14nx returns

[Flick]

Hi All,

My 14n came back today from having the imager upgrade done. I'm extremely glad i had it done now. I can't see a huge difference in the colour, but the useable ISO range is drastically extended. I did some test shots at 800 and the noise was perfectly acceptable, a little noticeable in dark areas on a well exposed picture, but I bet it wouldn't print. The metering is better now as well: I can meter for the midtones and then pull the image a little under, whereas before I had to meter from the highlights or else the image would be way over exposed.

All in all i'm extremely happy.

Flick.

 

[bartP]

Can you show or email ([email protected]) a well exposed iso 800 image of an average scene: shot with flash inside, or just outdoors in cloudy weather (perfect today!)? Personally I find my iso 400 Virgin14n 1 stop underexposed acceptable as an iso 800 shot. It's about as good as my D100 at iso800 but larger. (Obviously I prefer RAW, but a jpeg from ACR with shadows 0, Brightness 50, contrast 50 will be accepted too ha ha ha )

Kind regards, and congratulations with your upgrade. Here in Amsterdam, we have to send a 14n to Stuttgart Germany and that will take at least 14 days if you are lucky. The UK Fixation as so radical. Like Jono Slack's upgrade, sort of upgrade while you shop. The UK is sooo ahead with that.

Kind regards,
Bart

Hi All,

My 14n came back today from having the imager upgrade done. I'm
extremely glad i had it done now. I can't see a huge difference in
the colour, but the useable ISO range is drastically extended. I
did some test shots at 800 and the noise was perfectly acceptable,
a little noticeable in dark areas on a well exposed picture, but I
bet it wouldn't print. The metering is better now as well: I can
meter for the midtones and then pull the image a little under,
whereas before I had to meter from the highlights or else the image
would be way over exposed.

All in all i'm extremely happy.

Flick.

 

[Flick]

Hi Bart,

i haven't got around to trying flash yet. i don't even know if my old SB24 is compatible. However, shots using natural light are fine. Here's one of the ones i did today at ISO 800. I always shoot RAW. I've used the ACR settings you specified and also turned off noise reduction in ACR. The image is not post processed or sharpened, except to reduce in size to 800 pixels on the long side and convert for web, reducing to about 160k, so hopefully you can open it in PS and have a look (or just zoom in on this page). The profile is Adobe RGB. I can't post the full size image to you as my ISP now limits upload size.

How can you process with contrast set at 50? Ugh. It's much more natural at 25, then a slight curve in PS...but maybe you shoot differently to me

Hope this helps a bit.

Flick.

Kind regards,
Bart

Hi All,

My 14n came back today from having the imager upgrade done. I'm
extremely glad i had it done now. I can't see a huge difference in
the colour, but the useable ISO range is drastically extended. I
did some test shots at 800 and the noise was perfectly acceptable,
a little noticeable in dark areas on a well exposed picture, but I
bet it wouldn't print. The metering is better now as well: I can
meter for the midtones and then pull the image a little under,
whereas before I had to meter from the highlights or else the image
would be way over exposed.

All in all i'm extremely happy.

Flick.

 

[Flick]

converted to jpeg, but it hasn't mad a lot of difference.

i haven't got around to trying flash yet. i don't even know if my
old SB24 is compatible. However, shots using natural light are
fine. Here's one of the ones i did today at ISO 800. I always shoot
RAW. I've used the ACR settings you specified and also turned off
noise reduction in ACR. The image is not post processed or
sharpened, except to reduce in size to 800 pixels on the long side
and convert for web, reducing to about 160k, so hopefully you can
open it in PS and have a look (or just zoom in on this page). The
profile is Adobe RGB. I can't post the full size image to you as my
ISP now limits upload size.

How can you process with contrast set at 50? Ugh. It's much more
natural at 25, then a slight curve in PS...but maybe you shoot
differently to me

Hope this helps a bit.

Flick.

Can you show or email ([email protected]) a well exposed
iso 800 image of an average scene: shot with flash inside, or just
outdoors in cloudy weather (perfect today!)? Personally I find my
iso 400 Virgin14n 1 stop underexposed acceptable as an iso 800
shot. It's about as good as my D100 at iso800 but larger.
(Obviously I prefer RAW, but a jpeg from ACR with shadows 0,
Brightness 50, contrast 50 will be accepted too ha ha ha )
Kind regards, and congratulations with your upgrade. Here in
Amsterdam, we have to send a 14n to Stuttgart Germany and that will
take at least 14 days if you are lucky. The UK Fixation as so
radical. Like Jono Slack's upgrade, sort of upgrade while you shop.
The UK is sooo ahead with that.

Kind regards,
Bart

der,

whereas before I had to meter from the highlights or else the image
would be way over exposed.

All in all i'm extremely happy.

Flick.

 

[Jono Slack]

converted to jpeg, but it hasn't mad a lot of difference.

made a lot of difference?



kind regards
jono

p.s. that shot looks really good and clean - glad you're pleased.

i haven't got around to trying flash yet. i don't even know if my
old SB24 is compatible. However, shots using natural light are
fine. Here's one of the ones i did today at ISO 800. I always shoot
RAW. I've used the ACR settings you specified and also turned off
noise reduction in ACR. The image is not post processed or
sharpened, except to reduce in size to 800 pixels on the long side
and convert for web, reducing to about 160k, so hopefully you can
open it in PS and have a look (or just zoom in on this page). The
profile is Adobe RGB. I can't post the full size image to you as my
ISP now limits upload size.

How can you process with contrast set at 50? Ugh. It's much more
natural at 25, then a slight curve in PS...but maybe you shoot
differently to me

Hope this helps a bit.

Flick.

Can you show or email ([email protected]) a well exposed
iso 800 image of an average scene: shot with flash inside, or just
outdoors in cloudy weather (perfect today!)? Personally I find my
iso 400 Virgin14n 1 stop underexposed acceptable as an iso 800
shot. It's about as good as my D100 at iso800 but larger.
(Obviously I prefer RAW, but a jpeg from ACR with shadows 0,
Brightness 50, contrast 50 will be accepted too ha ha ha )
Kind regards, and congratulations with your upgrade. Here in
Amsterdam, we have to send a 14n to Stuttgart Germany and that will
take at least 14 days if you are lucky. The UK Fixation as so
radical. Like Jono Slack's upgrade, sort of upgrade while you shop.
The UK is sooo ahead with that.

Kind regards,
Bart

der,

whereas before I had to meter from the highlights or else the image
would be way over exposed.

All in all i'm extremely happy.

Flick.

--
Jono Slack
http://www.slack.co.uk

 

[JannaB]

Looks pretty good to me (NT)

 

[Flick]

converted to jpeg, but it hasn't mad a lot of difference.

made a lot of difference?

ROFL! knowing me, mad is the right word ;-)

p.s. that shot looks really good and clean - glad you're pleased.

I really am pleased. i couldn't get a shot that clean at 200 before i had the conversion done. I can't wait to put the camera on the tripod. All the test shots were hand held, and i haven't been out of the garden yet.

 

[Flick]

Looks pretty good to me (NT)

 

[Jono Slack]

converted to jpeg, but it hasn't mad a lot of difference.

made a lot of difference?

ROFL! knowing me, mad is the right word ;-)

Mad? surely not . . . . I'm still digesting those websites!

p.s. that shot looks really good and clean - glad you're pleased.

I really am pleased. i couldn't get a shot that clean at 200 before
i had the conversion done. I can't wait to put the camera on the
tripod. All the test shots were hand held, and i haven't been out
of the garden yet.

I'm really glad you're really pleased - I've been a little equivocal with those planning the upgrade; not because i don't think it's a good idea, but in an attempt to keep a little reality, I know I was expecting miracles, and when I only got good clean improvements, I was slightly disappointed.

kind regards
jono slack

. . . . . . . are they good, those books?

--
Jono Slack
http://www.slack.co.uk

 

[Flick]

Mad? surely not . . . . I'm still digesting those websites!

I thought you'd gone quiet. Bowled you a googly did i?

I'm really glad you're really pleased - I've been a little
equivocal with those planning the upgrade; not because i don't
think it's a good idea, but in an attempt to keep a little reality,
I know I was expecting miracles, and when I only got good clean
improvements, I was slightly disappointed.

To me it IS a miracle. suddenly i've extended the range of my camera. If I wanted it only for studio work, I'd have thought twice, but I'm very much an available light photographer when conditions allow. I think you're right to be cautious with people who haven't taken the plunge yet. the reason i'm so pleased is that i agonised over the decision to upgrade, and now i see i needn't have worried. A fair weather camera is no good to me. i stick to 100 ISO (well, with the Kodak it will be 160) whenever i can, have done for years, unless i've wanted something like a tri-ex effect, but sometimes you need that extra leeway.

. . . . . . . are they good, those books?

Go into Borders or Waterstones or whatever and have a look for yourself. I write lyrically with a great sense of place. Have a look at the UK Amazon reviews for them. As i said, i've moved on. I have a sense of connection to nature and the land, but I can't abide the fluff and rubbish that crept in to the subject now.

--
Jono Slack
http://www.slack.co.uk

 

[Jono Slack]

Mad? surely not . . . . I'm still digesting those websites!

I thought you'd gone quiet. Bowled you a googly did i?

Ahh - you like cricket too? LOL - as for going quiet, no, I just really did need to do some work (answering emails properly takes longer than posting here).

Actually I'm intrigued, but I'm trying to think of an approach to the subject which isn't either:
a) sarcastic
b) salacious
c) stupid
d) sententious

When I get there I'll send you one!

I'm really glad you're really pleased - I've been a little
equivocal with those planning the upgrade; not because i don't
think it's a good idea, but in an attempt to keep a little reality,
I know I was expecting miracles, and when I only got good clean
improvements, I was slightly disappointed.

To me it IS a miracle. suddenly i've extended the range of my
camera. If I wanted it only for studio work, I'd have thought
twice, but I'm very much an available light photographer when
conditions allow. I think you're right to be cautious with people
who haven't taken the plunge yet. the reason i'm so pleased is that
i agonised over the decision to upgrade, and now i see i needn't
have worried. A fair weather camera is no good to me. i stick to
100 ISO (well, with the Kodak it will be 160) whenever i can, have
done for years, unless i've wanted something like a tri-ex effect,
but sometimes you need that extra leeway.

Well, I agree - I rather wish I'd taken it to the concert last night, and I'll certainly try if they can fix the VR issue.

. . . . . . . are they good, those books?

Go into Borders or Waterstones or whatever and have a look for
yourself.

I will, I will . . . Oh YES I will!

I write lyrically with a great sense of place. Have a
look at the UK Amazon reviews for them.

I loved Clare from Rochester on In the Circle:

So beautifully written everything explained so lovely & easily to understand

almost poetic.

As i said, i've moved on. I
have a sense of connection to nature and the land, but I can't
abide the fluff and rubbish that crept in to the subject now.

Looks like there is another book yet to be published?

I hope they sell by the truckload!

No Kids - off for Dab's, new potatoes sauvignon blanc, and, I think, the DVD of Girl with a Pearl Earing - Flowstar's backlog suitably sorted!

have a good evening
kind regards
jono slack

--
Jono Slack
http://www.slack.co.uk

--
Jono Slack
http://www.slack.co.uk

 

[Flick]

Ahh - you like cricket too?

No, ,but my husband used to play.

LOL - as for going quiet, no, I just

really did need to do some work (answering emails properly takes
longer than posting here).

i was teasing.

Actually I'm intrigued, but I'm trying to think of an approach to
the subject which isn't either:
a) sarcastic
b) salacious
c) stupid
d) sententious

Best to be informed first then???

Well, I agree - I rather wish I'd taken it to the concert last
night, and I'll certainly try if they can fix the VR issue.

Actually, with spot metering, it's surprising how much light you can get to meter from.>

I will, I will . . . Oh YES I will!

I write lyrically with a great sense of place. Have a
look at the UK Amazon reviews for them.

I loved Clare from Rochester on In the Circle:

So beautifully written everything explained so lovely & easily to understand

Looks like there is another book yet to be published?

I hope they sell by the truckload!

They sell all over the world, but i seem to have more luck now with translations into Russian and Portuguese.

No Kids - off for Dab's, new potatoes sauvignon blanc, and, I
think, the DVD of Girl with a Pearl Earing - Flowstar's backlog
suitably sorted!

what the hell is Flowstar?

have a good evening

thanks, and you.

 

[bartP]

Thanks Flick,

Looks very clean and crisp, although hard to judge the noise since you resized the pic. Could you post a 100 percent crop please?

By the way, contrast at 50 is my moderate setting. My default is 100, since I like the higher contrast that resambles film some more (In PS I tweak the contrast even more with curves) Personally I find it fair to use ACR's default noise reduction 25 for Kodak files.
Kind regards,
Bart

i haven't got around to trying flash yet. i don't even know if my
old SB24 is compatible. However, shots using natural light are
fine. Here's one of the ones i did today at ISO 800. I always shoot
RAW. I've used the ACR settings you specified and also turned off
noise reduction in ACR. The image is not post processed or
sharpened, except to reduce in size to 800 pixels on the long side
and convert for web, reducing to about 160k, so hopefully you can
open it in PS and have a look (or just zoom in on this page). The
profile is Adobe RGB. I can't post the full size image to you as my
ISP now limits upload size.

How can you process with contrast set at 50? Ugh. It's much more
natural at 25, then a slight curve in PS...but maybe you shoot
differently to me

Hope this helps a bit.

Flick.

Kind regards,
Bart

Hi All,

My 14n came back today from having the imager upgrade done. I'm
extremely glad i had it done now. I can't see a huge difference in
the colour, but the useable ISO range is drastically extended. I
did some test shots at 800 and the noise was perfectly acceptable,
a little noticeable in dark areas on a well exposed picture, but I
bet it wouldn't print. The metering is better now as well: I can
meter for the midtones and then pull the image a little under,
whereas before I had to meter from the highlights or else the image
would be way over exposed.

All in all i'm extremely happy.

Flick.

 

[Warren Sarle]

...
How can you process with contrast set at 50? Ugh. It's much more
natural at 25, then a slight curve in PS...but maybe you shoot
differently to me

It seems to be the cameras that are different. I have to use downright bizarre settings to match Kodak's product look. Other people use very different settings. Like your blown-highlight problem, it's another symptom of Kodak's lack of quality control.

 

[Flick]

Thanks for pointing that out Warren. I'm amazed that such an expensive product has quality issues - yep, i know, I'm naive. I should have expected it as Fuji is the same. i wondered why he needed such a high contrast. if i did that, the resulst would be very odd to say the least

...
How can you process with contrast set at 50? Ugh. It's much more
natural at 25, then a slight curve in PS...but maybe you shoot
differently to me

It seems to be the cameras that are different. I have to use
downright bizarre settings to match Kodak's product look. Other
people use very different settings. Like your blown-highlight
problem, it's another symptom of Kodak's lack of quality control.

 

[Flick]

Here's a 100% crop from a different image (I've binned the other one). It isn't from the sharpest part of the picture, but it does show the noise in the darker area. The pale lines are spiders' webs. I find the noise quite pleasant, more like film grain and without the track lines my camera had before the upgrade.

 

[bartP]

This looks a bit better than my own iso 400 1 stop underexposure shot noisewise. Colorwise it looks a lot better. Now, I'm convinced the upgrade does improve things. But for me, shooting not above iso 200 for serious work, it's not enough, simply because I would never use it (iso 800), but I can see a reason for others.
Kind regards,
Bart

Here's a 100% crop from a different image (I've binned the other
one). It isn't from the sharpest part of the picture, but it does
show the noise in the darker area. The pale lines are spiders'
webs. I find the noise quite pleasant, more like film grain and
without the track lines my camera had before the upgrade.

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/f.merauld/Crop.jpg

 

[Flick]

Hi Bart,

You're welcome. Things are cleaner at lower ISO as well, so if you do mess up the exposure, you don't have to cope with a lot of noise. However, if i didn't shoot so much in available light, i wouldn't have bothered with the upgrade. The 14n produces wonderful images at ISO 80, and you would save a lot of money that could be used elsewhere.

Flick.

Here's a 100% crop from a different image (I've binned the other
one). It isn't from the sharpest part of the picture, but it does
show the noise in the darker area. The pale lines are spiders'
webs. I find the noise quite pleasant, more like film grain and
without the track lines my camera had before the upgrade.

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/f.merauld/Crop.jpg

 

[NikonJeff]

Not to start a war here, but c'mon - $5000 is an expensive camera??? Just 2 years ago the 6mp version of this camera was $15k and the year before that is was $24k...

Every new product has it's growing issues - even film had issues, but the progress was slow to correct where the digital arena offers instant feedback and instant critcism.

Very few things are perfect - I mean really??? Is it just the fact that I'm a photographer and a computer repair technician that I have such a skewed point of view not to expect absolute perfection out of the gate???

Jeff Guntert
Schenectady, NY
Nikon D1x shooter - seriously contemplating a 14nx or SLR/n

...
How can you process with contrast set at 50? Ugh. It's much more
natural at 25, then a slight curve in PS...but maybe you shoot
differently to me

It seems to be the cameras that are different. I have to use
downright bizarre settings to match Kodak's product look. Other
people use very different settings. Like your blown-highlight
problem, it's another symptom of Kodak's lack of quality control.

 

[DavidMillier]

Don't want to point out the obvious but yes it is an extermely expensive camera. Centon make a nice little manual film SLR for about £80 so we are talking about a couple of orders of magnitude difference here....

Every new product has it's growing issues - even film had issues,
but the progress was slow to correct where the digital arena offers
instant feedback and instant critcism.

Very few things are perfect - I mean really??? Is it just the fact
that I'm a photographer and a computer repair technician that I
have such a skewed point of view not to expect absolute perfection
out of the gate???

Jeff Guntert
Schenectady, NY
Nikon D1x shooter - seriously contemplating a 14nx or SLR/n

...
How can you process with contrast set at 50? Ugh. It's much more
natural at 25, then a slight curve in PS...but maybe you shoot
differently to me

It seems to be the cameras that are different. I have to use
downright bizarre settings to match Kodak's product look. Other
people use very different settings. Like your blown-highlight
problem, it's another symptom of Kodak's lack of quality control.