John Di Leo

Yes, you start looking to upgrade. That will get your current camera to fail shortly.

Cathedral Grove, Vancouver Island

Revelstoke, BC

Nakusp, BC

continuing a graduation theme...all d810 24-70...all grand-daughters and daughters( and one grandson )...all at the Academy of the Sacred Heart here in New Orleans; 8th grade graduation

I thought I could see a small bit of difference looking at shadow detail grossly, insignificant to be sure and only when the two are side by side. And if I cared, I could up the shadows in post without a second thought. It could be a passing cloud as my tests were indoors with natural lighting. "Lossless" in English may mean without loss, but in a Nikon lab setting there may be a factor of loss that is considered "lossless," even though there is, in a lab setting, some amount of loss, however small. Maybe Shun knows? It would beg the question: Why have both lossless and uncompressed if they are identical? I'd bet that number would be guarded and inside info. Nikon would not want Canon or Sony to know what is considered "lossless" in NikonWorld. @RodeoJoe It's not the size of individual files that concerns (way too strong a word), but the amount of time it takes to transfer from card to hard drive to Lightroom and back---significantly longer, like go watch a TV show longer while you wait. Storage is cheap but not infinite. Although what I noticed first was the size difference, the thing that I really noticed was the time it took to transfer and then transfer the correspondingly larger jpgs to smugmug and google. Looking at the big picture for me though, I think the most telling thing, again for me, is that I loved the IQ of what I was using before---14 bit lossless compressed---and the question arose when I saw the file size of the changed setting to 14 bit uncompressed. Though I know more about it all now, and it is interesting to know what others shoot, turns out, for me, "ignorance was bliss.":)

I shot some test shots, snd as many have noted, the sweet spot for me is 14 bit lossless compression. 14 bit uncompressed was better, but only when comparing, and the difference was subtle. 3rd place was 14 bit compressed. I guess this is how one would expect it to be. Looking at file size, I think I must've been shooting in 14 bit lossless all along, except for yesterday's shots. FWIW, yesterday I did not notice any slowing down of the d810 using 14 bit uncompressed using a Lexar 1066 CF card. Thanks all

right, that could be a difference. Mine are close to 80 mb per image, even the post jpgs are mid 20s.

Shooting my son's graduation today, I tried 14 bit uncompressed for the first time on my d810. Wow! Not for any improvement in IQ, but for file size. Normally I was getting a file size (RAW) in the low 40s mb, but with 14 bit uncompressed files are now pushing 80 mb. To be clear, I always shoot RAW and post in Lightroom I'm embarrassed to say I don't recall what I was shooting before switching to 14 bit uncompressed, but it was fine for me and I will shoot some test images to look at file size and figure out where I used to be. Working the images in LR this evening, I was not impressed by whatever advantage 14 bit uncompressed gives. Google tells me that there's improved shadow detail, well, maybe, but I thought the images looked far more contrasty and even noisey on the indoor shots at 3200---an iso that should be fine for the d810. The 14bit setting also allows 16k shades of color vs 12 bit's "measly" 4096 shades of red, blue and green. My eyes saw the contrasty look, but could not appreciate 12k more shades of blue. I will switch back, but to what? My test images will tell. However, I am curious...what bit depth do you shoot and compressed? uncompressed? lossless compressed? and why? I look forward to your responses and thanks

@chulster DUDE! Thank you. Got it!!! Nah you did not insult my intelligence at all--it is hard to insult. You suggested a basic question that needs to be ruled in or out to proceed, analogous to 'is it plugged in?" I had tried opening. both by clicking the dmg and with the disc mounting app--to no avail. And yes, I have seen installs that "open a virtual drive." They, in my experience, show up in the dock, they are very obvious; and this one did not show up in the dock and I did not notice it if it opened on the desktop. It did, show up (again, thanks for the tip) way down at the bottom of the sidebar so that the finder window did not show it unless I scrolled down--and I had not. My finder windows are smallish. Even when I did a finder search for it, it did not show up. But, sure enough it is there! Yes, your suggestion pointed out arguably the obvious, but I had missed the obvious...thanks again. It would be misplaced pride to be insulted.

Thanks @bgelfand I'm not getting that on my Mojave mac. I get a very brief animated icon that seems to expand, then nothing. There is no Adobe Lens Profile Creator to be found, no sample images. Maybe it does not work with OS X Mojave? I guess I'll write them to see what they say. Thanks again

I DL'd it and opened it, It "looks" like it's opening, but I see nothing like an app download or unzipped file. I have no indication that opening the dmg did anything. I went to LR and saw, I think, some correction settings, like the 20mm 3.5. I don't think it was there before...I didn't see it, but my Classic CC is only a couple of days old so I may have missed it. Does the dmg load seamlessly into LR and PS without any further intervention? Thanks

I have a few older Nikon lenses that I still use. I recently upgraded to Lightroom Classic CC from 6.14. In the lens correction module there is a setting for my 50 year old 50/2 H, but not for my 20/2.8 AiS nor my 55/3.5 Ai. I have played around with different lens settings going for macro for the macro, even though it's the 105, I've tried the 58mm for the 55, and something, can't remember for the 20. Admittedly, these were WAGs. What is the thinking here on which lens correction algorithm would be best to use, or is there a third party site that has the proper settings for older lenses? Tia

Thanks for all the thought from everyone who has contributed to this. Lots of thought provoking ideas Just want to add some more info, or reiterate... I am using a tripod, and long exposures, ie 1/4 sec and above. I am shooting at 400 ISO (d810) on a tripod. Nothing is handheld. To the right of the piece is both the french doors and a wall sconce, sometimes used and sometimes not. The french doors have sheer curtains over them that I generally kept closed. The shutters outside the french doors were tried in various positions, including fully closed. On the "left wall" is another wall sconce that I generally left on as well as a reading light across a queen sized bed to my left---the warm colors come from those--all incandescent. These are 15+ feet away from the armoire. I think the idea of putting something to hang over the french doors outside, might have some merit, though, although access is available in this case, it may not be in upcoming shoots...I don't know what the houses are like. Are sheer curtains a "poor man's diffuser?" The pictures have gone to the book editor who will likely have input and, like many of you, may not have a problem with the glare. Again, thanks for the thoughtful advice from all. The 20mm Nikkor is more than wide enough, but keeping it straight requires some attention. Minimal elevation is something to be tried. But again, each home will be different, but hoping not to re-invent the wheel each time. Bouncing a flash with the diffuser is a good, though untried at this point, suggestion. Of course that means I have to buy a flash. Thus far I've only used the built-in flash as a filler for people shots, but I have had my eye on a speedlight 300 for a while. Should that be an effective choice to this type of work? I have always tried to avoid flashes, because of perceived increases in complexity. Throw something else out, now that I am thinking about it. Would you tether the camera to a laptop to see taken images real time, or simply examine the LCD display, zooming in as necessary? I used LV for critical focusing. Two obs...when shooting in low light there's a LOT of noise in LV when zoomed in, and, LV eats a battery. I had an extra with me but may consider bringing the ac adapter in the future.

right, but I was using a 20mm lens and it was very critical to have it positioned "just so" to keep lines straight. interesting...how is that different from a bedsheet? And what would I look for at a fabric store (though the B&H option sounds best)