Reading mode: Light Dark

Nikon D3 "film look": James Russell's 1st Impressions on The Luminous Landscape

Go to last post
I like the images, but they are heavily post processed and as such they don't say much about the image quality or characteristics of the camera with which they are shot.

Nice work, though. Interesting post processing, too.
--
Phil Flash
SF, CA USA

It's not the camera. It's you.

Stuff I own in my profile.
 
Looks very strange. Surreal. Can't say I'm a big fan of that look.
warren prasek said:
-they look like oil paintings. Really weird. Also he's screwed around
with the levels so much the runners in one of the shots look likey
they have steel skin. Hmmmm.

Funny thing is, I pointed out severe watercolour-esque mush (due to
in-camera noise reduction) on a D300 ISO1600 shot on the nikon forum
and was howled down as a troll, etc etc. I'm really surprised the
nikon fanboys couldn't (wouldn't?) see the plain-as-day smudginess.
Oh well.

--
warren prasek
web design ~ interactive media ~ photography
http://www.wprasek.com/
Gearlist: If you think I'm so insecure I need to list every item of
kit I've got in a desperate attempt at self-validation, then you're
madder than a bag full of squirrels.
Click to expand...
--
Cheers,
Doug

http://www.doglesbyimages.com
 
Ronald Hall said:
A 12mp FF camera for 2k doesn't compete? Its no longer capable of
taking good pictures? I love the generalizations that act like
suddenly all Canon equipment is junk. Even if the D3/300 is better,
HOW much better is it? 5%? 10%? Its not like the pictures produced
are just SO much better that all other cameras are not obsolete.
Click to expand...
The ISO is 800% better.

The frame rate is 300% better and 367% better in DX mode.

The RAW burst is 110% better.

And that's just three specs...

--
Yukon Territory / Canada
http://www.flickr.com/photos/hoshq
 
I get the look of film now with the Mark III. It is the first digital camera where I can look at an image at any ISO and see that is better actually than anything I could have taken with film.

With the quality control problems and ERR99 and the issues with AF with telephotos and moving subjects in bright sunlight, etc., the incredible image quality provided by the Mark III has unfortunately been overshadowed.

I view thousands of images shot with Nikon and Canon cameras (Mark II, Mark III, 30D, and 5D) and in my judgment the 5D is overrated and the Mark III is underrated in terms of the quality of the RAW image files produced by these two cameras.

I expect that the FF D3 with have significantly better DR than the FF 5D as it shares the large sensor and large photosites but has the benefit of two more years of development.

What will be interesting to compare is the 1Ds Mark III and its DR compared to the D3. I expect that it will be better with the D3, but then the 1Ds is more targeted at fashion and commercial studios where this is less important than the gain in resolution of the more densely packed sensor.
 
Bernard Languillier said:
JohnK said:
It's the 21st century already. For the last 100 years serious artists
have held that artistic expression means, among other things, being
true to the medium in which one works. For example, remember the
photographic dead end "Pictorialism" where photos were made that
looked like watercolor paintings?
Click to expand...
What makes you think that the plastic look of many current digital
files will not be considered in 20 years from now as yet another
photographic dead end?
Click to expand...
What makes you think that I think that? :)
--
JohnK
I like to see what things look like photographed in infrared
 
Very nice images, but would have been more helpful
for us interested souls to see something straight
out of the camera.

maljo
 
AmorousLight said:
By the way, those pictures that the OP linked us to are awesome.
Many, many great compositions.

Could it be that one can compose greatly with a Nikon? When did that
feature happen? I need to get out more....
Click to expand...
As a 5D shooter whose glasses make it a bit of a crunch to see the whole frame, it really is easier to compose with the lovely viewfinders both Canon and Nikon include in their pro cameras.

But that's a tiny and truly minor issue compared to the talent required to come up with great compositions, whatever the equipment. And for the price and weight, I'll put up with a crunched nose.
AmorousLight said:
As to "film-like", well that notion is Bu!! $hit.
Click to expand...
Yep. Agreed 100%.
AmorousLight said:
Hahaha....Nikon seems to be doing great things...time will tell.
Click to expand...
The D3 looks real nice. But at twice the price of the 5D, it makes no sense for someone who doesn't need the speed, and I'm not sure FF makes sense for someone who needs speed.

--
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
 
Not agreeing or disagreeing on anything as I don't really care to get in the middle of anything, but I just want to point out that on the last line of the article, the photographer admits that the photos "have been heavily worked in Photoshop for my clients final reproduction."

The photos do nothing to illustrate the abilities of the camera other than the photographer's confidence that the camera can perform under the conditions he worked at (I mean that for comparison purposes; you have to have a great image to begin with to achieve that look). The article is of more value than the pictures in terms of the capabilities of the camera.

Now I'll go to a different forum to find out how that look was achieved... =)
warren prasek said:
-they look like oil paintings. Really weird. Also he's screwed around
with the levels so much the runners in one of the shots look likey
they have steel skin. Hmmmm.

Funny thing is, I pointed out severe watercolour-esque mush (due to
in-camera noise reduction) on a D300 ISO1600 shot on the nikon forum
and was howled down as a troll, etc etc. I'm really surprised the
nikon fanboys couldn't (wouldn't?) see the plain-as-day smudginess.
Oh well.

--
warren prasek
web design ~ interactive media ~ photography
http://www.wprasek.com/
Gearlist: If you think I'm so insecure I need to list every item of
kit I've got in a desperate attempt at self-validation, then you're
madder than a bag full of squirrels.
Click to expand...
--
Richie

1D Mark II N
17-40 f4 L
70-200 f2.8
some flashes, a cool bag, and a computer
some talent on layaway from B&H...

http://www.visualscape.com
 
You can go to each DSLR forum here on dpreview, or elsewhere, and find similar claims for pretty much any DSLR...

It is thus a vacuous claim - unless of course you are willing to accept the claims of all these users that in fact DSLRs by nature really do, as a class, produce images similar to their film ancestors.

Translating J. Russell's article: "I really like this camera."

-gt
 
JohnK said:
It's the 21st century already. For the last 100 years serious artists
have held that artistic expression means, among other things, being
true to the medium in which one works. For example, remember the
photographic dead end "Pictorialism" where photos were made that
looked like watercolor paintings? You can look it up. While such
photos may be pretty to look at they cannot help but call attention
to the fact that they are frauds, one medium masquerading as another,
artistically dishonest. Or take a car analogy, so popular here,
remember when cars were styled to look like jet planes and rocket
ships? Cute, but lacking artistic truth, form not following function,
ultimately disappointing because the promise of "flight" can't be
fulfilled by a car.
Click to expand...
LOL. Cars can fly. See those huger rear spoilers on the back of the F1 and Indy cars? They keep the rear end of the car down on the track. And the aerodynamic design of the bottom keeps the car on the ground. When one of these cars hit something and the aerodynamic effects are destroyed, they often get lifted up into the air.

I don't mind digital photos that look like film, I just hope that no one will try to reintroduce film grain to make it look even more like film. :)
JohnK said:
As a contemporary artist one has a choice to make between operating
with a discredited aesthetic from 100 years ago that prizes deception
or operating with a modern aesthetic where truth is prized. IOW if
you want your pictures to look like they were shot on film, then they
ought to be shot on film, anything else lacks truth. Continuing to
add to the world's stock of anecdotal genre scenes, sentimental
landscapes and weak portraits is not the artist's job any more, IMHO,
how about something new?
--
JohnK
I like to see what things look like photographed in infrared
Click to expand...
Film is superior in at least one respect: dynamic range. Now, is duplicating the dynamic range of film really THAT bad? LOL.
 
Bernard Languillier said:
JohnK said:
It's the 21st century already. For the last 100 years serious artists
have held that artistic expression means, among other things, being
true to the medium in which one works. For example, remember the
photographic dead end "Pictorialism" where photos were made that
looked like watercolor paintings?
Click to expand...
What makes you think that the plastic look of many current digital
files will not be considered in 20 years from now as yet another
photographic dead end?
Click to expand...
I am not convinced by the use of the word "plastic" for digital files, as much as so many people like to use it. "Clean" or "clear", or even "colorful" conveys a much less arbitrary description.

But he didn't say what you said he said. He said that emulating other artistic media is not honest. I don't know if I agree with that, but I do agree about the sentimentality of "film look", not that there's anything wrong with being sentimental.
 
JohnK said:
Bernard Languillier said:
JohnK said:
It's the 21st century already. For the last 100 years serious artists
have held that artistic expression means, among other things, being
true to the medium in which one works. For example, remember the
photographic dead end "Pictorialism" where photos were made that
looked like watercolor paintings?
Click to expand...
What makes you think that the plastic look of many current digital
files will not be considered in 20 years from now as yet another
photographic dead end?
Click to expand...
What makes you think that I think that? :)
Click to expand...
Sorry if I misunderstood your point. I understood your comment as being "today's artists should go with today's technology and not look back".

My point relative to this is that we have no way of knowing whether the current technologies will not be looked at in 20 years as a major deadend compared to film for instance.

Cheers,
Bernard

-----------------------------------
http://www.light-of-earths.com
 
I didn't know Jane Russell was into photography :)

Peter

--
'Life is good - eternal life is better'
 
Well, maybe computer systems administrators use one brand, but photographers often use several....we like it that way...:-)
abqnmusa said:
I know you love Nikon but

wrong forum, this is the Niikon forum

we use Canon and like it that way

--
Canon EOS 5D, 40D & prime lenses, Albuquerque NM contact me if you
are local and want to take some pics
Click to expand...
 
Shooting sports such as at Osaka favors high ISO performance, which favors the D3 and 1D Mark III. However, a Full Frame DSLR should be expected to excel at landscapes, with wider-angle lenses, so I would like to see how the D3 images compare to the upcoming 1Ds Mark III at ISO 100.

KT
 
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