Serious doubts on the D7100 at high ISO

Started Mar 25, 2013 | Discussions thread
Contributing MemberPosts: 875Gear list
Re: Serious doubts on the D7100 at high ISO
In reply to edo21, Mar 25, 2013

edo21 wrote:

Thank you for your replies.
There is no trolling here cause after spending 1.300 euros, in this moment in italy, i just expected something more from the nikon d7100.

I don't hate post processing, simply i don't like it, but i'm very able to manage files if needed.

My choice not to modify the pictures helped me to learn a lot about how to use a camera.

After hundreds thousands of shots with the D90 I can get what I expect, knowing that the usage limit for the D90 is ISO 400. I rent when i need D700 or D3s for works at 800 iso and more.

I shoot in NEF and all settings (all) are manual. I have thousands of stunning images taken with the D90 also in critical condition.
In some photos I posted here after trying the manual settings i tried the aperture priority. Up to now all the images that I use for my works are jpgs, converted and not modified NEF files with View NX
Again, this forum now iis full of D7100 pictures at 3200 ISO that appear perfect.
Unfortunately, these are not the results that I got.
What I would like to share with you is to know if after 5 years from the release of the D90 from a new camera concepts like the D7100 might be expected to arrive in 1600 with good iso files.

Photography is a process from capture to print. It uses a complete system of tools and doesn't stop at the camera. Not post processing is limiting your abilities as a photographer to produce good work. A good way of thinking about it is comparing to film.

With film, you could shoot it, take it to your lab and have minilab machine prints made. These prints were always average and considered a proof. Good work was always made with a real darkroom print which has better control over color balance, contrast, density, and is dodged and burned with multiple exposures to the paper. The difference in quality vs. a single exposure machine print with a rougher set of controls for color and density is substantial. Part of what made Ansel Adam's work as good as it was, was simply his ability to use the darkroom and his printing techniques. He used a method to produce a negative that was exposed in a way that gave him the most flexibility in the darkroom to achieve his previsualized and wanted outcome at print time.

These days post processing is the equivalent of the film darkroom, hence why it's called the digital darkroom. The difference now is that you make all of your finite adjustments to the image on the computer, then output it to a digital printer like a modern minilab, inkjet, lightjet etc...

If you accept that your camera is just one piece of the photographic process, expose in a way to get a flatter raw file that has maximum flexibility, and use the darkroom to it's potential.. The final photographic result will be superior. Simply put, you can try as you might to get a perfect in camera shot but it will never have the quality of an image that was made using the complete photographic process and tools available.

As far as noise is concerned, different raw processors produce different noise structures. Try a different one like ACR/Lightroom. With less than 2 min of work on the jpeg of that first shot it would look a ton better. With the current file, little to no noise would even show in a 12x18" print at 300dpi. With some slight basic work, none would show and it could have a ton more pop.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow