D100 - decent pics possible WITHOUT Post-Processing?

[Jan Willem Mars]

no, you are not alone, actually it is the missing feature that prevents me from buying a d100 right this very day! It is not that I do not like postprocessing, but I can not keep up the workflow for/ weeks/ months years if I have to do this more or less on a fequent basis. just do not have the time for it... I have done plenty of study, even doing some serious postprocessing on a bunch of d100 files in all available formats to get the feel for it... With film I have found a "custom setting" that includes the film, the lab, the paper and the gear I use, never change a winning team... . So I can take pictures when ever I want, squees in the film drops with the grocery shoppings, selectr the photo's at the level of the end result on the fly. Everytime time I like to do something special with a photo I just go back to the negative, let it being reprint at different size, adjusted colorbalancing etc. or scan it for use at internet do some creative postprocessing etc. Now despite the money I have to invest to get a digital SLR i really would love to step in but I like a manageble workflow that int he end offers me the same "products" anyway. So if your custom setting button would be available I feel i can have it all...

JW

While I like being able to squeeze the best out of the D100, I
would like a factory setting (or downloadable profile) that allowed
me to get 90% the camera has to offer in 90% of shooting
situations. I know that such a setting is posssible because of my
experience with my Canon G2 and what I have seen from the Canon
D60. This is not a knock against Nikon, just a differing
philosophy. My trusty Nikon Coolpix 950 takes great print-ready
shots that require little manipulation - and it is nearly 5 years
old! My wife still uses the 950, because of the LCD preview screen
and her ability to get great shots in full auto mode.

My proposal would be an addition to the custom setting menu titled
"lazy" or "print-ready." This one setting would make the necessary
global changes to the D100 camera settings, turning it into a true
point and shoot. I am probably the only one in this forum who will
admit to this wish, but suspect that I am not alone.

The D100 allows a photographer to get incredible shots. However,
to do so, the D100 does less in-camera image processing than P&S
cameras, thereby preserving more data for later manipulation. To
get great shots with the D100, you have two choices: 1) Process
images in PS; or 2) Tinker with the D100 settings to "process" the
image during capture, overriding Nikon's intentional efforts to
preserve image data and maximum flexibility in post-processing.

You siad that D100 makes soft image is "Nikon's intentional efforts
to preserve image data". Is this statement from a Nikon
representative, or just from your guess (educated guess?)

Just a question. Not intented to flame anybody. Thanks.

AstroEric

--
greatings to you all!
some of my photo's at:
http://www.xs4all.nl/~jwmars

 

[Greg Summers]

IMO - your photographs exemplify exactly the issue - these images would be greatly improved with some dark room work - it is whAT THE d100 WAS DESIGNED FOR - the colors are flat - they lack contrast. Great photography - and even good, begins with the shot.

It isn 't a weakness of the D100, it is simply how it was designed - now, I do believe there might have been some settings to give the images a finsihed feel but, the result would have been more noise and other forms of color aberations.

Personally, the D100 has some failings and to think it takes grreat shots out of the can - - try setting the white balance to cloudy -3 for landscapes for one thing.

I don't think you HAVE to post process with a D100.

I agree, most people here are just complainers IMHO.

I'm your average everyday joe but I'll stand my photos up to any
elses, firmware 1, 1.01 or 2, I don't care. I spent the same two
grand as everyone else, the camera is a very, very good tool. Learn
the problems with it, figure it out, and go out and take the best
photos of your life. Those who say they can't take the best photos
are clueless. Ansel Adams could create classics with it. Galen
Rowell would make millions with it, John Shaw, Moose Peterson, et
al. would continue to take photos that the rest of us would drool
over and people here would still be complaining and freaking out.

Check out my site:
http://w3.gorge.net/ellen/Photos%2010-19-02/index.html
None of these photos have had single bit of work done to them.

To you complainers: you can't critize the composition, you have to
critize the color, focus quality, whatever you think the camera is
doing so poorly.

Mark

--
Greg Summers
http://www.coloradophotos.com
[email protected]

 

[Cribbage]

You downsized them, right? (Which hides softness and artifacts, and more).

That's post-processing, I'm afraid.

I don't think you HAVE to post process with a D100.

I agree, most people here are just complainers IMHO.

I'm your average everyday joe but I'll stand my photos up to any
elses, firmware 1, 1.01 or 2, I don't care. I spent the same two
grand as everyone else, the camera is a very, very good tool. Learn
the problems with it, figure it out, and go out and take the best
photos of your life. Those who say they can't take the best photos
are clueless. Ansel Adams could create classics with it. Galen
Rowell would make millions with it, John Shaw, Moose Peterson, et
al. would continue to take photos that the rest of us would drool
over and people here would still be complaining and freaking out.

Check out my site:
http://w3.gorge.net/ellen/Photos%2010-19-02/index.html
None of these photos have had single bit of work done to them.

To you complainers: you can't critize the composition, you have to
critize the color, focus quality, whatever you think the camera is
doing so poorly.

Mark

 

[Mark Hudon]

• try setting the white balance to cloudy -3

for landscapes for one thing.

Greg, Thanks for the tip. I'll try that

 

[Mark Hudon]

You downsized them, right? (Which hides softness and artifacts,
and more).

That's post-processing, I'm afraid.

If you click on a photo you'll see it full screen size.

Mark

 

[Cribbage]

I clicked on your mountain peak shot. What came up is 640x425.

So, either you downsized them or the camera did. Which is it?

Again, any downsizing hides softness and artifacts, so I'm not sure what point you can legitimate about images w/o post-processing with these images.

If there's a way to view "full size", I'd be interested in taking another look.

You downsized them, right? (Which hides softness and artifacts,
and more).

That's post-processing, I'm afraid.

If you click on a photo you'll see it full screen size.

Mark

 

[Dovid Kaplan]

I am very impressed with your images especially in the light of my first two recent outings in the last week with the D100 where I was dissapointed with the resolution. Everything is new to me, so I am learning with each picture taken. I do not have a proper tripod and my subjects, rolling mountains and fall foliage, didn't oblige by being basked in sun to allow for fast shutter speeds and high f-stops.

If you don't mind I would like to ask some questions. Did you use a tripod? What format did you shoot in (JPEG, NEF, etc.)? Did you make any adjustments to the defaults on the multiple tweaking in-camera processing settings (like the Cloud -3 suggestion below)? And if you are interested in explaining anything else then please do. You can email if you would like.

Thank you
Dovid

I don't think you HAVE to post process with a D100.

I agree, most people here are just complainers IMHO.

I'm your average everyday joe but I'll stand my photos up to any
elses, firmware 1, 1.01 or 2, I don't care. I spent the same two
grand as everyone else, the camera is a very, very good tool. Learn
the problems with it, figure it out, and go out and take the best
photos of your life. Those who say they can't take the best photos
are clueless. Ansel Adams could create classics with it. Galen
Rowell would make millions with it, John Shaw, Moose Peterson, et
al. would continue to take photos that the rest of us would drool
over and people here would still be complaining and freaking out.

Check out my site:
http://w3.gorge.net/ellen/Photos%2010-19-02/index.html
None of these photos have had single bit of work done to them.

To you complainers: you can't critize the composition, you have to
critize the color, focus quality, whatever you think the camera is
doing so poorly.

Mark

 

[XG1]

I agree with other posters, post processing, while a time hog, is
part of the territory. It is GREAT having complete control over an
image from inception to final viewing. For me, that is why I no
longer shoot film. Control.
Best,
Robert

I shoot film with a N65 but scan negatives to have the CONTROL that you mention. I would love to have a D100 but can't justify (to myself) the cost at this point. I don't mind post-processing (enjoy) or scanning. I'm an amature and retired so I have the time! (It's really a luxury).

Best,

--
N65; Nikkor 50:1.4 afd; Nikkor 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5G AF-S
HP S-20 Scanner; G1; SLIK U9000 Tri

XG1
http://www.pbase.com/image/5519292

 

[Negative287]

Look at the exif... He used Quicktime to do the downsizing so he couldn't have done that much. Second, he use a 2 second shutter with an aperture of f/29 on some of them. I'd say he didn't really do a lot and at ISO 200 the D100's images don't have very much noise or artifacts in fine jpeg. They have none of these issues if you're shooting NEF.

--
http://www.pbase.com/elterrible

So, either you downsized them or the camera did. Which is it?

Again, any downsizing hides softness and artifacts, so I'm not sure
what point you can legitimate about images w/o post-processing with
these images.

If there's a way to view "full size", I'd be interested in taking
another look.

You downsized them, right? (Which hides softness and artifacts,
and more).

That's post-processing, I'm afraid.

If you click on a photo you'll see it full screen size.

Mark

 

[mcveed]

Mark,

Your D100 images are very impressive. I particularly like images 11 to 16. I can just imagine how great those will look with a bit of processing. Is there any possibility you could post an original full size file on pbase so we could see it full size?

BTW, I notice a couple of black spots in the upper left hand quadrant of some of your images - #2,3,4,6 and 16. Are they dust on the CCD?
Cheers,
--
Happy Snapping
Don McVee
http://www.pbase.com/mcveed

 

[Mark Hudon]

Again, any downsizing hides softness and artifacts, so I'm not sure
what point you can legitimate about images w/o post-processing with
these images.

If there's a way to view "full size", I'd be interested in taking
another look.

I'd have to send them to you directly. The program that loads them to the web makes them all that size.

 

[Mark Hudon]

Look at the exif... He used Quicktime to do the downsizing so he
couldn't have done that much. Second, he use a 2 second shutter
with an aperture of f/29 on some of them. I'd say he didn't really
do a lot and at ISO 200 the D100's images don't have very much
noise or artifacts in fine jpeg. They have none of these issues if
you're shooting NEF.

I just selected the photos in iPhoto and clicked Export to Web. The program did the rest. Aside from that, there is no processing and none was done "on purpose".

The point remains, I did not spend one iota of time editing these photos in PhotoShop. They are as "as is" as as is can get for the common man. If I had uploaded these photo to an internet photo lab the same amount of "post processing" would have been done.

 

[Mark Hudon]

If you don't mind I would like to ask some questions. Did you use
a tripod? What format did you shoot in (JPEG, NEF, etc.)? Did you
make any adjustments to the defaults on the multiple tweaking
in-camera processing settings (like the Cloud -3 suggestion below)?
And if you are interested in explaining anything else then please
do.

I have a carbon fiber Bogen (3443D) tripod with a Kirk B-3 ballhead (I hike a lot). I used it and a Kirk D100 "L" bracket and a shutter release for all this photos.

I shoot Large and Fine and jpeg. I use the White Balance for the appropriate conditions, Sunny, Shady or Cloudy, not Auto. Only today did I start experimenting with the + and - factors in the white balance settings. All the photos on my web were done with it set at the appropriate setting and at zero. I have my camera set on ISO 200, not Auto. I have High Sharpening turned on. I use Charles Campbells ChormaZone exposure system.
I suffer over my photos and take a lot of time to shoot one shot.
That's pretty much it.

 

[Mark Hudon]

Your D100 images are very impressive. I particularly like images 11
to 16. I can just imagine how great those will look with a bit of
processing. Is there any possibility you could post an original
full size file on pbase so we could see it full size?
BTW, I notice a couple of black spots in the upper left hand
quadrant of some of your images - #2,3,4,6 and 16. Are they dust on
the CCD?

That was the dust on the lens that I mentioned in a previous thread. I've sent the lens to Nikon to get cleaned. The dust was inside the lens.

I don't have a pbase account. Send me your email address personally and I'll send you the full size image. Really and truely, I don't know how to do it any other way.
Mark

 

[WFAdams]

Check out Rob Galbraith's early test of a pre-production Canon 11 megapixel monster camera. The same people who produced the G2 for consumers, produced the D1s. Rob Galbraith's article discusses why this or any other digital camera (not counting the Foveon for the moment) needs sharpening. It is a fact of life with this technology. A deliberate blurring has to take place, and a resulting post-processing chore is in store for either the camera or the the post-processing software. Even with a huge full frame CCD made by the makers of the G2. Kinda provokes one to think a bit.

Post-processing software powered by a PC is a lot more capable and robust than the tiny in-camera processor (which is powered by tiny, but energetic insects on a treadmill fed periodically by CCD dust). Which of these two devices will be able to run the more sophisticated algorithms? Hmmmm.

The D100 allows a photographer to get incredible shots. However,
to do so, the D100 does less in-camera image processing than P&S
cameras, thereby preserving more data for later manipulation. To
get great shots with the D100, you have two choices: 1) Process
images in PS; or 2) Tinker with the D100 settings to "process" the
image during capture, overriding Nikon's intentional efforts to
preserve image data and maximum flexibility in post-processing.

You siad that D100 makes soft image is "Nikon's intentional efforts
to preserve image data". Is this statement from a Nikon
representative, or just from your guess (educated guess?)

Just a question. Not intented to flame anybody. Thanks.

AstroEric

--
Bill Adams
http://www.pbase.com/bill_adams

 

[Mark Hudon]

Here are my photos from today.

The exception here is that, since my D100 is out getting the 2.0 firmware update, all these photos were taken with my tripod and 5700.

http://w3.gorge.net/ellen/Recent_Photos_10-23-02/index.html

Mark

 

[Don Tough]

Mark

I like your Multnomah Falls photo, and have climbed that Falls 2 times, so from the East Coast thanks for the memory
Don

Here are my photos from today.

The exception here is that, since my D100 is out getting the 2.0
firmware update, all these photos were taken with my tripod and
5700.

http://w3.gorge.net/ellen/Recent_Photos_10-23-02/index.html

Mark

 

[colonel m]

Well said.

Post-processing software powered by a PC is a lot more capable and
robust than the tiny in-camera processor (which is powered by tiny,
but energetic insects on a treadmill fed periodically by CCD dust).
Which of these two devices will be able to run the more
sophisticated algorithms? Hmmmm.

The D100 allows a photographer to get incredible shots. However,
to do so, the D100 does less in-camera image processing than P&S
cameras, thereby preserving more data for later manipulation. To
get great shots with the D100, you have two choices: 1) Process
images in PS; or 2) Tinker with the D100 settings to "process" the
image during capture, overriding Nikon's intentional efforts to
preserve image data and maximum flexibility in post-processing.

You siad that D100 makes soft image is "Nikon's intentional efforts
to preserve image data". Is this statement from a Nikon
representative, or just from your guess (educated guess?)

Just a question. Not intented to flame anybody. Thanks.

AstroEric

--
Bill Adams
http://www.pbase.com/bill_adams

 

[Cribbage]

You tell pbase where the original full sized image is on your hard drive, and you're done.
Well, you do have to wait awhile for the image to upload...

But in terms of making any point about softness, noise and artifacts -- downsizing reduces them all, so I don't see the point of providing examples unless they are full sized.

Again, any downsizing hides softness and artifacts, so I'm not sure
what point you can legitimate about images w/o post-processing with
these images.

If there's a way to view "full size", I'd be interested in taking
another look.

I'd have to send them to you directly. The program that loads them
to the web makes them all that size.

 

[Cribbage]

vtie made the point in another thread:
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=3626475

that in-camera sharpening, at least in the Fuji S2, sometimes uses algorithms superior to the USM-oriented approaches available in Photoshop. (However, he also makes the point that the S2's implementation of its particular algorithm is possibly badly calibrated to its own raw data).

I suppose Photoshop will get better in this regard, or more third party tools will emerge that specialize in sharpening techniques beyond USM and its progeny. If there is an algorithm gap in this regard, I suspect it will soon weigh in favor of the external applications having the superior sharpening algorithms.

For working photographers who want to use JPEG for faster operation, the forthcoming Kodak has an interesting enhancement, which compresses and stores, essentially the information "RAW minus JPEG" losslessly (!), permitting reconstruction of most or all of the original 12-bit data.

This means that the Canon's camera's JPEGs will have to rely on in-camera sharpening for all 12-bit manipulation, and be 8-bit after that, whereas the enhanced JPEGs of the Kodak will be able to benefit from external sharpening applications and the potential for superior algorithms with 12-bit data.

Post-processing software powered by a PC is a lot more capable and
robust than the tiny in-camera processor (which is powered by tiny,
but energetic insects on a treadmill fed periodically by CCD dust).
Which of these two devices will be able to run the more
sophisticated algorithms? Hmmmm.

The D100 allows a photographer to get incredible shots. However,
to do so, the D100 does less in-camera image processing than P&S
cameras, thereby preserving more data for later manipulation. To
get great shots with the D100, you have two choices: 1) Process
images in PS; or 2) Tinker with the D100 settings to "process" the
image during capture, overriding Nikon's intentional efforts to
preserve image data and maximum flexibility in post-processing.

You siad that D100 makes soft image is "Nikon's intentional efforts
to preserve image data". Is this statement from a Nikon
representative, or just from your guess (educated guess?)

Just a question. Not intented to flame anybody. Thanks.

AstroEric

--
Bill Adams
http://www.pbase.com/bill_adams