I use a D700 with the 24-70/2.8. Basically anything I shoot that has something white or bright in the background shows up when I playback the picture. I tried to increase the exposure compensation to negative side but it still shows up. Any tips?

What do you mean by shows up? As in blinkies?

Try spot metering... meter the bright spot. If there are too many stops difference for the shadows to be exposed correctly, choose a better subject... or use a gnd.

"No matter how slow the film, Spirit always stands still long enough for the
photographer it has chosen" Minor White

www.carolynguild.com

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Hi adcam,

I used to get the same thing, (I am a green horn to digital and D700),

If you check the image on the monitor using the playback option, and have bumped the multiselector down, you see the "blinkies" on the highlights, Usually there is a highlight some where!

Just push the multiselector up and you will have normal monitor view,

Page 55 and 200 has more info,

Any more technical than that, I will to leave it to the experts!

Regard,
Gary

In the grey winter of the UK & on other days when it is overcast, I have frequently found a problem with blown highlights, especially in the sky, with my D200. Using matrix metering, I think the overall image has to be brightened up, and the darker parts of the image (ie most things other than the sky) need more light, hence leading to blown highlights.

I've now got a D700 and have found a way to deal with this more satisfactorily. I've created a new picture control setting in Capture NX2, based on the standard setting, but with tweaks to the curve which lighten darks and darken the light parts of the image. Using this, I get better images straight out of the camera (in my case, RAW ready for straight conversion to JPG), and can check when shooting more reliably whether the highlights are blown. Another option would be to use the neutral setting. Changing the picture control setting will not affect exposure selections, so differs from exposure compensation, and these settings can be corrected in post using NX2.

I believe that low ISO allows for greater dynamic range than higher ISO. In some cases, the scene to be shot will nonetheless exceed the dynamic range of the camera, so HDR or use of graduated filters would be the best way to deal with this. In practice, small areas of irretrievable black or white parts of the image don't detract greatly from the end result.

Bridget

Thanks for all the advice. Will try the spot metering method as well as Capture NX2.

AS a sort of aside - something I found in Ken ROckwell's pages, note that the "RGB" Highlight and Histogram displays are just copies of the GREEN ! why Nikon do this I have no idea. It seems crappy to me.
If eg you take a pic of say a teak table, you can easily blow the red channel.
You can footle about with the review options so that pressing the matrix button with , or followed by, (depending on something somewhere you set up...) the left and right buttons, you can see the single channel histograms one after the other. NB also - if you get a verical bar on the right, more than some percentage deemed to be acceptable, is clipped.

I must say I'm disappointed in the matrix meter on this camera, and that behaviour above.

If that bums you out this will make it worse.What you see on the back of your display is based upon the JPEG image not the RAW and you in fact can have no blown highlights in the RAW. And yes the higher the ISO the less dynamic range you get, so you still should try and shoot low ISO up to 400 if you can, and use higher ranges when you need it and still watch your screen although it may be lying to you.

Bob Baldassano
My Nikonians Gallery

"Nikonians membership - My most important photographic investment, after the
camera"

Retirement is a gift of time - Don't waste it!

Don't use the image as seen on the LCD to judge exposure. Use the histogram. If there are peaks against the far right edge, use negative Exp. Comp. (in Automatic mode) or decrease EV (in Manual mode) until the right of the histogram just touches the right edge. The D700, some say, tends to expose «to the right», ie overexpose a bit.

Hammam

With digital photography, I've found it an interesting learning experience at just how much more our eyes can deal with a much wider dynamic range of light than what the camera is capable of capturing because of the technology - you can read numerous articles about this. With that in mind, it becomes more of a learning experience with the camera to where you begin to develop an understanding of how to see the light as the camera will see it...and then you are able to more accurately determine when your scene may be pushing the boundaries of the dynamic range the camera can capture. Some scenes may require using an graduated ND filter, others do not. As an overall setting for the D700, I've found I often need to set a -0.3 to tame the highlights but then that may often have to be pushed to -0.7 dependent on if the sun suddenly seems to be a little brighter than it was.

Some suggestions . . .

First, Use 3D Color Matrix metering.

Second, set Active D-Lighting to AUTO (out-of-box default is OFF).

Third, Set your AF to Continuous Servo (switch on front), Set to start with Center AF sensor, Set AF area mode to Dynamic Area AF (middle setting switch on back), Set Custom Setting a3 to 51 points-3D tracking, Set Custom Setting a1 to Focus.

Active D-Lighting serves to protect from blown highlights and actually increases dynamic range a bit. The D700's AF and 3D color matrix exposure metering interact. Tends to give extra weight to area under AF point on subject. This keeps AF point on subject whether you half-press to lock focus and recompose and/or subject moves prior to full press of shutter button.

With these settings, you can leave exposure fine-tune at 0 EV and get correct exposures most of the time. A large bright area will still fool matrix meter requiring you to use Exposure Compensation, but it will behave much more reasonably now. IMHO, Nikon still needs to do a Firmware upgrade to lessen need to use exposure compensation (work more like D3 does).

Works for me and I have no reason to believe my D700 sample is unique.

See below (Indoors +0.7 EV exposure compensation ISO640, Outdoors w/ no exposure compensation ISO200, Night Shot spot metered, no exposure compensation ISO400), all shot raw processed w/DxO 5.3.1 no further PP, and no blown highlights in any of them.

Much happier with my D700 since above settings changes from out-of-box.

Regards,

Andy
D700, D40X, and more Nikkor lenses than one should be allowed

Attachment #1, (jpg file)
Attachment #2, (jpg file)
Attachment #3, (jpg file)

Andy - is there any advantage to DxO over NX2?


>Some suggestions . . .
>
>First, Use 3D Color Matrix metering.
>
>Second, set Active D-Lighting to AUTO (out-of-box default is
>OFF).
>
>Third, Set your AF to Continuous Servo (switch on front), Set
>to start with Center AF sensor, Set AF area mode to Dynamic
>Area AF (middle setting switch on back), Set Custom Setting a3
>to 51 points-3D tracking, Set Custom Setting a1 to Focus.
>
>Active D-Lighting serves to protect from blown highlights and
>actually increases dynamic range a bit. The D700's AF and 3D
>color matrix exposure metering interact. Tends to give extra
>weight to area under AF point on subject. This keeps AF point
>on subject whether you half-press to lock focus and recompose
>and/or subject moves prior to full press of shutter button.
>
>With these settings, you can leave exposure fine-tune at 0 EV
>and get correct exposures most of the time. A large bright
>area will still fool matrix meter requiring you to use
>Exposure Compensation, but it will behave much more reasonably
>now. IMHO, Nikon still needs to do a Firmware upgrade to
>lessen need to use exposure compensation (work more like D3
>does).
>
>Works for me and I have no reason to believe my D700 sample is
>unique.
>
>See below (Indoors +0.7 EV exposure compensation ISO640,
>Outdoors w/ no exposure compensation ISO200, Night Shot spot
>metered, no exposure compensation ISO400), all shot raw
>processed w/DxO 5.3.1 no further PP, and no blown highlights
>in any of them.
>
>Much happier with my D700 since above settings changes from
>out-of-box.
>
>Regards,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Simon

Andy-These are beautiful images. Thank you for sharing them with us. The photo of the lady at the lunch counter is quite unforgettable. The D700 makes this type of picture quite doable without flash.

Your suggestions make a lot of sense as starting points for the kind of photos you are taking. Very helpful.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Active D lighting is only intended for high contrast situations.It not only lowers exposure, but moves highlight and shadow values. It affects RAW exposure as well. If you are using any other Sw other than Capture NX2 to post process they will not assign the proper parameters to render an image with ADL properly. So you should use it with care or not at all.

Bob Baldassano
My Nikonians Gallery

"Nikonians membership - My most important photographic investment, after the
camera"

Retirement is a gift of time - Don't waste it!

1) I find that I can get much more consistent and superior results with DxO vs NX2 (which I have, but don't use much) especially in noise reduction and the ability to batch raws from a large shoot. It also does lens aberation corrections for supported lenses extremely well. An AFD 18-35 f/3.5-4.5 was used for lady at lunch!!!

2) Active D-lighting does indeed affect the raws, lowering exposure to keep from blowing highlights. It is quite different from the D-lighting applied to images in NX2. It's not just for high contrast.

3) Continuous servo is needed for subject follow to assure AF point is on the subject. Otherwise, matrix metering as Nikon is now doing it becomes a bit of a #### shoot. With this, it's pretty consistent.

Regards,

Andy
D700, D40X, and more Nikkor lenses than one should be allowed

Hi Bob,

I've just run a test, involving a series of shots of a high contrast scene using different Active D-lighting settings and different ISOs. I found that using the active D-settings helped to reduce blown highlights, with no additional noise up to 800 ISO, and a small amount at 1600 and beyond. (I didn't try every ISO setting - my patience doesn't go that far!)

I appreciate that I have a choice of doing D lighting either in camera, or using Capture NX2, and found that the high d-lighting setting in camera did indeed lengthen shutter speed (I was shooting in aperture priority), so changing in post would not result in exactly the same image.

What do you see as the advantages/disadvantages of doing D-lighting in post, or in camera? You seem to be very authoritative on the D700 - I have read a lot of your posts - so I thought you might be able to help.

Thanks

Bridget

Active D-Lighting in-camera and D-Lighting in NX2 Post do entirely different things. In camera, mainly keeps bright spots, even small ones from being blown. Using it set to AUTO, gives the camera the freedom to adapt it to the scene and not reduce exposure too much.

D-Lighting in NX2 Post, is more for bringing out detail in shadow areas.

Quite different animals.

Andy
D700, D40X, and more Nikkor lenses than one should be allowed

Someone asked about the difference between NX2 and DxO for the D700. I much prefer DxO.

The following came from some raw converter testing that was done over on DPREVIEW a few months ago. These are from a ISO6400 shot taken using a D700, 24-70/f2.8G lens, and available light at a wedding that we used to compare. Same RAW file in both cases.

The first set (full frame and 100% crop of dancers) is the result using NX2 (done by Jason Odell, who can use NX2 far better than I).

The second set used DxO 5.3.x and was done by me.

IMHO, DxO tends, among other things to render truer colors -- note the female dancer's dress and skin tomes as examples. DxO also seems to bring out a bit more detail without blowing highlights.

Close, but different. To each his own, but I thought you'all might like to see a sample comparison.

Andy
D700, D40X, and more Nikkor lenses than one should be allowed

Attachment #1, (jpg file)
Attachment #2, (jpg file)
Attachment #3, (jpg file)
Attachment #4, (jpg file)

I agree the color tones look better in Dx0. Even the color of hair appears more natural looking. Thanks for sharing and for helping me with my blown highlights.

Sorry Andy, but to me the NX2 image looks better. Just look at the males forehead for example, the highlights look blown on the DXO version. I also see more detail in the NX2 version in the dress and suit. As far as truer colors we have no information to support that assertion either way, as we don't know what the dress color really was nor do we have the details of the camera settings, which can have an impact on the image. In any case, the NX2 version to start out with would be the only version to exactly duplicate the camera settings.

Bob Baldassano
My Nikonians Gallery

"Nikonians membership - My most important photographic investment, after the
camera"

Retirement is a gift of time - Don't waste it!

Doesn't the DxO version look slightly sharper though Bob?

Simon

No in fact I think it is possibley oversharpened. Take a look at the wrinkles in the dress and the mans hair. those white spots should not be there. If you had looked at the DP Review of Nikon SW vs. other stuff they concluded that NX2 did the best job not DxO.

Bob Baldassano
My Nikonians Gallery

"Nikonians membership - My most important photographic investment, after the
camera"

Retirement is a gift of time - Don't waste it!

>No in fact I think it is possibley oversharpened. Take a look
>at the wrinkles in the dress and the mans hair. those white
>spots should not be there. If you had looked at the DP Review
>of Nikon SW vs. other stuff they concluded that NX2 did the
>best job not DxO.
If you'd like to try your hand, the link to the Raw Converter test shot .NEF with the two dancers is as follows:

http://tomslot.info/raw_challenge/DSC_6678.NEF It's a 16MB+ file.

In fact the entire thread is quite educational with about every raw converter known (and unknown -- to me at least) represented:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=29623808

The pic was made with the 24-70/f2.8G at 52mm wide-open at f/2.8. DxO corrects residual lens aberations extremely well; NX2 does not have that capability -- may be some of the sharpness difference.

In general, starting with the D300, Nikon Marketing "took over" defining what out-of-camera JPEG colors should look like. CNX2 is faithful to this.

IMHO, "orange" reds, too much color saturation, and too much contrast from all the newer Nikon bodies. Canon seems to have done this as well starting with their EOS 40D and newer bodies.

DxO allows you to use a "standards based" color calibration that is camera body independent. I can get a "true color" Gretag-Macbeth CC image out of DxO, but NOT out of CNX2. Maybe I'm just no good with CNX2, but I get colors out of it that match the JPEG that is imbeded in the NEF's from CNX2 pretty consistently.

That's fine if you like it that way -- I don't think it's an accident that Nikon made D2Xs picture controls after a great many Pro photographers started hollering at them.

A couple of hint's regarding the test NEF: 1) It's over-exposed; 2) It's WB is not correct.

Regards,

Andy
D700, D40X, and more Nikkor lenses than one should be allowed

"The pic was made with the 24-70/f2.8G at 52mm wide-open at f/2.8. DxO corrects residual lens aberations extremely well; NX2 does not have that capability "

NX2 does have the capability to correct lens aberations and it does it automatically. It will also defish a fisheye just bychecking a box. Why would you not be able to get a "true Color" Gretag-Macbeth image out of NX2? To get colors that match the imbeded JEPEG every time in NX2, all you have to do is open the file! Also in NX2 you have total control of all the settings you made in the camera so if you don't like "orange reds" it is easy to change. In most cases I can process an image in NX2 in less than 5 minutes.

Bob Baldassano
My Nikonians Gallery

"Nikonians membership - My most important photographic investment, after the
camera"

Retirement is a gift of time - Don't waste it!

>"The pic was made with the 24-70/f2.8G at 52mm wide-open
>at f/2.8. DxO corrects residual lens aberations extremely
>well; NX2 does not have that capability "
>
>NX2 does have the capability to correct lens aberations and it
>does it automatically. It will also defish a fisheye just
>bychecking a box. Why would you not be able to get a
>"true Color" Gretag-Macbeth image out of NX2? To get
>colors that match the imbeded JEPEG every time in NX2, all you
>have to do is open the file! Also in NX2 you have total
>control of all the settings you made in the camera so if you
>don't like "orange reds" it is easy to change. In
>most cases I can process an image in NX2 in less than 5
>minutes.

NX2 does not correct lens aberations anywhere close to with the precision of DxO. Picture controls can correct "orange-reds, etc.," in NX2, but at the cost of a MUCH lessor degree of lens aberation correction (not just vignetting and CA) and high iso noise reduction that is far more effective at retaining fine detail in final output TIFF or JPEG. As an example, will fix complex distortion at wide end of zooms and vary sharpening across frame to fix soft corners. Has capabilty of doing tilt-shift type lens corrections in software from shots made with wide and ultrawide angles.

Picture controls by and large have no effect on raw files when processed by another raw converter, i.e., not NX2.

Andy
D700, D40X, and more Nikkor lenses than one should be allowed

Andy I have to admit I am not that familiar with DXO's Aberration corrections. I was speaking about auto color aberration correction in NX2, and the ability to defish fisheye lenses automatically, plus the vignette control.It can also do distortion control. DXO tilt shift capability sounds interesting. So where are you getting the data to support your statements that DXO has more precision? Have you run your own tests or are you relying on other published data? I am going by what I read in the DPReview tests of post processing SW, and they picked NX2 over DXO. I don't use Picture controls to do color correction, but to baseline my shots. BTW I don't agree that the reds in NX2 are "orange -reds". Since just about every post processor including NX2 has the capability to dial in exact color settings either in RGB or LAB space, you should be able to get any color you want from any of them. They all just start at a different point, with NX2 starting as shot. You are right that other RAW processors cannot see the Picture Control effects. If I want to correct distortion beyond what I can do in NX2 I usually go to Photoshop and do it there. Does DXO do its distortion control in RAW like NX2 does? I can easily vary sharpening across a frame in NX2 as I can sharpen selectively.

So it sounds like you are very happy with DXO and if so should stick with it, while I am very satisfied with NX2 and a sometime use of Photoshop to fix any distortions I want.

Bob Baldassano
My Nikonians Gallery

"Nikonians membership - My most important photographic investment, after the
camera"

Retirement is a gift of time - Don't waste it!

Bob;

From your postings is it safe to say that you do the vast majority of your processing in NX2 with Photoshop as a backup for linear distortion?

I shoot JPEG but this thread has me thinking of diving in to NEF and post processing so I can really fry my brain. J/K.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Yes that is basically true. To give you more background I started using Adobe Photoshop CS and dove into it because I wanted to raise my skill level as high as I could. I read a ton of books, especially from Dan Margoulis. I became very familiar with all the tools, especially the use of curves and masks and LAB space. I also learned tricks like using false profiles, use of apply image to blend different channels into images,and as you get the picture, though not a certified user, I am an advanced user of Photoshop.I moved to CS2 and then moved to CS3 Production Premium Suite and now have the CS4 version of the suite and therefore use Photoshop CS4 Extended. When I started all I had was an F3HP and a Nikon Coolpix 950 camera and then an Olympus SP500U. I did all my processing in Photoshop. When I bought my D200, I started using NX just to process the RAW file, but still doing most of my work in CS2. When NX2 came out i realized i could do everything in NX2, except for very special situations and stay in RAW the whole time. Not only could I do my processing more quickly than i could in CS3 and CS4, The results were often superior, especially since opening a file in NX2 gave me an as shot image and total control over all the controls. While I had the skills to process images to the same extent in Photoshop it took a whole lot more steps to get the same result. At that point I started using NX2 fort all my image processing, with the exception of adding my copyright signature, doing panos or HDR, or any of the extremely special functions in Photoshop. This year I added NIK Filters to NX2 and have even more reason to use it. I rarely do any extensive work in Photoshop any more.

Bob Baldassano
My Nikonians Gallery

"Nikonians membership - My most important photographic investment, after the
camera"

Retirement is a gift of time - Don't waste it!

Sean,

I would suggest giving NX2 a go, shooting RAW. I can't claim to have made anything like the same level of competence or learning as Bob in photoshop products. Having said that I think I have spent as least as much time trying to get to grips with photoshop as I have with NX2 and have achieved a higher level of competence in NX2.

NX2 will produce virtually the same results as an in camera processed jpg if that is what you want from a RAW file. All you have to do is save the file as a jpg, and it's done. But if you want to change anything, the RAW file offers much more flexibility. If you save the file as a NEF, all of your edit steps remain visible, and can be altered, deleted or added to. This non-destructive editing is very helpful and takes away the concern that I might mess things up.

In NX2 you don't have to bother with layers and selections. I find this aspect of photoshop unbelievable tedious, and NX2 does a good job of doing it automatically. I find NX2 intuitive to use - some photoshop users would disagree.

NX2 uses your in camera settings (picture control etc), so if you get it right at the time of the shoot, next to no processing effort is required.

If you do decide to go the NX2 route, I suggest getting Jason Odell's guide (http://www.luminescentphoto.com/ ). It walks you through how to do the various editing steps and is clear and easy to follow.

When I got my first DSLR a couple of years ago (a D200), I thought I would never shoot RAW, as that was for pros. I shot jpgs for about a week, and have used RAW exclusively ever since. I only use photoshop for cloning & HDR, and the rest of the family use it for composite images etc.

Bridget

Bridget it is the fact that learning NX2 does not require the effort that photoshop takes that makes it a great choice for new users. i believe with a good book like O'Dells and about an hour of time you can learn enough to produce excellent results. I almost think that having a lot of Photshop experience gives some people pause as they enter NX2 because the interface is so different. Photshop was originally designed for illustrators and for the days when you handed over your film to a processor and were not involved in post processing. It is very powerful, but not that intuitive. NX2 is very intuitive and the fact that you work directly on the image, and that the Sw creates excellent masks for you makes the effort so easy. On the otherhand knowing what it takes in Photoshop to do some tasks makes my appreciation of NX2 greater. The U point tools allow rank amatuers the ability to do things taht would take extensive study and effort in Photoshop. I do believe both belong in your tool bag, but I see NX2 as a mallet and PS as a jack hammer.

Bob Baldassano
My Nikonians Gallery

"Nikonians membership - My most important photographic investment, after the
camera"

Retirement is a gift of time - Don't waste it!

I prefer NX2 to be used on individual images and it is my GO-TO app for my fine art landscape work.

I have been very pleased at Lightroom for a while and have just dove into Capture One 4. I must say, that Capture One + skin tones is absolutely amazing..

My workflow is really messed I guess but I like to consider it more of a chaos theory of workflow...

1.) Everything (well 99% never say never) I shot is in RAW
2.) I use Lightroom to batch process large jobs. From a wealth of snapshots to wedding proofing and so on
3.) For portrait commissions, I batch process using Capture One 4
4.) It is NX2 or Capture One for Fine Art Landscapes.
5.) From there, it's off to being exported to JPEGs or TIFFs for any additional Photoshop stuff for blemishes and so on.

To each his own... I have found uses for each one of my business outlets... Hehe I even found Aperture 2 to be worthwhile for really quick album designs... I have gotten rid of that in lieu of FotoFustion (windows only)

-----------------------------------
Photography Workshops: www.inlightinworkshop.com

My Photography: www.ParamourPhoto.com
My Blog: www.ParamourPhoto.net

Bridget I don't consider myself to be an authority, just someone who has asked lots of questions about this capability and read up on it a lot. I also had some correspondence with Nikon on the subject. There are 2 kinds of D lighting Active and the regular D lighting. Active is the only version that is applied while you shoot and thus in my opinion is the most dangerous. Nikon has stated to me that Active D lighting was intended for high contrast situations only as it also increases noise. They said it is not a good idea to leave it in auto, but to turn it on as needed. I am glad you ran your tests as it seems there may be a window where it is useful. It is the only camera adjustment that actually is applied to a RAW file as it does two things according to Thom Hogan, first reducing the exposure (up to 2/3 of a stop depending on the setting) and second lowering highlight values and increasing shadow values and moving them into the mid range values of your exposure. Since this is done in a non linear fashion and in a variable way depending upon the situation, only Nikon's software can correctly interpret that data and make the proper correction to your image. You will also note that if you turn off ADL in the camera, it does not become a choice within the edit steps in NX2 because you can perform a similar function after the fact using D lighting and the exposure slider (D-Lighting does not adjsut exposure like ADL does). Nikon told me that if you do set it in the camera and then set it to zero in NX2 thereafter, as it will now show up as an adjustable step, it will not return the image back to what it was prior to applying ADL as you still need to make an exposure adjustment to counter to what was originally set by ADL. So with that background, here is what I think:

1. If you are not using NX2 and are shooting RAW, DO NOT USE ADL, as you cannot apply the proper corrections with other SW and may make your image worse.

2. If you are shooting JPEG go ahead and use ADL in high contrast situations only.

3. If you are shooting RAW and use NX2 you can go either way, but for me I think there is really no advantage to letting the camera move the highlights and shadows in a manner uncontrolled by you, when you can post process the image with D lighting either in camera or in NX2 thereafter with total control of the result, or adjust the level of ADL after the fact in NX2.

Bob Baldassano
My Nikonians Gallery

"Nikonians membership - My most important photographic investment, after the
camera"

Retirement is a gift of time - Don't waste it!

Sorry to "hijack" in the middle of the thread here, but after reading your reply, I just have to ask,

Now that I am shooting only raw, am I better off switching ADL to off?

For those shooting jpeg, ADL is OK?

Regards,
Gary

Gary my point was you should not leave ADL on all the time as even Nikon says that is not its intended use. The issue of shooting RAW with ADL as I said above is not a good idea unless you are using NX2 to process RAW as the RAW file is changed and other RAW processors don't know how to handle it, so you could mess up your image. If as in 3 above you are shooting RAW and NX2 then assuming you are applying ADL at the proper times i.e. high contrast situations, then your decision is do you want the camera to do the adjstment for you, and spend less time in post, or do you want total control and figure you could do better using D lighting and the exposure control in post with NX2? IF you are shooting JPEG, blown highlights are gone forever, so in a high contrast situation it makes sense to use ADL as any post processing will already have the ADL effect applied and you don't run into the improper handling issue.

Bob Baldassano
My Nikonians Gallery

"Nikonians membership - My most important photographic investment, after the
camera"

Retirement is a gift of time - Don't waste it!

Thank you Bob,

That makes sense now, I am glad I have now gone down the RAW track,

Regards,
Gary

Wow, I love this community! Thank you all for your insights.

Too bad none of this info is written down anywhere. The D700 has a bizilion settings, a 450 page users manual, and comes factory set-up out-of-the box giving crappy exposure metering.

I'm by no means a novice. Looked at a few "how-to" books which only gave clues here and there regarding these interactions. Before I figured this out, I was thinking that perhaps I'd made a mistake trading-up from a D200.

Andy
D700, D40X, and more Nikkor lenses than one should be allowed

Thanks for the tips.

Why continuous servo?

Rags

Hammam said
"Don't use the image as seen on the LCD to judge exposure. Use the histogram."
I believe the RGB clipping blinkies as well as the histogram only represent Green? (makes me CROSS!)

--
Use continuous AF to get the exposure right?
I mostly use MF lenses - so I have to put up with blown highlights, huh?
Active -D does help, but I'm still finding I'm better off setting -0.7 .
Didn't have to make allowances with my (now stolen) Rollei SL66!

What's ADL?
What's DxO?
What's NX2? Well OK I'm, aware of what that was. I say "WAS" because the "free" period has expired so I'd have to pay for it now. I don't think I'd have time to use it. I used to hand-retouch negatives and trannies, and still have the kit to do it, somewhere. NX2 would probably wind up in the same box, marked "things to use when days get to have 40 hours instead of 24"

You can look at individual channels RG and B on the D700 display and also luminance. But the histograms are calculated using the embedded JPEGs in NEF files.

Bob Baldassano
My Nikonians Gallery

"Nikonians membership - My most important photographic investment, after the
camera"

Retirement is a gift of time - Don't waste it!

>I use a D700 with the 24-70/2.8. Basically anything I shoot
>that has something white or bright in the background shows up
>when I playback the picture. I tried to increase the exposure
>compensation to negative side but it still shows up. Any
>tips?

It seems to me like you simply have too much of a difference in exposures between your subject and the background.

Our cameras cannot capture the same things that we see. Our eyes have much more of a dynamic range than our cameras do. Our eyes typically can see up to 24 stops of light range where our cameras are typically half that. This means that we can see intense highlight and shadow detail in the same scene where our cameras only have a limited range. This is where High Dynamic Range (HDR) images comes into play. This is why your subject may look well exposed but your background may be blown out.

Specular highlights is something totally different. This would include a hot spot on earrings, glitter, and other shinny stuff that could be blown out on your subject.

I do not have a problem with my backgrounds being blown out (exposure wise) as long as my subject is well exposed. If that is what the picture is supposed to be of then that is fine.

-----------------------------------
Photography Workshops: www.inlightinworkshop.com

My Photography: www.ParamourPhoto.com
My Blog: www.ParamourPhoto.net

"I do not have a problem with my backgrounds being blown out (exposure wise) as long as my subject is well exposed. If that is what the picture is supposed to be of then that is fine."

Are you saying that you don't mind that the highlights are blown as long as the subject is well exposed? Or, That you don't have that problem?

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Food for thought, one could also pose that last bit in reverse:
- sometimes to expose the subject properly, one MUST blow some highlights (high key) or lose some shadows (low key).

Anyhow very interesting thread. Going onto the list of things to do is purposely shooting some low-key and high-key shots for artistic effect, rather than constantly striving for that perfectly balanced exposure (but yah, that too ).

Best regards, SteveK
My Nikonians gallery
'A camera is an instrument that teaches people how to see without a camera.' -- Dorothea Lange