The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Nikon D300/M8 test

dfarkas

Workshop Member
And people wonder why I keep going back to C1 for all my files... :thumbup:

Fast workflow without having to import, great image quality, and most accurate colors with a variety of different cameras. Need I say more?

David
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
guy

Phase just released 3.7.8 which processes both D300 and D3 files. I still like the program better than C4

Woody
Woody i finally ran out of updates on my Pro version and i am not happy about it either.:cussing::cussing:

I like the workflow better on the old version. The new one is a little clunky . They need to combine the tabs. So everything is in one place
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
And people wonder why I keep going back to C1 for all my files... :thumbup:

Fast workflow without having to import, great image quality, and most accurate colors with a variety of different cameras. Need I say more?

David
Well there is something to be said about the old farts. They been around a long time and have it pretty wired when it comes to color and profiles. It certainly is cleaner David. That yellow cast is gone
 

cmb_

Subscriber & Workshop Member
Bingo less yellow. Look at the left wall . Red type is better in C1 more red than yellow and look at far right red building.
Guy, good work and great read.

In addition to the areas you pointed out about the attached photo, the area I have circled is really telling about the differences in color (and maybe detail) from the different RAW processors and cameras. Take a look at the different versions you have posted.

View attachment 2584


Another thing I noticed form your other thread and Kurt's photos is the Nikon's do a better job with skin tones than what I have seen from Canon but not quite as good as the Leica. Maybe I am just projecting and this is not really the case.
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Well you get down to sensor types and lenses . The DMR and M8 are CCD from Kodak so they will be different from Nikon and Canon also plus the OEM"s algorythms. Than you get to lenses from are film days with the same film emulsion we always said in general Leica warm, Nikon cool and Canon warm but every Canon I have owned can't do a red worth a damn. It was always orange red , now part of that maybe different convertors or how Canon sets things up . Now I hear DPP does a better job of it but there are so many variables it is hard to pin point a lot of it. But in general leica does a great job on skin tones a touch warm but mostly what people like but Nikon is more neutral in tone. Than Kurt and I are shooting these new Zeiss glass and that has something to add to the package . I like the look of these Zeiss lenses for Nikon.
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
This week coming I have some more critical color work in Kansas so we will see what that brings us. I still like LR for workflow so i need to figure that out also. I will be working with strobes on most of it and that should help us a little more
 

gogopix

Subscriber
given all the testing, are you seeing anything between these camera systems that would support the hype about the signature leica look, pop, 3-D effect, glow, space around the subject, etc.:
CErtainly not hype.

However, many years ago, after happily using a Nikon for years, I bought my wife a used Leica with 35mm 2.8 lens.

AFter the first roll of film came back she said

gee, these look a lot better. More lively more intersting.

She didn't say The perception of 3-D effect and airiness is significantly better than the other camera and...

...as many here (including MOI would do :D )

I think it is a preference built on many images.

and who knows, maybe Nikon with its new lenses has closed the gap.

I doubt that it has done completely. But time will tell. However, it will not be decision made from a few image comparisons.

Now, the counterargument is that these are high contrast, nicely composed. Sure the Floods on top look as "3-D' in the N as the L

But what about wgen you have a close in, complex, underlit image?

And hey, you get that red dot to boot!! :ROTFL:

your ('red-dot-snob-for -the-time-being') respectfully
Victor

PS Guy, keep'em coming
Quite illuminating.
 
Last edited:

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Well i still love Leica glass, there is no question there so I am somewhat biased towards it. But I do like what we are seeing lately from the Zeiss and Nikon camps
 

harmsr

Workshop Member
And people wonder why I keep going back to C1 for all my files... :thumbup:

Fast workflow without having to import, great image quality, and most accurate colors with a variety of different cameras. Need I say more?

David
David really may have something with this thought.

This thread and my files from this weekend have really shown me that although aperture and lightroom are very convienent, I sacrifice a lot in the way of quality on the processing.

I think for M8, Capture 1 is locked in.

For the D3, I'm still playing between Capture 1 and Capture NX.

Maybe at some point in the future, Aperture or Lightroom can catch up on their RAW processor. I really want to use Aperture and all the new plug-ins which are coming, but just can't sacrifice the quality of RAW development for the convenience.

Ray
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Ray have you tried Aperture with the D3 files yet. Like to hear and opinion on it . Folks remember I can post any Raw file you have seen and you can see if Aperture is looking better or not
 

TRSmith

Subscriber Member
Noob-ish question here. When I received my M8, the disk that came with it had a version of Capture 1. I installed it and liked it a lot for the M8 files (especially after using JR's profiles). I liked it so much, I downloaded and installed Capture 1-v4(?) and used my serial number to get what I thought was an upgrade to the original. Then I swapped all my computers and now have only the Capture 1-v4 left, which has a different interface than the original. Plus, now and again I hear something about a Capture 1 Pro.

So what's the deal? Is one of these Capture 1 versions preferred over the others? Is the version that folks seem to like best the one prior to v4? Scratching my head a little here and would appreciate any clarification you can offer.

Thanks,
Tim
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Tim that is correct you can use the CD serial code to upgrade to Version 4 but this Version 4 is considered the light version. The upcoming Version 4 Pro will have tethered support and more features than the current one. The Version 3.7.8 is the Old Pro version that we are waiting on for the version 4 Pro to come out. Yes it is confusing, great question
 

harmsr

Workshop Member
Guy,

Here is the same D300 file and crop from Aperture.

I think it is definitely better than Lightroom, has color that is as good as Capture One, and detail which is very close to Capture One and Capture NX. I also played with the files some more between Capture One and Capture NX. When I bump the contrast in Capture One, it is very similiar to Capture NX.

This is going to take some playing and tuning as my mind keeps changing.

Lightroom is in last place at the moment.

Apeture, Capture One, & Capture NX are running in the same group until I do some more evaluations.

Capture NX is very good on the Nikon files, but both Aperture and Capture One do deliver better color. Capture NX may provide marginally better detail/tonality but is not as convenient as Aperture. Capture NX does not have the color down as good as Capture One or Aperture. It also does not work on my M8 files. On the big plus side is that it has "U" point built in. (However, Aperture soon will also.)

Tonality is very close between Aperture, Capture One, & Capture NX.

Relative to Noise reduction, I think Capture NX is the best out of the group on Nikon files. However, it is not as good as doing it in Photoshop with Noise Ninja. Aperture is going to soon have Noise Ninja as a direct plug-in.

I need to evaluate what happens with these custom curves function that you can do on the Nikon camera and see if they work on the RAW file direct or only work in combination with Capture NX. Does anybody know the answer to this?

At this MOMENT IN TIME Aperture wins from ease of use for multiple purposes and what is coming from the plug-ins, but I need to spend some more time working the files in Aperture, Capture One, and Capture NX to see really which ends up the best when they are processed.

Since my mind is in such flux at the moment, give me your comments on the Aperture conversion.

Best,

Ray
 

woodyspedden

New member
I took a rather mundane M8 shot with the 50 pre asph lux and then processed in lightroom, C1 4.0 and finally C1 3.7.8. All were processed as nearly identically as possible but my hand could be in there somewhere if inadvertantly. Just for your review........no science or conclusions at this point.

Woody

The images from top to bottom are:

C1 Version 4.1

C1 Pro version 3.7.8

Lightroom 1.4

To my eye the two versions of Capture 1 are very close. Whereas the color shift in Lightroom, particularly the green in the roof of the building is really far out.
 

gogopix

Subscriber
woody
nice comparison. Look at the vertical vent; to me the C1 Pro retains the misro contrast that Jack submits (and I am beginning to think he is right) of the leica lenses. The C4 and LR do not. They look flatter, and the PRO C1 just has a touch better micro contrast thus gets that dreaded'3-D' effect:cool:

Color difference are likely understandable and correctable once you understand how each uses the profiles.

Victor

PS: I plan to FINALLY unpack the 105 tomorrow. I have a tree and my 800mm set up for birds, and actually, it is TOO much.

The zoom will allow me to use the tripod and catch from titmice to crows from the same postion, though I assume the 105 end is crisper (according to Robert Stevens anyway.

Victor
 

woodyspedden

New member
woody
nice comparison. Look at the vertical vent; to me the C1 Pro retains the misro contrast that Jack submits (and I am beginning to think he is right) of the leica lenses. The C4 and LR do not. They look flatter, and the PRO C1 just has a touch better micro contrast thus gets that dreaded'3-D' effect:cool:

Color difference are likely understandable and correctable once you understand how each uses the profiles.

Victor

PS: I plan to FINALLY unpack the 105 tomorrow. I have a tree and my 800mm set up for birds, and actually, it is TOO much.

The zoom will allow me to use the tripod and catch from titmice to crows from the same postion, though I assume the 105 end is crisper (according to Robert Stevens anyway.

Victor
Victor

I'll be anxious †o see some of your results from the 105-280. This was originally David Farkas' personal lens and it is a really good sample (maybe they all are for all I know.)

I am very keen for Phase one to bring out the new capture one pro software. I love the old 3.7.8 but it is now hard to do without recovery, fill, highlight control etc. Capture 4.1 has those controls but the color is not quite as good as 3.7.8 (but close).

I think I am going back to my old workflow which is to catalog using Lightroom and process in C1. Haven't found anything better.

woody
 

glenerrolrd

Workshop Member
Victor

I'll be anxious †o see some of your results from the 105-280. This was originally David Farkas' personal lens and it is a really good sample (maybe they all are for all I know.)

I am very keen for Phase one to bring out the new capture one pro software. I love the old 3.7.8 but it is now hard to do without recovery, fill, highlight control etc. Capture 4.1 has those controls but the color is not quite as good as 3.7.8 (but close).

I think I am going back to my old workflow which is to catalog using Lightroom and process in C1. Haven't found anything better.

woody
Woody Could you elaborate on your workflow. This was covered before but I came away without a conclusion. I am assuming you do the Raw conversion first in C1 and then import "what" into Lightroom. The issue I am trying to work thru is the need to edit and select before spending any real time on the image.
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Roger you could also just use Bridge to do this and throw the junk out than go process but myself I just edit as I go in LR or C1 . If i did three images of the same thing I just toggle between them and pick my keeper than work it and move on.
 

woodyspedden

New member
Woody Could you elaborate on your workflow. This was covered before but I came away without a conclusion. I am assuming you do the Raw conversion first in C1 and then import "what" into Lightroom. The issue I am trying to work thru is the need to edit and select before spending any real time on the image.
Hey Roger

I use Lightroom to import my files and to copy to several other hard drives to have redundancy and never lost a file (hopefully). I use Lightroom to then rate the images and decide what is worth of print.

Then i go to C1 to work the file in raw state to get the best i can (IMHO) and finally to Photoshop to do selective work on various areas of the image for dodging, burning, etc and get the file ready for print. Not the most simplified workflow but I am not yet ready to acknowledge that ACR is the converter of choice. I just get too many color changes that I don't recognize and like. May be just me, who knows.

I am now "playing" with Aperture trial 2.1. The early work with the raw converter is hopeful...........needs more time on my part to assure that I know what I am doing but I get results more to my liking than with Lightroom. One thing I did notice is that you must really be careful with vibrance in both programs. I have noted serious color shifts with this control. The green tint I noted in the three conversions I did in the Nikon thread turned out to be due specifically to this control. I could absolutely replicate the change in both Aperture and Lightroom. Of course C1 has no such control so the colors remained at what I believe are the accurate versions.

I will keep everyone posted on my experiences with Aperture. It would be great to have one program which basically does it all from cataloging to image control but it remains to be seen if that is possible.

Best

Woody
 
Top