The Thing about Picture Control

Welcome to the mystery of picture control!!

Here's a photograph of Mimi, with Vivid Picture Mode.   It appeared striking in the monitor (very intense reds and yellows), so I was happy, despite the wild contrast between her fur and the seat of this very chair I'm on right now.  

Now, the same cat, under the same light and on the same spot... but with Neutral Picture Control.  The fur looked terribly flat, the colors were muted, the entire palette from the Vivid setting was gone.  

So, I switched to Standard.  Here I saw a type of compromise between Vivid and Neutral; an amicable middle ground in terms of color saturation and contrast.  

Now... that was before downloading the files into my computer and then resizing them (hopefully better this time) for internet viewing.  

Vivid... it doesn't look too vivid, does it?

Neutral doesn't sound half as bad as my description of the jpeg in the D700 monitor.  I'm feeling like with egg on my face...

Standard, however, still looks like an acceptable compromise here.

Lesson learned?

Besides never to trust your monitor... the fact that these shots look pretty much the same in my monitor leads me to wonder what the effect of this setting may be on prints.  

In the meanwhile, this is what I did with the files: they were all RAW (NEFs) downloaded to the computer via card reader and Nikon Transfer.  Then, opened with PSE 6 for Mac, and turned into JPEGs.  The consequent, intermediate JPEGs were resized in size and resolution (say, from whatever they were to 1550 on the larger side, and the resolution down to 150 dpi).  After this, I did a "Save for Web" function, and set the JPEG parameters in High.  Oh, and I also reopened the "cleansed" files and reduced the print size from 13 inches to 8 (on the large side).  In short, all files now should be clearly viewable in almost any screen size, not just in my 20-inch monster.   At no time whatsoever did I do any alteration in color or exposure here.  In short, except for the file conversion and re-compression, these are the photographs that came out of the camera. 

I'm interested in your reactions, and will appreciate comments.  Of course, soon enough I should have something to say about the prints of these images...

Couple of Issues for Shutterbugs

Here we go again... 

Here is a photograph of the cats, with the SB-600 flash aiming at them.  It was the best way to solve a problem I was having, as it can be seen below...

The cat in the foreground appears fairly well lit, but what about the one in the background?  Ben, when photographed with the SB-600 bouncing light off the ceiling, appears nicely exposed.  Mimí, behind the TV stand, was not.  I had to do something I usually don't, which is to aim the flash directly at them.  That was the best way to get the results I wanted.  Now...  a common exposure problem: exposure for highlights.  Which of the landscapes below looks better?  The one right below... 

Or this one?

The difference between them (in case it's not obvious) is a couple of notches of underexposure.  In fact, the landscape below was shot as per camera meter settings on A-mode.  It did give me a good color for the snow, as it appears right before sunset in my corner of the world.  So, I dialed two thirds of underexposure (thanks to the Quick Exposure Compensation feature; check b4 in the Custom Setting Menu) and shot again (with a slight change of position, so as to avoid the distortion effect of the post on the left), and... voilà!  Got the colors I wanted. 

Why this move?  Why tinker with the exposure?

The camera is a tool, and users tend to let it dictate their end result.  In this particular situation even though I wanted (and metered on) the sunset colors, the camera matrix meter dialed up the highlights.  It is a tendency of all digital sensors, and from what I understand, it's in their algorithm.  However, a photographer has something better: brains.  That's why, after noticing the slightly singed effect on colors, I took a second shot of the first photograph but with a slight underexposure.  This one allowed me to register the colors I wanted.

As for the snow?  One still can tell it's snow, right?  

Later on, some flash effects with this camera and the SB-600. 

Still, the need to get WB figured out

Still, grappling with the WB setting in the camera.

Oodles of shots later, I think I have an idea about what to do: set the thing manually.

Examples?  Here's the same boring view from my kitchen window... in 2500°K.  Pretty cool...

Now, the Auto WB version (which is probably down below, in the previous entry).  Colors are fairly realistic, if we consider that the light is reflected by the snow, and the sun is pretty dull.

However, here's the practical use of this experiment.  Since the WB at 2500°K is so cool... this is the way it works when used indoors, under incandescent lighting.  To me, both in the camera monitor and later in the computer, the color rendition is highly satisfactory.  Gone are the whims of Auto WB!

BTW, here's the same room... using Auto WB.  A bit compensated, but the yellow cast is still there. 

I think I just stumbled into the secret of incandescent light shooting happiness...  

The next challenge: flash use. 

Before closing, I must thank those who take the time to post comments here.  In one case, I learned the solution to working with NEF (RAW) files without Nikon Capture, and it is simple: I can open the RAW file via the .dng plugin in Photoshop Elements, then save it as an 8-bit file, not a 16-bit.  Once an 8-bit, it's easier to work in PSE to save it as jpeg, and then compress it enough for web posting uses.  

And, when it comes to compressing... I must thank Oscar Reyna for his suggestion (see comments below).  I will see how to implement them and improve the quality of these jpegs.  It's the least I can do now that I have a camera, a good computer and the software to match them.  

If I only had the brains...  But that's just beyond warranty.  

Next time: accessory flash!

The case for White Balance

Things to learn about white balance...

A few days ago, distractedly, I looked out the window and took this photograph. 

Shortly afterwards, when I looked into the screen, I nearly jumped when I saw the photo above.  Then, I realized that the last time I picked up the camera I had set the Tungsten (white balance, that is, the little light bulb) white balance.  That got me thinking... and wondering what would it be if I used the neon white balance setting.

Here it is, only a bit cool, not by much, the Neon white balance seems unnatural.  Does it really need to be this cooling...  Then, I considered another choice, so I dialed it in.

It was the Cloudy setting.  Even though the day was actually cloudy, it doesn't seem that this setting actually helps with the color.  Or am I being excessively demanding here?  Given the circumstances, I switched White Balance to another setting: Sunlight.

Here's it!  The same image, or at least its idea, in all the glory of Sunlight (that is, the nice sun sign).

Now, I do not intend to show any camera or software flaws, but rather present the things this camera can do if we, users, stop putting our brain on hold and take the reins.  

A result of my own experiment is that I have found a satisfactory setting, even cooler than the Tungsten one: I call it the 2500 degrees view.  That's it: for serious tungsten situations, just set the light temperature at its lowest parameter (2500°) and there you go with a perfectly adequate WB for tungsten lights.

More on this later.  Thanks!

"View" to the Rescue

A man making a living in the Monterey Fisherman's Wharf, doint street portraits (D700, AF-S 24-70 f2.8). 

Animal prints in my yard.  The temperature out there was pretty low (same gear)... 

Frozen doorknob inside of a garage (same gear)

Against my better judgment, I will purchase Nikon Capture, after all, just not right now.

Why?  Nikon View came to the rescue!

While I am able to open RAW files with Photoshop Elements 6 (the latest one for Macs), I cannot save them as regular JPGs, but only as a format called JPEG2000, which has a strange extension: .jpf.  I don't know how valid and useful it is for web purposes.  Of course, I can also save files as TIFFs, but frankly, I don't know what advantage these ones have over JPGs.

In any event, at some point, recently, I opened a RAW file with Nikon View, and was able to save it as JPEG.

The truth is that since View seems to be one more image editing program, along with PS and Nikon Capture, I wonder about the real need to use Capture and add it to my computer.  However, once I buy it, I may be able to remove it or keep it...

And, of course, I'll have to add memory to my machine. 

Now, I'm taking a look at a serious book about PSE in the Mac, and hope it'll show me how to save better jpegs.  

BTW, more about the D700 next time.  I have some mildly interesting experiments with WB, and I intend to apply the results later.  Who knows?  I may have it all ready very soon.

Should I "Capture" or not?

I have a question, or a dilemma, rather. Should I buy the Nikon Capture Software?

Skating girl on ice rink near the Ferry Building, in San Francisco, CA, late December 2008.

Smiling girls in Union Square, San Francisco CA

Sears, near Union Square, where they come up with delicious breakfast food. 

All the shots above were taken with my D700 and my 24-70 f2.8, at very high ISO.  If Nikon ever did something good with the D700, it was this glorious performance at ISOs above 3200. 

But I won't keep gushing about the camera or the lens (which has its drawbacks, but I'll elaborate on them later).  I need to hear what others have done.  Right now, I'm thinking seriously about NOT buying the Nikon software, Capture NX 2, as I have updated my Photoshop Elements version to handle RAWs from the D700.  With a plugin recently added, PSE can actually open Nikon's RAW files, and I can resave them as TIFFs that later get turned into JPEGs (like the photographs above).  There is one feature of Capture that I like: the famous D-Lighting.  It's a lighting "smart" fix that comes in handy to have for the cases in which I haven't applied it on the image while editing in the camera.  Otherwise, unless D-Lighting work as the Auto Levels in PSE, I feel pretty much like I'm ready to face the RAWs.   In fact, I'm more familiar with PSE (and find it a little more intuitive) than with Capture NX2.  

So far, the D-Lighting is the only pro about Capture NX 2.  As for its drawbacks, I must say that it does slow down your computer, that the menus and functions are, at least in my little experience, pretty similar to those in PSE, but without the intuitive quality.  Since I can open RAW files by clicking on them (in both of my Macs, one with Tiger and the other with Leopard), I frankly feel like the one and only virtue of Capture got cancelled. 

What do you think?  

My Review of SanDisk 4 GB Extreme III Compact Flash Memory Card

Originally submitted at Adorama

SanDisk 4 GB Extreme III Compact Flash Memory Card

SanDisk 4 GB Extreme III Compact Flash Memory Card

Fast saving card

By Francisco, professor with a camera from DeKalb, IL on 1/16/2009

 

5out of 5

Pros: Fast, Lightweight, Reliable

Cons: No Cons

Best Uses: Image Transportation, Digital Capture, Digital Photography, Image Storage

Describe Yourself: Photo Enthusiast

This is, like all SanDisk cards, a very efficient and fast one, perfect to use with my Nikon D700. It's well made, and have no complaints to register. Besides, I got it for a very good price!

(legalese)