D100 - blurry enlargments and flat and grayish and ........

John Beard · Jun 13, 2003

I have just been very disappointed with the D100 results. I spend an incredible amount of time with post processing and still the images are flat and lifeless. I was getting 4x5 transperancies shot and then scanning-the results are far superior with lot's of pop, and the prints can go as large as 40"x50" with no prob. The D100 can't even go to 20"x24" very well. I print on an 60" HP Designjet 5000.

Maybe I'm doing it all wrong, I shoot the art outside on cloudy days or in the morning. Could it be I'm not getting enough light on the art? Could it be the PS files. For example: a 20x24 image, 100 pixels per inch, file size: 13.7mb. Maybe I should up the pixels per inch to 200 or 300?

Here are my normal camera settings (see any probs?):

Format: Raw
Lens: 60mm f/2.8D
Exposure Mode: Programmed Auto*
Metering Mode: Multi-Pattern
1/30 sec-f/14
Exposure Comp: 0 EV
Sensitivity: ISO 400
White Balance: Auto -3
AF Mode: AF-S
Tone Comp: Auto
Color Mode: Mode II (Adobe RGB)
Hue Adj.: 0
Sharpening: High
Noise Reduction: off

Benski · Jun 13, 2003

John Beard said:
Here are my normal camera settings (see any probs?):

John Beard said:
Format: Raw
Lens: 60mm f/2.8D
Exposure Mode: Programmed Auto*
Metering Mode: Multi-Pattern
1/30 sec-f/14
Exposure Comp: 0 EV

John Beard said:
Sensitivity: ISO 400

Shoot at a lower iso, and from a tripod

John Beard said:
White Balance: Auto -3

Preset your white balance

John Beard said:
AF Mode: AF-S
Tone Comp: Auto
Color Mode: Mode II (Adobe RGB)
Hue Adj.: 0
Sharpening: High

I would suggest turning this to low.
Sharpen the image last before printing.

John Beard said:
Noise Reduction: off

--
. Ben

David Portman · Jun 13, 2003

If you are shooting raw format the files will transfer to ps7 at 300ppi. Are you using a tripod? If not why are you shooting at 1/30th sec using a fixxed focus 60ml lens? Any photog who has bothered learning the "art" knows that shooting under the focal length of the lens hand held is liable for camera shake which would explain the "blurry enlargements" Why shoot program mode? Why do you rely on the camera to tell you what to do? Do you do that with a 4x5? Also with a digital, It's a good idea to learn the software! Down load some custom curves for your tones at http://www.jtgraphics.net/all_digital.htm . That will fix your flat looking images.

What firm ware do you have? 1.1 or 2. If it's 1.1 you need to send your camera in for a firm ware upgrade. That also may explain the "flat images"
D

John Beard said:
I have just been very disappointed with the D100 results. I spend
an incredible amount of time with post processing and still the
images are flat and lifeless. I was getting 4x5 transperancies
shot and then scanning-the results are far superior with lot's of
pop, and the prints can go as large as 40"x50" with no prob. The
D100 can't even go to 20"x24" very well. I print on an 60" HP
Designjet 5000.

Maybe I'm doing it all wrong, I shoot the art outside on cloudy
days or in the morning. Could it be I'm not getting enough light on
the art? Could it be the PS files. For example: a 20x24 image, 100
pixels per inch, file size: 13.7mb. Maybe I should up the pixels
per inch to 200 or 300?

Here are my normal camera settings (see any probs?):

Format: Raw
Lens: 60mm f/2.8D
Exposure Mode: Programmed Auto*
Metering Mode: Multi-Pattern
1/30 sec-f/14
Exposure Comp: 0 EV
Sensitivity: ISO 400
White Balance: Auto -3
AF Mode: AF-S
Tone Comp: Auto
Color Mode: Mode II (Adobe RGB)
Hue Adj.: 0
Sharpening: High
Noise Reduction: off

R C Hunt · Jun 13, 2003

John Beard said:
I have just been very disappointed with the D100 results. I spend
an incredible amount of time with post processing and still the
images are flat and lifeless. I was getting 4x5 transperancies
shot and then scanning-the results are far superior with lot's of
pop, and the prints can go as large as 40"x50" with no prob. The
D100 can't even go to 20"x24" very well. I print on an 60" HP
Designjet 5000.

Maybe I'm doing it all wrong, I shoot the art outside on cloudy
days or in the morning. Could it be I'm not getting enough light on
the art? Could it be the PS files. For example: a 20x24 image, 100
pixels per inch, file size: 13.7mb. Maybe I should up the pixels
per inch to 200 or 300?

Here are my normal camera settings (see any probs?):

Format: Raw
Lens: 60mm f/2.8D
Exposure Mode: Programmed Auto*
Metering Mode: Multi-Pattern
1/30 sec-f/14
Exposure Comp: 0 EV
Sensitivity: ISO 400
White Balance: Auto -3
AF Mode: AF-S
Tone Comp: Auto
Color Mode: Mode II (Adobe RGB)
Hue Adj.: 0
Sharpening: High
Noise Reduction: off

--

Your are expecting a lot from a print 20x 24" at 100 dpi. This will make the print blurry.
Richard Hunt
UK

Dennis Meyler · Jun 13, 2003

Comparing a scanned 4x5 (shot under studio conditions?) to a copy shot done in your back yard? The scanned 4x5 is better? Well DUH!

If you shoot on cloudy days or the morning (where the light is mainly coming from the sky) your main light is cyan except for the light which might be reflecting off of buildings and grass (which will add a little green to the cyan). Yum!

Spend the time and create a reflected art copy camera setup(here is simple one "Basic Rules of Art Photography, http://www.mindsisland.com/articles/?cat=35&article=18 ). A 4 light, or maybe 6 light, setup with matched lights. A tripod for the camera, a flat field Micro Nikkor lens for sharpness and a grey card for exposure and a reliable grey tone. Maybe even a level to make sure everything is parallel.

Also if your files are going to be printed big big, invest (spend money) on software to res up your files. From Fred Miranda's Photoshop action ( http://www.fredmiranda.com ) all the way up to s-spline PRO ( http://www.shortcut.nl/redirect.php?page=products ).

Or, have them shot 4x5 and then have them scanned.

Ed Nazarko · Jun 13, 2003

On a designjet 5000. Can't figure out why you're having a problem, other than a few things. If you're shooting raw, changing a lot of in-camera settings kind of blows the whole reason for raw - so I'd let the white balance be on "auto" and the sharpening be on "auto." I'm not sure if raw over-rides the settings anyhow.

And why ISO 400? The lower the ISO, the less digital noise. ISO 400 is not bad on this camera, but it's not as good as ISO200.

But then, I'm baffled about flat and lifeless. In adobe raw processor, i'm typically either decreasing contrast a tiny bit, or increasing it a tiny bit, but the basic image "as shot" is generally just fine. The range of white balance adjustments in ARP can take you from midnight blue to burning orange, and every degree of light color temperature in between. I do find that I have to apply a touch of sharpening when processing the raw image, and then a touch more after sizing for printing. In Nikon Capture, though, I find that the "as shot" sharpening is almost always fine for raw. (Almost always NOT fine for jpeg...) I think Nikon Capture does better sharpening of the base image than Adobe raw, but I hate the clunkiness of a multi-software vendor workflow.

How are you upsizing for printing? If you're going straight up in photoshop in one fell swoop, I'm not surprised that it looks soft. Stepping it up, or using Genuine Fractals, may produce a better result. Again, I've printed huge on the HP designjet5000, and it's as sharp as any slide that I've scanned at 4000dpi.

Why did you choose 100dpi? I've been told that the native res of the 5000 is 240dpi - by choosing 100dpi, you're allowing the RIP software and the printer to make an awful lot of decisions about how to divide up your pixels to its native resolution.

You're surprised that an image sensor capture that's much smaller than a 35mm slide doesn't enlarge as well to 20x30 as a 4x5 transparency. I've frankly been surprised that the d100 holds up and sometimes beats, sometimes is beaten by, 4000dpi scans of a 35mm transparency.

And, cloudy day, morning...somebody else has addressed that. Honestly, with the infinite white balance adjustment that RAW gives you, I'd be shooting indoors under diffused incandescent - the light color is at least consistent and predictable.

But other than that, I don't really see any problems...

John Beard said:
I have just been very disappointed with the D100 results. I spend
an incredible amount of time with post processing and still the
images are flat and lifeless. I was getting 4x5 transperancies
shot and then scanning-the results are far superior with lot's of
pop, and the prints can go as large as 40"x50" with no prob. The
D100 can't even go to 20"x24" very well. I print on an 60" HP
Designjet 5000.

Maybe I'm doing it all wrong, I shoot the art outside on cloudy
days or in the morning. Could it be I'm not getting enough light on
the art? Could it be the PS files. For example: a 20x24 image, 100
pixels per inch, file size: 13.7mb. Maybe I should up the pixels
per inch to 200 or 300?

Here are my normal camera settings (see any probs?):

Format: Raw
Lens: 60mm f/2.8D
Exposure Mode: Programmed Auto*
Metering Mode: Multi-Pattern
1/30 sec-f/14
Exposure Comp: 0 EV
Sensitivity: ISO 400
White Balance: Auto -3
AF Mode: AF-S
Tone Comp: Auto
Color Mode: Mode II (Adobe RGB)
Hue Adj.: 0
Sharpening: High
Noise Reduction: off

--
Ed

Make pictures, don't take them - it leaves more for others.

http://www.onemountainphoto.com

Neil van Niekerk · Jun 13, 2003

Ed Nazarko said:
Can't figure out why you're having a problem,
other than a few things. If you're shooting raw, changing a lot of
in-camera settings kind of blows the whole reason for raw - so I'd
let the white balance be on "auto" and the sharpening be on "auto."

I disagree with this.

Your workflow will be a LOT easier if you take care during the actual moment of exposure, to make sure your exposure is spot on ... that your white balance is correct, and all the other settings should be set towards getting the best image directly out of camera that you are capable of.

Setting the camera to "whatever", ie, "auto" will just complicate your post-processing workflow by forcing you to have to redo all the settings, causing you to spend more time on fixing images than should be necessary.

--
http://www.planetneil.com/nikon/d100.html

Ed Nazarko · Jun 13, 2003

Generally I'd agree, but I'm about 1000 images into this thing, in light ranging from normal daylight to weird high altitude bluegrey light with storms and with sodium vapor highlights, and I have to say that auto white balance is pretty close, and keeps me from having to do much post processing at all. Never more than 500degrees one way or the other, and usually that's a personal touch up to my taste (I prefer a touch warmer look generally, used to shoot VS films for the same look), and not correction of an innacuracy. Maybe auto errs in a way that I like the looks of.

The "as shot" setting in Nikon's Capture is spot on with the in camera raw set to auto...and the range of WB settings available is from ice cold to red hot, leading me to believe that selecting WB is irrelevant in raw because it's a file post-process adjustment to the raw data using a separate parameter that's created at shooting, anyhow. (Something I read in this forum once talked about settings that ended up irrelevant in RAW because the camera ignored them anyhow...) Or the auto WB is always right. Worst case is picking the wrong WB at shooting time - and the LCD is so small I'd never want to bet on it to make that judgement.

The only post processing adjustments I find I have to do in capture involve exposure, and that's mostly because I haven't nailed how much to bracket, in which direction, when, and sometimes the "lay down covering fire" approach doesn't get through the series before the subject moves. The only time I've found myself fiddling with the WB is when I want to replicate the way film handles bad light - so I'll take a look at the image in different WB, to achieve "shot with tungsten film" or "shot with VS film" looks.

If nothing else, auto, by trying to make everything look like it was shot in nice broad daylight, lays the WB values down in what is effectively the middle of the range, giving me the full range of adjustment to either side, just like the metering underexposes a bit so that you have adjustment latitude in both directions.

Saxofonix said:
Ed Nazarko said:

Can't figure out why you're having a problem,
other than a few things. If you're shooting raw, changing a lot of
in-camera settings kind of blows the whole reason for raw - so I'd
let the white balance be on "auto" and the sharpening be on "auto."

Click to expand...

I disagree with this.
Your workflow will be a LOT easier if you take care during the
actual moment of exposure, to make sure your exposure is spot on
... that your white balance is correct, and all the other settings
should be set towards getting the best image directly out of camera
that you are capable of.

Setting the camera to "whatever", ie, "auto" will just complicate
your post-processing workflow by forcing you to have to redo all
the settings, causing you to spend more time on fixing images than
should be necessary.

--
http://www.planetneil.com/nikon/d100.html

--
Ed

Make pictures, don't take them - it leaves more for others.

http://www.onemountainphoto.com

Group Idiot · Jun 13, 2003

John,

Three stages:

1) Subject preparation. Make sure your lighting and camera angle(s) are appropriate. Shoot indoors (if possible) as even slight wind can impact camera vibration. 1/30s is in the "danger zone" of 1/60 - 1s and is EASILY affected by virtually EVERY variable.

2) Proper camera technique. VERY sturdy tripod with adequate mount. I recommend the Gitzo carbon fiber line (G1325 and G2227, from personal experience and Thom's recommendations) and the Arca-Swiss B1 Monoball with AS QR system. Then either RRS or Kirk AS plates to match your camera and lenses. Place the tripod securely, fasten the camera, compose, LOCK DOWN! Then use the D100's 2-second timer to fire the shutter. Also, set the mirror lockup (the "Anti-Vibration" mode in the D100 CSM) to help mitigate vibration induced by mirror slap. As soon as you hit the shutter, back away from the camera. Do NOT use ISO 400, as the D100 is a noisy camera -- even at ISO 200. Do NOT use f/2.8 or f/14. I believe Ron Rez says f/5.6 - 8 is where it's at for the 60/2.8D Micro.

The D100 and virtually every dSLR will underexpose to preserve detail and highlight information. Good film gives you about ~~10 stops where any current dSLR will only give you about~~ 7. Underexposure is the name of the game for self-preservation purposes as the loss of those 3 huge stops mean compromise.

3) Proper post processing -- I suck at Photoshop, even though I think I have a basic handle on it and how it works. I marvel at those with really solid PS skills that can work wonders on even mediocre images. I don't know your level of expertise in this matter, but it sounds like your skills are somewhat like mine in that, while you can proficiently operate the software, you just can't MAKE it do what your head wants as a result. 100 DPI isn't even good for newsprint. Use a program like Genuine Fractals or Fred Miranda's stairstepping to increase output size to 300 DPI at the appropriate dimensions.

I hope this helps. I'm no pro.

Brendan
--
Equipment list in profile -- where it BELONGS!
----------
If a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, I'm the world's most dangerous man!

kecohen · Jun 13, 2003

Ed Nazarko wrote:
If you're shooting raw, changing a lot of

Member said:
in-camera settings kind of blows the whole reason for raw - so I'd
let the white balance be on "auto" and the sharpening be on "auto."
I'm not sure if raw over-rides the settings anyhow.

I believe that RAW does not override white balance or EV compensation settings. All others, Tone, Sharpness, etc. are of not consequence.

Member said:
And why ISO 400? The lower the ISO, the less digital noise. ISO
400 is not bad on this camera, but it's not as good as ISO200.

Yes, definitely. But he'd be much better off with the Kodak 760 which has a base ISO of 80. It produces far and away the best 6mp image from a digital camera. If you want get better than that, you have to get the Canon 1DS or a 30mp Synar digital back. Just so happens I took a painting just yesterday to the imaging place...they used to have a beautiful copy camera setup. They told me they no longer do ANY film. They are using a 1DS!

Member said:
But then, I'm baffled about flat and lifeless. In adobe raw
processor, i'm typically either decreasing contrast a tiny bit, or
increasing it a tiny bit, but the basic image "as shot" is
generally just fine.

Compare the image from Adobe capture raw to one from Nikon capture. Yep, flat and lifeless. Try using Auto Levels in Photoshop to pop the colors up (if your exposure is good, it works really really well. If your exposure has been adjusted prior to the conversion, eeeeeuw.)

Member said:
How are you upsizing for printing? If you're going straight up in
photoshop in one fell swoop, I'm not surprised that it looks soft.
Stepping it up, or using Genuine Fractals, may produce a better
result.

Step it up only 110% at a time and you'lll get better results than Genuine Fractals. But using Lanczos interpolation (Qimage) is exceptionally good and to some eyes (sharpness is so subjective) even better.

Member said:
Why did you choose 100dpi? I've been told that the native res of
the 5000 is 240dpi - by choosing 100dpi, you're allowing the RIP
software and the printer to make an awful lot of decisions about
how to divide up your pixels to its native resolution.

Right! Not nearly enough pixels at 100 dpi. And this should be a tiff file, not a jpeg. You can't really enlarge a jpeg well because there's just not enough data left after the compression algorithm to work with.

Member said:
You're surprised that an image sensor capture that's much smaller
than a 35mm slide doesn't enlarge as well to 20x30 as a 4x5
transparency. I've frankly been surprised that the d100 holds up
and sometimes beats, sometimes is beaten by, 4000dpi scans of a
35mm transparency.

Somewhere there is a rather scientific discussion/explanation about the resolution of a 6mp digital file being equal to a that of 35mm slide. Me, I don't do calculations really well, so I take it on blind faith that the Nikon folks (who authored the paper) know what they were talking about. So, it is quite reasonable to expect lesser quality from a 6mp file than from a 4x5 transparency.

But you'd asked earlier about upgrading to a D1X. Yes. That at 10 megapixels (from a RAW file) would probably give you better quality -- about what you might expect from medium format film.
--
Karen

...but if you try sometimes, you just might find, you get what you need.

http://www.e-designarts.com
http://www.pbase.com/kecohen/

kecohen · Jun 13, 2003

Group Idiot said:
Fred Miranda's stairstepping to increase output size to 300 DPI at
the appropriate dimensions.

110% stair stepping to Fred Miranda's. We did. 110% wins every time, even against his SI for D100 actions.

--
Karen

...but if you try sometimes, you just might find, you get what you need.

http://www.e-designarts.com
http://www.pbase.com/kecohen/

Group Idiot · Jun 13, 2003

kecohen said:
Group Idiot said:

Fred Miranda's stairstepping to increase output size to 300 DPI at
the appropriate dimensions.

Click to expand...

110% stair stepping to Fred Miranda's. We did. 110% wins every
time, even against his SI for D100 actions.

...so I don't doubt your findings. I've heard similarly from others as well. Although my main point is that he needs to up-res his images to match the size at 300DPI -- as I think you'll agree.

Brendan
--
Equipment list in profile -- where it BELONGS!
----------
If a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, I'm the world's most dangerous man!

Group Idiot · Jun 13, 2003

kecohen said:
I believe that RAW does not override white balance or EV
compensation settings. All others, Tone, Sharpness, etc. are of not
consequence.

Not EV, because that is exposure (although you can add/substract EV in NC), but WB is arbitrary at the sensor level and is post-adjustable in RAW.

Brendan
--
Equipment list in profile -- where it BELONGS!
----------
If a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, I'm the world's most dangerous man!

kecohen · Jun 13, 2003

Group Idiot said:
kecohen said:

Group Idiot said:

Fred Miranda's stairstepping to increase output size to 300 DPI at
the appropriate dimensions.

Click to expand...

110% stair stepping to Fred Miranda's. We did. 110% wins every
time, even against his SI for D100 actions.

Click to expand...

...so I don't doubt your findings. I've heard similarly from others
as well. Although my main point is that he needs to up-res his
images to match the size at 300DPI -- as I think you'll agree.

Brendan
--
Equipment list in profile -- where it BELONGS!
----------
If a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, I'm the world's most
dangerous man!

--
Karen

...but if you try sometimes, you just might find, you get what you need.

http://www.e-designarts.com
http://www.pbase.com/kecohen/

Ed Nazarko · Jun 13, 2003

Because when we get going on something, we tend to blow out the limits on posting size...I edited the call and response.

I'm very curious. I've read a lot of folks whamming on Adobe Raw, for almost every reason that one could come up with. Maybe I shoot easy to post process stuff, but I really don't see a lot of difference in terms of tonality, contrast, or saturation - all of which would give you flat and lifeless, if wrong. I just did the same image in Nikon capture and adobe raw to see if maybe some of the goodies from the 60s were coming back to impair my judgment, but I can't see the difference. Full disclosure: did the test on my laptop screen, which is only eyeball profiled.

I really don't pay a lot of attention to the MP wars these days - 3mp cameras didn't look so good at 16x20 no matter what tricks you used, but 5mp must be a magic number, I've seen 24x36 inch images from d1x, d100, and 5700, and if the photographer did his/her job, you can't tell that it wasn't film, or which camera was used. (There are some 5mp cameras, though, that I've seen at 8x10 and they look like digital cameras.) The 5700, other than its limits around noise in bad lighting, and its over-extended range zoom lens, holds up to the bigger guys just fine, unless you're taking a loupe to the images.

kecohen said:
Ed Nazarko said:

But then, I'm baffled about flat and lifeless. In adobe raw
processor, i'm typically either decreasing contrast a tiny bit, or
increasing it a tiny bit, but the basic image "as shot" is
generally just fine.

Click to expand...

Compare the image from Adobe capture raw to one from Nikon capture.
Yep, flat and lifeless. Try using Auto Levels in Photoshop to pop
the colors up (if your exposure is good, it works really really
well. If your exposure has been adjusted prior to the conversion,
eeeeeuw.)

kecohen said:

How are you upsizing for printing? If you're going straight up in
photoshop in one fell swoop, I'm not surprised that it looks soft.
Stepping it up, or using Genuine Fractals, may produce a better
result.

Click to expand...

Step it up only 110% at a time and you'lll get better results than
Genuine Fractals. But using Lanczos interpolation (Qimage) is
exceptionally good and to some eyes (sharpness is so subjective)
even better.
Somewhere there is a rather scientific discussion/explanation about
the resolution of a 6mp digital file being equal to a that of 35mm
slide. Me, I don't do calculations really well, so I take it on
blind faith that the Nikon folks (who authored the paper) know what
they were talking about. So, it is quite reasonable to expect
lesser quality from a 6mp file than from a 4x5 transparency.

But you'd asked earlier about upgrading to a D1X. Yes. That at 10
megapixels (from a RAW file) would probably give you better quality
-- about what you might expect from medium format film.
--
Karen

...but if you try sometimes, you just might find, you get what you
need.

http://www.e-designarts.com
http://www.pbase.com/kecohen/

--
Ed

Make pictures, don't take them - it leaves more for others.

http://www.onemountainphoto.com

John Beard · Jun 13, 2003

Should I set the dpi to 200, 250, 300?

kecohen · Jun 13, 2003

Ed Nazarko said:
Because when we get going on something, we tend to blow out the
limits on posting size...I edited the call and response.

I'm very curious. I've read a lot of folks whamming on Adobe Raw,
for almost every reason that one could come up with. Maybe I shoot
easy to post process stuff, but I really don't see a lot of
difference in terms of tonality, contrast, or saturation - all of
which would give you flat and lifeless, if wrong. I just did the
same image in Nikon capture and adobe raw to see if maybe some of
the goodies from the 60s were coming back to impair my judgment,
but I can't see the difference. Full disclosure: did the test on
my laptop screen, which is only eyeball profiled.

or else your laptop color settings are all jammed, or the 60's goodies permanently damaged your receptors.

Member said:
I really don't pay a lot of attention to the MP wars these days -
3mp cameras didn't look so good at 16x20 no matter what tricks you
used,

Hah! ask Ron Reznick and others about the D1H! Go on, ask them. You'll get a flood of responses from those guys just dying to tell you how wrong you are. And I know, too, because I've seen it with my own four eyes. 8^)
--
Karen

...but if you try sometimes, you just might find, you get what you need.

http://www.e-designarts.com
http://www.pbase.com/kecohen/

kecohen · Jun 13, 2003

Group Idiot said:
Not EV, because that is exposure (although you can add/substract EV
in NC), but WB is arbitrary at the sensor level and is
post-adjustable in RAW.

Brendan
--
Equipment list in profile -- where it BELONGS!
----------
If a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, I'm the world's most
dangerous man!

I was under the (apparently mistaken) impression (because someone told me) that the settings you would make in a film camera (WB, Exposure, ISO) were captured RAW. All else thrown out and wouldn't be recorded in the file. But I DO see the results of WB settings in my RAW files, don't I? Or are Ed's 60's goodies affecting me, too?
--
Karen

...but if you try sometimes, you just might find, you get what you need.

http://www.e-designarts.com
http://www.pbase.com/kecohen/

brianf · Jun 14, 2003

David Portman said:
What firm ware do you have? 1.1 or 2. If it's 1.1 you need to send
your camera in for a firm ware upgrade. That also may explain the
"flat images"

Are you saying that Firmware ver 2 improves the image quality from the D100 ? Or are you just guessing ? I had not bothered with the upgrade till now as I was under the impression that the firmware upgrade had no effect on the image quality.

Maybe I need to get ver 2.

Brian.

jean-Claude Monier · Jun 14, 2003

John Beard said:
I have just been very disappointed with the D100 results. I spend
an incredible amount of time with post processing and still the
images are flat and lifeless. I was getting 4x5 transperancies
shot and then scanning-the results are far superior with lot's of
pop, and the prints can go as large as 40"x50" with no prob. The
D100 can't even go to 20"x24" very well. I print on an 60" HP
Designjet 5000.

Clearly D100 will not provide quality equivalent to a 4x5 film format.

John Beard said:
Maybe I'm doing it all wrong, I shoot the art outside on cloudy
days or in the morning. Could it be I'm not getting enough light on
the art? Could it be the PS files. For example: a 20x24 image, 100
pixels per inch, file size: 13.7mb. Maybe I should up the pixels
per inch to 200 or 300?

Here are my normal camera settings (see any probs?):

Format: Raw
Lens: 60mm f/2.8D
Exposure Mode: Programmed Auto*
Metering Mode: Multi-Pattern
1/30 sec-f/14

Speed is low if hand held you have a risk of motion blur.

John Beard said:
Exposure Comp: 0 EV
Sensitivity: ISO 400

Use 200 when ever possible

John Beard said:
White Balance: Auto -3

set your WB to Cloudy 0 -1 -2 or -3 dependind uppon your own taste.

John Beard said:
AF Mode: AF-S

John Beard said:
Tone Comp: Auto

John Beard said:
Color Mode: Mode II (Adobe RGB)

Use mode 1 or 3 (sRGB) except if you realy understand color profile

John Beard said:
Hue Adj.: 0
Sharpening: High

set it to No or Auto and do your own USM

John Beard said:
Noise Reduction: off

--

France: http://www.pbase.com/jcmonier/

D100 - blurry enlargments and flat and grayish and ........

Well-known member

Forum Enthusiast

New member

Forum Enthusiast

Leading Member

Ed Nazarko

Guest

Leading Member

Ed Nazarko

Guest

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Ed Nazarko

Guest

Well-known member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Leading Member

Keyboard shortcuts