JurI have today bought a Nikon D200, what an amazing camera!!, I would like a few hints just to get me going……
1, My rawshooter does not recognise the D200, will the Nikon Capture software enable me to use and convert RAW or is there a free download available?.
2, I have the boggo 18-70 Nikon Lens and a 70-300 VR Lens for airshows, is there a particular ‘gem’ that works well with this body? I am looking for a good lens to work in low light museums in particular.
John,
Although I don’t have a D200 (my DSLR is a D2x), I have the following suggestions to make:
1. Rawshooter is discontinued, because the Pixmantec company has been aquired by Adobe. An updated version of the Rawshooter engine is available in the new Adobe Lightroom program, which could be an interesting option for you. The browsing and library options in Lightroom are much better than in the now discontinued Rawshooter.
2. Although Pixmantec no longer exists, you could try to download the last version of Rawshooter somewhere else, e.g. http://www.download.com/RawShooter-Essentials-2006/3000-12511_4-10518796.html Hopefully this version is compatible with the D200.
3. For lowlight work in museums there are a few good (and lowcost) options from Nikon: AF-D 1.8/50mm (best value for the buck) and AF-D 2/35mm. However those lenses could prove to be too long for full aircraft pictures in aviation museums. For these kind of pictures I would use the AF-D 2.8/20mm or the AF-S G 4/12-24mm, but those are not cheap. You could also consider the Tokina 4/12-24mm (recommended) at about half the price of the Nikon equivalent, or something like the Sigma 1.8/20mm EX DG ASF (about the same price as the Tokina).
Hope this helps a bit.
JurI’ve had a go now with this Minolta 500si, and I am extremely disappointed with the results.
Given the quality of results I can persistently, and repeatedly achieve with my digital camera, I can only assume that the body is damaged. That’s two bodies this particular kit has had, and I wasn’t always pleased with the results with either before I transferred to digital.
The only time I got any kind of result was indoors with flash. All outdoors photos are completely out of focus and the white balance is too high, making them seem grey.
I don’t consider the £20 I’ve invested in it to be wasted, though. At least now I know for certain that it isn’t me, and there is definitely a fault with the camera. I certainly don’t think it’s worth investing any more money into it, though.
RobAnt,
I’m sorry that it didn’t work out with your Minolta 500si, but I’m a bit puzzled though. In analog camera’s there is no such thing as white balance. Actually the “white balance” is in the used film and not in the camera as such. Most colour films (daylight variety) are tweaked to 5400K. With incandescent light one has to put a filter on the lens to bring the colour of the light in balance with the colour sensitivity of the film. Also there are (have been) a few tungsten balanced films on the market, which don’t need to be filtered.
What kind of film did you use: slide or negative? Are you sure that the film was fresh (not out of date) and that it had been stored in a cool place? Assuming that of course you did set the correct ISO value, the only other reasons for the disappointing results could have been a faulty light meter in the camera (you can check this against your digital camera) or faulty developing of the film.
Out of focus results indicate that there is something wrong with the focus mechanism of either the used lens and/or the camera itself. This should be apparent when looking through the viewfinder while focusing. Blurred pictures could also be the result of long shutter speeds, possibly because of a fault in the shutter mechanism.
JurShould I get my films developed to hi-res CD (TIFFs would be best, I suppose – if I can find someone who does it) or simply get the films just straight developed, unprinted, and scan them myself. Will I achieve a better resolution/result then sending them to a developer to put on CD for me?
If I scan them myself, do I need to get the negatives cut by the developer, or will a pair of scissors do the trick?
I would prefer to scan the films myself (as I’ve done frequently in the past). Ask the developer to either cut the films in strips of 6 frames or to leave the film uncut altogether. It is very easy to cut the films with an ordinary pair of scissors. Don’t forget to get some good quality negative sleaves to store your films. Usually they take 6-frame strips.
JurAlthough not cheap, the best 35mm filmscanners are the recent Nikon models. A few years ago I went for a less expensive solution: Konica Minolta Dimage Scan Dual IV. I’ve had very good results with this scanner.
Konica Minolta went out of business since then, but I think you should be able to pick up a used model for about £ 100 – 125.
JurI’ll get some 35mm film, which I’ll get processed to CD, rather than printed, to see how it comes out.
Is there any preference with regards film/iso that I should try that works well when processed like this, and for this type of photograph? A good processing company? Can I specify RAW or will I only get jpegs?
Assuming that you would like to use the film for aviation photography, I would advise to look for films with the finest grain possible. For slide film that would be one of the ISO 100 films from either Fuji (Provia 100F or Sensia II) or Kodak.
My preference would be for a colour negative film as it has a wider latitude than slide film. In my experience a good (and cheap!) choice would be Fuji Superia 200. It’s grain is almost as fine as Superia 100 or Reala 100. Conditions permitting you can overexpose Superia 200 by about 2/3 stops, which will provide you with even finer grain and better colour saturation. No modification of development required!
JurI must admit, enlarging images isn’t something I’ve ever really done although on the few occasions I have in PS, even re-sampling bicubic I haven’t been overly impressed with the results. The specialist software, so I’m reliably informed performs very well, I just don’t know what that software is!
For your reference a nice article about resampling in Photoshop CS/CS2 http://www.earthboundlight.com/phototips/resizing-resampling-photoshop.html
Qimage software is reported to be the best for upsizing http://www.ddisoftware.com/qimage/
JurMany thanks Jur for your help, it was fantastic and I feel that my colour correcton has improved vastly! However, I was just wondering whether you could tell me what you think is wrong with the colour in these rejections:
Wannabe pilot,
I’m glad to have been of help to you. Your photo’s seem quite alright to me, although some adjustments could still be made. However that’s largely a matter of taste.
In general, with the exception of HZ-AKF, I find most of your pictures a little bit too red/magenta, even bearing in mind that it was approaching sunset.
G-ZAPV, D-AKNM and EI-OZB seem to me to be a bit too tightly cropped. More air (especially) in front and behind the aircraft would make a more pleasing composition. Again, this is also a matter of taste of course.
D-AKNM and EI-OZB suffer a little bit from blown-out highlights (especially below the windows and the fin). I’ve tried to correct that a bit, but it is impossible to regain detail when a part is really overexposed.
I don’t know whether you took this pictures in RAW or in JPEG. If at all posibble I would always select RAW, as this provides you with the best correction options (especially white balance, contrast, exposure) in postprocessing.
Did you use auto white balance or did you select a pre-set WB? The quality of auto WB differs from camera model to camera model. Also the WB could change from picture to picture. I would recommend to use a pre-set option like sunny daylight, which will virtually give you the same results as when using daylight slide film. Any required change in WB in postprocessing could be applied to all photo’s taken under the same circumstances.
Another option is to measure the white balance with the camera or to take a test picture of a suitable gray card (e.g. WhiBal) in the same light as your subjects.
In postprocessing it is also important to have your monitor calibrated. Affordable options are Color Vision Spyder 2 and Monaco OPTIX.
Hope this helps.
JurWhether you digitally zoom in on the camera or in PS you’re essentially doing the same thing. There are ways of enlarging digital images without pixelating them by interpolation, which basically re-calculates and adds data in between the original pixels, making the image smooth. It isn’t something I’ve ever done or I’m particularly familliar with, but it can be done… Somehow! Maybe someone can shed a little more light on software available to do this?
It really is best to enlarge the image in postprocessing rather than using digital zoom. In Photoshop go to Image / Image Size and tick the Resample Image box with option Bicubic. In my experience the quality of resampling in PS is quite good, although some specialized programs are reported to do an even better job.
JurI know little of the model, but am not convinced that a Canon Powershot A710 is going to offer a RAW option.
Moggy
I know very little about compacts, as a always shoot with (D)SLR’s, but I’m sure that you’re right about this camera not offering the RAW option.
My remarks were not specifically aimed at this camera, but more in general in reply to the previous post.
Jur1: shoot the best, biggest shot you can shoot, in RAW if your camera can handel it.
2: never change your original pic file, make a copy of it before making any changes(save a second copy of every picture on a second hard drive-not just a different partition of the same drive)
I second the recommendation to shoot RAW whenever possible. Usually RAW files are always in the highest resolution possible.
Although for safety purposes it is advisable to make a backup of your original RAW file, one of the biggest advantages of RAW over JPEG is that you can always get back to the original! Modifications to RAW files are non-destructive. Modifications are saved in an attached instructions set. The original will always remain intact. With JPEG the file itself is modified and, because of the compression algorithms, with every save action the quality will diminish.
5: Make sure you have a monitor that has good color or you could be giving yourself a BIG headache.
There is only one way to make sure that your monitor has good color: monitor calibration! There are various systems on the market to accomplish this. Just to name a few: Monaco OPTIX and Color Vision Spyder 2.
JurUnless you use Adobe Lightroom
This is true to a limited extend (sometimes I do use Lightroom myself). RAW files can be modified in a much more fundamental (non destructive) way. Aspects like the colour space (eg sRGB vs Adobe RGB) and colour mode can only be changed in RAW files.
JurSave images as RAW and if the camera has a RAW+JPEG mode use that. RAW gives a wider gamut which allows one more latitude in rendering the useable image and RAW+JPEG allows an image file for the built in viewer and also a quick index when files are saved to computer disc in the absence of an OS plug-in to view RAW thumbnails in a directory viewer.
For the built-in viewer and quick indexing of files it is not necessary to shoot RAW+JPEG. When you shoot RAW only, the camera will attach a basic JPEG anyway for viewing and indexing purposes. RAW editing programs (eg Adobe Lightroom, ACR, Nikon Capture NX, Capture ONE LE, etc.) also use that basic JPEG for indexing.
The gamut is defined by the colour space you have selected in the camera; Adobe RGB has a wider gamut than sRGB. This applies to RAW as well as to JPEG. However it is true that by shooting in RAW you have more options (exposure, tone curve, white balance, etc.) to correct the picture in postprocessing than you would have if you were shooting JPEG’s only.
JurAny help with editing photos with photoshop, saw a tutorial weeks ago but cannot seem to find it anywhere. Basically have a good Digital compact (and yes, i know it is not ideal) a Canon Powershot A710 to be precise and got a couple of pics today. Any advice other than that would be useful too.
Regards, Newcastle
On this site you’ll find quite a few Photoshop tutorials (various versions):
http://www.photoworkshop.com/adobe/softwarecinema/index.html
JurHi all have been folowing this thread for a while and am starting to look (save up) for a DSLR. Now I was thinking of going for the Canon EOS 400D, but then I saw the Sony A100 which is around the same price but you can get it with a 18-70 and a 75-300mm lenses.
Does any one have some experiance of this or should I just aim for the Canon?
These reviews could be of help to you
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonydslra100/
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos400d/
JurMany thanks for your help Jur. I had a go at the new technique last night…would you say that these are an improvement?
I’m glad to have been of help. Your pictures are really much better now and you are quite right in deciding yourself how much correction is required to retain the character of the light you encountered.
One more bit of advice if I may: some of your pictures show blown-out area’s in the highlights (especially around the windows). Try not to overexpose (watch your histograms!). It is generally better to underexpose a bit in raw an correct that in postprocessing. In Photoshop you can regain shadow detail by selecting Image/Adjustments/ShadowHighlights and play with the Shadows sliders (select more options; eg Amount 35%, Tonal width 35%, Radius 60). Hope this helps.
Sign In
