fhmillard

Ok, I got the 80-200 f2.8, and yes at a lot less $$$

Should I splurge on this?

Thanks

I just attempted the same thing with exactly the same results stated by Dan

Yes, check and/or calibrate monitor as 1st step in work flow.

It is my understanding that most desktop printers (1) and pro labs printing systems (2) use CYMK -- (1) RGB is converted by printer driver to CYMK; AND (2) professional printing systems use CYMK directly.(?)

 

The NX issue might be related to lots of things -- "enhancements" in the optimize image menu; differences in your NX and the Lab's color profiles ...

 

Are you Picture Project and NX default color profiles the same?

PS can read Nikon and just about any camera's RAW files. It is my understanding that RAW format is the digital negative, since it is the "raw" and uncompressed sensor information. I always use RAW when shooting

My experience with D200 (EN-EL3e) batteries is that they do last somewhat longer than The D70 (En-El3). The EN-EL3e is 1500mAh and the EN-EL3 is 1400mAh, so the D200 battery delivers some more juice. Also, the EN-EL3e has three terminals, instead of two on the EN-EL3, two for charging and power delivery and one for battery capacity and life measurements (which are displayed on D200 menu). I left my D200 on for three days and the battery still had 85% capacity, but the lens cap was on so the meter was not draining power. A couple of days shooting with a D70 is about right for me, I still use mine, @ 10 to 20 shoots/day, but I can shoot for another day at that rate with my D200. You might look into the dual battery grip for the D70 which uses two EN-EL3's (cheaper than a D200) serially, so when one battery is used up the other takes over. I hope this helps.

Ok. So I shot the same scene with my D70 and D200, using same camera setup and same lens, both shots collected in RAW mode on same memory card. The D200 picks up far more detail than the D70, especially the little "dirty" parts of the scene, like scratches on glass; which is what the extra 4mpix shuold do; I guess.

Do you have the same "quality" problems in RAW/uncompressed mode? What metering mode are you using? -- try matrix mode

No not with these data. I just thought you might want to test for your self.

Assuming you have not already done this, try resubmitting one of your highly rated photos (high 5's or better) again for critique. Wait about a month between submissions so that the photos do not appear in the critique forum at the same time; and you might want to do this several times. Compare rating distributions. Since PN provides weighted ratings distributions, you would be able to (at least):

1. Determine a "reference" rating distribution from all the ratings

2. Determine how each individual set of rating distributions differ in shape.

3. Use ANOVA to determine if each individual ratings set could have come from the same set of raters or if the same criteria was used for rating -- I do not know how to assume that the same raters used different criteria for each submission. At least, using ANOVA, you would be able to determine if each submission was significantly different from the total rating set.

 

You could also do this with a photo of low rating.

Using the metrics suggested assumes little or no turbulence exist in the rating system from input -- raters. Since ratings are "subjective", then we operate without a reference standard for each category on the rating scale; albeit this could be attained statistically, but I can not think of any compelling reasons to do so, since rating turbulence might be high from inclusion of new raters and changes in individual rating criteria of current and older raters.

 

I agree that the raters' PN link should be included, because I might want to rate them.

<div></div>

The MOAB Canvas inkjet papers work fine.

How can I find out when my photos are viewed?

Not critiqued and not who viewed, just viewed.