D300 lightning

On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 08:44:19 -0600, Walter Garver <walterspamfree.RemoveThis@noplace.net>
wrote:
: On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 11:19:52 -0000, "Sosumi" <sosumi.RemoveThis@home.nl> wrote:
:
: >Yesterday I was shooting some seagulls and boats in a harbor. Focusing went
: >pretty good, although I'm still learning. But I noticed that practically all
: >pictures I took with sky in it, specially against the sun, were much too
: >dark. I used Matrix metering and 14 bit RAW lossless compressed. The sky and
: >clouds were OK, but shouldn't it be more "balanced"? Or do you have to use
: >Active D-Lightning all the time with a sky?
: >Maybe it's because of the new 14 bit RAW?
: >This is without modification:
: >
: >http://houses-in-portugal.com/Under1.JPG
: >
: >Of course, after using NX Capture, you get beautiful pictures anyway, but
: >maybe I'm doing something wrong?
:
: This is where learning to become a real photographer and taking control of your
: camera becomes more important than raving about being a good snap-shooter and
: buying cameras based on all their automatic POINT & SHOOT features.
:
: You'll figure it out.
:
: Someday.
:
: Or not.
:
: Your kind, the kind that buys a fully automated DSLR so you can brag about being
: a good snap-shooter with an expensive P&S camera, rarely do figure it out.
:
: I suggest you sign up for some community-education classes in basic photography
: skills. Or switch to a better P&S camera with more capable automatic features
: than that DSLR of yours. Since you don't know the first thing about photography
: you clearly need help of some kind. You most certainly didn't get what you paid
: for, that's clear.

I don't know where you came from, but this newsgroup already has enough
pompous asses. Why don't you just mosey on down the road?

Bob
 >> Stay informed about: D300 lightning 

On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 17:04:39 GMT, "Faz" <chuckfaz.RemoveThis@shawdelete.ca> wrote:
: What I really find interesting is all the software available to make our
: "SNAPS" look better. What ever happened to the knowledge behind the camera
: and the camera itself.......any comments??????

Since you ask, yeah: Your question looks like a troll, and I don't find it
interesting.

Bob
 >> Stay informed about: D300 lightning 

"Sosumi" <sosumi.DeleteThis@home.nl> wrote in message
news:QuudnehqV71HvcDaRVnygQA@novis.pt...
> Yesterday I was shooting some seagulls and boats in a harbor. Focusing
> went pretty good, although I'm still learning. But I noticed that
> practically all pictures I took with sky in it, specially against the sun,
> were much too dark. I used Matrix metering and 14 bit RAW lossless
> compressed. The sky and clouds were OK, but shouldn't it be more
> "balanced"? Or do you have to use Active D-Lightning all the time with a
> sky?
> Maybe it's because of the new 14 bit RAW?
> This is without modification:
>
> http://houses-in-portugal.com/Under1.JPG
>
> Of course, after using NX Capture, you get beautiful pictures anyway, but
> maybe I'm doing something wrong?
>
> --
> Sosumi
>

Active matrix metering is the reason for the dark scene. The sensor does not
have enough dynamic range to capture a scene like this so when you meter for
it, you need to meter so the highlights are not blown away and post process
to lift the shadows. This is what Matrix metering does -- meters for the
highlights

The only issue with doing this is that as you "lift the shadows" you are
effectively increasing the ISO in dark areas and if you have to lift them
far enough, noise will be a serious issue and you'll damage the picture with
it.

It is an Ultra simple procedure in Photoshop afterwards to use the
"shadow/highlights" tool to fix that image. Even Photoshop elements 2.0 can
fix that scene with 3 mouse clicks using auto levels. No RAW capture needed.
In fact RAW capture is for those who can't use a camera properly.

In the "good old days" if you didn't get it right in the camera, you'd lost
it, Photographer's didn't need RAW. They instinctively knew what was needed
to capture a scene or learnt real quick. RAW capture when high quality JPEG
is available only allows you to get slack and use hit-and-miss methods of
photography that you may or may not be able to patch up later with software.

If you were to use "area average" metering the whole scene would be metered.
Some highlights might be blown and some shadows blocked but the average of
the scene would be reproduced and it would look OK (average).

This sort of scene is crying out for HDR (hi dynamic range) where three
photos are blended to get a correctly exposed scene. I might suggest for
those interested that a Fuji s5 (D200 with HDR sensor) can capture the
whole scene without the need for post processing. It must piss Adobe right
off that 90% of the use for Photoshop is done away with when you build a
camera with dual sensor sites!

The D300 is a very nice camera but it has a CCD sensor with only single
sensor sites and these are limited by the laws of physics in the range of
contrast they can read. As you become more familiar with your camera you
will discover the value of a histogram and possibly graduated neutral
density filters for such scenes.

Or maybe you'll be like 95% of the other DSLR users on the planet and forget
about photography in the belief Photoshop will always be there to catch you
when you fall.

Douglas
 >> Stay informed about: D300 lightning 

On Dec 11, 7:09 pm, "Douglas" <j... RemoveThis @the.group> wrote:

> In fact RAW capture is for those who can't use a camera properly.
>
ROFL!
In one sentence you have shown your true knowledge (or lack thereof)
of all things photographic. What a stupid thing to say!
A more accurate statement would be, "Shooting JPG is for those who
can't figure out how to use a RAW converter, and for snapshooters who
really don't care to get the most out of their gear."


"Photography by Douglas St. James-MacDonald -- when good enough is
good enough"

"Photography by Douglas St. James-MacDonald -- when that shutter
clicks, I'm done."

"Photography by Douglas St. James-MacDonald -- when you don't care
enough to hire the best""

"Who needs RAW?" "Mediocrity Rules!"
 >> Stay informed about: D300 lightning 

On Dec 13, 9:22 am, "Douglas" <j....TakeThisOut@the.group> wrote:

> Shooting in High Quality JPEG is more likely to record a faithful rendition
> of colours than doing the post process thing.
>

This is of course totally false and I hope someone looking for real
information ignores this. Regardless of shooting JPEG or RAW, the
camera records the image as RAW data.

For JPEG, "in-camera" processing is then applied to this RAW data and
the RAW data is then discarded and the JPEG image saved.

For RAW, no processing is applied in-camera and the RAW data is stored
for later processing by stand alone software. The manufacturer's RAW
processing software is capable of producing identical results to that
achieved in-camera, by applying the very same algorithms. Third party
software is also capable of producing the same results and often these
can even be better than the manufacturer's, thanks to improved
algorithms or more advanced conversion features.

The above statement could only be made by one who is incapable of
applying the RAW conversion process successfully.
 >> Stay informed about: D300 lightning 

On Dec 12, 6:22 pm, "Douglas" <j....TakeThisOut@the.group> wrote:
..
>
> Basically Jake... I don't have a problem with your opinion ...It'll work
> right up until I come to the wall. Which wall? The one where I need to
> process 1200 images from 2 weddings each and every week for 8 months of the
> year. Then I get super peeved when my shooters defy my instructions and
> shoots RAW because "I can do it better this way" or some similar excuse.

So batch convert them all at once. If you get it right in camera then
you won't have to change a thing. Of course, I've seen little
evidence of that ever happening in your pics

>
> Shooting in High Quality JPEG is more likely to record a faithful rendition
> of colours than doing the post process thing.

That's about the silliest bunch of garbage I've ever heard. Or maybe
second to this gem:
" In fact RAW capture is for those who can't use a camera properly."

Boy D-Mac, you're on a roll today!
 >> Stay informed about: D300 lightning 

In article <3k_7j.23214$CN4.2399@news-server.bigpond.net.au>, Douglas
<just.TakeThisOut@the.group> wrote:

> I guess being a "tradesman photographer" since 1969 had having spent 5 years
> learning the trade and another 20 owning Pro print labs isn't as snobbish a
> qualification as your "Professional Photographer" papers you got from where?
> A part time course at a TAFE college?
>
> Get a life Russell. It's OK to disagree with me but it's not OK to slander
> me or anyone else just because you swear by a different process. Produce
> some evidence of your claims if you want to have some credibility. ll you
> are doing now is showing jealousy that even at my age, I still do better
> than you.

Psst...take some classes in lighting and posing.
 >> Stay informed about: D300 lightning 

Muxton wrote:
>
> ... (not sure that matrix metering
> meters for highlights though, I thought it meters from many points
> evenly across an entire scene, 1,005 R, G and B ones in a D300 to be
> precise, and uses preset algorithms to try and determine exposure).

I wish it could meter for the highlights... well except for pinpoint
highlights. I often find the metering frustrating when it tries to
outsmart me the thing is; it's not all that predictable, more like
it has its own intuition. For low contrast night scenes, the meter will
way underexpose which is nice for jpegs right out of the camera but not
an ideal exposure for a postprocessing approach. In that case the meter
is worse than useless because it fights you unpredictably.
 >> Stay informed about: D300 lightning 

Robert Coe wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 11:19:52 -0000, "Sosumi" <sosumi.TakeThisOut@home.nl> wrote:
> : Yesterday I was shooting some seagulls and boats in a harbor. Focusing went
> : pretty good, although I'm still learning. But I noticed that practically all
> : pictures I took with sky in it, specially against the sun, were much too
> : dark. I used Matrix metering and 14 bit RAW lossless compressed. The sky and
> : clouds were OK, but shouldn't it be more "balanced"? Or do you have to use
> : Active D-Lightning all the time with a sky?
>
> Is "Matrix" metering the equivalent of Canon's "Evaluative" metering? In my
> experience the latter isn't very good for backlit subjects because it gives
> too much weight to the bright sky. "Centerweighted average" metering works
> better, especially if fill-in flash isn't feasible. If Nikon has an equivalent
> (and it probably does), I'd try that. (If you're not sure of the meanings of
> the Canon terminology, download a 400D/XTi user guide from their site.)

On the D200 there's a switch on the back for:
center-weighted - spot - matrix

Winter lighting is difficult with the sun low, the hazy skies are too
bright & lots of things are in shadow.
 >> Stay informed about: D300 lightning 

On Dec 12, 6:40 pm, "Douglas" <j... RemoveThis @the.group> wrote:
> I' sure the camera operators I employ (and train) to shoot weddings and
> events like the Santa Shoots now underway will agree the cash bonus they get
> for following my instructions to shoot JPG are not what a "Professional"
> would do. ROTFL
>

Yeah, we've all seen these Professionally trained shooters of yours.
http://members.aol.com/annika1980/proshooter.jpg

What do you pay them with ... candy?
 >> Stay informed about: D300 lightning 

On Dec 12, 6:40 pm, "Douglas" <j... DeleteThis @the.group> wrote:

> Get a life Russell. It's OK to disagree with me but it's not OK to slander
> me or anyone else just because you swear by a different process. Produce
> some evidence of your claims if you want to have some credibility.

Russell doesn't need to prove anything. His "claims" are widely
recognized as facts by everyone on the planet except you.
You show your continuing ignorance with each post.
One would think that after years of getting this stuff explained to
you it might sink in a little.
 >> Stay informed about: D300 lightning 

On Dec 12, 10:20 pm, Rita Ä Berkowitz <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote:
> What you said is totally wrong.
> > All you get with the JPG is an image based on the camera presets.
> > If the presets are wrong, you're screwed.
>
> Then get it right in camera. It's not that hard. Oh, wait, you can't.

What is "right?" Suppose the scene requires more contrast or less?
Are you gonna spend all day fiddling with the controls on your camera
making sure all the JPG settings are correct or shooting?


> Seems D-Mac and many others can get a decent JPG straight out of the camera.

Really? I see lotsa blown highlights and other anomalies in many of
his pics.

Michael Reichmann has a nice review of the new book, "Real World
Camera RAW." Maybe if you're nice I'll buy you a copy so you don't
have to check one out of the library. Anyway, here's what MR writes
(this is especially applicable to you and D-Mac):
======================

"Like any other skill learning how to processes your images has a
learning curve. Of course you can shoot in-camera JPGs and have
Walmart make your prints. But if your hobby or profession requires
that you produce high quality images then you're likely going to want
to shoot in raw mode and process the image files yourself."

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/rwcrcs3.shtml
 >> Stay informed about: D300 lightning 

On Dec 13, 1:19 pm, Rita Ä Berkowitz <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote:
> PixelPix wrote:
> >> What's the matter
> >> can't get it right in-camera? And what Doug was pointing out with
> >> the JPG statement is you are getting a more accurate rendition of
> >> what the camera sees as being actually there and not what you
> >> perceive to see and piss it away in post. His point is valid.
>
> > Must have those Nikons lenses clean now, cause you are reading between
> > the lines! lol
>
> They're shining like new money!
>
> > Again, read my comment.... I did say that the RAW app can do exactly
> > what the camera does, so your "perception" argument is mute.
>
> Not mute at all. You're adding another step in the chain that is
> unnecessary. If you can't get it right in-camera than you should hang it
> up. Then again, you might like to waste time in Photoshop correcting
> mistakes that could have been avoided before clicking the shutter.
>
> Rita

Is it that hard to understand that it is possible to get it right in
camera regardless of if you are shooting RAW or JPEG, and that there
is no need to waste time in PS if one elects not to??

Having said that, regardless of what I shoot, I am not going to let
ANY image out the door without first inspecting it in PS to ensure
that ALL aspects of the image are up to standard..... regardless if I
am supplying one or one thousand images! .....perhaps it's as simple
as the fact that some of us set the bar a bit higher than others.
 >> Stay informed about: D300 lightning