First wedding with D-100

Hi Dennis,

Thanks for your reply. The fact that you also have a D1x in
addition to your new D100 makes your opinions more important to me
than some others. I say this because I also have a D1x, and I'm
also considering getting a D100 as a backup body. However, I want
to know experienced opinions from those few folks who have both the
D1x and D100 bodies. So please, if you would after the wedding, go
ahead and post your opinions on how well the D100 performed in
relation to the D1x. (By the way, I shoot weddings also).
Sure will Casey, I shot around 50 images tonight and was very pleased with the camera. I'm used to the D1X so the D-100 felt a little small but once I get the vertical grip for it I'm sure it will feel more like the D1x.
Also, what was the flap about regarding the multi controller dial
on the top left of the D100 body?? I read early reports that the
controller dial may be confusing to use and not designed well for
making fast adjustments. True or bogus?
Actually I like the design, it's much easier to change quality, iso, WB, and shooting mode from that dial. I found myself changing settings often because it was so easy to do with just one hand.
Dennis D
 
I can't add any more than Casey has already covered, I use the same programs as you NV5.1, PS7, ACDSee, and Capture 2 right now but will get Capture 3 as soon as it's available. One thing about digital cameras that differ from film is that digital can blowout the highlights very easily so I always use low contrast or custom tone contrast setting (without any adjustments on the white side slider to avoid blowouts).
Good luck,
Dennis D
This is my first digial camera and I am hoping to integrate it
quickly into by work, but I need more input as to software & work
flow. Can the two of you give any suggestions. I've got PS 6,
Nikon View 5 (we all will), and, ACDSee. What programs do you use?
Do you like Bibble or N Capture?

Thanks
Rick
--
Dennis D
 
Thanks Dennis,

I'll look forward to receiving more info from you after you shoot the wedding. Good luck to you...may the force (digi-gods) be with you!

Casey
Hi Dennis,

Thanks for your reply. The fact that you also have a D1x in
addition to your new D100 makes your opinions more important to me
than some others. I say this because I also have a D1x, and I'm
also considering getting a D100 as a backup body. However, I want
to know experienced opinions from those few folks who have both the
D1x and D100 bodies. So please, if you would after the wedding, go
ahead and post your opinions on how well the D100 performed in
relation to the D1x. (By the way, I shoot weddings also).
Sure will Casey, I shot around 50 images tonight and was very
pleased with the camera. I'm used to the D1X so the D-100 felt a
little small but once I get the vertical grip for it I'm sure it
will feel more like the D1x.
Also, what was the flap about regarding the multi controller dial
on the top left of the D100 body?? I read early reports that the
controller dial may be confusing to use and not designed well for
making fast adjustments. True or bogus?
Actually I like the design, it's much easier to change quality,
iso, WB, and shooting mode from that dial. I found myself changing
settings often because it was so easy to do with just one hand.
Dennis D
 
Thank you, and may your shutter finger never cramp!
Dennis D
Casey Cheung wrote:
Thanks Dennis,

I'll look forward to receiving more info from you after you shoot
the wedding. Good luck to you...may the force (digi-gods) be with
you!

Casey
 
btw: Did you mean 28-70mm f/2.8 ED-IF AF-S?
Here's an outside view of the church.



--
Dennis D
You guys are gonna have to speak up - I can't hear over the NOISE!

That's a nice shot Dennis. It's a shame you didn't take it with a D60 - would have been soo much better and sharper (sarcasm.)

Seriously - how did the camera perform for you? I was using the D100 with the 17-35 AFS and the 80-200 AFS and it's a totally different camera then when using it with non-AFS lenses.

--
Regards,
Joe H.

---------------------------------------
http://www.biggerboatstudios.com
 
Joe Hoddinott wrote:
That's a nice shot Dennis. It's a shame you didn't take it with a
D60 - would have been soo much better and sharper (sarcasm.)
You mean once it finally focused on the subject!
Seriously - how did the camera perform for you? I was using the
D100 with the 17-35 AFS and the 80-200 AFS and it's a totally
different camera then when using it with non-AFS lenses.
I tried it with my 85 1.8 and it did seem a little slower than the D1X, but with the AFS lenses it's really quick, I really like how easy it is to change settings with the dial, I found myself changing settings often because it was so easy! This is the 2nd day I've had the camera and so far I really like it. All the talk about how soft it was had me concerned but once I did a little adjusting in photoshop and saw how nice these images could be I was extremely happy with it.

Dennis D
 
Please check d100 beta picture 21 of 25 taken by Phil in Galleries.

The small one is good enough for the comparison. That's what we call noise free and this one seems to be the result of aggressive sharpening to me. Viewing 200% the oversharpening is more obvious.

I saw this from a 15 inch non-calibrated trinitron monitor (probably Gamma 2.5) last night. From a calibrated diamondtron monitor (IMO, best monitor I've ever used) the noise is still there. I guess the original one is good. If you are happy with this one, the D100 is absolutely not necessary to get the same result.
 
Sorry, still disagree. The picture looks very sharp to me but not oversharpened. I don't see the noise your talking about and I'm using a 19" Sony Trinatron (calibrated), maybe if I blew it up 200% like you did I might see it, but images that were resized for the web weren't meant to be enlarged.
KF
Please check d100 beta picture 21 of 25 taken by Phil in Galleries.

The small one is good enough for the comparison. That's what we
call noise free and this one seems to be the result of aggressive
sharpening to me. Viewing 200% the oversharpening is more obvious.

I saw this from a 15 inch non-calibrated trinitron monitor
(probably Gamma 2.5) last night. From a calibrated diamondtron
monitor (IMO, best monitor I've ever used) the noise is still
there. I guess the original one is good. If you are happy with
this one, the D100 is absolutely not necessary to get the same
result.
 
dear casey and dennis,
Liked your shot of the church, dennis - more than sharp enough.

I have used a D1X for newspaper work for 2 weeks. I have just bought a D100 (haven't had time to use it yet). From my little play I too think that the d100's menus are much easier than the D1X's. I hope the image quality is as good.

I do shoot a lot of weddings. Personally I don't see the point of shooting hundreds of images and I shall probably continue shooting on film (Canon Eos 1s) for weddings.

I bought the d100 plus the 24-85mm g lens and a 128mb card because I need some sort of a digital camera (I have a nikkor autofocus 20mm but the rest of my Nikkor lenses are A1 manual). The D100s viewfinder is IMO brighter than that of Canon's D60 and the autofocus is slightly better - hence my nikon purchase.

When and if Canon gets its digital camera act together I shall probably or possibly migrate back to Canon - if nothing else the Nikon 100 and the 24-85mm can be used as a stand alone set up.

I can't see why anyone would shoot digital and forgo the forgiveness of negative film (I always slightly over expose) but I am not criticising other people's methods of working.

I usually ask for two 9x6" prints from each neg and I insist that that the prints are in order. I can have the prints in less than 2 hours but I am quite happy to wait a few days and pay less. I shoot about 72 to 150 images. Any more is over kill. Most of my brides can't afford more than 40 of my prints anyway. They often dig deep and buy 80, but if I shot into the 500s I would want to sell all those images and at £12 per each 9x6" print that isn't going to happen.

BTW, I try not to work for the very rich - they are often a pain to work with.

Casey, your workflow was very informative; I have a lot to learn in this respect. Thank you
Regards
jerome Y
http://www.jy-photo.co.uk
 
Hi Jerome,

So have you had a chance to test your D100 for sharpness? Are your D100 images as sharp as your D1x images straight out of the camera with NO post processing??

Also, how do you like your new 24-85 f2.8 AFS lens?? Is it sharp enough for you wide open at f2.8? Sharp enough at maximum wide angle and telephoto focal settings??

Thanks,
CC
dear casey and dennis,
Liked your shot of the church, dennis - more than sharp enough.

I have used a D1X for newspaper work for 2 weeks. I have just
bought a D100 (haven't had time to use it yet). From my little play
I too think that the d100's menus are much easier than the D1X's. I
hope the image quality is as good.

I do shoot a lot of weddings. Personally I don't see the point of
shooting hundreds of images and I shall probably continue shooting
on film (Canon Eos 1s) for weddings.

I bought the d100 plus the 24-85mm g lens and a 128mb card because
I need some sort of a digital camera (I have a nikkor autofocus
20mm but the rest of my Nikkor lenses are A1 manual). The D100s
viewfinder is IMO brighter than that of Canon's D60 and the
autofocus is slightly better - hence my nikon purchase.

When and if Canon gets its digital camera act together I shall
probably or possibly migrate back to Canon - if nothing else the
Nikon 100 and the 24-85mm can be used as a stand alone set up.

I can't see why anyone would shoot digital and forgo the
forgiveness of negative film (I always slightly over expose) but I
am not criticising other people's methods of working.

I usually ask for two 9x6" prints from each neg and I insist that
that the prints are in order. I can have the prints in less than 2
hours but I am quite happy to wait a few days and pay less. I shoot
about 72 to 150 images. Any more is over kill. Most of my brides
can't afford more than 40 of my prints anyway. They often dig deep
and buy 80, but if I shot into the 500s I would want to sell all
those images and at £12 per each 9x6" print that isn't going to
happen.

BTW, I try not to work for the very rich - they are often a pain to
work with.
Casey, your workflow was very informative; I have a lot to learn in
this respect. Thank you
Regards
jerome Y
http://www.jy-photo.co.uk
 
A good "ADD" to this workflow would be proper Color Management, i.e. a custom monitor profile, and custom camera profile and a profile for the paper/ink combination. Only then will all the lighting/WB and composition mean anything.

Cheers,

Cory
http://www.pixelagogo.com
First digital camera?...congrats to you. You'll love it.

Just a few quick points. The learning curve is steep, not to
mention startup costs. I read one of your earlier posts about
shooting weddings. I should forwarn you that extensive practice is
an absolute necessity before you even attempt to shoot a wedding
with your first digital camera. I am assuming that you are already
experienced at shooting weddings with film cameras (or not? dunno).

My workflow is very simple. You will quickly find out that a
burdensome workflow can drown you in many hours behind the
computer. First and foremost, try to nail down the correct
exposure/white balance/lighting/composition, etc in-camera** for
most of your shots, so you don't have to spend excessive hours in
post processing afterwards. Producing near perfect images in-camera
requires extensive practice, but you are bound to get good at it
with time.

My simplied workflow is this: Nikon View 4 transfer to Cumulus 5.5
through Nikon D1x firewire connection. Rotate images as needed in
NV4 first, rename the file folder by adding the bride's first name
as the suffix after the default date/time stamp. Burn all original
(unedited) images onto CD-R discs for archive safekeeping and
secondary backup. NEVER erase images from your memory cards until
you are certain that your images are safely backed up onto CDs, and
have downloaded correctly to your computer hard drive !!

Edit out all bad shots (blinks, bad expressions, etc). Further edit
out all duplicate images and keep the 1 best image if there are
multiples of the same. Use Photoshop to downsize and resize all
images to 72dpi JPEGs for purpose of importing images onto
FlipAlbum program (FlipAlbum.com for free demo), which will create
a virtual wedding album that a client can preview for reprint
orders. FlipAlbum has encryption so clients cannot copy or print
images from the burned CD. (FlipAlbum is a much better client
presentation than a CD full of file folder names).

The prints that clients actually do order, I can then go ahead and
maybe make any minor adjustments in Photoshop (levels, composition,
etc) prior to burning a CD to send to a lab that offers Fuji
Frontier Printing onto Fuji Crystal Archival Paper with matte
surface finish (approx .49 cents or less for each 4x6" size print).
Note that I DON'T make any corrections prior to creating the
FlipAlbum CD, only afterwards if the clients actually order a
particular image--why bother correcting images that the clients may
never order, right?

I primarily shoot Fine Jpegs for all candid shots that require no
larger than 8x10/11x14 size (at reception, etc). I shoot TIFFs for
all formals and portrait setup shots (church/park, etc) that I
think may be enlarged to 16x20 or larger. I shoot a fair amount of
TIFF images, and hence I use 3 IBM 1GB cards for each wedding.

The fastest way to start a heated discussion on this forum is the
perennial debate as to whether to shoot RAW/NEF images, or not. I
generally stay away from RAW shooting because I can honestly tell
you that better than 80% of my images are pretty much near pefect
that don't require any post processing whatsoever. The primary
advantage of shooting RAW is that you have maximum flexability of
making changes to the images afterwards. But what if I don't need
any changes? I'd rather shoot in a universally accepted format such
as TIFF and JPEG so I can immediately burn images onto CD and make
prints right away, so I don't have to spend hours post processing
between 500-700 images from a wedding. Try making adjustments to
several hundred images, and you'll see what I mean.

However, that said though, when Nikon Capture 3 comes out, I am
tempted to get the program and actually shoot a few RAW frames now
and then just to play around with making adjustments. But I know
that I will never use this as part of my regular workflow, only for
making changes once in awhile.

Bottom line, Rick, you will of course develop your own workflow
style that suits your needs. Others here will give their
suggestions as well. You will need to experiment and find a method
that works for you.

PS: Do a search under my name in this forum, and you will find more
of my 2 cents worth of advice, assuming if anything I wrote is of
value.

Regards, and good luck...
Casey
This is my first digial camera and I am hoping to integrate it
quickly into by work, but I need more input as to software & work
flow. Can the two of you give any suggestions. I've got PS 6,
Nikon View 5 (we all will), and, ACDSee. What programs do you use?
Do you like Bibble or N Capture?

Thanks
Rick
 
Dear friends. I considered finally to go for Fuji S2 (firewire, best color balance and higher resolution) but the crazy discussion that has been going through this forums all these days.......well........has made you paranoid........and now this example.

Come on, are you photographers or your fun is doing drawings with a click. As a pro photojournalist for 6 years now, I can tell you that this image has too much sharpening on it. It is no more a picture....it's a strange thing........even with our sharp eyes we cannot see the reality this way. Images should be sharp and .......real !!!.........not strange like this one........unless you like strange artifacts on your pictures.

If the majority of you think this image is great than you have a problem. The'photo is really nice but it's way oversharpened. So take it easy with all this sharpness debate and don't loose the horizont. Take a look at your film photo prints ans compare. After so many years developing for perfection they are still a good reference, even when we have considered that digital advantages are by far bigger than their shortcomings. So relax, keep your neutrality and please don't get paranoid.

Best regards & great shootings to all

Cristian
Here's an outside view of the church.



--
Dennis D
--
Cristian
 
Come on, are you photographers or your fun is doing drawings with a
click. As a pro photojournalist for 6 years now, I can tell you
that this image has too much sharpening on it. It is no more a
picture....it's a strange thing........even with our sharp eyes we
cannot see the reality this way. Images should be sharp and
.......real !!!.........not strange like this one........unless you
like strange artifacts on your pictures.
Apparently you've never taken pictures for architecture mags, buildings are supposed to be sharper than people photos. Pick up a real estate publication and you'll see what I mean. This photo looks great on my 19" monitor. BTW I don't see any strange artifacts that you mentioned, could you point them out?
KF
 
Actually I ended up using the D1X and let my assistant use the D100, problem was though she wasn't allowed to move around and where they sat her was just opposite of some windows that had the sun shining through them, so almost all the images didn't turn out. But I have another wedding on the 20th and I plan to use the D100 myself this time (if I can find a spare battery or two)
Dennis D
Best,eyedo
Here's an outside view of the church.



--
Dennis D
--
Dennis D
 
Didn't she compensate for the light??
Actually I ended up using the D1X and let my assistant use the
D100, problem was though she wasn't allowed to move around and
where they sat her was just opposite of some windows that had the
sun shining through them, so almost all the images didn't turn out.
But I have another wedding on the 20th and I plan to use the D100
myself this time (if I can find a spare battery or two)
Dennis D
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top