vanessa_b2

<p>Hi Ann<br>

I will take a closer look at pictures in View NX2, thanks! I only started using it relatively recently.</p>

<p>Thanks for all the latest contributions to this thread.</p>

<p>Ann, my camera specs are the same as yours, except I have lossless compression of file (the other one is compression). When I took this picture months ago, I didn't have Nikon View Nx2, but since then, I've used it to upload my pictures. The thing that troubles me is that it only happens sometimes. This inconsistency makes the problem difficult to identify. By the way I didn't use any filters or special tricks when I took the picture.</p>

<p>Tom, thanks again for your determination to understand this problem! I'll try and attach the square. I saved it as optimal quality (12) in Photoshop and baseline optimised. The picture I attached originally was edited down so that Photonet editor would accept it.</p>

<p>I don't recall doing anything to the image whatsoever (and this has happened to other images) and am wondering if it was a clash in the different colour spaces.</p>

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

<p>I think it's going off at a tangent perhaps because I replied to points made by different people in the same posts.</p>

<p>I do understand what RAW is as oppose to jpeg. And I should probably always shoot in RAW (not just sometimes). When shooting in jpeg I've chosen quality over size so I'm not sure where that discussion point comes from. Maybe I haven't got a grip on the lexicom. If I always shot using RAW then I would decrease the chances of this banding (which I now will :-) ).</p>

<p>My point was I wanted to understand why this was happening at all, and why sometimes and sometimes not. I wanted to be able to understand why this happens when it doesn't necessarily have to, whether or not I then decide always to use RAW. In one of the articles Tom linked it states "working in colour spaces with broad gamuts can increase the likelihood of posterization because they require more bit depth to produce the same colour gradient" which was why I was wondering if there was any point working on large 16-bit TIFs if that happens. I am pretty sure my monitor/calibration is fine and has little to do with it (btw its default is sRGB).</p>

<p>I understand about 8-bit jpegs and RAW and working on best file possible before "downgrading" for its ultimate destination but if I am in a position where there isn't anything I can do because I can't upgrade all the other hardware/software, it would be a shame not to work with perfectly usable jpegs from which I've printed successfully before rather than do nothing at all because I'm not able to edit RAW files.</p>

<p>Having said that I will certainly look into Nikon Capture, otherwise I have to work with what I've got. You've all given me plenty to go with here, thanks guys.</p>

<p>My camera only has 12 or 14-bit . My version of Photoshop (please don't ask) won't allow too much editing in 16-bit. When I open a Tiff in photoshop, it automatically goes into 8-bit.</p>

<p>If I record the picture in Adobe RGB colourspace, and later edit in it in a program that will only let me work on it as 8-bit, does that mean I damage the picture because Adobe colourspace requires 16-bit?</p>

<p>I know RAW is best for archival reasons, but I'm not printing at enormous dimensions. We're looking at a massive difference in quality over a problem that doesn't need to happen. Then again if I record in a lower quality jpeg, I won't be able to print at a certain size. Sometimes it's difficult to know how deep to wade into all the technicalities without losing the ability to sort what's practicable and what isn't.</p>

<p>I've been reading through the articles and there's a lot to take in, although it makes sense.</p>

<p>Thank you Tom, will look at those links right away. Oh It's been driving me up the wall!<br>

Cheers to everybody here.<br>

Vanessa</p>

<p>Thanks for your responses so far. I've just tried attaching the link to my gallery again, because that image is higher res than the one I had to attach separately so you'd see it better. I'm following the instructions here on Photo Net but it's just not having it.</p>

<p>The original was the highest-res jpeg. I didn't change the jpeg from my camera other than reduce it for this forum - but the large original shows the same. I know RAW is better in most cases, but I'm not convinced this should happen normally with a highest-res jpeg. Will think hard about the points you've raised.</p>

<p><img src="../photodb/member-photos?user_id=5384673" alt="" /></p>

<p> </p>

<p>I hope I've posted this query in the right category as I'm not sure if it's a Nikon thing, a Nikon lens thing, a digital thing or something else - something I'm doing.<br>

I use a Nikon D7000 and the lens I used for the picture attached was the standard Nikkor 35mm lens 1:1.8G. I took this picture on the highest resolution possible as a jpeg.<br>

If you look at the sky, you can see a sort of banding of the different shades (you might need to tilt your screen). This often happens with pictures containing sky. I really do not like this at all and I'm wondering if this is the norm for this camera with a good lens like its standard lens. I had pictures printed onto postcards some time ago at high definition and this actually showed. It isn't obvious, but to me it just doesn't seem a high quality picture.<br>

Is this what I have to expect from this camera or lens? I can't afford a better camera/kit right now. Or maybe it's something I haven't got right? Please tell me what you think it could be. What's strange is the results are inconsistent - sometimes it happens, sometimes it doesn't and I can't figure out why. It's not because of the direction of the lens in relation to the light though I've noticed it can be worse when facing the light source. This picture wasn't.<img src="http://www.photo.net/photodb/member-photos?user_id=5384673%20" alt="" /><br>

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

<p>Goodness, I missed out the more recent responses. Thank each and every one of you very, very much for your time and advice. Greatly appreciated. You have given me a lot to think about. Yes, I am aware and happy to work on the digital files afterwards though my main concerns are the ones outlined in my first post. I have been using manual SLR for years and I AM a bit daunted by the digital age. There are some things I still find hard to understand - such as the focal lengths are now different and it just throws me. I know I have a long way to go with DSLRs. By the way what I meant about flatness has nothing to do with the depth of field - it is something in the quality I can't explain, but it is to do with how light is recorded.<br>

I still haven't made a decision and will need to make one soon...but I will be weighing up all you have said. By all means keep contributing if you wish to do so, I am very interested and will continue reading. Thanks again :)</p>

<p> </p>

<p>PS<br>

I must look into the possibility the 40D has an adapter for Olympus - they didn't know for sure in the shop. Thanks Luis!</p>

<p>Thanks ever so much for your replies. You have all given me excellent advice which helps a lot. In a way it's made my choice harder in the sense I could be using my old Olympus lenses. I had considered sticking to Olympus, but the cameras in the mid-range seem marketed at a consumer/lower-mid range level and then there's a sudden jump in price to the E-3 so I don't feel quite sold on it yet (oh yes - Jeffrey, I meant £1,200 oops! :-D) As for Bill's suggestion, the Panasonic G1 - this looks very interesting, though I'm wary of the sensor being exposed as the lenses are changed. Doesn't it have an optical viewfinder? I'll consider that model though I'd rather go for something that's been tried and tested for longer, if you know what I mean!</p>

<p>The other thing which perhaps I wasn't clear about was that although I use fixed focal lenses on my old Olympus, I think for the kind of work I'll be doing I will need a variable focus lens - not that I wouldn't want to use my fixed lenses ever.</p>

<p>Yesterday I went to a good camera shop I know but I haven't been there for a very long time and unfortunately they didn't have much from my list of options to look at. I looked at a Nikon D5000 only to get a feel of this kind of camera (in terms of size - OK) and I was surprised at how small the world looked through the viewfinder - so very different to what I'm used to on my Olympus. Are most DSLRs like this? Still undecided and thinking about your responses.</p>

<p>I'm looking to buy a DSLR and need your expert advice. I have a lot of concerns about the DSLR and this is a long post. Even after plenty of reading I still can't seem to find the answers to those concerns so please, please bear with me.</p>

<p>This will be my first DSLR. For years I have used a trusty film Olympus OM1n with its fixed focal lenses. I need a DSLR for the ease of sharing digital files, and I will be using it for film set stills (small productions) over the next year and portrait and landscape/street. The manual Olympus is great but I'd like to try a new system for the DSLR. I have these in mind:</p>

<p>Nikon D90<br>

Canon 40D<br>

Nikon D200 (yes I know it's been discontinued:^))</p>

<p>Constraints on budget put a limit on my choices - about £12,000 for 1 body and 1 very good lens to start with. D300 is out of the question and to be honest I'd rather wait until the storm calms. I don't want a lower mid-range camera; can't afford the higher range, but I need this camera to last a while.</p>

<p><strong>Preferences:</strong></p>

<p>I need to feel confident my camera will work well in sometimes low-light conditions and hand-held. I tend to work 50mm-100mm rather than wide lens. I should add that I do have small hands and weight may be an issue if I'm on my feet for hours with a hand-held camera.</p>

<p><strong>Lenses:</strong></p>

<p>Most of all, I am completely confused about the lenses available for these cameras. Please forgive my ignorance on this subject but I can't seem to find info which makes sense to a DSLR novice! Does AF lens mean you cannot control it manually? I want to be able to have full manual control of my camera and lens, or auto if I choose. Are these cameras going to take the picture if I have it on manual or will it "refuse" to take a picture? For hand-held work will I need VR? Is there a lens which gives me that plus manual control if I choose?<br>

I am more interested in investing more in the lenses than body; What I don't know is which system is good for what - or which camera system will best address my particular concerns.</p>

<p><strong>Image quality:</strong></p>

<p>I do have a concern about Canon and DSLRs in general, perhaps you can clarify this for me. I hear a lot of talk about pixelation and detail, but what bothers me more is the strange flatness I've seen in digital work (more obvious in prints than on screen). For example last year I went to a wedding and spoke to the photographer there, who had a flashy new Canon (I can't remember which). Weeks later when I saw a few shots I felt that, although every atom had been captured, the pictures were strangely soulless and lacking in tonal depth. I really DON'T want this from my camera/lens. I want a camera which is closer to the analog film in terms of depth of tone, true colour and contrast...It's a kind of clarity of subject rather than the fact that each atom has been described, if that makes any sense... Kind of like the way we REALLY see things.</p>

<p>I also dislike the idea that cameras now are marketed like elaborate toys/computers and this prevents me from getting the answers I need... in the sense that I believe creativity is in the photographer, not the camera as advertising would have us believe.</p>

<p>Another thing, what kind of thing should I be looking for in terms of battery strength and memory cards and if I should find a camera which plugs straight into the computer? I really don't know.</p>

<p>No camera is perfect, I mean it bothers me a lot that the D90 has a plastic body (why oh WHY?!) but I'd like to hear your advice and thoughts. I'm going to try to see some cameras in the shop soon. Thank you!</p>

<p> </p>