4000 shots in 1 month... hm... where can i see your work? I expect at least 10% of that 4000 shots to be considered "good".
--
David Z
http://www.pbase.com/aznndave
--
David Z
http://www.pbase.com/aznndave
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
"Fix" for banding
- Thread starter jdoost
- Start date
fuzzytalz
Senior Member
However, I've long since learned the pointlessness of engaging raging Kerry in a bout of anything resembling resonable discourse.
He does, however, seem to take a shine to denigration, as you so aptly put it, so I'm happy to oblige.
Still, perhaps you can help me see the valid points that were made, and hold my hand to the two questions he posed that beg my response?
--
Garland Cary
Kerry Pierce
Forum Pro
Why should I bother? You didn't get the contradictions that were plain to see. I responded to the first page of your book, but you didn't respond, so what's the point?
--
my gallery of so-so photos
http://www.pbase.com/kerrypierce/root
Kerry Pierce
Forum Pro
Questions have question marks at the end of the sentence, fanboy. Just like yours.
Are you really that simple minded that you must play this stupid game to evade answering the questions?
It's the same old story, fanboy, just like the first bashing thread you had, where you where again bashing the d200, only a few days after posting your excuse laden missive for your canon's faults. Would you like to replay that one?
--
my gallery of so-so photos
http://www.pbase.com/kerrypierce/root
THomasAdams
Senior Member
You do not have to bother, I had no contradictions as you propose. If you would read what was written, without injecting your personal feelings you will see many of your points were unfounded as well as some of your statements. My point is you have double standards, and you do not use any facts, you are being emotional about a camera.
Best regards,
Thomas
--
http://www.photosbytom.com/gallery/
Removed D200 from my wish list. Until Nikon fixes it correctly.
Kerry Pierce
Forum Pro
I won't. I showed you the contradictions, twice. You continue to deny that they exist.
--
my gallery of so-so photos
http://www.pbase.com/kerrypierce/root
Adam Kmiec
Senior Member
you should see my smile right now. it goes from ear to ear. kerry is a passionate guy that is a true nikon believer. there isn't anything wrong with that. just like there isn't anything wrong with me or you having a more neutral stance. where I, and it looks like you, have had problems with Kerry is that the conversations, always seem to go around in circles. kerry defends nikon, I defend my point, he defends nikon, i defend my point. at the end of the conversation neither he nor I is anywhere further along than we were at the beginning. i always leave those discussions feeling like i just ran a marathon: winded, tired, and ready to nap.
--
Patiently awaiting the first Nikon FF DSLR, while enjoying my current gear.
http://www.kmiecphotography.com
http://kmiecmonster.blogspot.com
--
Patiently awaiting the first Nikon FF DSLR, while enjoying my current gear.
http://www.kmiecphotography.com
http://kmiecmonster.blogspot.com
Adam Kmiec
Senior Member
take the advice you freely give me. just back out and move along...
--
Patiently awaiting the first Nikon FF DSLR, while enjoying my current gear.
http://www.kmiecphotography.com
http://kmiecmonster.blogspot.com
--
Patiently awaiting the first Nikon FF DSLR, while enjoying my current gear.
http://www.kmiecphotography.com
http://kmiecmonster.blogspot.com
Skidpan
Senior Member
I'm the guy who first accussed Kerry of being a fanboy, and gave him a definition thereof, which fits him like a glove.
Now he's using it out of context to accuse others of what he is himself.
What can I say ?
Now he's using it out of context to accuse others of what he is himself.
What can I say ?
Kerry Pierce
Forum Pro
You're way off base, dude. I've done my fair share of complaining about nikon and certainly don't believe that they're above reproach. I also believe that canon's are excellent cameras, equal to nikon's.
How silly. The canon fanboy makes asinine statements about a camera he doesn't own, after defending his own camera in the canon forum, for that camera's "limitations". Unlike him, you'll not find any posts of mine on any other forum, bashing that forum's brand. In fact, you'd have to go back quite some time, to find any posts of mine, in another forum.
Saying nothing at all would have been much better than the silly stuff you did say.
--
my gallery of so-so photos
http://www.pbase.com/kerrypierce/root
Skidpan
Senior Member
Not necessary.
fuzzytalz
Senior Member
The difference being, I don't ask a question and then answer it for myself, thereby, effectively, asking no question at all. Again, simply ask a question, particularly one to which you are actually open to having answered - even if not in the manner you desire - and I'm happy to do so.
Nah, it's just a great way to deal with hysterical hotheads! As you've proven time and time again to be incapable of an intelligent discussion, this approach is at least entertaining for me. Much less typing as well.
Sure, replay away! It'll only serve to bolster the impression that you're not only one of the most vocal corporate whores on these forums, but also among the very least lucid.
--
Garland Cary
fuzzytalz
Senior Member
A familiar, yet enduringly vacant refrain. Sort of like white noise.
...said the pot to the kettle.Saying nothing at all would have been much better than the silly
stuff you did say.
--
Garland Cary
fuzzytalz
Senior Member
he's got high entertainment value, though. I can just picture him there, huddled at his keyboard, seething; clumsy fingers hunting and pecking out his paean to illogic!
--
Garland Cary
--
Garland Cary
Kerry Pierce
Forum Pro
Here are the 2 questions that were in my original post to you.
Who says that you can't print large?
Who says that all of the d200 images are marred with banding?
Have at it, fanboy. Evade them again with more of your nonsense.
Here's the link to your apologist missive about the "issues" with the 5d. It'll serve to bolster the impression that you speak out of both sides of your mouth.
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=17058408
--
my gallery of so-so photos
http://www.pbase.com/kerrypierce/root
Thanks for pointing to this fuzzytalz's mini-review, it's truly excellent. Excellent does not mean I agree with everything but due to my general interest in cameras and photography I like to read qualified reasonable opinions about everything. His website is not yet finished but is really good already, you should check it out. I wish images were bit bigger.
So, again, thanks, it was an interesting thread in general. Whatever is there you two got going is between you, but your link only further proves fuzzytalz is just an excellent photographer and a reasonable person, whether I personally agree with him or not I feel we can always discuss it normally. You know, as a matter of exchanging opinions without bringing in personal beliefs, faith, and words like "troll", "whining" and "bashing".
Zorpie
Senior Member
Hi Thomas,
That (to me anyway) is a well rounded response and again, you have mirrored my own thoughts EXACTLY with that reply.
I have never, put down Nikon nor the D200 in all of the posts I have input to on DPreview, believing that both, should get a fair crack of the whip and that Nikon should get a chance to rectify the D200 issues. I have been waiting since 15th December (when I had my first D200) and I have given Nikon a fair chance by a) sending the original D200 back and waiting for another and b) by sending the second D200 to them for the 'fix'.
As yet, I don't know what my next line of action will be. D2X or wait for a third D200 ?
Regards,
Zorpie
--
pbase supporter
That (to me anyway) is a well rounded response and again, you have mirrored my own thoughts EXACTLY with that reply.
I have never, put down Nikon nor the D200 in all of the posts I have input to on DPreview, believing that both, should get a fair crack of the whip and that Nikon should get a chance to rectify the D200 issues. I have been waiting since 15th December (when I had my first D200) and I have given Nikon a fair chance by a) sending the original D200 back and waiting for another and b) by sending the second D200 to them for the 'fix'.
As yet, I don't know what my next line of action will be. D2X or wait for a third D200 ?
Regards,
Zorpie
--
pbase supporter
fuzzytalz
Senior Member
Now, if you'll attempt, in earnest, to reserve your festering vexation until after I'm done with your questions, I will address them both.
"What good is foolproof metering if your images are marred with banding and can't, without detail-robbing post processing techniques, be printed at a size sufficient to show just why you wanted/needed the extra resolution of the D200 in the first place?"
Notice, if you will, that I never said (as you suggest) that images from the D200 can't be printed "large." What I have said - and quite plainly, I think - is that in the case of D200 cameras afflicted with banding/striping, and speaking purely from a photographic consideration, what good has been gained by the additional resolution and expense of the D200 if one cannot capitalize on its most obvious photographic advantage over its predecessors/brethren, higher pixel, to make superior-quality large prints? I have see the examples of how easily banding can be fixed in PP in Photoshop, but if we're being completely honest, the process does take its toll on fine detail in the image, resulting in an image of not appreciably more sharpness and fine detail than one could get (assuming one has not run afoul of that camera's image quality handicaps, moire and blooming, as well) from a D70. One certainly, in the case of cameras with banding/striping, from a purely photographic perspective (and this is all I really care about; ergonomics are entirely subjective, easily adapted to, and, thus, of little practical impact on image making), can't then objectively say the D200 is worth the $700 premium over the D70s, and certainly not over the also-6.1MP D50.
And I'm not randomly assuming that A3 size prints are the limit at which images with banding/striping can be printed without those artifacts becoming noticeable, and thereby objectionable (assuming one doesn't want the creative effect of horizontal or vertical lines, depending on orientation, throughout their image); that size comes from Nikon itself:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0602/06021101nikond200banding.asp
I shall quote here directly the relevant verbiage:
"Images printed at a print size of A3 (297 mm x 420 mm / 11 in x 14 in.) or smaller this pattern is almost undetectable, and therefore should have little impact on general photography and printing."
Even here, the banding is described to be not undetectable, but almost undetectable.
Moreover, there is apparently not a true fix of the problem, whereby banding is eliminated entirely, but instead a way to minimize it:
"If you experience this, Nikon will, without charge, evaluate your camera to determine if adjustment to the camera’s image output level is required. Adjustment, if required, will optimize the camera’s image output level, thereby reducing visible banding to a minimal level."
I can only speak for myself, but I find this unacceptable in a camera clearly marketed to professionals and/or those seeking professional-level performance. And, though I know your very next thought will be to attack the 5D for its occurrences of banding as a result of radio frequency interference when used in AI Servo AF mode with certain Canon EF lenses, this is defect manifests itself in a far less regular way and can be completely cured by sending your camera to Canon for repair. As for the noise issues at ISO 1600 and 3200 - horizontal (in the horizontal image orientation) pattern noise - that's been addressed my other post. There is no need to repeat it here.
"Call me crazy, but isn't the point to make images? What good is foolproof metering if your images are marred with banding and can't, without detail-robbing post processing techniques, be printed at a size sufficient to show just why you wanted/needed the extra resolution of the D200 in the first place?
Following your (and Nikon's logic), since large prints from the D200 may be not practical because of banding or no more detailed than that of a D70 because of PP measures to eliminate the banding, might not many users be better served by either the D100 (on the soft size, but at least you can blow them up as much as you like) or the D2x (if you can live with the expense and the weight/bulk)?"
Perhaps you can quote directly for me from this passage where I claimed that all images from the D200 are marred with banding. I didn't say it, and without some highly liberal verbal gymnastics, you're going to have a tough time showing that I did.
Rather, as has proven to be your predilection, you've read what you wanted to read, not what was actually said. Seems on some level, you need this selective comprehension to fuel your outraged diatribes in the face of clear facts to the contrary.
--
Garland Cary
As is typical, you've taken a single word from my post, placed it utterly out of context, and used it as the basis of a highly puritanical counterpoint. In fact, what I said to the OP was:
"What good is foolproof metering if your images are marred with banding and can't, without detail-robbing post processing techniques, be printed at a size sufficient to show just why you wanted/needed the extra resolution of the D200 in the first place?"
Notice, if you will, that I never said (as you suggest) that images from the D200 can't be printed "large." What I have said - and quite plainly, I think - is that in the case of D200 cameras afflicted with banding/striping, and speaking purely from a photographic consideration, what good has been gained by the additional resolution and expense of the D200 if one cannot capitalize on its most obvious photographic advantage over its predecessors/brethren, higher pixel, to make superior-quality large prints? I have see the examples of how easily banding can be fixed in PP in Photoshop, but if we're being completely honest, the process does take its toll on fine detail in the image, resulting in an image of not appreciably more sharpness and fine detail than one could get (assuming one has not run afoul of that camera's image quality handicaps, moire and blooming, as well) from a D70. One certainly, in the case of cameras with banding/striping, from a purely photographic perspective (and this is all I really care about; ergonomics are entirely subjective, easily adapted to, and, thus, of little practical impact on image making), can't then objectively say the D200 is worth the $700 premium over the D70s, and certainly not over the also-6.1MP D50.
And I'm not randomly assuming that A3 size prints are the limit at which images with banding/striping can be printed without those artifacts becoming noticeable, and thereby objectionable (assuming one doesn't want the creative effect of horizontal or vertical lines, depending on orientation, throughout their image); that size comes from Nikon itself:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0602/06021101nikond200banding.asp
I shall quote here directly the relevant verbiage:
"Images printed at a print size of A3 (297 mm x 420 mm / 11 in x 14 in.) or smaller this pattern is almost undetectable, and therefore should have little impact on general photography and printing."
Even here, the banding is described to be not undetectable, but almost undetectable.
Moreover, there is apparently not a true fix of the problem, whereby banding is eliminated entirely, but instead a way to minimize it:
"If you experience this, Nikon will, without charge, evaluate your camera to determine if adjustment to the camera’s image output level is required. Adjustment, if required, will optimize the camera’s image output level, thereby reducing visible banding to a minimal level."
I can only speak for myself, but I find this unacceptable in a camera clearly marketed to professionals and/or those seeking professional-level performance. And, though I know your very next thought will be to attack the 5D for its occurrences of banding as a result of radio frequency interference when used in AI Servo AF mode with certain Canon EF lenses, this is defect manifests itself in a far less regular way and can be completely cured by sending your camera to Canon for repair. As for the noise issues at ISO 1600 and 3200 - horizontal (in the horizontal image orientation) pattern noise - that's been addressed my other post. There is no need to repeat it here.
Of course, no one does - I certainly have not. However, if addressing the OP - who's D200 is afflicted with banding/striping, I wrote:
"Call me crazy, but isn't the point to make images? What good is foolproof metering if your images are marred with banding and can't, without detail-robbing post processing techniques, be printed at a size sufficient to show just why you wanted/needed the extra resolution of the D200 in the first place?
Following your (and Nikon's logic), since large prints from the D200 may be not practical because of banding or no more detailed than that of a D70 because of PP measures to eliminate the banding, might not many users be better served by either the D100 (on the soft size, but at least you can blow them up as much as you like) or the D2x (if you can live with the expense and the weight/bulk)?"
Perhaps you can quote directly for me from this passage where I claimed that all images from the D200 are marred with banding. I didn't say it, and without some highly liberal verbal gymnastics, you're going to have a tough time showing that I did.
Rather, as has proven to be your predilection, you've read what you wanted to read, not what was actually said. Seems on some level, you need this selective comprehension to fuel your outraged diatribes in the face of clear facts to the contrary.
Hope that's been evasive enough to meet your expectations, my entertainingly dim-witted, narrow-minded friend. You may now feel free to work your magic and distort and misconstrue everything I've written in any way you need to make yourself feel better about whatever it is that's got you so irate.Have at it, fanboy. Evade them again with more of your nonsense.
--
Garland Cary
Kerry Pierce
Forum Pro
Why didn't you do that the first few times, instead of evading the issue?
It's not out of context at all.
The implication is that all images have banding and that you then can't print large because of that. You didn't bother to put in the qualifier that you did, immediately below this paragraph, that your statement only applies to the cameras that are defective. That's a significant omission.
That depends on the level of banding and the fixes utilized in PS. Defective cameras should be sent for repair. The cameras that have very minor problems with the issue, are easily fixed in PS, without needing to affect the rest of the image.
I agree with the ergonomics thing, in general. But that only goes so far. Better features, along with better IQ, cost money.
As an owner of both the d70 and d200, there's no doubt that the d200 is a better camera. The same analogy could be used for the 5d vs 20d or 350d. You know that boat don't float, or are you prepared to admit that the 20d is a much better camera than the 5d, because it's much cheaper?
That's not apparent at all. There are lots of reports of complete fixes.
No, I'm not going to attack the 5d. It's a fine camera, but it also has it's limitations, that you have addressed in the canon forum. You insist that the d200 be perfect for the money, but do not do the same for the 5d, which costs a great deal more money than the d200. That's just fanboy stupidity.
Here's a quote from your post in the canon forum.
fuzzytalz
Senior Member
In light of the fact that, no matter what I say, you're going to read what you need to have been said to fuel your ire, it's simply much more fun to verbally joust than waste the effort to make a point that can never be made.
"significant omission?" It's right there in front of you, my myopic friend:
I stated in unambiguous language "IF your images are marred with banding..." If that doesn't imply to you that not all images made with the D200 are afflicted with banding, then I suggest you familiarize yourself with the true meaning of the word "imply."
Clearly, my comment - indeed, my entire post - is directed to the OP, whose camera does exhibit banding.
Here's where we disagree: I don't think any digital camera should suffer from banding and certainly it should not be purported by its manufacturer to be a normal matter of the design of its product. And most certainly, no user should accept such a limitation (a flawed image from a produce designed to produce images) from a device costing nearly two thousand dollars (that typical user being a non-professional for whom that amount of money represents a significant investment).
Ergonomics are entirely subject - as is the value of "features" that do not directly affect the process of making images - thus, I will not presume to debate the matter of either with you, especially.
The difference being that, in every case, the 5D definitely produces a higher quality end result where it is designed to: large-scale printed images, than any of its lesser siblings. Whereas, given the shenanigans required to quell banding artifacts in images made WITH CAMERAS SO AFFLICTED, and the detrimental impact (regardless of your assertions to the contrary) they inevitably have on image quality, the D200 (that is cursed with banding), for significantly more money than its less expensive Nikon sablemates, does not present a commensurate improvement in quality of the same end result: large-scale printed images.
There are also a great many indications that, for a majority of Nikon D200 users, some level of banding is perfectly acceptable or that they've never even bothered to examine their images for it - you know, the old "head in the sand" mentality. Thus, how much can be attributed to "lots of reports of complete fixes" when so many are willing (even desperately wanting ) to overlook the defect altogether?
No, I insist that the D200 perfect its most fundamental task to a high a degree of perfection as possible: making images. I hold the 5D to the same standard, and it is to the 94% of its current potential a perfect imaging tool.
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum