Reading mode: Light Dark

Image Quality

Go to last post
U

UKphotographers

Senior Member
Messages
4,337
Solutions
4
Reaction score
100
Location
UK
I hope this is the right forum for this question. I can see all the forums relating to camera equipment, but none specifically for image quaity. Apologies if this should be on the Nikon forum.

As a background - I've been shooting for 27 years and been involved in digital capture since 1998.

However, heres the question:

I've become pre-occupied with image post processing, rather, I'm finding it a tedious neccesity, and I want to know why.

This is what I do now. Shoot RAW, post process in capture-one, leave the files processing overnight. Next morning, I have all my files with approximate correct colour balance and exposure. When the images are wanting to be printed I open up the images in PSCS3 and edit to suit.

This takes an age !!! 2-3 hours colour correcting in capture one for 400-500 files (maybe not colour correcting, but perhaps 'fettling') - thank goodness for the background processing otherwise I would have died from frustration by now..

Why can't my camera with all it's bells and whistles give me what I want? No matter what I do, I always have to open up the shadow areas, create a (blacks) shadow toe and sometimes bring down my highlight slider. This will occur in both JPG and RAW.

What I've noticed is this. Despite whether you shoot RAW or JPG - unless you are shooting in bright sunlight with the sun behind you, every file exhibits an underexposure look, clogged shadows, but with detailed highlights (thats the way it's supposed to be apparently). Why?

Maybe in other parts of the world other than the UK where I'm based this works OK, maybe not? Do I need a specific 'UK - Average Grey Day' setting ?!!

I shoot on D2X's and D2H. In the past I've shot using Fuji S1's, Nikon D1's and high end digital as well. For a happy snap camera P&S I have a Pentax AW10 (?) and a Canon G5 - these give no brainer decent JPG's every time - much closer to the real thing than other 'pro' cameras I've used.

Because of the consistency of corrections required - would It be adviseable to create a custom curve in camera to be a happier bunny? Anybody tried this?

Currently my settings are sharpness 'off' contrast 'normal' white balance - generally 5100K because that works best unless it's specifically Tungsten / Mercury Vapour or Flourescent.

I create some stunning photographs using my existing method, and I did too when using transparency, so has digital in some way become a muddy free for all resulting in the the fact that decent images can be obtained by anyone given enough post processing time? If so, how can we make images come out of a camera more like the way they were intended ?

Ian.
 
The reason that there is less details in the shadow areas is because a digital sensor is a linear device but we perceive brightness logarithmically.

A 1 stop difference corresponds to half the amount of light reaching the sensor. So with a typical 12-bit ADC you have 4096 brightness levels but half of them are approximately in the top quarter of the histogram, then the next quarter contains a further 1/4 of the total levels of brightness (being extremely rough here but you get the idea).

So the shadow regions of the image may only contain 1/8 to 1/16 of the sensors data (ie brightness values from 0-256) and will have less detail. This explains the shoot-to-the-right methodology that some photographers use, this attempts to have as much of the image as possible close to the left of the histogram (bright values, lots of tonal gradations available).

AFAIK to reduce this you would need to use a camera with a higher bandwidth ADC (e.g. MF or the Canon 1DIII which uses a 14-bit ADC)
 
Does RAW actually use these settings? - I thought that RAW overides all settings and just gives the RAW image data?
 
Hi David,

Is this something which is specifically associated with tethered capture or can it be applied to general shooting which is what I'm more interested in ?

I've only ever used Nikon capture in tethered mode, and don't know whether you might be thinking about importing images through it somehow.

The linear explaination above makes sense, although care needs to be taken not to 'shoot to the right' too much which is what I'm currently doing.

Having an ADC or transformation curve inserted in the process is probably what I need - whether thats something inserted after capture in the camera or as a default during post processing seems to make sense.
 
Set your cameras image quality to Raw or Raw+jpeg. Set other settings as you normally do. Load images to your computer via transfer, drag and drop or however you move them to a folder. Use a viewing program to cull the folder. open Nikon capture and hit Batch. Locate the folder. The batch process will allow you to open an image and adjust the raw settings. Turn sharpening off, if it wasn't already. Next set contrast to low, this will help open the shadows. Select a folder to run your batch edit to and go.

I always use the blinking highlight screen and expose just a touch of highlight blinking if any.

Setting sharpen and contrast to normal in camera for proofing with the above workflow to prepare for edit.

Good luck

davidbogdan
  • you can make and load a custom curve but I find the above workflow prep works well for me.
 
RAW images tend to be soft, I don't like jpg and my camera tends to look better on average 1 stop over exposed. I try to minimize as much post processing time as possible, so I create a camera profile with each shoot whether it's in studio or on assignment.

With the amount of output devices today and various workflows and rips, I usually provide DNG files to my clients and allow them to color manage, but in the event I am managing color for my clients, I have created Presets within CS3 for my studio work that typically work well for all in studio shoots. On location shoots require their own camera profile.

Before each shoot I take a few test exposures using a Gretag Macbeth color checker chart. One exposure on, one under and one over. Each time my lighting changes I take another test exposure, and I begin my next series with the test target.

In Camera Raw, I'll white balance my test image and process it with all sliders at zero. I'll check the HSB values in PS comparing the RGB values to a predefined color checker chart from Bruce Lindbloom http://brucelindbloom.com/downloads/ColorCheckerCalculator.tif.zip

This chart has been averaged out using a spectrophotometer. Each time I process the image in PS, I write down my HSB values compared to Bruces values, then reprocess the image in ACR. In the Camera Profile, I adjust the sliders to match the numerical values I recorded in PS.

Once I get the HSB numbers to match after 4 or 5 trys, I go back to ACR, increase the Brightness to 50 and Contrast to 30 then save this as a Preset for that job. It's not a dead nuts match, but its pretty good.

This is a Lee Varis technique, and if you want to learn more about, the book is a great read. It's title is Skin. It's helped my RAW workflow tremendously.

Good luck,
Aaron
 
I type of shooting I do is on the fly in ever changing lighting conditions which can easily vary from shot to shot. I'm sure custom curve could prove to be useful in a steady or controlled environment

davidbogdan
 
I suspect that what you want would be easy enough for manufacturers to implement, but the issue is that what one sees as "perfect" in terms of image quality another sees as "oversaturated, undersaturated, too soft, too sharp (you enter the descriptive adjective ... LOL).

Point and shoot manufacturers do this pretty well. They don't worry too much about things like depth of field because everything is generally in focus. More people like oversaturation than undersaturation so they willingly comply.

Essentially the dSLR approach tends to start undersaturated, soft and with low contrast. This lens itself to "correction" in about any direction the photographer chooses to go. It gives us maximum dynamic range recovery, minimal blown highlights and plenty of room for saturation adjustments. It's not an easy task to please everyone.

I don't know how many times I've posted an image only to have various comments like "nice image, but oversharpened" or "it's kind of soft" or "overprocessed" yadda, yadda, yadda.

The old lyrics by Ricky Nelson in "Garden Party" says it all IMHO. "You can't please everyone so you've got to please yourself"...... I think that's the essential thought process which drives the decisions to make dSLR's as they are.

Best regards,

Lin
UKphotographers said:
I hope this is the right forum for this question. I can see all the
forums relating to camera equipment, but none specifically for
image quaity. Apologies if this should be on the Nikon forum.

As a background - I've been shooting for 27 years and been involved
in digital capture since 1998.

However, heres the question:

I've become pre-occupied with image post processing, rather, I'm
finding it a tedious neccesity, and I want to know why.

This is what I do now. Shoot RAW, post process in capture-one,
leave the files processing overnight. Next morning, I have all my
files with approximate correct colour balance and exposure. When
the images are wanting to be printed I open up the images in PSCS3
and edit to suit.

This takes an age !!! 2-3 hours colour correcting in capture one
for 400-500 files (maybe not colour correcting, but perhaps
'fettling') - thank goodness for the background processing
otherwise I would have died from frustration by now..

Why can't my camera with all it's bells and whistles give me what I
want? No matter what I do, I always have to open up the shadow
areas, create a (blacks) shadow toe and sometimes bring down my
highlight slider. This will occur in both JPG and RAW.

What I've noticed is this. Despite whether you shoot RAW or JPG -
unless you are shooting in bright sunlight with the sun behind you,
every file exhibits an underexposure look, clogged shadows, but
with detailed highlights (thats the way it's supposed to be
apparently). Why?

Maybe in other parts of the world other than the UK where I'm based
this works OK, maybe not? Do I need a specific 'UK - Average Grey
Day' setting ?!!

I shoot on D2X's and D2H. In the past I've shot using Fuji S1's,
Nikon D1's and high end digital as well. For a happy snap camera
P&S I have a Pentax AW10 (?) and a Canon G5 - these give no brainer
decent JPG's every time - much closer to the real thing than other
'pro' cameras I've used.

Because of the consistency of corrections required - would It be
adviseable to create a custom curve in camera to be a happier
bunny? Anybody tried this?

Currently my settings are sharpness 'off' contrast 'normal' white
balance - generally 5100K because that works best unless it's
specifically Tungsten / Mercury Vapour or Flourescent.

I create some stunning photographs using my existing method, and I
did too when using transparency, so has digital in some way become
a muddy free for all resulting in the the fact that decent images
can be obtained by anyone given enough post processing time? If so,
how can we make images come out of a camera more like the way they
were intended ?

Ian.
Click to expand...
 
In the days of film a lot of fiddling could be done but often wasn't because of time , money and expertise constraints. The fact that we can do the fiddling means that we now feel it necessary to do so.

As pro I have set up workflows to minimize the amount of PP I need to do but I still find myself spending too much time mucking about with PS.
 
I suppose it all depends on which end of photgraphy you are in. I don't mind spending all the time it takes to give my clients the very best I can produce and they expect it.

I do understand that with some types of work it's necessary to get the product out and move on in order to make your margins. I suppose if I were shooting weddings or events where a large number of images were expected in a relatively short period of time, I would have a different take on it, but my clients who are primarily art gallery owners and their own clients have a bit different needs which requires me to spend much more time on things like near perfect color match, lighting and such on a few photos rather than on a workflow which favors productivity.

Actually, in the old days it was very common for photographers to spend inordinant amounts of time on a single photo. I once heard Ansel Adams say that he was still tweaking his "Moonrise, Hernandez New Mexico" negative a full ten years after he first snapped the shutter.

Famed fashion photographer Melvin Sokolsky, in a conversation right here on dPReview once commented that it was not unusual for a major magazine to spend as much as $50K in post processing costs for a single photo in a major presentation. That's a lot of "man-hours" LOL. So I guess how much time we spend in post depends a good deal on which type photography we make our livings doing.

Best regards,

Lin
Photomonkey said:
In the days of film a lot of fiddling could be done but often
wasn't because of time , money and expertise constraints. The fact
that we can do the fiddling means that we now feel it necessary to
do so.
As pro I have set up workflows to minimize the amount of PP I need
to do but I still find myself spending too much time mucking about
with PS.
Click to expand...
 
Thanks for all your input, I was rather hoping there was a way to avoid all the PP or a way in which to reduce it. I've used all various workflows in the past including the Nikon Capture / Editor and the studio based colour curves and profiles. All are appropriate but still involve a lot of work which is largely unnecessary with exceptions of course.

Studio based processing I have down to practically nil in the workflow I've set up, but this is in a controlled environment so is relatively easy to do.

I've read up and researched the JPG and RAW debate relative to location shooting, and would be happy using either even on a quality yardstick. Bad exposures are'nt an issue, after 27 years I can do that. Yet still the emphasis placed on the linear capture of the CCD's still presents a processing problem.

I recall somewhere in the Nikon menus an option for linear and non-linear capture (processing (?)). I feel that this might be an avenue to explore because it appears that this is the stumbling block which is causing all the problems.

The RAW benefits of being able to batch process a whole bunch of files, maybe with different optimisations is a great timesaver in using Phase One's Capture One, but using this method relegates JPG since it can't be edited this way.

So ideally I need a camera which can shoot RAW and JPG many do of course but I'd like to be able to apply a custom curve to the JPG image so that the resulting images out of camera don't appear flat dark unsaturated and lifeless as many have suggested. These would be ideal for first proofs, and then the RAW files could be edited when needed. Maybe not ? Does a camere exist that does this yet ?

In say a batch of 500 typical photos there will be an average or median curve / exposure adjustment which could be applied to these images with the odd exception. If for instance they were processed through PS is there any way that the resultant corrections could be analysed and saved, or after processing a batch of images do you just take a stab in the dark and guess the median for future use?

Everyone must be having a similar problem - I'm surprised theres no immediate answer this. With the P&S results is it simply a case of ignoravce is bliss ?
 
IRe> This takes an age !!! 2-3 hours colour correcting in capture one for 400-500 files

In your pre-digital days, did you make prints from 500 negatives of one project?

Mayb e if you just post-processed the good shots worth printing, you would spend less time.

And I'm on-s9de with the person who suggested in-camera contrast reduction; this of course depends on the subject but it is what I do with portraits much of the time.

BAK
 
Hi BAK,

This workflow is more specifically for a wedding operation. The 400-500 images I proof on DVD but I want to correct them initially.

In the past they would be given to a lab for them to print, but the quantity would have been 60-100 perhaps then.

Back on the search for a solution I'm trying to find out whether if I shoot sRGB on a D2x with a curve either custom or 'automatic' whether the RAW files will be affected. If not this might be a solution.

The D2x instruction manual suggests that by shooting sRGB jpg with auto curves the files should be ready for print without any interferrence. If this works out - I should have the best of both worlds.
 
tom graham said:
Get a D40X and set it up like Ken Rockwell does (for jpg). Enjoy.
regards - tom
Click to expand...
Hi Tom, I've seen the D40X and think its a really good bit of kit. Setting it up like Ken.. I don't think so...

... I use ISO 200
... I use auto white balance
... I use image sharpenning - ( Auto)
... I use auto tone compensation image contrast
... I use colour mode IIIa (sRGB more saturated)
... I use Saturation +

Apart from the auto tone compensation - or maybe a derivative of it I wouldn't want to go anywhere near the rest. (OK I might use ISO 200).

ken writes an interesting article on JPG vs RAW which I came across a couple of years back and makes interesting reading. If you can still think individually rather than do what the masses tell you to do reading this might swing you to JPG. http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm

Also, if you predominantly print your photographs rather than output for a magazine or other publication then shoot sRGB. Despite the industry pressure to use Adobe 1998 colour space I've come across VERY FEW labs who can actually handle these files with the majority and remainder who's systems can only print sRGB - and this without any profile conversion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top