Just released Nikon D2X

[innocent]

Are you missing me? I don't think so.
However, I am beginning to have an unusual interest in this forum particularly in the area of sociology. It is fascinating to observe the effect of what Prof Hillier describes as trans-spatial relationship- interesting.

Well back to D2X. My question remains about the bland sky shown in the NikonPro s&le (not to mention my own experiences with dslr). It is becoming clear that digital capture (Nikon and perhaps other dslr too) still have dificulty with resolving the sky details. Why sky detail? because I shoot mostly architecture and nature for the curious ones.

BTW, is some News media listening into this forum? because I find it a striking coincidence that the bland sky issue is now discussed in the Practical Photography March 2005 edition- strange but not surprising. There solution is to doctor the sky in photoshop. You all know I don't buy that idea.

Oh, I have to apologise to those whom I might have inadvertently offended in this forum and I wish therefore that the forum should go back to discuss photography and not name calling or the like. Furthermore I want to place on record that some of us here in this forum have their paid personal professional photography tutors and therefore do not need any basic advise; such is simply insulting.

Is there anyone with good ex&le of a dslr capture where the sky has not been doctored? If so pls post some s&le of your ex&le and how you achieved the result. Thanks

 

[ed_rottinger]

}

 

[jsmisc]

Is it not that digital phtography is equivalent to shooting on slide film only more so? So, maybe an average exposure reading to expose the foreground correctly will wash out the sky since there is no latitude. You could try a spot reading on the grass or some other mid tone or just try less exposure overall.

 

[lnbolch]

> > Posted by John Strain (Jsmisc) > Is it not that digital phtography is equivalent to shooting on slide > film only more so?

It is indeed. The advantage of digital is that you have access to the histogram, in order to get perfect exposure every time without the need for wide braketing, as with chromes. Furthermore, with chromes there are different "perfect" exposures - a dense, saturated image is generally preferred for magazine work, while an A/V producer will tend to want a thinner density for projection.

While shooting digital demands rigid control in the field, it provides considerable flexibility after the shoot. Once it is transferred to the computer, it is more like a negative, in that fine tuning can be done in the darkroom - albeit the digital darkroom. With slides, one only has bracketing and culling on the photographer's side, though for reproduction, those making the separations have had considerable room for corrections, even before scanners.

In the field, the use of the histogram is mandatory. At a glance you can tell where your tonal spread lies on the digital equivalent of film's characteristic curve, and you can protect your highlights - exactly as one needs to with chromes. When a highlight hits base density with a chrome or RGB 255,255,255 with digital, all detail is lost forever. There is no way of reconstruction of detail after the fact.

Higher-end digital cameras have some form of RAW format, which is 12-bits per RGB channel, giving the capability to deal with a somewhat longer dynamic range. It provides little or no benefit at the highlight end, but can hold substantially more shadow detail. Thus one can afford to set one's exposure to fully protect one's highlights, and not loose shadow detail in bulletproof densities as one would with say Kodachrome.

Of course, you need a program that can deal with the extended bit depth, and that pretty much mandates Photoshop CS. While earlier versions had workspace that could accommodate the 12-bit per channel depth, most of the features were greyed out. With CS, even Lab Colour Mode and layering are fully implimented, allowing superb colour balancing in even extreme mixed light situations and when shot under extremely contrasty conditions.

Contrast can also be handled by using digital camera's auto-bracket feature - shooting a series of shots from tripod, bracketing at specified intervals. This series of shots can then be layered in Photoshop taking the shadow detail of the brightest and highlight detail of the darkest, using the intermediate shots to provide a smooth transition. This will extend the dynamic capability well beyond what any other photographic material can handle, and it can do this under the total control of the photographer. It is a superb technique for architectural interiors by natural light, for ex&le. For ex&les and information on how-to, see http://www.larry-bolch.com/layers.htm

larry! http://www.larry-bolch.com/ ICQ 76620504

 

[jsmisc]

Hello Larry,
Thanks for the very comprehensive and informative reply. It was most interesting and might even persuade me to convert to digital. I certainly liked your ex&les although it does look complicated. I have Photoshop CS and will have to work at learning it thoroughly.
We have a small Casio digital compact which is excellent for what it does but there is little or no manual control and I just use it for record shots at which it is very capable. Perhaps the time has now come to forsake my film cameras.
Best wishes,
John

 

[lnbolch]

> Posted by John Strain (Jsmisc) > Perhaps the time has now come to forsake my film cameras.

Consider carefully - digital is not for everyone. I do have a well received essay on the topic at http://www.larry-bolch.com/film-vs-digital/

In fact, since buying an Epson 4870 scanner, film has become viable for me once again. Having spent a lifetime shooting "for the Man", I have finally earned the time to shoot for myself. With digital, I have replaced my 35mm cameras for the most part, and use it primarily in the same way. I do a lot of "street" and find that the high-end wide-angle Coolpix cameras do what the Leica did, only an order of magnitude better.

I shot with a CP5000 for the past three years and just added the CP8400 over the past weekend. It has an 18mm equivalent lens - which is about how I see. It is the same as the CP5k, in basic functions and use, but has three years more evolution and a number of features that make street even more effective.

I chose to go with the prosumer compact rather than a dSLR for quite a number of reasons. Since almost all shots involve people, the swing and swivel viewing monitor allows me to move the camera out of the line of sight, so I can make comfortable eye contact with the subjects without the camera intruding. It is in full view, but the effect is much different from being stared at through a big SLR. I work with wide-angle lenses, so I can get close, intimate shots of my subjects. Just now there are superwides trickling onto the market for dSLRs, but they tend to be slow and expensive.

Then there is dust - I fought with dust through all the decades of film. However, if a fleck of microscopic dust gets on film, it is only on one frame. With a dSLR, it lands on the sensor, it is embedded in every image until removed. Of course dust can be prevented from entering the camera by never changing the lens, but then why pay a substantial premium for this feature, if it is never used. I DO have a substantial arsenal of Nikon glass, but with the size of the DX sensor, only the central part of the image fits. Thus my 28mm Perspective Control Nikkor - which was never quite wide enough - becomes the equivalent of a 42mm PC lens which is utterly absurd.

Finally, a dSLR projects the image onto ground glass, where my cameras show me the image as processed through the camera. I do not see a symbolic representation of the image, but the actual exposure. Having shot hundreds of thousands of shots with film SLRs, I find this a magnum leap forward.

For contemplative photography, travel, epic landscapes and the like, the Epson scanner has far exceeded my expectations. I have made quite a number of 13" x 19" prints with quality I could only hope for from a pro custom lab. While the price of a camera with a 22MP back is breath-taking, I am using old equipment that has paid for itself a long time back, and getting a 22MP scan is trivial.

I also have a WideLuxe 140° panoramic camera, that with three exposures will do a complete 360° panoramic. The exposures can be joined in any application that includes layers. The film is in a curved plane behind a lens that swivels - the classic panoramic camera. Since the image is ALREADY in panoramic format, no exotic software is needed.

Thus, I have the best of both worlds. The medium format stuff, I had anyway, and shooting digital is essentially free.

Within three or four months, I will have shot enough pictures with the digital, that had it been film, the cost of processing, film and the time running back and forth to the lab would exceed the cost of the camera. Even if I am not selling photography anymore, the camera still has a very quick payout. Were I still a working shooter, the camera would be free after a few days of shooting. I am keeping my old CP5000, since it has done well over 30,000 shots - figure what that would have cost with even a 35mm camera!

larry!

http://www.larry-bolch.com/

ICQ 76620504

 

[innocent]

John wrote: >. John, forsaking your film camera for a d2x will be one of the biggest mistakes you may be making in the year 2005. I presume you shoot with an F5 with MF28 back if not get yourself an F6 and Nikon scanner and you will be laughing. My only use for a digital is strictly speaking, for the fun of it and to take meter reading under a multi-flash setup. Most Mags you read till date are still made up with images shot with chrome and even in the sport arenas medium format are still making their rounds. If however you in for any photo will do then sure the d2h or similar models will be fine, I'll say go for d70.

If in fact you have to go digital in a big way then Nikon is not an option to contemplate. Nikon digital are simply not good despite all the superficial support Nikon enjoys in this forum. Just wait for the d2x review or if cash is not a problem then beta test the d2x yourself as I did with the d2h- the beta version of the D2Hs.

 

[charlie]

OK... Is should be clear to everyone now that Innocent should not be here? Critism is fair when it comes from someone with experience. Innocent, you type words straight out of books and magazines with absolutely no exerience of your own. You ignore the word of experienced (and I'm not talking about me). You sir are an annoying imbecile. You need to be muzzled.

You are the fly in the ointment!

Paul

 

[charlie]

In my humble opinion, this forum has served those of us who use Nikon equipment very well. It has helped us maximize the usefullness of tools we have purchased. When we got lemons, we are taught by those with specific experience in the product to make lemonde out of it.

I am a straight shooter (forgive the pun), who will occasionally say things others would love to but dont want to rock the boat. Yes I am very harsh in my assessment of Innocent, but for those of you who are new to this forum, all you have to do is follow his post back several months and you will see that all of them have been negative.

If Innocent (not so innocent!) does not like Nikon products, then he needs to move on. He needs to go to a more general forum that discusses multiple brands before he makes the choice to purchase (you do realize that at this time, based on his words, he does not own a Digital Slr?). I thought we had had some peace from him for a week when he decided to stop his posts, but his ugly head has shown up again. When someone like Innocent says "If in fact you have to go digital in a big way then Nikon is not an option to contemplate!" and doesn't know the persons specific needs through a "Comprehensive Needs Annalysis", it becomes clear that he is indeed against Nikon products, in a Nikon Digital thread.

Now I realize it is very hard for the moderator of this forum (whom I would not wish to have this task) to decide if someone should be muzzled as I suggest Innocent be. However, if many of you begin to complain and request that Innocent be muzzled, then he may have a reason to do so. If you think I am out of line, then say so, as I would not want to take away a discussion such as Innocents away from you.

Sincerely,

Paul

P.S. Just incase anyone is was wondering what my qualifications are. I do make my living soley from taking digital images and selling them. And am very successful at it. By that definition, I am a proffesional photographer. However, realizing that the more I shoot and learn, the more I realize how much I do not know, I will label myself an advanced photographer.

 

[lnbolch]

He has raised some very interesting points, that were worth addressing - for the interest of the whole group - the role of image processing in the digital workflow, for ex&le. When he makes absurd pontifications, they are so absurd that they are easily ignored.

larry!

http://www.larry-bolch.com/

ICQ 76620504