and on D-Day Anniversary a couple of months ago. I've just made the whole series visible in my portfolio as an example. For those shots, I relied on the camera Program exposure, no EV compensation, sharpness and contrast on normal. Only slight adjustments in PS afterwards on contrast, sharpness and saturation.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Yes, you are allowed to post links. It would make this conversation so much more meaningful.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Frans, here's a link to a nytimes slideshow. It could have been any of them, they all have that same light quality. Hope it works:</p>

<p>http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2009/08/21/automobiles/0823-lemons_index.html</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p><br /> The New York Times has photos from some of the best photographers in the world, along with top-notch photo editors. Some of what you are seeing cannot be reduced to simple explanations...it is the result of lots of hard work and experience by very talented people. But there are also some very basic principles at work in those photos that anyone can apply to add impact to their photos. Like other photographic "rules" there are always exceptions, but they are a good starting point:</p>

</blockquote>

<p>John, such an amount of talent is impressive. It's a pleasure watching those photographs.<br>

Besides, thanks for the tips. It is true that contrast is emphasized in all of those photos. I'd always been told so far not to burn highlights, but as you mentioned, it is true that the some of the whites are really white in some of the pictures, some even look clipped. Do you think that the choice is made during shooting or later on editing? About sharpness, it is also striking that the pictures on those pro sites never look oversharpened, rather less I'd say.<br>

Eventually, thanks for having a look at my portfolio. I was quite hesitant too, about leaving the Splash picture with such flat contrast. I'll work on it again. Thanks again.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Digital cameras have improved an awful lot over the last four of five years. Today DSLRs are very good even at higher ISOs. Whatever ISO setting you use depends on how much light you have and what subject you want to shoot. Sports photography of course requires higher ISO settings to get higher speed settings. Besides, you may want to try all the ISO settings to see how your camera reacts and the kind of grain it delivers at higher ISOs. Grain can also be used as an effect on a good DSLR.</p>

<p>Inspiration makes clichés as well as "novel" interesting. The inspired artist does so. We all need to be or feel inspired. I didn't read the whole thread, Fred, simply the beginning. Just wanted to say thanks for making us think. I don't know whether somebody has already quoted that famous sentence from Picasso: " Il y en a qui cherchent, moi je trouve". I often think about that sentence.</p>

<p>Thanks everybody.<br /> I don't know if I'd be allowed to provide a link for those images, but if you take for instance any slideshow on the New York Times website, all the photographs seem to have that special light quality. The only thing that comes to my mind is that they look as though they were backlit or something. Unless as some of you suggested it is only a matter of contrast and saturation.</p>