Thu 25-Jul-13 01:37 AM | edited Thu 25-Jul-13 01:38 AM by pasknucklehead
Hi everyone, Has anyone on here ever set their d90"s settings to those that Ken Rockwell suggests? Just wondering if mine needs a little tweak here or there...Still fretting over the difference I posted about the 2 camera monitors looking warm and cool...Am going to get with this other person and we are going to sit down and go through every menu on our camera's and see what is different...But was wondering about this excerpt I took from Rockwell's site,,,see if it makes any sense to you.
While Rockwell tends to have a poor reputation, what you are quoting seems like an accurate way to adjust your white balance settings to a more personalized color. I have done this with my D700 for the "cloudy" setting.
Without more context, I would ignore his last paragraph.
---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ Joseph K Seattle, WA, USA
Having read Ken Rockwell for some time, and heard some negative comments, he does have his opinions, which seem to work for him and others. (Me, for example.)
After buying my D 90, and reading The D 90 for Dummies, the factory manual, Mastering the D 90, the Magic Lantern Guide, and comparing them against what Mr. Rockwell says in his "D 90 User's Guide", I find his the easiest to understand, and use it to set up my D 90. "Mastering the D 90" is second.
It isn't a totally comprehensive guide, just enough to get you in trouble sometimes, but, all manuals are like that! I found Rockwell's recommendations are enough to use your D 90 well and satisfactorily. IMO, Very useful!
Bryan Peterson recommends shooting permanently in Cloudy white balance to warm up our images, which goes along with what Ken recommends.
He also says that shooting RAW is an unnessary excercise in post processing. The jury is still out on that one. Again, his opinion. Your preferences may be different. I do love my D 90
This is clearly aimed at jpg shooters. In light of the experience you've had with differences between otherwise identical LCD displays, no it doesn't. The rear LCD is not the gold standard for color management. The final product is. If you can get the camera close to that, that's great, but getting it right on the LCD is no guarantee that the task will be well and truly accomplished.
I certainly see what you are all saying,,,but Hendrik, I understand where you're coming from, BUT wouldn't the issue with "The rear LCD is not the gold standard for color management. The final product is. If you can get the camera close to that, that's great, but getting it right on the LCD is no guarantee that the task will be well and truly accomplished." If you can't really go by what you are seeing on the lcd screen, then how could you actually tell what the final outcome will be,,,you certainly wouldn't have time to run to your computer to see if you are getting what you need at the time of the shooting? Following me??? or am I missing something?
What you describe is the main reason for shooting in RAW (NEF) rather than JPG. Using NEF, the white balance can be adjusted to a precise degree after you shoot.
I agree with Hendrik that the camera's rear monitor can never give you a completely accurate impression of how the image will look when printed or viewed on a monitor. The advice quoted in the original post is yet another example of that particular gentleman making a statement that can easily mislead the unwary
I do what Bryan Peterson describes in Understanding Exposure. i shoot on cloudy wb for 95% of my shots. I also shoot Raw. a few times I changed the WB in post but that's rare, unless i am looking for a certian result
I hear you. KR is suggesting all you need to get great color is the camera. But you know that the display can mislead. Can you lug your computer around everywhere? Of course not. But...
I would run a test. Try successive frames of a subject that will try the camera's color competence at successive settings. Pick the one you would prefer to see on the LCD. Then run the same images through a color-managed workflow and see if the LCD was spot on or you need to apply some degree of offset to get the OOC file to match your desiderata (which, presumably, will not change between devices). If the LCD is OK, hooray. If not, well, at least you'll know that.
Even this is not foolproof since not only will we see the screen product differently in differing light, but color balances change with size. We have all had the experience of chimping and having our socks blown off by what we see only to be disappointed when we open the file and try to make the print look like our memory of what the camera display looked like. Anyone selling prints needs to take the final output as governing all prior workflow if the desire is to get an image from camera to print with as little unnecessary manipulation as possible.
My disclaimer: Even though I started down the digital path when jpg was the only reasonable game in town and know how to deal with baked-in color shifts, I stopped shooting jpeg a long, long time ago. I don't find dealing with white balance in an all-raw workflow (first, before anything else) at all onerous - not even if I come back with several hundred images shot in crummy light. I feel I have a much better chance of achieving my desired results that way than taking a chance on the LCD. I use the LCD, sure, for the histograms and blinkies and, if necessary, to check focus or noise, but I generally don't give color a second thought while the camera is in my hands.
Hendrik, that makes sense what you're saying,,,and I guess the bottom line is to know that what you see on the lcd may or may not be what you'll get...I definitely will take your advice and do some testing between the lcd on camera and my final output and see what I can tweak, yet at the same time, I do know now that it may still be a little off. At least that makes sense to me...Do we have on our nikon site any settings that folks set their cameras to to get the most out of them, especially the d90? I've been shooting water drops way too long, and in controlled lighting, now when I ventured out into the big world, I guess I was confused a little
Like you, i own a D90 for the last 3 1/2 years, and i'm so pleased with it.
I always shot in RAW.
But i like the colors on the back LCD (JPEG version of the shot) to look a bit warmer than the standard ones - that's the reason that i choose the VIVID option with A3 WB setting (like KR suggest - though i only found KR after).
Concerning KR, we all should take this advice with some restrictions. And nikonians do this brilliantly.
Nikonians!!! My best investment made after my camera!!!
Maybe Mike was referring to me???, as his post followed mine!!!
If so, i have no idea why. I don't think my post was rude to anyone.
I used to be a NATO officer (A-7P and F16 pilot), and i "worked" several times toghether with USMC guys (as his signature suggests he his), and i can assure to all of you that this kind of wording is not a standard way between USMC...
Happy photos, Mike!!!
Nikonians!!! My best investment made after my camera!!!
>>Hi Mick, >> >>Maybe Mike was referring to me???, as his post followed >>mine!!! >> >No, if you view the posts in thread mode and look at the >hierarchy tree, it appears he was responding to Bob Chadwick. > >Personally I also felt Bob's reply might be offensive to some, >especially if you like reading Ken's musings. > Yes, that is what I thought, but it is subject to some misinterpretation.
Bob's comments, while not something I would write, were not personal, nor did they consist of abusive, foul language.
I'm not a prude, but this forum isn't the place for that.
I also know that lots of the notes of his that I read are very opinionated and do not go along with the general view of how to do things.
What I DID find very useful in his D90 document was that he said "this is the setting I use, and this is my reasoning".
Reading his reasoning helped to understand what the setting was for, even if I chose (in many cases) to ignore his recommendations -- so I found something quite useful in his writings. I find this is often the case even if one totally disagrees!
Use the D90s custom white feature. It easy and fast once you learn it. It also gives you the best results. I purchased a gray card from http://michaeltapesdesign.com/whibal.html They sell them in different sizes. I purchased the one that fits into a shirt pocket. It comes with a carry protector and a strap if you like to carry it that way.
Tue 30-Jul-13 01:43 PM | edited Wed 31-Jul-13 08:48 AM by km6xz
Hi Darlene The rear monitor is really useful for everything Except color reference. It is close and nice looking but getting the same file on a color calibrated monitor can reveal differences, and usually does. Bob comment about the target audience for the blogger in question was correct, his audience IS focused on new users and as a result often gives enough information to start and experiment. But you will find few people who stick with the suggested settings after they get more experience and become more confident in imagining a final result and making it happen with creative use of the settings.
Darlene, you are in that more experienced group now and have made your vision available to others in really interesting ways. Your drop photos are still some of the most interesting photos posted and the recent contest and judged confirmed that. Compare his posted photos to yours before assuming he has the answers. His are mostly snapshots and tend to feature over-saturation and vibrancy that beginners usually prefer when just coming from point and shoot cameras. That works fine for small images but when a 8X10 or larger print is the goal, over-hyped colors and contrast so desirable. I'll take your images over his any day.
As was mention, RAW is not that onerous or difficult to work with but opens up many options in making corrections or enhancements that would be ineffective in JPG files. For snap shots and memory aids, JPG are very good, surprisingly good but, essentially, you get what you have. It is easier to optimize files in ways you would like to, using RAW. Keep up the good work Darlene! Stan St Petersburg Russia
Well Stan, you just made my day....and you know what?....you ARE RIGHT! I AM in the more experienced group now, and I need to just keep remembering that just keep doing what works for me...Raw files and creativity, with that combination you can't go wrong!...Thanks Stan, I appreciated that post! And hey Mick, you are absolutely right!!!!!! and just think had it been manual or autofocus, OH MY
I for one use photoshop to adjust my photos in raw but I bought my computer with a higher end graphics card for photo prossing and a 36" monitor so my old eyes could see what the heck I am doing but I also know that isnt an option for every one
For the most part, Rockwell's right JPEG's are fine. I always shoot in JPEG and RAW (NEF) however in the likely event that I capture one image that's worth further processing. I don't think back end processing on a good image is wasted time.
Sometimes, He Who Must Not Be Named...gets it right!
"4.) There was a funny article about a year ago titled something like "young hipsters astounded to discover that even with their plastic cameras and lots of Photoshop plug-ins that their photos still stink." The article goes on to explain that the hipsters were shattered when they discovered that their lack of talent wasn't hidden by getting a cool camera and software to imitate bad cameras."
Come on; we have all thought it; now somebody has actually had the nerve to say it!