difference btwn output & LCD "preview" pics

[wholehogg]

i take pics that look beautiful on the D70 screen, both in thumbnail & in selected "zoom" mode; but when i transfer them to the computer, they are significantly flatter, less vivid & less striking. is this to be expected? is my camera goofed? if a few others could be so kind as to share their experiences of the differrence between their LCD previews & the transferred output, i would be deeply appreciative to know whether my camera is a dud (or i am Even more appreciated (if this is expected experience) would be a custom PS action that would make pics look like they do on the LCD when transferred to the puter. thank you in advance for your kindness & assistance.

- please forgive my ignorance if this is obvious to others - i am new to digital photography

 

[Brenda in TX]

I have the same experience so I am interested in hearing from others.

--
Brenda

 

[Nukester]

It really REALLY bothers me, especially when shooting something special, you think you nailed it, but when you get home, off to post process land you go. I really dislike the LCD preview.

I read on this forum to turn the brightness down 2 notches and it will better match the actual exposure.

Good luck.

I have the same experience so I am interested in hearing from others.

--
Brenda

 

[thomas1973]

I think it's a 'problem' on most LCDs, at least on all digicams I've tried, there's a difference between the computer screen and the camera monitor. I've never been too put off by it, as I've quickly adapted to the difference, and learned to see the LCD for how it would look in 'real life'.

The LCD is not really for seeing fine detail or slight exposure differences, I think. I see it more as the polaroid back shots they use on medium format cameras to check the scene before shooting.

On the LCD the histogram is way more useful than the picture itself, IMO. Post processing is part of digital SLR shooting, just as post processing is part of film SLR shooting, to get good results.

Just my thoughts on the subject.

Thomas.

I read on this forum to turn the brightness down 2 notches and it
will better match the actual exposure.

Good luck.

I have the same experience so I am interested in hearing from others.

--
Brenda

 

[Charles S]

This may have been mentioned before, but try this:

Take an image that's on your computer that you really like in terms of brightness, contrast & saturation. Now copy this jpeg to your compact flash card. Take a look at it on the LCD monitor. This is kinda working backwards, but you'll get a good indication of what your image will look like once you get it in the computer. It may be possible to adjust your LCD brightness to match the computer screen.

--
Charles S

 

[Brenda in TX]

Mine isn't so much a brightness problem but a focus problem. My main subject will look in focus on the LCD but once I get it on the computer, it's either too soft or not in focus at all. Thanks for the tip, though.

This may have been mentioned before, but try this:

Take an image that's on your computer that you really like in terms
of brightness, contrast & saturation. Now copy this jpeg to your
compact flash card. Take a look at it on the LCD monitor. This is
kinda working backwards, but you'll get a good indication of what
your image will look like once you get it in the computer. It may
be possible to adjust your LCD brightness to match the computer
screen.

--
Charles S

--
Brenda

 

[wholehogg]

Brenda - thats not my experience but i have a thought for you. (my images are sharply in focus, but they are markedly less saturated) anyway, my thought is that it may be a combination of issues that you are running into - 1) - the (IMNO) "counterintuitive" initial autofocus mode of "dynamic area" that is set in the camera, and 2) - the fact that the LCD is so much smaller that it "downsizes out" lack of focus by making the images smaller, (thereby losing the detail of lack of focus), so they appear more in focus. By # (1), i mean that it will focus on whatever is the closest subject to the lens, and i ran into that "problem" (really a problem of my own lack of understanding, not the cam - it was doing what it was told to do) at first when i was used to focsing & metering on the center of teh frame, then re-compositioning my shot based on the autofocus focusing on what was then the center of the image. notice in the viewfinder that there are a matrix of focusing brackets. and one will turn red as it focuses, whichever is the closest to the camera. if you set teh autofocus from the default "dynamic area" to what (at least i was used to from my old 6006) "single area" you might better results. of course, if my guess of whats going on is off base, then all of this is dribble

peace & recycling

This may have been mentioned before, but try this:

Take an image that's on your computer that you really like in terms
of brightness, contrast & saturation. Now copy this jpeg to your
compact flash card. Take a look at it on the LCD monitor. This is
kinda working backwards, but you'll get a good indication of what
your image will look like once you get it in the computer. It may
be possible to adjust your LCD brightness to match the computer
screen.

--
Charles S

--
Brenda

 

[wholehogg]

Thomas & Nukester, i appreciate the thoughts. i myself have come to "See" the LCD as what i can make the pic look ilke if i get the post right, but wish that the pic just magically came out like that to save me time & grief. it would seem that an action could be created (by someone with much more skill and understanding than i) which would make the transferred images look like they do on the LCD.

peace & recycling, al

The LCD is not really for seeing fine detail or slight exposure
differences, I think. I see it more as the polaroid back shots they
use on medium format cameras to check the scene before shooting.

On the LCD the histogram is way more useful than the picture
itself, IMO. Post processing is part of digital SLR shooting, just
as post processing is part of film SLR shooting, to get good
results.

Just my thoughts on the subject.

Thomas.

I read on this forum to turn the brightness down 2 notches and it
will better match the actual exposure.

Good luck.

I have the same experience so I am interested in hearing from others.

--
Brenda

 

[Brenda in TX]

That is extremely helpful, and I thank you!

Brenda - thats not my experience but i have a thought for you. (my
images are sharply in focus, but they are markedly less saturated)
anyway, my thought is that it may be a combination of issues that
you are running into - 1) - the (IMNO) "counterintuitive" initial
autofocus mode of "dynamic area" that is set in the camera, and 2)

• the fact that the LCD is so much smaller that it "downsizes out"

lack of focus by making the images smaller, (thereby losing the
detail of lack of focus), so they appear more in focus. By # (1),
i mean that it will focus on whatever is the closest subject to the
lens, and i ran into that "problem" (really a problem of my own
lack of understanding, not the cam - it was doing what it was told
to do) at first when i was used to focsing & metering on the center
of teh frame, then re-compositioning my shot based on the autofocus
focusing on what was then the center of the image. notice in the
viewfinder that there are a matrix of focusing brackets. and one
will turn red as it focuses, whichever is the closest to the
camera. if you set teh autofocus from the default "dynamic area"
to what (at least i was used to from my old 6006) "single area" you
might better results. of course, if my guess of whats going on is
off base, then all of this is dribble

--
Brenda

 

[shudderbug2]

Have you ever looked at the photos on a Sony 717 or 828 or Nikon coolpix LCD? Those photos look incredible on those monitors. They are designed to look that way to please the consumer. I've seen shots on a Minolta Dimage 7 that looked so vivid but yet on the computer they don't look so hot.

The LCD isn't a good indication of the final result, it's more to give you a preview and help in composition (do you have the scene framed right, are everyone's eyes open, etc) vs. showing you the final image quality.

I use the LCD as a reference vs. a final result. I use the histogram to check exposure and such.

Post processing is pretty much the norm for a DSLR. Sure consumer digicams produce more vividly saturated and sharper images out of the box (that's what they're designed to do) but at the expense of sometimes not real colors (oversaturated) and artifacts because the sharpening algorithms in the cameras aren't as sophisticated as the ones we can use on our PC's.

I think every newbie that moves from a consumer camera to a DSLR experiences this. I know I did. I was disappointed that my images weren't near as sharp and saturated and thought I had made a mistake in purchasing my first DSLR. As time went on and I began to understand the camera and learned a little post processing technique, I can tell you beyond a shadow of a doubt, my DSLR images look MUCH better then my consumer digicam images.

Hope this gives you some insight into this.

Kind Regards,

David Anderson

 

[wholehogg]

David, (and everyone,)

i grately appreciate the insight. I am certainly admittedly a newbie to digital shooting, (i have for quite some time shot film & scanned via coolscan 2000 & recently the LS-5000 coolscan, and i always enjoyed having the abilityto "reshoot" scenes based on difdfferrent objectives & blendijng them foir greatest effect. (for instance, adding some analog light to the scan for improved shadow rendition, then blending that part of the image into the properly exposed & scanned one.) i know that i lose this ability but gain many others when going to digital shooting, and am trying to maximixe my use of this tool to minimize what i give up in leaving film.

all this said, do you have any sage wisdom in learning proper D-SLR post processing technique? or are there any photoshop actions that would make the final image look more like the LCD preview? or are there any actions that approximate either the feel of elvia (or even provia) from the D70? or do you just have any suggestions or recommendations? Are there any e-dresses that might be of value to my learning?

all i can think to do are go in & do a level, color & contrast set, then add a little extra contrast (as the image will accept) , then pump up saturation (again, as the image will accept) & bring up the shadows where necessary. thenm use an unsharp mask against the image. thats about all my feeble mind can come up with. beinga D-SLR newbie im sure that there are a lot more & more subtle techniques that i could apply. got any suggestions? any & all thoughts are appreciated.

peace & recycling, al

Have you ever looked at the photos on a Sony 717 or 828 or Nikon
coolpix LCD? Those photos look incredible on those monitors. They
are designed to look that way to please the consumer. I've seen
shots on a Minolta Dimage 7 that looked so vivid but yet on the
computer they don't look so hot.

The LCD isn't a good indication of the final result, it's more to
give you a preview and help in composition (do you have the scene
framed right, are everyone's eyes open, etc) vs. showing you the
final image quality.

I use the LCD as a reference vs. a final result. I use the
histogram to check exposure and such.

Post processing is pretty much the norm for a DSLR. Sure consumer
digicams produce more vividly saturated and sharper images out of
the box (that's what they're designed to do) but at the expense of
sometimes not real colors (oversaturated) and artifacts because the
sharpening algorithms in the cameras aren't as sophisticated as the
ones we can use on our PC's.

I think every newbie that moves from a consumer camera to a DSLR
experiences this. I know I did. I was disappointed that my images
weren't near as sharp and saturated and thought I had made a
mistake in purchasing my first DSLR. As time went on and I began
to understand the camera and learned a little post processing
technique, I can tell you beyond a shadow of a doubt, my DSLR
images look MUCH better then my consumer digicam images.

Hope this gives you some insight into this.

Kind Regards,

David Anderson

 

[thomas1973]

For the Velvia look, you can try Digital Film from http://www.gsnsoft.com/df/en/index.html

I also know http://www.fredmiranda.com has a Velvia action for Photoshop.

If you'd like to do it yourself, I bet there's plenty of advice to be found in the Retouching forum here at dpreview.

Enjoy

Thomas.

all this said, do you have any sage wisdom in learning proper D-SLR
post processing technique? or are there any photoshop actions that
would make the final image look more like the LCD preview? or are
there any actions that approximate either the feel of elvia (or
even provia) from the D70? or do you just have any suggestions or
recommendations? Are there any e-dresses that might be of value
to my learning?

 

[Whity]

It is true that pics can come out "flat" on the computer. Have you calibrated the monitor and do you use the good settings in Photoshop. And if you print too it can come out differend than you see on your screen. Everything have to be set up right.

Hope it help you.
Tim

i take pics that look beautiful on the D70 screen, both in
thumbnail & in selected "zoom" mode; but when i transfer them to
the computer, they are significantly flatter, less vivid & less
striking. is this to be expected? is my camera goofed? if a few
others could be so kind as to share their experiences of the
differrence between their LCD previews & the transferred output, i
would be deeply appreciative to know whether my camera is a dud (or
i am Even more appreciated (if this is expected experience)
would be a custom PS action that would make pics look like they do
on the LCD when transferred to the puter. thank you in advance for
your kindness & assistance.

- please forgive my ignorance if this is obvious to others - i
am new to digital photography

 

[FlossTycoon]

Take one of the photos that seems dull on the monitor and save a copy in a new file. Change the colorspace to adobeRGB which is optimized for monitors and see how that looks.

If your camera can make the image look good on the LCD then you can make it look the same with post processing. Your computer has way more horsepower than your camera.