D100 Sample photos

Bill Grove

Forum Enthusiast
Messages
406
Reaction score
0
Location
US
Am I not seeing it right ? I have yet to see a D100 photo regardless of production or beta that is "tack" sharp. The closest I have seen is the one from Bankok with the child when fill-flash was used. Am I missing something ? I need to make a decision in the next 7 days on going for the more expensive D1H or the D100. The D1H is $3300 until June 30th at B&H and Adorama, I don't expect to get a D100 in this time frame but I thought some of the production photos showing up would help me decide which camera to buy.
 
.... It is the first thing to strike people - but digital files are soft. Sharpening is the last operation one wants to do as it is the most aggressive and cannot be undone.

I don't think there is an undue softness issue here - but I don’t have a camera yet.
 
Here's some from SERIL, he posted them here on this forum:
http://www.pbase.com/joel_123/d100
Dennis D
Am I not seeing it right ? I have yet to see a D100 photo
regardless of production or beta that is "tack" sharp. The closest
I have seen is the one from Bankok with the child when fill-flash
was used. Am I missing something ? I need to make a decision in
the next 7 days on going for the more expensive D1H or the D100.
The D1H is $3300 until June 30th at B&H and Adorama, I don't expect
to get a D100 in this time frame but I thought some of the
production photos showing up would help me decide which camera to
buy.
--
Dennis D
 
The best option may be the Fujifilm-Nikon S2, the resolution images -especialy the raw ones- are realy good. Remember that the D100 is realy a Sony, and has the same body as the S2. This is only my humble oppinion.
Am I not seeing it right ? I have yet to see a D100 photo
regardless of production or beta that is "tack" sharp. The closest
I have seen is the one from Bankok with the child when fill-flash
was used. Am I missing something ? I need to make a decision in
the next 7 days on going for the more expensive D1H or the D100.
The D1H is $3300 until June 30th at B&H and Adorama, I don't expect
to get a D100 in this time frame but I thought some of the
production photos showing up would help me decide which camera to
buy.
--
Frank Barret
 
Am I not seeing it right ? I have yet to see a D100 photo
regardless of production or beta that is "tack" sharp. The closest
I have seen is the one from Bankok with the child when fill-flash
was used. Am I missing something ? I need to make a decision in
the next 7 days on going for the more expensive D1H or the D100.
The D1H is $3300 until June 30th at B&H and Adorama, I don't expect
to get a D100 in this time frame but I thought some of the
production photos showing up would help me decide which camera to
buy.
Bill,

As someone mentioned before look at Seril's Bangkok shots here:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=2896681

, all are tack sharp around the focus point most across the frame(thanks to good composition on his part). I am very happy at the improvements over the beta images also in color accuracy, exposure and noise free 200. I compared them to the latest S2 shots downressed to 6mp and Seril's shots are smoother noise wise and just as sharp IMO. I think Nikon hit a grand slam.

Take a look!

Regards,

--

 
you either have a better trained eye than I ( from more experience with really sharp photos) .......or worse (bad vision) as many of the samples I've seen are very sharply focused (to me).

Dan
 
ok, i'll bite. what do you mean its 'really a sony'. are you referring to the CCD? although an important component, that one aspect doesn't make it a sony. are you implying Sony CCDs are inherently lower quality than others? or just that you don't think its as good as the SuperCCD approach taken with the Fuji S series? ...dav
The best option may be the Fujifilm-Nikon S2, the resolution images
-especialy the raw ones- are realy good. Remember that the D100 is
realy a Sony, and has the same body as the S2. This is only my
humble oppinion.
--
Frank Barret
 
The best option may be the Fujifilm-Nikon S2, the resolution images
-especialy the raw ones- are realy good. Remember that the D100 is
realy a Sony, and has the same body as the S2. This is only my
humble oppinion.
Frank Barret you show a total lack of understanding how a digital image system work. Sony is just a component supplier. If you took a ccd from Fuji and put into a D100, you will not get the same picture as you get from a S2. Simply because the image is made in software. The ccd is only capturing green, red and blue dots (actually it is only able to capture gray levels, the color is made by "painting" the pixels green, red and blue).
 
I have no interest in a S2 because I will mainly be shooting youth sports.

Here is an example of a bunch of D1H photos that I think are perfect and they were shot with Sigma glass.

http://www.motorsport.com/photos/select.asp?S=CART&E=Monterey/Saturday&Y=2002&O=48#

Maybe because I am not seeing full resolution they look better, but I have seen other D1H or D1X photos at full resolution on the screen that look sharper than anything that I have seen from the D100. I guess I will just have to wait for Phil's review to see the whole story.
 
I have no interest in a S2 because I will mainly be shooting youth
sports.

Here is an example of a bunch of D1H photos that I think are
perfect and they were shot with Sigma glass.

http://www.motorsport.com/photos/select.asp?S=CART&E=Monterey/Saturday&Y=2002&O=48#

Maybe because I am not seeing full resolution they look better, but
I have seen other D1H or D1X photos at full resolution on the
screen that look sharper than anything that I have seen from the
D100. I guess I will just have to wait for Phil's review to see
the whole story.
If you downsample an image from a digital camera, they will look a lot sharper, that is true for all cameras. What is also of vital importance regarding sharpness, is the lens used.

I have read about these images (those on your link) on this forum, and they're made with manual prefocus (those with moving objects at least).

If these are the kind of picture you're going to shoot, the D1h is the camera for you. But you have to accept that you need to "tweak" the images in photoshop (or an other software), because images from a DSLR is more like digital "negatives", and they need a little tweaking before they really shine.
Geir Atle
 
By tweaking are you talking about "unsharpen mask" operation ? If so is this something that can be done in photoshop as a batch operation ?
 
All photohraphs were taken handheld in everything on Auto (P&S mode).

The child in fill flash photo is the most sharp because 1/60 second flash default speed, other is less so.
They were all posted out of the box.
No tweaking or manipulation at all and I do not find it neccessary either.

IMHO, I'm certain that in the hand of more experience photographer it will be better.

SeriL.
Am I not seeing it right ? I have yet to see a D100 photo
regardless of production or beta that is "tack" sharp. The closest
I have seen is the one from Bankok with the child when fill-flash
was used. Am I missing something ? I need to make a decision in
the next 7 days on going for the more expensive D1H or the D100.
The D1H is $3300 until June 30th at B&H and Adorama, I don't expect
to get a D100 in this time frame but I thought some of the
production photos showing up would help me decide which camera to
buy.
 
Hi Bill:
This might sound totally off the wall, but I replaced my D1x for a D1H.

My daughter is a competing BlackBelt in the Martial Arts and I used to pull my hair out with the D1x after a couple rapid shots. I did that for a few months and switched to the D1H and never looked back. The D100 is going to be a great if not the best back up piece on the market, but if you are shooting anything with motion,,, you need to be shooting a D1H.
Regards
Tony P.
Am I not seeing it right ? I have yet to see a D100 photo
regardless of production or beta that is "tack" sharp. The closest
I have seen is the one from Bankok with the child when fill-flash
was used. Am I missing something ? I need to make a decision in
the next 7 days on going for the more expensive D1H or the D100.
The D1H is $3300 until June 30th at B&H and Adorama, I don't expect
to get a D100 in this time frame but I thought some of the
production photos showing up would help me decide which camera to
buy.
 
Yup, this would be one tweak, and you can set up batch actions to be pretty much anything within Photoshop. But, you must be careful with sharpening. As was pointed out earlier by Ger Bee, this is the LAST step to be done and can, if over/mis-applied be quite annoying.
By tweaking are you talking about "unsharpen mask" operation ? If
so is this something that can be done in photoshop as a batch
operation ?
--
Bill Dewey
http://www.deweydrive.com
 
By tweaking are you talking about "unsharpen mask" operation ? If
so is this something that can be done in photoshop as a batch
operation ?
Yes, USM is one operation. Adjusting levels could be an other one. If you shoot your pictures in RAW format, adjusting white balance could be an other one.

If you look at a digital picture from a DSLR as a negative, then think of all the work that must be done by a traditional film-negative. The same must be done on a digital, but it's just that you do the same work on a computer, not in a dark room.

I'm sure there are people on this forum that could tell you about this better than I can.
Geir Atle
 
Hi!
.... It is the first thing to strike people - but digital files are
soft. Sharpening is the last operation one wants to do as it is the
most aggressive and cannot be undone.
I agree.

I am a bit tired of repeating, but it is also all "bayer pattern" and highest output file resolution is a kind of illusion...

Regards, A. Schiele.
 
Hi!

I like to hear your opinion (and I enjoyed your D100 sample images...)

I can agree when looking at my shots mostly the camera is not the reason for unsharp photos, it is more often shake or motion blur.

I think the reason why the shot you refer to look sharper to some people is simply caused by the more harsh lighting condition from the flash... light makes "sharpness impression" too, sometimes more than any expensive lenses... hard to learn, I know...

Regards, A. Schiele.
IMHO, I'm certain that in the hand of more experience photographer
it will be better.

SeriL.
Am I not seeing it right ? I have yet to see a D100 photo
regardless of production or beta that is "tack" sharp. The closest
I have seen is the one from Bankok with the child when fill-flash
was used. Am I missing something ? I need to make a decision in
the next 7 days on going for the more expensive D1H or the D100.
The D1H is $3300 until June 30th at B&H and Adorama, I don't expect
to get a D100 in this time frame but I thought some of the
production photos showing up would help me decide which camera to
buy.
 
I'd like to point out that the photos straight out of the camera are technically as "sharp" as they will ever get. Adding sharpness (or USM) in PS creates an effect whereby the exisiting sharpness is "highlighted" by image manipulation. Kind of like drawing a black line around a border emphasizes what is inside the border.

Our eyes have been trained by snapshots to demand a high degree of edge clarification in photographs. This leads our brain to believe the image is more focused and sharper. In reality, the image was at it's best before adding sharpness to it! And interesting enough, the same methodology is not always true for other fine art- like oil paintings. But it can be there too. Artists frequently add emphasis and color around objects to create better focus shall we say. But the focus was already there to begin with. But we sometimes need to emphasise that.

In reality, we unsharp the edges (take away existing natural sharpness) around predominant areas and create a second or third dot or line that draws attention to those edges. And because this is a modification of the actual image, we must be careful to do this without creating artifiacts or drawing unneeded attention to this "tweaking". Done properly, this can yield great results.

This is why I'm not a big fan of including USM (unsharp mask) in your batch work. As Ger Bee has already mentioned, this is the last thing to be done. Sort of like the artist putting the final touches on a painting. USM is something to be done where it is needed- and avoided where it is not needed. But that's not all.

In the digital workflow, background and foreground objects respond completely differently to USM. Have you ever tried to USM a child in the foreground but found that the background is what is being affected? Often you need to USM just a certain part of your photo-- maybe just your foreground object- and leave the background relatively untouched. Because this is done on an image by image basis dynamically, it is best not to include this as a batch function. PS gives you the tools and spatial controls to do this effectively-- but you really need to practice with it.

Add to that the fact that USM is usually going to be different for print than for web which even adds more work to the flow. Always keep your original TIF or NEF handy so you can repurpose your images for different media.

I'm always learning more about USM from reading the posts in these forums, and especially by trial and error on my own. By examing the work of others, you can learn more about these techniques and improve your own work.
 
I'd like to point out that the photos straight out of the camera
are technically as "sharp" as they will ever get. Adding sharpness
(or USM) in PS creates an effect whereby the exisiting sharpness is
"highlighted" by image manipulation. Kind of like drawing a black
line around a border emphasizes what is inside the border.

Our eyes have been trained by snapshots to demand a high degree of
edge clarification in photographs. This leads our brain to believe
the image is more focused and sharper. In reality, the image was at
it's best before adding sharpness to it! And interesting enough,
the same methodology is not always true for other fine art- like
oil paintings. But it can be there too. Artists frequently add
emphasis and color around objects to create better focus shall we
say. But the focus was already there to begin with. But we
sometimes need to emphasise that.

In reality, we unsharp the edges (take away existing natural
sharpness) around predominant areas and create a second or third
dot or line that draws attention to those edges. And because this
is a modification of the actual image, we must be careful to do
this without creating artifiacts or drawing unneeded attention to
this "tweaking". Done properly, this can yield great results.

This is why I'm not a big fan of including USM (unsharp mask) in
your batch work. As Ger Bee has already mentioned, this is the last
thing to be done. Sort of like the artist putting the final touches
on a painting. USM is something to be done where it is needed- and
avoided where it is not needed. But that's not all.

In the digital workflow, background and foreground objects respond
completely differently to USM. Have you ever tried to USM a child
in the foreground but found that the background is what is being
affected? Often you need to USM just a certain part of your photo--
maybe just your foreground object- and leave the background
relatively untouched. Because this is done on an image by image
basis dynamically, it is best not to include this as a batch
function. PS gives you the tools and spatial controls to do this
effectively-- but you really need to practice with it.

Add to that the fact that USM is usually going to be different for
print than for web which even adds more work to the flow. Always
keep your original TIF or NEF handy so you can repurpose your
images for different media.

I'm always learning more about USM from reading the posts in these
forums, and especially by trial and error on my own. By examing the
work of others, you can learn more about these techniques and
improve your own work.
Very well stated! I suspect few will accept it though, as most of the images I see posted are destroyed by artificial oversharpening, making them unreal. This uneducated practice is, in part, the cause for the labeling many images "digital look" as opposed to "film-like."

John
 
Am I not seeing it right ? I have yet to see a D100 photo
regardless of production or beta that is "tack" sharp. The closest
I have seen is the one from Bankok with the child when fill-flash
was used. Am I missing something ? I need to make a decision in
the next 7 days on going for the more expensive D1H or the D100.
The D1H is $3300 until June 30th at B&H and Adorama, I don't expect
to get a D100 in this time frame but I thought some of the
production photos showing up would help me decide which camera to
buy.
Hi

I have the D1X this is a professional machine hvey and strong.I see the photografers in wedding how the used them in ruff.
the D100 is a toy it will not last a day.

speed and ather fitures Nikon can update too like computers.so for good machine go with the D1X H toys will come out evrey year,like Intel comming out will prossesors.
Joe
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top