Understanding the Nikon Df, amazing jpegs & other things

Started Dec 28, 2013 | Discussions thread
OP gabriel foto Forum Member • Posts: 79
Re: Understanding the Nikon Df, amazing jpegs & other things

Jay Paul H wrote:

You are not alone in wanting a camera that produces acceptable JPEGs straight OOC.

My work does not allow for, nor am I compensated for post processing. I need cameras and lenses that can deliver acceptable JPEGs. In 2013 I shot over 58,000 JPEGs. The D800 and the Df deliver. At least for me.

I agree with many of the comments that are critical of the Df, however I can only buy what is available. The Df is a great supplemental camera to the D800. Smaller, lighter and cheaper than a D4.

Hi Paul,

Interesting reading, unusual to find other jpeg shooters on this DpR forum. In the outside world I think there is quite a few of us.

My point has never been to try and tell people to do one or the other, only to challenge the compact, general consensus all through photography sites on the internet that you have to use RAW in order to make decent pictures. This, the way I see it, might have been true 3-4 years ago, but with some modern cameras, it is an uninformed view.

The D600 / D610, D800 and, I am sure, Df and D4 jpegs can do things most other cameras can not.

Happy shooting with your Nikon Df!

Iliah Borg wrote:

you use a more advanced (and complex) method. View NX2 took 10 seconds, so it wins on time, but yours does seem good.

I prefer to spend a little more but not to make unexpectedly dark corner and not to loose cloud structure.

Could you be bothered to post it in full resolution?

IMHO there is no point in full resolution, there is nothing funny going there, no additional artifacts - just what there is already in JPEG.

Better, try reading real Photoshop textbooks by Dan Margulis.

-- hide signature --


Thank you for your reading suggestion! I have a few issues with both Photoshop and Lightroom which could perhaps be subject to another discussion, but I will keep an eye open for Dan Margulis' books.

Now that you have tweaked a jpeg, lifting shadows and found 'nothing funny going there, no additional artifacts' - do you have any thoughts? Could this way of using a Nikon D600 jpeg (or other similar jpg) have anything to offer, do you think?

Again, I do not necessarily mean giving up raw. Unless for somebody who might have a compelling reason to do so, or for myself who feels I have the right to screw up my own pictures as much as I like - but could jpeg perhaps be a usable alternative?

Food for thought, maybe?

lanefAU wrote:

Iliah Borg wrote:

This is mashy, posterized, and unnatural light distribution.

Agree, it also looks terribly flat, no shadow and highlight contrast which are so important to give that three dimensional effect in photography.


agree entirely on the flatness. I would love to find better procedures. For example, I noticed lightroom had some fine tools for enhancing contrast on a miniature scale - Clarity, I think they call it. Wish I could have loved and used LR5 but, as I said, I had issues with Lightroom.


It is past midnight here in Sweden, I am leaving the thread in your hands, all of you. Hope you keep the discussion going!


 gabriel foto's gear list:gabriel foto's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix X100 Panasonic LX100 Nikon 1 V1 Nikon D600 Nikon D7100 +8 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow