PDA

View Full Version : Image settings?



VetteD50
11-04-2005, 04:25 AM
I am a new D50 owner. While EXIF data can tell us alot about how an image was shot, it fails to give us info about advanced settings. I'm mainly asking about sharpness of the image. Before ever going out with my D50, I raised my sharpness level. I did this because I had to with previous cameras for maximum clarity. When I got home, I was actually disappointed in the results. It seemed over-sharpened. I was wondering what sharpness levels everyone uses for their best results.

I should mention that I take very few portraits, just alot of generic abstract photos.

thanks.

K1W1
11-04-2005, 07:57 PM
I have never adjusted the sharpness I find the standard setting to be okay. I think sharpness is one of the big differences between P&S and DSLR. It seems to be musch more of an issue with a P&S.
The good thing of course with the D50 is the ability to take pictures in RAW then play with all sorts of settings and tweaks in programs like Nikon Capture or RAW Shooter Essentials or Photoshop - it opens up a whole new world.

VetteD50
11-06-2005, 12:42 PM
I changed back to the setting just above normal sharpness...medium low I think it was. Pictures are much crisper!

The last 9 pics on my album are from my D50. The rest are my girlfriend's Panasonic Lumix FZ20.

link to album... www.photobucket.com/albums/a384/Wizardvette

D70FAN
11-07-2005, 05:47 AM
I changed back to the setting just above normal sharpness...medium low I think it was. Pictures are much crisper!

The last 9 pics on my album are from my D50. The rest are my girlfriend's Panasonic Lumix FZ20.

link to album... www.photobucket.com/albums/a384/Wizardvette

EXIF data on the last 9 pictures of that link seems to indicate an FZ20 as the camera.

P.S. Thanks to Eric (and 3 cups of coffee) the last 9 pictures on page 2 seem to be much better, BUT... Why are you shooting in reduced resolution 3.3MP mode (2256 x 1496)? Your images will certainly turn out better in full 6MP resolution (3008 x 2000).

I'm sure that's part of the "sharpness" problem.

erichlund
11-07-2005, 07:16 AM
EXIF data on the last 9 pictures of that link seems to indicate an FZ20 as the camera.
Try page 2 of the photos...

D70FAN
11-07-2005, 08:12 AM
Try page 2 of the photos...

Thanks Eric. That's what I get for logging on before my first cup of coffee.:o

VetteD50
11-07-2005, 09:26 AM
EXIF data on the last 9 pictures of that link seems to indicate an FZ20 as the camera.

P.S. Thanks to Eric (and 3 cups of coffee) the last 9 pictures on page 2 seem to be much better, BUT... Why are you shooting in reduced resolution 3.3MP mode (2256 x 1496)? Your images will certainly turn out better in full 6MP resolution (3008 x 2000).

I'm sure that's part of the "sharpness" problem.


for card space. Only shooting with a 512...only get 249 pics as it is. Higher res will be even less.

murrays
11-07-2005, 11:27 AM
for card space. Only shooting with a 512...only get 249 pics as it is. Higher res will be even less.

I may be wrong here, but I prefer to shoot at the highest resolution and use the NORMAL JPG setting instead of FINE. Looking at the review test shots, I couldn't see any difference between FINE & NORMAL.

-murray

D70FAN
11-07-2005, 11:49 AM
for card space. Only shooting with a 512...only get 249 pics as it is. Higher res will be even less.

The idea is not to be hyper-critical, but you were complaining about image sharpness, and resolution plays a substantial role, as does learning what your lens can do, and more important can't do...

... Suffice to say, that in my opinion, you are wasting your time and money shooting a dSLR at reduced resolution, and it shows in the images. Good technique, but diminished by overall image quality. Memory is cheap. Don't sacrifice quality for quantity.

I see you are doing this with the FZ20 as well i.e. shooting at 1.3MP and 3MP resolution with a 5MP camera. Really... not a good idea, especially the 1280 x 960 (1.3MP) shots.

Lens advice... Try shooting the 70-300 D at apertures above 7.1, as f/4 to f/6.3 are not this lenses forte. It's an ok lens for this long telephoto range, and price, but apertures ranging from F/8 to f/16 would be best. Particularily when shooting scenes like the railroad tracks where depth of field (DOF) is important. Notice that the flower shot turned out pretty nice with the blurred background (called bokeh) at f/4 where DOF can be shallow. This is a whole different set of aperture rules than your FZ20 which has good depth of field at all aperture settings, but not so great bokeh.

My pictures certainly can use constant improvement, and I am trying to help you use the equipment you have to get the best quality images possible. Please take this critique in that context.

You paid relatively big dollars for a dSLR and lenses, and the results should reflect that investment. The same goes for the FZ20 to a lesser degree, as you might just as well have purchased an FZ3 for less money to get the same result.

D70FAN
11-07-2005, 11:56 AM
I may be wrong here, but I prefer to shoot at the highest resolution and use the NORMAL JPG setting instead of FINE. Looking at the review test shots, I couldn't see any difference between FINE & NORMAL.

-murray

Wait until you print them at 11 x 14 where compression artifacts come out to play... Even 8 x 10 but not at normal viewing distance.

With memory as cheap as it is, and getting cheaper, why would you not want to get the absolute best quality possible?

Maybe it's just me.

VetteD50
11-07-2005, 12:03 PM
The idea is not to be hyper-critical, but you were complaining about image sharpness, and resolution plays a substantial role, as does learning what your lens can do, and more important can't do...

... Suffice to say, that in my opinion, you are wasting your time and money shooting a dSLR at reduced resolution, and it shows in the images. Good technique, but diminished by overall image quality. Memory is cheap. Don't sacrifice quality for quantity.

I see you are doing this with the FZ20 as well i.e. shooting at 1.3MP and 3MP resolution with a 5MP camera. Really... not a good idea, especially the 1280 x 960 (1.3MP) shots.

Lens advice... Try shooting the 70-300 D at apertures above 7.1, as f/4 to f/6.3 are not this lenses forte. It's an ok lens for this long telephoto range, and price, but apertures ranging from F/8 to f/16 would be best. Particularily when shooting scenes like the railroad tracks where depth of field (DOF) is important. Notice that the flower shot turned out pretty nice with the blurred background (called bokeh) at f/4 where DOF can be shallow. This is a whole different set of aperture rules than your FZ20 which has good depth of field at all aperture settings, but not so great bokeh.

My pictures certainly can use constant improvement, and I am trying to help you use the equipment you have to get the best quality images possible. Please take this critique in that context.

You paid relatively big dollars for a dSLR and lenses, and the results should reflect that investment. The same goes for the FZ20 to a lesser degree, as you might just as well have purchased an FZ3 for less money to get the same result.

great advice...I'll make some changes and keep you posted of the results!

murrays
11-07-2005, 02:42 PM
Wait until you print them at 11 x 14 where compression artifacts come out to play... Even 8 x 10 but not at normal viewing distance.

With memory as cheap as it is, and getting cheaper, why would you not want to get the absolute best quality possible?

Maybe it's just me.

You may be right, but I remember looking at a blown up crop of a studio scene comparing "FINE" to "NORMAL" and I couldn't see any difference. There were some artifacts in "BASIC", but I thought "NORMAL" was still very good.

OTOH, the day I notice an artifact on a print will be the day I switch the camera over to "FINE" :D

-murray

D70FAN
11-07-2005, 03:35 PM
You may be right, but I remember looking at a blown up crop of a studio scene comparing "FINE" to "NORMAL" and I couldn't see any difference. There were some artifacts in "BASIC", but I thought "NORMAL" was still very good.

OTOH, the day I notice an artifact on a print will be the day I switch the camera over to "FINE" :D

-murray

Not sure a crop even on a 1600 x 1200 display will show the warts that a 13 x 19 print will. But I like to err on the side of caution. So for me it's worth the peace of mind shooting in RAW/NEF, as I no longer even shoot in JPEG fine.;)

Just passing along what I've learned. You can use it, or not.

murrays
11-07-2005, 08:54 PM
Not sure a crop even on a 1600 x 1200 display will show the warts that a 13 x 19 print will. But I like to err on the side of caution. So for me it's worth the peace of mind shooting in RAW/NEF, as I no longer even shoot in JPEG fine.;)

Just passing along what I've learned. You can use it, or not.

Thanks for the comments. I have yet to print anything over 8.5 x 11 so I'm not sure it's an issue for me. In fact, I've yet to frame a single digital photo.

FWIW, here's the comparison I referenced. Can you tell me which one is RAW vs. FINE vs. NORMAL jpg? (keep in mind these are at 200% magnification)

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/NikonD70/Samples/QualityRes/DSC_0002-001.jpg
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/NikonD70/Samples/QualityRes/DSC_0001-001.jpg
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/NikonD70/Samples/QualityRes/DSC_0003-001.jpg

-murray

erichlund
11-07-2005, 09:52 PM
Thanks for the comments. I have yet to print anything over 8.5 x 11 so I'm not sure it's an issue for me. In fact, I've yet to frame a single digital photo.

FWIW, here's the comparison I referenced. Can you tell me which one is RAW vs. FINE vs. NORMAL jpg? (keep in mind these are at 200% magnification)

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/NikonD70/Samples/QualityRes/DSC_0002-001.jpg
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/NikonD70/Samples/QualityRes/DSC_0001-001.jpg
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/NikonD70/Samples/QualityRes/DSC_0003-001.jpg

-murray
Well, actually, they are all jpg now. If I had to guess, the center photo seems to have wider dynamic range, so perhaps that was originally the RAW, where the other two are very similar in dyn. range. Of course, it depends on what you used to convert the RAW to a jpg, as it may then be meaningless if the conversion is not a good one.

The top photo seems to retain a little more detail in the brushed lines on the dial than the bottom photo.

Of course, this may just be showing how bad my old eyes are. ;)

Cheers,
Eric

Cheers,
Eric

D70FAN
11-08-2005, 05:44 AM
Thanks for the comments. I have yet to print anything over 8.5 x 11 so I'm not sure it's an issue for me. In fact, I've yet to frame a single digital photo.

FWIW, here's the comparison I referenced. Can you tell me which one is RAW vs. FINE vs. NORMAL jpg? (keep in mind these are at 200% magnification)
-murray

I've seen these comparisons before, and again a 200% crop will not show you problems in the overall image.

If you are happy with using medium compression, and it works for you, then I'm good with that. I just can't recommend it, but given a choice I would use higher compression to get the shot, and hope for the best in post processing. It's better than shooting a 6MP imager at reduced resolution.;)

murrays
11-08-2005, 05:49 AM
I just can't recommend it, but given a choice I would use higher compression to get the shot, and hope for the best in post processing. It's better than shooting a 6MP imager at reduced resolution.;)

I guess that was my original point, use all the pixels and higher compression if you need space.

That's why they have settings on the camera, so we can all do what we want :)

BTW, I think you picked the images correctly :cool:

-murray

D70FAN
11-08-2005, 09:39 AM
I guess that was my original point, use all the pixels and higher compression if you need space.

That's why they have settings on the camera, so we can all do what we want :)

BTW, I think you picked the images correctly :cool:

-murray


It was Eric that picked the images.

murrays
11-08-2005, 09:41 AM
It was Eric that picked the images.

opps :o My mistake.

-murray

D70FAN
11-08-2005, 10:34 AM
opps :o My mistake.

-murray

Just giving credit where credit's due...;)