Reading mode: Light Dark

Surfing pics for those who are worried about D100 shutter lag (imgs)

Go to last post
F

fotogenetic

Senior Member
Messages
2,958
Reaction score
0
Location
San Diego, CA, US
I've been reading about how people are concerned about the shutter lag of the D100 vs. whatever, and I am here to tell you that the human reflex is not even fast enough for it to make a difference. I took all these photos today. For those of you who have never used manual focus, you should try it, especially for action shots.

Len used was my old Nikon MF 70-210 f4.0 E Series lens, which doesn't allow metering on the D100, but with another handy trick, the sunny f/16 rule, I was able to get some photos I am happy with.











 
Very nice shots btw.

I was wondering if you ever shoot in raw/nef and if so what WB you chose for those bright sunny days?

I just started shooting surf here in the Bahamas with the D100 and a lot of the time the white water is far too bright as in the second picture. I am also hindered with the use of only one lens at the moment 24-85 G but plan to buy the 80-200 f/2.8D AF very soon.

Any tips would be greatly appreciated.
Andrew
http://fisheyeblue.com



 
From what I can see in your photo, your problem has nothing to do with white balance. Instead, the highlights have been clipped. This is either because you overexposed the shot or the range of the image was just so great that the camera could not capture it all or when you post-processed the image, the clipping point you used for highlights was too great (default value in Photoshop is too large for my taste).

There are several things that I do when taking photos of surfers:

1. I use sunny f/16 and manually meter all my shots. After a couple initial test photos, I use the histogram review to make sure that the highlights aren't clipped. If they are, I adjust the shutter speed as required. After this initial step, as long as the light level doesn't change drastically, I don't even look at the histogram anymore, I just fire away without worry.

2. I use the "less" contrast setting to make sure the highlights aren't clipped. It seems to preserve highlights better. If the contrast isn't enough, I post-process in Photoshop using layers and the soft-light or hard-light blending modes.

3. I sometimes use a circular polarizer. It removes some of the reflections from the water and darkens the sky. The effectiveness of the circular polarizer depends on where the sun is in relation to you, however.

For the photos I took, I post-processed them in Photoshop with the press of a button. I created an Photoshop action where I simply press F2 and it goes through my photo, adjusts the levels, adjusts saturation, and finally does a quick high-pass sharpening. I am no longer concerned about getting the exposure right on as I used to. I just use the "less contrast" setting and try to get the image in the "pocket" and then when I get home, I press F2 and voila!
andrew prosa said:
Very nice shots btw.

I was wondering if you ever shoot in raw/nef and if so what WB you
chose for those bright sunny days?

I just started shooting surf here in the Bahamas with the D100 and
a lot of the time the white water is far too bright as in the
second picture. I am also hindered with the use of only one lens at
the moment 24-85 G but plan to buy the 80-200 f/2.8D AF very soon.

Any tips would be greatly appreciated.
Andrew
http://fisheyeblue.com



Click to expand...
 
Thanks for sharing your workflow!

I think you are probably right that the range was too far and my settings not competant.

The first shot was taken in the evening where as the second in mid afternoon.

With this lens (24-85mm f/3.5 4.5G) I have had best succes with f/4.5 & f/5.6.

I shot both pics in Raw, with WB set at Auto, ISO 200 f/5.6 1/1000 sec

I then attempted to post process in capture but the only way to keep the white water from blowing out was to adjust as you say with lower contrast and the exposure comp.

I don't have a manual meter at the moment and my knowledge of histogram use is limited.

I am also losing a lot in the "save for web" dilema.

I know this topic has been discussed at length in the forum but I contend that simply converting mode to sRGB before hand does not magically produce the beautiful images that are displayed by some on this forum.

It stands to reason that if you are compressing an image down from 7mb tiff to a 60kb jpeg then there will always be some loss of saturation.

I wonder therefore if the correction to this is done either before saving by increasing saturation in PS to compensate or afterwards to re touch?
fotogenetic said:
There are several things that I do when taking photos of surfers:

1. I use sunny f/16 and manually meter all my shots. After a
couple initial test photos, I use the histogram review to make sure
that the highlights aren't clipped. If they are, I adjust the
shutter speed as required. After this initial step, as long as the
light level doesn't change drastically, I don't even look at the
histogram anymore, I just fire away without worry.

2. I use the "less" contrast setting to make sure the highlights
aren't clipped. It seems to preserve highlights better. If the
contrast isn't enough, I post-process in Photoshop using layers and
the soft-light or hard-light blending modes.

3. I sometimes use a circular polarizer. It removes some of the
reflections from the water and darkens the sky. The effectiveness
of the circular polarizer depends on where the sun is in relation
to you, however.

For the photos I took, I post-processed them in Photoshop with the
press of a button. I created an Photoshop action where I simply
press F2 and it goes through my photo, adjusts the levels, adjusts
saturation, and finally does a quick high-pass sharpening. I am no
longer concerned about getting the exposure right on as I used to.
I just use the "less contrast" setting and try to get the image in
the "pocket" and then when I get home, I press F2 and voila!
andrew prosa said:
Very nice shots btw.

I was wondering if you ever shoot in raw/nef and if so what WB you
chose for those bright sunny days?

I just started shooting surf here in the Bahamas with the D100 and
a lot of the time the white water is far too bright as in the
second picture. I am also hindered with the use of only one lens at
the moment 24-85 G but plan to buy the 80-200 f/2.8D AF very soon.

Any tips would be greatly appreciated.
Andrew
http://fisheyeblue.com



Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
andrew prosa said:
Thanks for sharing your workflow!

I think you are probably right that the range was too far and my
settings not competant.

The first shot was taken in the evening where as the second in mid
afternoon.

With this lens (24-85mm f/3.5 4.5G) I have had best succes with
f/4.5 & f/5.6.
Click to expand...
As long as there's enough light, you may want to try f/8 or f/16 because you'll get better sharpness not to mention a greater depth of field.
Andrew Prosa said:
I shot both pics in Raw, with WB set at Auto, ISO 200 f/5.6 1/1000 sec
Click to expand...
I don't use any of the SRGB modes anymore. I strictly use Adobe RGB. It has a wider gamut and stands up better to saturation boosts in Photoshop. I duplicate the background layer, set the blending mode of the duplicate to color, and then using the "+" selection tool, clicked in the cyan colored part of the waves. Then I boosted the saturation to 50%. If I had done this type of saturation in SRGB, I think I would have seen noticeable artifacts.
Andrew Prosa said:
I then attempted to post process in capture but the only way to
keep the white water from blowing out was to adjust as you say with
lower contrast and the exposure comp.
Click to expand...
Another trick you can use if you have Photoshop is contrast masking. Basically, you make a duplicate layer of your image, desaturate it, invert it, and then set the blending mode to overlay. Then you adjust the opacity of this layer until the image is more balanced. I used it in a couple of photos.
Andrew Prosa said:
I don't have a manual meter at the moment and my knowledge of
histogram use is limited.
Click to expand...
With digital cameras that have histogram review, you don't need a manual meter. All you have to do is set the review so that it shows the histogram. After you take your photo, a graph should pop up. It's easy to understand the graph. If the graph is bunched up at the left side of the graph, you've underexposed. It's on bunched up at the right side, you've overexposed. If the graph is spread throughout the entire range, you're right on. It's as easy as that!
Andrew Prosa said:
I am also losing a lot in the "save for web" dilema.
Click to expand...
I don't use the save for web thing. I just reduce the size of my images to 640x426 and save them as jpg with the least compression. I can't stand jpg artifacts, even in web photos.
Andrew Prosa said:
I know this topic has been discussed at length in the forum but I
contend that simply converting mode to sRGB before hand does not
magically produce the beautiful images that are displayed by some
on this forum.
Click to expand...
I don't even use sRGB anymore. While colors are more saturated, the subtle gradations between adjacent colors is more jagged and doesn't hold up to saturation boosts, which almost all digital cameras require.
Andrew Prosa said:
It stands to reason that if you are compressing an image down from
7mb tiff to a 60kb jpeg then there will always be some loss of
saturation.

I wonder therefore if the correction to this is done either before
saving by increasing saturation in PS to compensate or afterwards
to re touch?
Click to expand...
PS is the only way to increase the saturation. I tried to boost saturation using custom tone curves, however, the highlights lost contrast, making details in highlights less visible.
Andrew Prosa said:
fotogenetic said:
There are several things that I do when taking photos of surfers:

1. I use sunny f/16 and manually meter all my shots. After a
couple initial test photos, I use the histogram review to make sure
that the highlights aren't clipped. If they are, I adjust the
shutter speed as required. After this initial step, as long as the
light level doesn't change drastically, I don't even look at the
histogram anymore, I just fire away without worry.

2. I use the "less" contrast setting to make sure the highlights
aren't clipped. It seems to preserve highlights better. If the
contrast isn't enough, I post-process in Photoshop using layers and
the soft-light or hard-light blending modes.

3. I sometimes use a circular polarizer. It removes some of the
reflections from the water and darkens the sky. The effectiveness
of the circular polarizer depends on where the sun is in relation
to you, however.

For the photos I took, I post-processed them in Photoshop with the
press of a button. I created an Photoshop action where I simply
press F2 and it goes through my photo, adjusts the levels, adjusts
saturation, and finally does a quick high-pass sharpening. I am no
longer concerned about getting the exposure right on as I used to.
I just use the "less contrast" setting and try to get the image in
the "pocket" and then when I get home, I press F2 and voila!
andrew prosa said:
Very nice shots btw.

I was wondering if you ever shoot in raw/nef and if so what WB you
chose for those bright sunny days?

I just started shooting surf here in the Bahamas with the D100 and
a lot of the time the white water is far too bright as in the
second picture. I am also hindered with the use of only one lens at
the moment 24-85 G but plan to buy the 80-200 f/2.8D AF very soon.

Any tips would be greatly appreciated.
Andrew
http://fisheyeblue.com



Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Hi,

thanks once again for taking the time to reply, much appreciated.

In the next day or so i'm going to try your method starting with the sunny f/stops and use of histogram. The PS steps are also interesting as I had never considered using multiple layers for web pics.

I wonder however where your jpeg conversion takes place?

In PS when I try to "save as" (the imported tiff from capture) I have three options.... Photoshop, Tiff or Raw, there is no allowance for jpeg.

So I can imagine that you are not shooting raw but actually jpeg fine....is this correct?
fotogenetic said:
I don't use the save for web thing. I just reduce the size of my
images to 640x426 and save them as jpg with the least compression.
Click to expand...
 
Here's one I took with a 300 f4 2 days after I got my D100. It's cropped and I adjusted the levels in PS but overall it's still not bad (IMO). Although I probably should have stopped down for more depth.


fotogenetic said:
I've been reading about how people are concerned about the shutter
lag of the D100 vs. whatever, and I am here to tell you that the
human reflex is not even fast enough for it to make a difference.
I took all these photos today. For those of you who have never
used manual focus, you should try it, especially for action shots.
Click to expand...
 
Convert to 8 bits/channel first. You can't save as a JPEG while in 16 bits/channel mode. The Save for Web automates this for you, so you don't see it happening.

Also, if you capture and/or work in Adobe RGB, be sure to convert to sRGB before you save as a JPEG (i.e., Image > Mode > Convert to Profile) for web display.
andrew prosa said:
thanks once again for taking the time to reply, much appreciated.

In the next day or so i'm going to try your method starting with
the sunny f/stops and use of histogram. The PS steps are also
interesting as I had never considered using multiple layers for web
pics.

I wonder however where your jpeg conversion takes place?

In PS when I try to "save as" (the imported tiff from capture) I
have three options.... Photoshop, Tiff or Raw, there is no
allowance for jpeg.

So I can imagine that you are not shooting raw but actually jpeg
fine....is this correct?
fotogenetic said:
I don't use the save for web thing. I just reduce the size of my
images to 640x426 and save them as jpg with the least compression.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
very nice Jack,
did you shoot this in raw and if so what setting do you use for WB?
I can't wait to get a good zoom lens!
jackbarlow said:

fotogenetic said:
I've been reading about how people are concerned about the shutter
lag of the D100 vs. whatever, and I am here to tell you that the
human reflex is not even fast enough for it to make a difference.
I took all these photos today. For those of you who have never
used manual focus, you should try it, especially for action shots.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Thanks,

I haven't shot anything in raw and I think this day I had white balance set to cloudy 0.

I was out taking more this past saturday, and it was even more foggy than this day. It's really bad here because the best surf is usually in the am and it's very backlit when the sun is out.

I'm really loving this 300 f4, I got it used for $499 from charlottecamera.com 2 days before I got the camera. Hopefully by tomorrow night I'll have some pictures I took at the local zoo today. I was shooting a bald eagle through the cage with the pop up flash, and got some very decent images.

john
andrew prosa said:
jackbarlow said:

fotogenetic said:
I've been reading about how people are concerned about the shutter
lag of the D100 vs. whatever, and I am here to tell you that the
human reflex is not even fast enough for it to make a difference.
I took all these photos today. For those of you who have never
used manual focus, you should try it, especially for action shots.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
If I had more memory, I would shoot RAW. Unfortunately, all I have is a 128mb, a 80mb, and a 64mb CF card. As soon as I get the image onto my computer, I save it as a TIFF master file. I save my final TIFF file for print, and then I downsize the image and save it as JPG.
andrew prosa said:
thanks once again for taking the time to reply, much appreciated.

In the next day or so i'm going to try your method starting with
the sunny f/stops and use of histogram. The PS steps are also
interesting as I had never considered using multiple layers for web
pics.

I wonder however where your jpeg conversion takes place?

In PS when I try to "save as" (the imported tiff from capture) I
have three options.... Photoshop, Tiff or Raw, there is no
allowance for jpeg.

So I can imagine that you are not shooting raw but actually jpeg
fine....is this correct?
fotogenetic said:
I don't use the save for web thing. I just reduce the size of my
images to 640x426 and save them as jpg with the least compression.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
I forgot that I saved all my web files in Adobe RGB. I forgot to change the color mode! Thanks for reminding me!
Arebul said:
Also, if you capture and/or work in Adobe RGB, be sure to convert
to sRGB before you save as a JPEG (i.e., Image > Mode > Convert to
Profile) for web display.
andrew prosa said:
thanks once again for taking the time to reply, much appreciated.

In the next day or so i'm going to try your method starting with
the sunny f/stops and use of histogram. The PS steps are also
interesting as I had never considered using multiple layers for web
pics.

I wonder however where your jpeg conversion takes place?

In PS when I try to "save as" (the imported tiff from capture) I
have three options.... Photoshop, Tiff or Raw, there is no
allowance for jpeg.

So I can imagine that you are not shooting raw but actually jpeg
fine....is this correct?
fotogenetic said:
I don't use the save for web thing. I just reduce the size of my
images to 640x426 and save them as jpg with the least compression.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
While I love my 70-210 MF E Series lens, I wish I had something with more telephoto. I can't get those nice close up surf shots. That's a great price for that lens. I may sell my 35-70mm f2.8 AF-D and buy the 300 f/4.
jackbarlow said:
I haven't shot anything in raw and I think this day I had white
balance set to cloudy 0.
I was out taking more this past saturday, and it was even more
foggy than this day. It's really bad here because the best surf is
usually in the am and it's very backlit when the sun is out.
I'm really loving this 300 f4, I got it used for $499 from
charlottecamera.com 2 days before I got the camera. Hopefully by
tomorrow night I'll have some pictures I took at the local zoo
today. I was shooting a bald eagle through the cage with the pop up
flash, and got some very decent images.

john
andrew prosa said:
jackbarlow said:

fotogenetic said:
I've been reading about how people are concerned about the shutter
lag of the D100 vs. whatever, and I am here to tell you that the
human reflex is not even fast enough for it to make a difference.
I took all these photos today. For those of you who have never
used manual focus, you should try it, especially for action shots.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Check with Charlottecamera.com, they take trades Ask for Richard.
Great service and they have a decent selection of used gear.

john
fotogenetic said:
jackbarlow said:
I haven't shot anything in raw and I think this day I had white
balance set to cloudy 0.
I was out taking more this past saturday, and it was even more
foggy than this day. It's really bad here because the best surf is
usually in the am and it's very backlit when the sun is out.
I'm really loving this 300 f4, I got it used for $499 from
charlottecamera.com 2 days before I got the camera. Hopefully by
tomorrow night I'll have some pictures I took at the local zoo
today. I was shooting a bald eagle through the cage with the pop up
flash, and got some very decent images.

john
andrew prosa said:
jackbarlow said:

fotogenetic said:
I've been reading about how people are concerned about the shutter
lag of the D100 vs. whatever, and I am here to tell you that the
human reflex is not even fast enough for it to make a difference.
I took all these photos today. For those of you who have never
used manual focus, you should try it, especially for action shots.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Here's some of mine from the winter. Shot w/ AFS 400/2.8 and a TC20E teleconvertor. Having to use that much glass gives you an idea of the paddle out at this spot...

http://www.crowmountain.net/Surfing/11-22-02/index.html

Shooting into the sun is a bummer, lots of silhouette with the black fullsuits made necessary by the 45deg water. I alsways surf first so never get good light at this spot.

Some other surfing pages on my sight but they weren't digital but scanned 35mm from an F100 or Leica M6(B&W).

http://www.crowmountain.net/Surfing/trip-edits.html

C.
 
fotogenetic said:
I've been reading about how people are concerned about the shutter
lag of the D100 vs. whatever, and I am here to tell you that the
human reflex is not even fast enough for it to make a difference.
Click to expand...
Don't know why anyone would make that arfument against any modern SLR. The problem with the D100 is the shallow buffer. For the little one hop wave in your post, it might not be an issue but for a decent size wave, expecially off a point of a rivermouth bar, the D100's buffer isn't sufficient, even at a slow 3 fps.

I like my D100 a lot, the pics look great and it's light enough to carry around all the time but it's not a sports camera. Weather sealing isn't up to the surfing environment either, especially not here where it rains 10months of the year.

Something with the D1H's speed and buffer and at least the current D1x's rez is what I'm waiting for and will purchas upon release.

C.
 
I actually stopped using the continuous drive mode because of the poor buffer. I could get initially about 4-5 shots at 3 fps, but then, afterwards, it was more like 1 fps or even worse.

But I found a solution for myself. There are two philosophies at odds here. To capture fast-paced action, you could either fire away indiscriminantly and hope that you capture something worth keeping and that you haven't missed anything between. This method works for most people. On the other hand, you could try to anticipate inspiring moments and shoot only when you feel the need, building your intuition and forcing you to think more about your subject. The latter is what I have been doing lately, and recent action photos I took are proof enough for me that it works.

But I agree that it would definitely be nice to have a deeper buffer. You feel as if you are up against a wall whenever you use continuous drive mode.
corbeau said:
fotogenetic said:
I've been reading about how people are concerned about the shutter
lag of the D100 vs. whatever, and I am here to tell you that the
human reflex is not even fast enough for it to make a difference.
Click to expand...
Don't know why anyone would make that arfument against any modern
SLR. The problem with the D100 is the shallow buffer. For the
little one hop wave in your post, it might not be an issue but for
a decent size wave, expecially off a point of a rivermouth bar, the
D100's buffer isn't sufficient, even at a slow 3 fps.

I like my D100 a lot, the pics look great and it's light enough to
carry around all the time but it's not a sports camera. Weather
sealing isn't up to the surfing environment either, especially not
here where it rains 10months of the year.

Something with the D1H's speed and buffer and at least the current
D1x's rez is what I'm waiting for and will purchas upon release.

C.
Click to expand...
 
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