Menu
What's new
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!

Even More Fun Pictures with Nikon

Corlan F.

Corlan F.

Subscriber Member
nice variety of shots... so how do you like the D3 compared to the D300... nice toy isn't it? :)
Less forgiving but significantly greater potential IMHO, provided that you have the right lenses -and you're not exactly needy in that respect (!).

Since we were talking about WB in the other thread, is it possible that it was a bit off for the interior shot of your wife (great genuine, tired smile btw) ? Might be the default PP settings too depending on what software you're using. Sometimes they do not get the tungstene/fluorescent light right. Assuming you shot RAW, of course...

(i'm mentionning this because the outdoor shots seem spot on)
 
Lloyd

Lloyd

Active member
Corlan F. said:
nice variety of shots... so how do you like the D3 compared to the D300... nice toy isn't it? :)
Less forgiving but significantly greater potential IMHO, provided that you have the right lenses -and you're not exactly needy in that respect (!).

Since we were talking about WB in the other thread, is it possible that it was a bit off for the interior shot of your wife (great genuine, tired smile btw) ? Might be the default PP settings too depending on what software you're using. Sometimes they do not get the tungstene/fluorescent light right. Assuming you shot RAW, of course...

(i'm mentionning this because the outdoor shots seem spot on)
Click to expand...
Well, too soon to tell about the D3 vs the D300, as I've only shot about a dozen frames, but I shot for a while with my son's D700, and I know I'll enjoy the sensor size, and the high ISO capability. I haven't shot regularly with a "pro" body camera since I sold my last D2x a while back. Right now the camera seems huge, and particularly since I shoot Leica most of the time. I'm looking forward to using this, however, I have a friend who uses the D3, and I've certainly been impressed with the results he's had.

I think you're right about the WB on the shot of my wife (thank you, btw... cutest little grandma around these parts... but then I'm pretty biased). I shot all the images on Auto WB, and didn't make any changes other than to that one of my wife. There is a mix of light in our kitchen, and I did a quick adjustment in ACR, but didn't get it just right. It looked ok on my laptop monitor (where I adjusted it), but on my desktop in a different room, not so much.
 
Lloyd

Lloyd

Active member
Oops. Just looked at the metadata on the shot of my wife... actually taken with the 200-400. I got that right after coming in from shooting that shot of the moon.
 
D

docmoore

Subscriber and Workshop Member
Lloyd said:
I shot all the images on Auto WB, and didn't make any changes other than to that one of my wife. There is a mix of light in our kitchen, and I did a quick adjustment in ACR, but didn't get it just right. It looked ok on my laptop monitor (where I adjusted it), but on my desktop in a different room, not so much.
Click to expand...
Lloyd,

It seems that the Nikon does a bit better on incandescent setting in mixed lighting and then a correction in ACR is easier.

I recently discovered that applying the Phase P20 natural product camera profile in C1 made it a lot easier to deal with Nikon skin tones. Let me know what you think.

Bob
 
Lloyd

Lloyd

Active member
docmoore said:
Lloyd,

It seems that the Nikon does a bit better on incandescent setting in mixed lighting and then a correction in ACR is easier.

I recently discovered that applying the Phase P20 natural product camera profile in C1 made it a lot easier to deal with Nikon skin tones. Let me know what you think.

Bob
Click to expand...
Great idea! I'll give that a try. I have been using the camera calibration in ACR and LR, and use the D2X Mode 2. That seems to give good skin tones, but the WB still is a problem.
 
Corlan F.

Corlan F.

Subscriber Member
Lloyd said:
Great idea! I'll give that a try. I have been using the camera calibration in ACR and LR, and use the D2X Mode 2. That seems to give good skin tones, but the WB still is a problem.
Click to expand...
I like DX2 mode1 myself especially for outdoor green rendering.

Otherwise Standard is ok, so is Vivid for other shots, generally "-1" or "-2" (but that's NX only i think).

Agreed with Bob for the "incandescent" WB as a good base in mixed lighting.
Also with the Phase 20 profile for those who use C1 -though i eventually fine tuned some settings of my own for this terrfic but again arduous software.
 
Corlan F.

Corlan F.

Subscriber Member
Lloyd said:
Oops. Just looked at the metadata on the shot of my wife... actually taken with the 200-400. I got that right after coming in from shooting that shot of the moon.
Click to expand...
Oh, forget everthing else, now we know for sure what the problem was. :deadhorse:

You shouldn't use this piece of junk glass on your new D3. Name a reasonnable 3-fig price and i'll take care of retiring this one for you.

Glad to help.
 
Lloyd

Lloyd

Active member
Corlan F. said:
Oh, forget everthing else, now we know for sure what the problem was. :deadhorse:

You shouldn't use this piece of junk glass on your new D3. Name a reasonnable 3-fig price and i'll take care of retiring this one for you.

Glad to help.
Click to expand...
Hmm... I'll have to give that some thought. Wouldn't want to gouge anyone. ;)
 
Lloyd

Lloyd

Active member
Treasure Found.

Ran into a young woman at my local camera shop this afternoon. She was recently poking around a flea market in Sandpoint, Idaho, and came across this pristine Zeiss Ikon Super Ikonta 531. It is in absolutely perfect condition, and the leather case (not shown) looks new. Not a scratch or wear mark on it... nothing! I found one in ok condition on eBay with a Buy-it-Now price of $999.00. And the real news. She paid $2.00 for the camera. :eek: (I offered to triple her $$$, and give her $6.00 for it. She's thinking it over. :D)

D3. 70-200VR/2.8 @ 2.8, ISO 1600:

 
viablex1

viablex1

Active member
wow you are one lucky soul!!!!!!!!!! very cool go for it then sell it to me , don't you hate film??? loolololol
 
Lloyd

Lloyd

Active member
viablex1 said:
wow you are one lucky soul!!!!!!!!!! very cool go for it then sell it to me , don't you hate film??? loolololol
Click to expand...
Nah.. I love film. But it'll be a cold day in hell when she sells that to me! :rolleyes:There was a guy in the store who offered her $400 on the spot. She wasn't even tempted.
 
Lloyd

Lloyd

Active member
Just trying out the new camera. (Had a few minutes to kill before a dentist appt.)

D3, 85/1.4 @ f2, ISO 200:

 
Corlan F.

Corlan F.

Subscriber Member
Lloyd said:
Just trying out the new camera. (Had a few minutes to kill before a dentist appt.)

D3, 85/1.4 @ f2, ISO 200:
Click to expand...
Lovely light, lovely tones.
Makes me think of a lifestyle agency photo used for an upscale retirement community...

(btw colours are superb here... how did you process the raw file? autoWB? used oone of the camera profile?)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top