-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
D200 Group Shot...
- Thread starter APY_Jr
- Start date
Quentin (UK)
Senior Member
Great shot as always, Albert, but it looks a tad less smooth and detailed compared to the Kodak...
--
Quentin
http://www.brightnewlight.co.uk
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/micropayment/
--
'Where have I been all my life?'
--
Quentin
http://www.brightnewlight.co.uk
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/micropayment/
--
'Where have I been all my life?'
Shelby Frisich
Forum Enthusiast
Hi Albert,
I agree with Quentin, its a great shot and your subjects should really love this. I too think your Kodak shots have a just a little more sharpness. I'm not sure if you would notice the difference in an 8x10 print though. The ones that you post here are really helpful in seeing these differences.
Thanks for taking the time to post this.
Best regards,
Shelby
I agree with Quentin, its a great shot and your subjects should really love this. I too think your Kodak shots have a just a little more sharpness. I'm not sure if you would notice the difference in an 8x10 print though. The ones that you post here are really helpful in seeing these differences.
Thanks for taking the time to post this.
Best regards,
Shelby
the signatory
Senior Member
Maybe on a 6x4 (MAX!)Not quite the rez as the Kodak... but it'll do
And it shows!
This has got to be a wind up! ;-)
If not, then thanks for the warning. I shall not be considering a D200 anytime soon for my line of work. I can't believe someone like you would find that even half-way acceptable, Albert. Flat, blotchy colour; sharpening halos; just look at the lack of detail and tonal range in the girls red clothing. Yuk! I know it is a web-quality Jpeg, but so were your Kodak's, and there is NO comparison. This reminds me of the in-camera produced Jpegs the Kodak is supposed to be notorious for,..... but worse! LOL Don't misunderstand me, the composition is fabulous as always. But to me it looks like you are trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear of a camera. I guess I am spoiled.
Please, please, PLEASE return to the Kodak!
--
Kind regards,
Nigel
A bad workman always blames his tools. But in the light of all that I have written above, I am definitely blaming my keyboard!
No it's not as smooth and rezzed as the Kodak and it requires more sharpening to boot to print it the way I like.
But it will print an 8x10 just fine... (4x6 Nigel? comon....)
To be honest I haven't printed this on the Frontier yet but I will compare 8x10's soon.
And don't worry Nigel... I didn't get this camera to replace the 14Nx... but the DCS760's and that it will do handily. (what are my other options at this point?)
Buy a bunch of used 760's? Even the faster 80x Lexar cards I use in them now show occasional "blue lines" in the files from not being very compatible with the 760 write process.
But I had to see what the D200 would do in my own little real world test
I will continue to use the 14Nx for all my group shots.
Albert
But it will print an 8x10 just fine... (4x6 Nigel? comon....
)To be honest I haven't printed this on the Frontier yet but I will compare 8x10's soon.
And don't worry Nigel... I didn't get this camera to replace the 14Nx... but the DCS760's and that it will do handily. (what are my other options at this point?)
Buy a bunch of used 760's? Even the faster 80x Lexar cards I use in them now show occasional "blue lines" in the files from not being very compatible with the 760 write process.
But I had to see what the D200 would do in my own little real world test
I will continue to use the 14Nx for all my group shots.
Albert
Garen
Senior Member
Hi Albert,
Please please no more d200 group shots ...LOL. On the serious note there is no way that you took this picture so what is the catch.
Best Regards,
Garen
--
Who says it can't be done?
Please please no more d200 group shots ...LOL. On the serious note there is no way that you took this picture so what is the catch.
Best Regards,
Garen
--
Who says it can't be done?
Quentin (UK)
Senior Member
Albert,
What do you think of the D200 for these group shots? Have you done side by side comparisons with the Kodak?
Based on this sample, I'd steer clear of the D200. the Kodak blows it away, but maybe its a question of you being more experienced using the Kodak at this stage.
My advice: use 8x10
--
Quentin
http://www.brightnewlight.co.uk
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/micropayment/
--
'Where have I been all my life?'
What do you think of the D200 for these group shots? Have you done side by side comparisons with the Kodak?
Based on this sample, I'd steer clear of the D200. the Kodak blows it away, but maybe its a question of you being more experienced using the Kodak at this stage.
My advice: use 8x10
--
Quentin
http://www.brightnewlight.co.uk
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/micropayment/
--
'Where have I been all my life?'
Based on this shot only...
First of all...trying to use the same 28-70 lens, I have to get another 3rd distance back because of the 1.5 sensor... so I have to turn my light up to full power and stop up to get the same lighting results. Or get a 17-55 Dx lens.
Obviously it's softer.. but I'm still thinking there's some serious "mirror slap" going on with this camera and that the Mirror Up function is neccessary with this camera. I didn't use that on this shot.
The D200 has no luminometer... so I had to photograph the Gretag 24 card with the highlight exposure indicator on and adjust the shutter/fstop to where the white square wasn't "flashing" anymore. On the histogram.. just keeping the shadows from being clipped.
I processed the same way using SilkyPix... but increased the sharpening (that's where the sharpening artifacts started) But I decreased the false color down to 80 where the kodak needs 233+ to reduce aliasing.
Here's the funny thing with this camera using the same lighting setup... the back rows of the group, which normally show light falloff on the Kodak (even at 60 shuuter speed)... appear to be the lit the same as the front rows. Even the wall in the back ground holds the light. A really long and flat midrange.
The reds over saturate easily and discolor. I actually like the eveness of the skin tones (no yellow/green shadows)
I don't think the overall color is so bad actually.
And it was really nice to see all the catch lights in the eyes actually white
in EVERY eye.. instead of purple one eye green the other
But the detail just isn't there for my groups and I don't want to go backwards here.
still looking for "Mr. Goodbar",
Albert
First of all...trying to use the same 28-70 lens, I have to get another 3rd distance back because of the 1.5 sensor... so I have to turn my light up to full power and stop up to get the same lighting results. Or get a 17-55 Dx lens.
Obviously it's softer.. but I'm still thinking there's some serious "mirror slap" going on with this camera and that the Mirror Up function is neccessary with this camera. I didn't use that on this shot.
The D200 has no luminometer... so I had to photograph the Gretag 24 card with the highlight exposure indicator on and adjust the shutter/fstop to where the white square wasn't "flashing" anymore. On the histogram.. just keeping the shadows from being clipped.
I processed the same way using SilkyPix... but increased the sharpening (that's where the sharpening artifacts started) But I decreased the false color down to 80 where the kodak needs 233+ to reduce aliasing.
Here's the funny thing with this camera using the same lighting setup... the back rows of the group, which normally show light falloff on the Kodak (even at 60 shuuter speed)... appear to be the lit the same as the front rows. Even the wall in the back ground holds the light. A really long and flat midrange.
The reds over saturate easily and discolor. I actually like the eveness of the skin tones (no yellow/green shadows)
I don't think the overall color is so bad actually.
And it was really nice to see all the catch lights in the eyes actually white
in EVERY eye.. instead of purple one eye green the other
But the detail just isn't there for my groups and I don't want to go backwards here.
still looking for "Mr. Goodbar",
Albert
Quentin (UK)
Senior Member
Albert,
I never did understand the two tone catchlight issue with the Kodak.
Still, a 3 year or so old camera still holds its own. I feel this is a year I'll wait out so far as digital camera upgrdes are concerned. In truth, good as the D200 / 5D etc are, they don't inspire me or make me feel I have to change. The reverse, if anything. the devil you know....
Q.
PS but I zoom in with 8x10 and what do I see? Nothing! no CA...no moire...no colour noise...just fine, even, nice smooth grain, and shedloads of detail. Its true. I'm becomning an old fart (not a word, Flick...).
--
Quentin
http://www.brightnewlight.co.uk
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/micropayment/
--
'Where have I been all my life?'
I never did understand the two tone catchlight issue with the Kodak.
Still, a 3 year or so old camera still holds its own. I feel this is a year I'll wait out so far as digital camera upgrdes are concerned. In truth, good as the D200 / 5D etc are, they don't inspire me or make me feel I have to change. The reverse, if anything. the devil you know....
Q.
PS but I zoom in with 8x10 and what do I see? Nothing! no CA...no moire...no colour noise...just fine, even, nice smooth grain, and shedloads of detail. Its true. I'm becomning an old fart (not a word, Flick...).
--
Quentin
http://www.brightnewlight.co.uk
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/micropayment/
--
'Where have I been all my life?'
Paul Spatafora
Leading Member
Hi Albert,
Could you try a different sharpening technique to see if it helps with the surface irregularities. I think you way over sharpened the file with suface sharpening and that's way it's not very good. I have found using the D200, that sharpening is going to the key in getting the best out of this camera.
I also noticed that you were trying to shoot this setup like you were using the SLRn. The Nikon and Canon files are not going to give you the same latitude that the Kodaks will. You can see it in the blacks where they are a wierd shade of grey. I have found that if you compress the black to a pure black with very little detail using curves or histograms, then the files will look better. You're not fighting artifacting now but the AA filter. Also, I think it's .5 stop over exposured. The image looks like one shot from my 660.
I just did some headshots with the Kodak at ISO200, and the detail is overpowering. Sometimes I wish I had an AA filter with it to give me that one pixel blur that only an AA filter provides.
I would realy like to see that shot sharpened with an Edge sharpening routine to see if it helps.
Paul
Could you try a different sharpening technique to see if it helps with the surface irregularities. I think you way over sharpened the file with suface sharpening and that's way it's not very good. I have found using the D200, that sharpening is going to the key in getting the best out of this camera.
I also noticed that you were trying to shoot this setup like you were using the SLRn. The Nikon and Canon files are not going to give you the same latitude that the Kodaks will. You can see it in the blacks where they are a wierd shade of grey. I have found that if you compress the black to a pure black with very little detail using curves or histograms, then the files will look better. You're not fighting artifacting now but the AA filter. Also, I think it's .5 stop over exposured. The image looks like one shot from my 660.
I just did some headshots with the Kodak at ISO200, and the detail is overpowering. Sometimes I wish I had an AA filter with it to give me that one pixel blur that only an AA filter provides.
I would realy like to see that shot sharpened with an Edge sharpening routine to see if it helps.
Paul
the signatory
Senior Member
;-)No it's not as smooth and rezzed as the Kodak and it requires more
sharpening to boot to print it the way I like.
But it will print an 8x10 just fine... (4x6 Nigel? comon....
Well at least you now know we're not a bunch of sycophants! ;-)but the DCS760's and that it will do handily. (what are my
other options at this point?)
Buy a bunch of used 760's? Even the faster 80x Lexar cards I use in
them now show occasional "blue lines" in the files from not being
very compatible with the 760 write process.
But I had to see what the D200 would do in my own little real world
test
I just can't get over my initial revulsion when first seeing the original larger sized image in your first post. You really did prove to me how much more competent the Kodak is at those kind of compositions, Albert. Thank you so much.
Good boy! But I'm sorry if I offended your new camera. I'm sure it has its strengths......somewhere. lol
--
Kind regards,
Nigel
A bad workman always blames his tools. But in the light of all that I have written above, I am definitely blaming my keyboard!
It was actually underexposed about .5 stop.
Here's a Nikon Capture version.
I didn't do all my normal stuff.. (lighten the back rows.. take out the artifacts on the girls reflective uniforms, take out the beam at the right, stc...)
It's simply processed with ModeIIIa (liked the skin tones better and the blacks) and unsharp mask in Nikon capture.
I'm going to email you a link to the NEF file and you can play around with it.
Albert
Here's a Nikon Capture version.
I didn't do all my normal stuff.. (lighten the back rows.. take out the artifacts on the girls reflective uniforms, take out the beam at the right, stc...)
It's simply processed with ModeIIIa (liked the skin tones better and the blacks) and unsharp mask in Nikon capture.
I'm going to email you a link to the NEF file and you can play around with it.
Albert
Paul Spatafora
Leading Member
Hi Albert,It was actually underexposed about .5 stop.
Here's a Nikon Capture version.
I didn't do all my normal stuff.. (lighten the back rows.. take out
the artifacts on the girls reflective uniforms, take out the beam
at the right, stc...)
It's simply processed with ModeIIIa (liked the skin tones better
and the blacks) and unsharp mask in Nikon capture.
I'm going to email you a link to the NEF file and you can play
around with it.
Albert
This version is much better it terms of details and resolution but could use better sharpening. The files are really flat. I would use a little levels to bump up the contrast. There is an action on http://www.atncentral.com that does edge sharpening quite effectively on these types of files. It's called Dave's Sharpening Actions. Try these two techniques and see if it helps. What ISO did you shoot this at? It seems rather blotchy for a Nikon file. Hey, where's the Teflon?
One more thing, I would stay away from unsharpen mask. That's what's giving you the blotchies in the first file you posted.
Hope this helps.
Paul
the signatory
Senior Member
8
hmmm.... looks like I may have been a wee bit hasty. Although still without the Kodak 'magic' look, that is an improvement over the Silkypix version. I should have considered PP more in my initial reaction. I guess I just assumed that you had extracted the best from the file, in your customary manner.
So, Silkypix not as good as NC for these files eh. Guess you just need to find the right workflow for them?
--
Kind regards,
Nigel
A bad workman always blames his tools. But in the light of all that I have written above, I am definitely blaming my keyboard!
Garen
Senior Member
Hi Albert,
Much better than SP version, but in all honesty it just does not have "IT" your kodak shots screams excellence but this photo looks like an ordinary flat shot. The problem is that you have spoiled us with such great pictures, risen the bar so high that ordinary pictures become .....
Best Regards,
Garen
--
Who says it can't be done?
Much better than SP version, but in all honesty it just does not have "IT" your kodak shots screams excellence but this photo looks like an ordinary flat shot. The problem is that you have spoiled us with such great pictures, risen the bar so high that ordinary pictures become .....
Best Regards,
Garen
--
Who says it can't be done?
Nirto Karsten Fischer
Leading Member
I wouldn't judge the D200 from that badly processed shot, which looks like from a 3 MP P&S. It really looks like somebody is trying to make the D200 photo look like a badly processed Kodak shot. I haven't posted for some time here and so I mention again that I have the D200 beside the SLR/n and the D2x. The D200 is a very capable camera which produces very good photos with smooth tonality and very fine detail. I would see it as something over 90% of the picture quality of the D2x, which I consider as often superior in overall picture quality compared to the SLR/n.
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum