This picture was taken using window light, handheld, with the 24-85 f/2.8 at 85mm and f/5.6 Camera was set at ISO400, sharp. Normal. NEF converted to TIFF using Capture2 and used Photoshop to add watermark. No USM or levels. It's a 4Mb picture but shows the resolution this camera is capable of. remember this is ISO400 and the camera has better resolution at ISO200. Thx, Herbet.
>Excellent portraits. >What kind of white balance did you use ? <-- Nevermind, I >forgot that white balance is a post-process and the NEF >setting will override that. > >George Oei >Madison, WI
I wrote in a previous post..I don't understand why NEF bypasses white balance? Don't you still need white balance even in the larger file size? I can see bypassing sharpening,? Or are they assuming that all NEF files will be manipulated in PS, Wouldn't you rather have a correctly balanced pic from the start? Inquiring mind..
When you shoot a TIFF or jpg, the camera applies a color bias based on the WB setting. That is permanant in the rgb data of the output file.
When you shoot a NEF, the color is recorded in the file just as the CCD "sees" it. The WB setting is included in the file header, where it is read and interpreted by Nikon View or Nikon Capture. When you open the file on a computer, the software reads that WB "note" and applies the bias THEN. That's why you can change and, particularly, fine-tune the WB to anything you want and never loose data.
This is a godsend to people who are prone to forgetting to make sure the WB is set correctly. (As long as they shoot NEF's).
Further, my understanding (from reading Nikon's documentation) is that if you change the WB of a NEF and save it as a NEF, you have still only changed that "note" in the header. The original CCD bits are still unchanged.
I`m still not sold on digital. Can someone or has anybody posted a standard photograph (Model`s face/StillLife/Side of a structure)taken with a D1x/D100/F5 and placed them together on this site? Yes I realize that the cameras inquestion together come`s to $7800.00 bucks. Just a thought.................
I'm probably not the only person that can do it, but I happen to be equipped to do so, and will try. I'm supposed to go on a shoot Friday with my D1 and D100 and a loaned D1X. I also have an F5 (although I don't know what the F5 body has to do with it--the film and scanner should be the essential variables).
>I`m still not sold on digital. >Can someone or has anybody posted a standard photograph >(Model`s face/StillLife/Side of a structure)taken with a >D1x/D100/F5 and placed them together on this site? Yes I >realize that the cameras inquestion together come`s to >$7800.00 bucks. >Just a thought.................
"I`m not sure what the F5 body has to do with it......." Geez Vic take a pill! If it makes you happy we`ll throw in an N90! The D1x is top of the line Digital. D100 top amateur digital. F5 top pro film camera.
The site listed above is excellent. You better have a super fast hook-up because with optimum it took about 12 seconds to come up. The S2 images were junk , but the D100 and D60 looked great.
Victor nicely volunteered to fulfill a request for comparison images using the three cameras he mentioned. His comment on the F5 body just meant that it wouldn't matter what film body he used since the image capture from film would be dependent on the film characteristics and the scanner resolution/image quality.
Take your own pill if it will help you keep up with the conversation.
Yeah BeeJay I got that! I was in "think of a pro camera" mode. So instead of saying ," D100/D1X or a film based camera which is not dependant on the film characteristics and as such an image from a resolution/image quality", I mentioned the F5. HEAVEN FORBID I SHOULD EVER MAKE THAT MISTAKE AGAIN SO THE NEXT MR.PIC-E-UHN CAN POST SAID MISTAKE IN HIS NEXT REPLY INSTEAD OF JUST REALISING WHAT I MIGHT HAVE MEANT. And while we`re here ,is Vic like your little brother or something?
One more word on the " sharpness issue". I have been shooting NEF's and jpeg's, too, trying to come to some sort of resolution of what is the best settings for my kind of shooting. I am not sure I have an answer yet, but the jpeg , fine and large with high sharpening is not as bad as some have said it was.
I don't know how good this little snapshot of some friends of mine looks over the web and greatly reduced, but I assure you printed out at 8 1/2 x 11 inches it looks very good. No Pulitizer winner here. Just a quick across the table shot with the built in flash, but I can tell you it is not bad. Lens, by the way, was the much underrated 29-105 f/4.5 zoom.
For some reason, I am getting upload error. Oh, well, maybe next time.