jaophotography

<p>It's kind of interesting reading all the ways to save. The way I save for the web in Photoshop is; convert to sRGB, convert to 8-bit, flatten image, and place the watermark. All that is in an action. Then manually I resize the image and sharpen, then save as jpeg.<br>

I guess I go around the long way, shooting RAW, converting to DNG (because CS2 won't read the camera RAW files), neutralizing the image in ACR, then processing in CS2. Followed by saving. Although lately I don't save many images other than raw and for the web because a single tiff or psd file is usually about 150 mb unless I flatten all the layers.</p>

<p>-Jon</p>

<p>I feel that the d700 is superior to the Canon 5d Mk ii in some ways. Nikon definitely has the noise down better and the d700 for me seems to be sharper. The only drawback is the 12 mp. Which has been solved with the d600 at 24 mp or the d800 at 36 mp. <br>

Imaging resource has lots of test files for download that you can compare cameras, noise levels, and sharpness for yourself. <br>

-Jon</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Glad to be of help. I don't know anything about indexed color, but it does have to be in RGB.<br>

-Jon</p>

<p>They were probably saved as 16-bit tiff. You have to convert them to 8-bit for jpeg. If it's the same in Elements as CS4, go to image>mode and click on 8-bits/channel. Then you should see Jpeg in the save menu.<br>

<br />-Jon</p>

<p>I've seen some decent pictures come out of the K5, but I haven't used it. I would like to handle one just to see if Pentax has upgraded the feel of the cameras. The last camera I used was a K20, and that was the last! In order for me to produce quality work, I need a camera that I don't have to fight with (exposure, color, white balance, etc.)<br>

Since I got the Nikon D700, I have never looked back to <em>anything. </em>It just works! Many times directly after I got it I took images that just were not possible with the Pentax gear, let alone film. <br>

Images under low light I can print noiseless up to ISO 1600 without noise reduction up to 13x19. 3200 is on the boarder and 6400 depends on the shot. I have to use noise reduction at 6400 always. The meter in the d700 seems to be more accurate or something, because under low light with the Pentax gear the exposure is usually off, but the d700 is right on it 98% of the time.<br>

I would suggest to at least handle a d700 before making a purchase. I wouldn't suggest a 5d mk ii as the af has problems, not to mention the fps is at 3.9 vs d700 at 8 fps with the grip. <br /><br /><br>

I got my d700 second hand at a fairly reasonable price as it was almost new. It only had 6000 clicks. 50mm f/1.8D Nikkors are just about $100 if you look at a specific auction site. I got an excelent quality 28-85mm AF Nikkor for $100 that is extremely sharp wide open at 28mm from Adorama.<br>

Whatever camera you choose, whither Pentax or Nikon, both can produce excellent quality results. One may take a little more work, but it is possible. <br>

Good Luck<br>

-Jon</p>

<p><em>Check <a href="00ZeIY" rel="nofollow">this thread</a>; there are a couple shots that show the "1.5 times" DoF difference between FX and DX</em><br>

Well yeah if you shoot a different focal length on Dx than you do Fx. However, my 55mm micro would fit on the d300, so the Dof would be the same on Dx as Fx. However if you wanted the same area on dx, you would need about a 35mm lens which would normally have a different DoF. So When I use the 28-85mm lens on the d700 the DoF would be the same if I put it on the d300.<br>

Communication...the key to understanding! :-) I was thinking you would use the same focal length on both formats.</p>

<p>Thanks Dan. Yes the film grain is in PS, but I hardly ever add grain. The reason I suggest contrast first, is because to my eye it's hard to tell how much contrast to add. <br>

Jose, the difference is Dx vs Fx. It does take more work to get a digital picture to look like film, and it's debatable if it ever actually does look like film. However, with the original format for the lenses we shoot, the film look is more prevalent than if a crop is taken of those lenses. I think there's hundreds of variables that play in the different look between film and digital, and format and dof is only a couple of them. <br>

I'm not sure that Dof is shallower in Fx. When I shoot at f/16, pretty much everything is in focus down to about 30" away from the camera at 28mm. With Dx, it's about the same. At 2.8, the dx looks different, but not really shallower. I'm sure someone has taken a picture of a tape measure to measure the difference!<br>

I don't pick apart the grain to decipher the difference between noise and grain. However, I remove all color noise, and the resulting texture at high iso's looks similar to film grain. I've often wondered what RMS size grain we get with digital. :-)<br>

Don't get me wrong, I like film, but I shoot about 90% digital and don't look back. A couple years ago I hauled a film camera and digital (dx) camera around with me for several weeks and took exactly the same pictures of landscapes with both having the same lighting. I printed several of those pictures, from both film and digital. Hanging on a wall at 13x19 I couldn't really tell a difference. I adjusted the color balance of the digital to match the film, adjusted the contrast to be about the same, and I really couldn't tell a difference. That's when the film camera started getting used a lot less!<br>

So, for John...enjoy your d300. If it's anything like the d700 it's a camera that will last you a long time. If you really like film, keep a film body in you're bag for those shots.<br>

-Jon</p>

<p>I kind of got here a little late, but I had this same problem a couple years ago. The digital pictures just didn't look like what I was used to with Velvia. I tried all things with the digital cameras for a while until I tried out a d700. Then that was it. The first picture I took looked like trash, but it looked like film - a higher quality film. It had depth and also that 3D look. I started using the velvia action I had created in photoshop, and it really looked good. Velvia is not just a high color saturation that a lot of people think it is. It also has high contrast which helps the color look more saturated. The first thing to do with a digital image is to get the contrast right, then add color.<br /> The other thing is DOF. 35mm format has a different DOF. Some say it's shallower, but I'm not sure if shallower is the right word. Also to get the same grain, I have to shoot at between 1600 & 3200 to achieve the grain of 400 film. At ISO 200 it's just too smooth. However, when I print large, that smoothness looks really good. <br /> <br /> Here's a shot with the d700 with my velvia action.</p><div></div>

<p>I used to see the same thing in the k20d. Only it would happen just once in a while. I never was able to link it to anything in particular, but it was visible at regular viewing. I never saw it in the K10 or K100ds which makes me wonder if it isn't something related to pixel density. Does it show up in every shot, or just once in a while?<br>

I don't know about it being across all brands as a friend of mine has shot thousands of images on a Canon 5d mk II, and I have shot thousands of images on a Nikon D700. About three times a year my friend and I shoot some assignments that require extra low-light work without flash, and at 25,600 ISO I've never seen this in either of our images.</p>

 

<p>I kind of got here late, but I've attached a comparison of why the color is off with the K100d. The color with the k100d I find to be more accurate than the later cameras. The yellow turning greenish problems can be seen in No. 11, 12, & 16 in the image attached. The circles are the K100d, and the squares is the ideal camera.<br>

One major thing I noticed was I couldn't shoot vibrant fall colors with my Pentax cameras. I borrowed my friends D40x and the yellows started looking very good. A side note; I shoot entirely in DNG Raw for editing in photoshop. It is possible to manipulate the colors to resemble the correct shade, but it's difficult.<br>

I don't know why the Pentax cameras have a shift towards green with the yellow hues, but it does, and they havn't gotten any better.<br>

For a suggestion to fix the problem. I parked my k100d's white balance on daylight and sometimes on manually set white balance. Then later I adjusted the hue towards the magenta side about +15, which usually fixed the problems in outdoor lighting. Exposing bright also helps, but don't clip the highlights.<br>

Hope that helps.<br>

-Jon</p>

<div></div>

<p>I guess the most accurate comparison would be images shot of still-life low-light subjects with the lighting the same for each, and I would shoot the digital shots in RAW.</p>

<p>Before acquiring a digital camera, I shot film for years and loved it. When the digital came along the colors weren't as smooth or something, it just didn't look right. After upgrading to a Fx from Nikon, the colors fixed themselves and all of a sudden the pictures looked normal again. I guess what I'm saying is I just don't see a huge difference from film to digital if the comparison is both in the same format (24x36 digital, 24x36 film). I do miss the grain of film sometimes, but for sharpness, contrast and color, those elements are all adjustable.(I use Adobe Camera Raw to process the .Nef files(which I convert to .dng) and I remove the default settings and turn down the contrast to where it looks almost terrible. Then in photoshop, I apply a setting that increases the contrast while retaining the dynamic range and sharpens the picture enough for printing and then depending on the shot, turns the saturation up or down.)</p>

<p>Believe it or not, I still keep a manual film body in my bag for backup with a roll of T-Max 400 and a roll of Fujichrome Velvia 100F! For some reason I have to keep buying film to replace my backup rolls!</p>

<p>Jon</p>

<p>Interesting! However, there's a problem. With the film shots it looks like they were shot using flash while the digital shot looks like it was natural lighting. From experience, flash shots look sharper than non-flash, because it stops all motion while the shutter speeds with natural light are usually slower and get more blur from a moving subject.</p>

<p>Personally I like the grain from the T-Max 400 more than the others. However, you just can't beat the smooth colors and grain/noise on the section of the guitar at 25% with the 5Dll.<br>

One thing to remember that I found out not too long ago, just because digital has a neutral setting doesn't mean that's what should be used to get the most natural looking shot. Remember film, if you wanted high contrast and high saturation you should choose velvia. If you want more dynamic range, try sensia or something similar. The same with the digital camera, neutral doesn't mean normal...by no means. In a situation like this with low light, I would turn down the contrast quite a bit but keep the sharpness high and the saturation medium-low.</p>

<p>I remember a while back I was shooting Fujichrome Velvia 100F and needed some high iso's for animals in the early morning. I cranked the iso dial up to 1600 and shot a whole roll in the early morning just when the sun was coming up. When I got it processed, the contrast was higher, grain was higher and the saturation was <em> way </em>higher! However, the sharpness kind of smoothed off and wasn't as sharp as normal Velvia.</p>

<p><br /> Great comparison and interesting to finally see film compared with digital under low light.<br>

-Jon</p>

<p>OK, so the DR is 12 stops on the d700 while the DR on the k10 is 11.6 stops. When I took a picture that included blue sky with white clouds, and shade as well as some areas in sun, the sky was clipped beyond repair and the shadows were a lot darker than what I got on the d700. All the settings were exactly the same on each camera. For the k20, with 11.1 stops DR, the sky was even worse and the shadows were a little darker than the k10d. I did over shoot on my estimates compared to DXO, but there was a huge difference between the cameras.</p>

<p>I'm really wondering how Pentax gets 14.1 stops DR out of the k5 where the pixel size is the smallest of any of the pentax cameras! Compared to the d700 again, the pixels are almost half the size of the full-frame.</p>

<p>-Jon</p>

<p>Hi Simon,<br>

If you are going to be shooting weddings sometime in the future, I would suggest sticking with Nikon. I have used Pentax cameras every since I started photography, but just found out what I was missing several weeks ago. A friend wanted me to help him shoot a weekend conference that was all indoors. I brought my Pentax k10d with 70-200mm 2.8 for close shots, and borrowed a Nikon d700 with a 28-70mm 2.8 for wide shots. As you can probably imagine, I only used the d700 throughout most of the conference. The differences that I found were that the meter was right on all the time while the pentax would have been underexposed. I had set the white balance on the d700 to auto, and never had to change it, and the max ISO I went to was 1600 which ended up looking like about iso 400 on the pentax. One major thing that I noticed was while on the Nikon I would shoot at f/4, 1/60, at ISO 800 for a correct exposure, the Pentax had to be at f/2.8, 1/45, and iso 800 for the same shot.</p>

<p>I know the d700 is a heavy camera as it equals the pentax k10d plus the 70-200mm 2.8 lens. However, I think you would be more happy with the color from the Nikon line. With Pentax it is really hard to get the color to be right on. I'm not sure if Pentax has fixed the color in its newer cameras, but the k20 seems to shift yellow towards the green hue and green towards the yellow.</p>

<p>As for dynamic range, I compared shots between the Pentax K10d, K20d, and Nikon D700. The K10d, has about 2 stops less than the d700 while the K20d has about 2.5 stops less due to the amount of megapixels and their size. I shot the test shots in RAW and converted the Nikon files to .dng and compared each image in adobe camera raw with the same settings for each shot.<br>

I've never tried a Nikon d300, but if it's anything like the d700, it will be hard to beat with anything other than another Nikon.</p>

<p>-Jon</p>

<p>Actually, I took that in the Everglades. There were so many of those vultures that it was hard to walk along the path. That one jumped up on the railing and I don't know if it was coensidence or the bird actually understood, but it turned its head when I told it to!<br>

R. T.'s right. Look back at some older film photography books and most the wildlife was shot on 200 speed film. I kind of wonder how they took all those pictures. Even with the sigma 70-200mm 2.8 and at 1600 iso, sometimes the shutter speeds are down around 1/30, or 1/60 later in the evening. Makes me wonder about the Nikon D700 and it's 25,600 ISO!<br>

Good luck<br>

-Jon</p>

<p>Dave, I've been working on birds too without much success. Although, the first thing I would do if you haven't already is to check the sharpness of the 2x converter, and then maybe the lens. Actually I would try to refrain from using a teleconverter because of the reduction of light. I read somewhere that a 1.4x TC takes off one stop, (ex. 2.8 becomes f/4) and a 2x TC takes off 2 stops (2.8 becomes f/5.6). If you're already starting out at f/4 or 5.6, that really takes away the light in a hurry! This could be the reason for the high ISO's.</p>

<p>So, the only solution then, is to get closer to the birds and/or to crop down like you are already doing. For getting close, you have to be in a place where the birds are. For example, woods, bushes, and small trees. Then start putting out bird seed, and set your blind up among the bushes about 15 feet away and wait for the birds to come. For blinds, look up hunting blinds on e bay or at some hunting store; they really have some interesting stuff for camouflage! IF you use the blind, a tripod would probably be the easiest way to stabilize the camera and lens.<br>

As for processing, if you are shooting in RAW, and have photoshop cs(#), in ACR, use the default settings and open the picture. Try an adjustment layer of curves and set the black point [input 30, output 15], and the white point [input 215, output 255]. Adjust the different points until you see something you like. Then on the background layer, sharpen a little with unsharp mask and it should look pretty good.<br>

For an example, here's a shot I took this past spring. It was early morning and the lighting was still soft but bright. The bird was looking at me until I told it to turn it's head to the right! Sadly the camera focused on the back of its head and made the beak go out of focus.<br>

Pentax K10d, Tamron 75-300mm @ 200mm, 1/250_s , f/5.6, ISO 200, hand-held.</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

<p>Hiking back, the sun came out as I crossed this creek that was frozen and covered with snow. The shadows back in the woods turned a deep blue, reflecting the pure blue sky.<br>

Pentax K10d, Tamron 28-70mm, f/8, ISO 200.</p>

<p>-Jon</p><div></div>

<p>With all the cold weather a few weeks ago, I decided to take a hike to Rainbow Falls in the Great Smoky Mountains National Park. As you can see, the falls was frozen from top to bottom. According to a hiker, this is about the second time it has frozen in 50 years.<br>

Pentax K10d, Tamron 28-70mm, f/11, ISO 100, HDR of 5 images to keep the white from blowing.</p><div></div>

<p>I hope it's not too late to post. After being away for a while, it's kind of hard to remember to drop by over here.</p>

<p>At the beginning of this year I was searching for the solution to making digital images look like Fujichrome Velvia 100F. After a few months of experimenting and spending much time in photoshop, I discovered the secrete. I recorded that secrete into an action to increase shooting time. Now, instead of spending several hours a day staring at a computer screen, I have a lot more time to just be out in nature and to wait for those things to come along that only patience can bring. After all, like Justin said, "...just roll out of bed and summit a mountain, and on the way down, this might be staring you in the face."</p>

<p>It's kind of hard to decide which image to select for Photo of the Year. After visiting many different national parks this year, it's kind of hard to decide. But here it is, my best of the year image.</p>

<div></div>

<p>On the 8.5x11 that I am using, I print borderless. The problem is, when I print on 8.5x11 or 8x10, I have to crop off at least 1.5 inches on the long side to fit the paper on the short side. For example, with a horizontal image, the wide side is 12.6" when the short side is 8.5." I really havn't had any problems, but if I sell the pictures I print, it would be hard for someone to matte and frame. I may try printing on a 11x14 and leave extra space for the matting and see how that works.<br>

Just a month ago, I would have never believed that I would be printing my own pictues. Now I don't want to take my images to anyone else because the paper I use (Ultra premium Glossy/Ultra Premium Luster) is way better than anything the local lab ever used, and I like the control over the prints. Although, if I ever need anything larger than 13" wide, I'll have to send it to the lab.<br>

Thanks for all the help.<br>

-Jon</p>

<p>Thanks for the help.<br>

It hasn't been 12 hours, but I checked on the print. I picked it up, blew on it, tapped it and no flakes came off. Before I printed on that one, I tapped it on its edge pretty good to break anything (dust...) away from the paper. So now I'm out to find a brush/cloth to wipe the paper before printing on it.<br>

Ray, Thanks for telling me about the other paper. It's about half the price I paid for the Epson paper.</p>

<p>Just curious, why can't I find 8x12 paper anywhere? It's either 8x10 or 8.5x11. I considered getting 13x19 and printing two 8x12 prints on it, then cut it in half, but I would have to get a large paper cutter for that.<br>

-Jon</p>

<p>I'm very new to printing, and have been looking for the right kind of paper. I got a box of Ultra Premium Luster paper to try it out, and I do like the finish. But, I printed a full page print and noticed that in the sky there was a very small place (about half the size of a pin head) that was pure white, like it hadn't been printed on. I blew some air on the paper and more flakes came off. I thought that it could be paper dust, and got a new sheet of paper. I tapped this sheet and blew on it to make sure any dust had left, and printed another picture on it. This time it was even worse! There was about 3 to 5 flakes per square inch in a certain place on the paper. The flakes don't come off until I move the paper, so I printed another picture and <em>carefully</em> moved the picture to a table, and like the instructions say, waited 15 min and placed a piece of plain paper over it. I'm going to let it sit for at least 12 hours or more before I even breath on it :-)<br>

So, any ideas why this is hapening?<br>

By the way, I have been using Ultra Premium Glossy photo paper with excelent results, and I am currently using a CIS with the Epson 1400. I really can't tell a difference between Epson and this other ink, except there is one picture of a waterfall that only prints well with Epson Ink. With the other, the greens turn brown, but yet I can print a picture of a mountain stream and come out with stunning greens.<br>

Thanks for the help.</p>

<p>-Jon</p>

<p>Bill, It looks like you've been reading my mind! The next time I upgrade (in 2 or 3 years) it probably won't be a Pentax. I like many many things about Pentax cameras, but they don't seem stable. For what I do currently, the k10d works great, and coming from film, I have no problem with the noise level at 1600, given that the right steps are used to reduce it.<br>

It seems that shooting with the digital cameras, I always have to adjust the exposure. When I shot slide film, I just relied on the meter in the camera and the pictures always came out good. Now, I have to always add +.5-+1 stop of exposure comp. to get a normal exposed picture. I shot a reception for a friend a while back, and the whole thing was underexposed even though I had the exposure comp. set to +2. A friend had a Canon 30d with him and all his were turning out with correct exposure, and he had no exposure comp. turned on. <br>

About the K20d, In my brief use of it, it was way slower than the k10d. The buffer on the k20 takes about 3 shots longer to fill up, and when full the k20 continues at about .75 fps while the k10 keeps going at about 1.5fps. So, the k10d shoots more pictures in a given amount of time compared to the k20d. The one I tried had the battery grip, and it still had lower fps than the k10d. For the complete speed test, <a href="http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/K20D/K20DA6.HTM">look here.</a><br>

So, unless Pentax really comes out with something better in the next 5 years, I'll be sinking about $3500 into a D700 with a 24-70mm 2.8 lens. At the rate that I'm making from the k10, it will be about 2 years. :-)</p>

<p>-Jon</p>

<p>Actually, it prints almost as good as Epson ink and the only difference I see is in the blues and greens. With this ink the blues look better, and the greens have more blue in them. But believe me, I'm not doing this large of printing on an ink jet printer again...lol.<br>

If I was printing photo quality I would rather use epson ink for the one reason of lasting almost 100 years without fading!<br>

I don't know the name of the system but the link is <a href="http://cgi.ebay.com/Compatible-CISS-CIS-Ink-for-epson-1400_W0QQitemZ350250909238QQcmdZViewItemQQptZBI_Toner?hash=item518c94be36&_trksid=p4634.c0.m14.l1262">here</a> . They say it is the highest quality ink available today, and that it is UV resistant. But according to my printing, there are a few lines that wasn't there with epson ink.<br>

-Jon</p>

<p>Thanks Peter, I just printed some more and the ink went very low and then it read full again.<br>

I don't know about the vacume though. Just a few minutes ago I was printing and when it loaded a page, all it would print was magenta. I ran a nozzel check and the only colors that were really printing were black and magenta. I opened the lids to the tanks and ran a clean cycle, and the other colors started printing again.<br>

Other than that it works ok considering that the ink is not Epson. It puts a few lines in the prints, but since I'm running a large printing, it doesn't really matter.<br>

Thanks for the help,<br>

-Jon</p>