Jmlacy
Well-known member
As there seems to still be some interest in this thread I'll keep going for a few more days.
I have a Wedding tonight and a model shoot tomorrow (weather permitting). I'll have a lot to say in the next few days.
The whole point of all this is for me to learn a new "system". In film cameras we called it "system calibration" and every time I bought a film camera I calibrated..
All cameras and even the same model don't shoot the same. We literally, would send in out film cameras to have the shutter adjusted so that it was as accurate as possible at all shutter speeds. Next it was metering, we used the exact same light meter, same film, same developer and even printed with the exact same light head in our enlarger and same paper. Painful to set it all up the first time, but when we did, we knew what our camera would do, BEFORE the shot. Digital is no different imo and that's what I'm doing now, calibrating, I/E. camera, sensor, processing.
Think of it this way; If you made an adjustment from the default setting and your photos are 5% better. Then you made another adjustment for a 10% improvement, that's 15% improvement overall. As you move along in your calibration, even a 1% improvement in each setting adds up to the total.
Personally, my camera is shooting at least 75% better than the day I got it and for me it's worth the effort. If you take 100 photo's a month, then no, this may not make sense, but if you shoot 1000's, then that's different in my mind and why I go through this. I prefer to shoot rather that process, so my goal is to shoot a very good raw file as close to 100% of the time as I can get them.
One thing I learned this week is Nikon needs a lot of sharpening and more so than I expected. What I found was is that there is plenty of detail in these 12mp files and as much as the 5d imo, but you have to go get it. I'm using the TLR output high pass action right now and it's seems to work well in it's initial testing.
You can get these TLR actions here. http://www.thelightsrightstudio.com/TLRSharpeningToolkit.htm . Here is a screen capture at 100% using that action. This shot is on the 70-300 at 300mm.
That action may work for birds and "things" but for People, I'm testing this one next. Too sharp skin is never good for people and I shoot people not birds or landscapes or towels.
http://www.thelightsright.com/TLRPortraitSharpener
I can't sharpen in LR or C1 as it will just sharpen the noise so it has to be at the final stage of processing. Some of those pics I posted this week inside the log cabin were at 25,600, and the last thing I need is to sharpen is all that noise. In case anyone is interested I got my d700 NN profiles from here. http://trevinchow.com/blog/2009/01/24/noise-ninja-profiles-for-nikon-d700/
I made some filter changes yesterday and I like the results. I bought my 24-70 used and it came with a protection filter. I've left it on until yesterday then did some side by sides. With my own b+w 010 uv+haze 1x mrc pro f my color is more neutral right out of the camera than the filter that was on there.
I know some people say there is no difference in these protection filters, but if you compare side by side, you may see there is often a difference. As I'm going for the most neutral color right out of the camera this one stays on my 24-70. That's one of those 5% tweeks that adds up to my total.
Some people say that we don't need a UV filter on our cameras today and that may be true. But what I do know is that UV filters on digital camera did in fact increase DR years ago. I think it was Gary Fong who did some tests way back when showing this on his white towel calibration tests. I did my own tests at that time and confirmed his findings. If that's a fact of life today, I don't know but I'll throw it out there.
This weekend tests will be around real world shooting (finally). The wedding is not mine, a buddy has agreed to let me tag along and test. It's an outdoor wedding, outdoor reception. I plan to test out CLS, the sb-900 and the nikon cto gels along with ambient to fill ratios and my focal lengths.
I know I have a problem with the 24-70 on the Fx. It has nothing to do with the lens but that focal length. It's boring for me. Its not wide enough to be fun and not long enough to get personal. When I was with Canon, I shot the 17-40 on FF and the 24-105 on the cropped body as my walk around kit for events. I suspect that Nikon 16-35 is in my future and I'll put that 24-70 on my d90. Why would I not consider the 17-35 2.8? Because the colors/contrast of the 16-35 are a better match to the 24-70 and again, consistency is the "key" for me in post processing. It may in fact end up that my 70-300VR could replace the 24-70 on the D90, but I suspect the d90/70mm end will be too long. Another slight advantage of the 24-70 on the d90 is macro. I have a close up filter set for it, and I prefer to shoot wedding details with a cropped sensor body for added DOF.
Sundays shoot should confirm what I think I already know and what I hope to learn from the wedding and possibly with some new tweeks for next week. My plan is to shoot something arty edgy, suggestive and a bit dark. This model is 20 something, pretty face, great body, has some piercing and lots of tattoos. It will all be outdoors and maybe do some night shots and cls off camera stuff as well. I'll do some headshots with that 70-300 at 100-135mm as that's my working distance for headshot portrait work. That's another reason that 24-70 is a dud focal length for me on the d700. Great lens but both ends are too close to a 50mm for me on FX.
I'll start shopping for light modifiers next week. I need a beauty dish with grids and some snoots/ barn doors for the sb-900 and with those it starts a new round of fun.
Thanks for your support guys at DPR. The kids on this block make me crazy sometimes.
Joe
I have a Wedding tonight and a model shoot tomorrow (weather permitting). I'll have a lot to say in the next few days.
The whole point of all this is for me to learn a new "system". In film cameras we called it "system calibration" and every time I bought a film camera I calibrated..
All cameras and even the same model don't shoot the same. We literally, would send in out film cameras to have the shutter adjusted so that it was as accurate as possible at all shutter speeds. Next it was metering, we used the exact same light meter, same film, same developer and even printed with the exact same light head in our enlarger and same paper. Painful to set it all up the first time, but when we did, we knew what our camera would do, BEFORE the shot. Digital is no different imo and that's what I'm doing now, calibrating, I/E. camera, sensor, processing.
Think of it this way; If you made an adjustment from the default setting and your photos are 5% better. Then you made another adjustment for a 10% improvement, that's 15% improvement overall. As you move along in your calibration, even a 1% improvement in each setting adds up to the total.
Personally, my camera is shooting at least 75% better than the day I got it and for me it's worth the effort. If you take 100 photo's a month, then no, this may not make sense, but if you shoot 1000's, then that's different in my mind and why I go through this. I prefer to shoot rather that process, so my goal is to shoot a very good raw file as close to 100% of the time as I can get them.
One thing I learned this week is Nikon needs a lot of sharpening and more so than I expected. What I found was is that there is plenty of detail in these 12mp files and as much as the 5d imo, but you have to go get it. I'm using the TLR output high pass action right now and it's seems to work well in it's initial testing.
You can get these TLR actions here. http://www.thelightsrightstudio.com/TLRSharpeningToolkit.htm . Here is a screen capture at 100% using that action. This shot is on the 70-300 at 300mm.
That action may work for birds and "things" but for People, I'm testing this one next. Too sharp skin is never good for people and I shoot people not birds or landscapes or towels.
http://www.thelightsright.com/TLRPortraitSharpener
I can't sharpen in LR or C1 as it will just sharpen the noise so it has to be at the final stage of processing. Some of those pics I posted this week inside the log cabin were at 25,600, and the last thing I need is to sharpen is all that noise. In case anyone is interested I got my d700 NN profiles from here. http://trevinchow.com/blog/2009/01/24/noise-ninja-profiles-for-nikon-d700/
I made some filter changes yesterday and I like the results. I bought my 24-70 used and it came with a protection filter. I've left it on until yesterday then did some side by sides. With my own b+w 010 uv+haze 1x mrc pro f my color is more neutral right out of the camera than the filter that was on there.
I know some people say there is no difference in these protection filters, but if you compare side by side, you may see there is often a difference. As I'm going for the most neutral color right out of the camera this one stays on my 24-70. That's one of those 5% tweeks that adds up to my total.
Some people say that we don't need a UV filter on our cameras today and that may be true. But what I do know is that UV filters on digital camera did in fact increase DR years ago. I think it was Gary Fong who did some tests way back when showing this on his white towel calibration tests. I did my own tests at that time and confirmed his findings. If that's a fact of life today, I don't know but I'll throw it out there.
This weekend tests will be around real world shooting (finally). The wedding is not mine, a buddy has agreed to let me tag along and test. It's an outdoor wedding, outdoor reception. I plan to test out CLS, the sb-900 and the nikon cto gels along with ambient to fill ratios and my focal lengths.
I know I have a problem with the 24-70 on the Fx. It has nothing to do with the lens but that focal length. It's boring for me. Its not wide enough to be fun and not long enough to get personal. When I was with Canon, I shot the 17-40 on FF and the 24-105 on the cropped body as my walk around kit for events. I suspect that Nikon 16-35 is in my future and I'll put that 24-70 on my d90. Why would I not consider the 17-35 2.8? Because the colors/contrast of the 16-35 are a better match to the 24-70 and again, consistency is the "key" for me in post processing. It may in fact end up that my 70-300VR could replace the 24-70 on the D90, but I suspect the d90/70mm end will be too long. Another slight advantage of the 24-70 on the d90 is macro. I have a close up filter set for it, and I prefer to shoot wedding details with a cropped sensor body for added DOF.
Sundays shoot should confirm what I think I already know and what I hope to learn from the wedding and possibly with some new tweeks for next week. My plan is to shoot something arty edgy, suggestive and a bit dark. This model is 20 something, pretty face, great body, has some piercing and lots of tattoos. It will all be outdoors and maybe do some night shots and cls off camera stuff as well. I'll do some headshots with that 70-300 at 100-135mm as that's my working distance for headshot portrait work. That's another reason that 24-70 is a dud focal length for me on the d700. Great lens but both ends are too close to a 50mm for me on FX.
I'll start shopping for light modifiers next week. I need a beauty dish with grids and some snoots/ barn doors for the sb-900 and with those it starts a new round of fun.
Thanks for your support guys at DPR. The kids on this block make me crazy sometimes.
Joe