I haven't taken the camera out for weeks due to bad weather and laziness. Yesterday we had nice weather so I took the wife and Junior (actually his name is Tucker, a big goofy golden retriever) to the park. The first image is the original. The pp included an 8x10 tight crop, a high pass of 1.32, coupled with a 45-5-4 unsharp mask and finally a color boost. The posted images here seem to be washed out; I don't know why, because within CNX2 they appear to have more punch. But the reason I'm posting these is to demonstrate the capability of the D700 and 24-120 combo. Ordinarily for a picture like this I would use the 80-200 f/2.8. But that lens just doesn't seem to focus as fast as the 24-120. Comments and suggestions for boosting color are welcome.
I recently bought a 24-120 f/4 to go with my D700. I really like this combination. The distortion is a bit pronounced on the high end, but I really like the zoom range and the performance of the lens. It focuses very quickly and the VR is a great help.
> The posted images here seem to be washed out; I don't >know why, because within CNX2 they appear to have more punch. >
I'm more of a Lightroom person than CNX2 so I apologize if this idea is off-base, but by any chance are you working with the images in a color space other than sRGB? Often, pictures posted in any color space other than sRGB will lose much of their saturation and pop.
I've seen enough of your posts to know that you understand more about CNX2 than I, however, I thought i'd see if a Levels & Curves adjustment would add some "pop" to your image. I think it added something; here's the product and the adjustment panel.
Do you like it?
BTW, I have this same combo and think it is terrific.
I see where you were going with this, but it appears on my monitor to be even less saturated than mine. However, I think using a levels and curves approach is correct. I'm going to play a little more with it tonight and use it as a CNX2 learning vehicle. Thanks!
First, I live nearby in Annapolis and almost any picture taken these days appears to lack color. Why? Simply because the reality is that there isn't much color in the real world. I think you photos accurately display what is the real color of trees and grass at this time. And, looking at your great looking retriever, her color looks very accurate to me.
Second, I think your photos are just slightly over exposed. This tends to wash out what color there is. I suggest reducing exposure compensation a bit in NX2. See if that helps.
And... I have the same combo and it is my "normal" set up now.
After viewing my image again, I'm seeing what you call "slight overexposure", although I'm not sure that's the right term. It's a result of using D-lighting within CNX2 to push the histogram to the right without clipping any highlights. I've grown rather fond of using that tool and technique, and sometimes I tend to over-do it. Thanks for the comment!
Hey Jerry! How are ya!? And when did you get the D700? I had been debating getting a 24-120 f/4 (and am still debating it). Maybe I could check yours out one of these days. Now with respect to "one of these days" I am so busy, I don't know when that could be!
What can I say, NAS struck right around Christmas, so I sunk a boatload of cash into the D700 and 2 lenses, including the 24-70. I had been saving for a while, and sold some other equipment I wasn't using, so it's not as if I mortgaged the house to satisfy my superficial cravings . I kept the D300 as a second body; I love the results with the D700, but it's so HEAVY! We need to get together for a spring shoot, if this weather ever breaks! Jerry
I have both the 24-120 and the 28-300 for use with a D700 (and D3s).
To me, the 24-120 is sharper, no doubt, and seems to produce slightly more saturated colors. There is also less distortion on the wide end, even though it is wider. (The distortion seems to be easily correctable in CNX2 using Distortion Control.)
I use my 24-120 when I am concentrating on image quality and know the range I will be shooting. The 28-300 is really my walkaround lens for casual shooting. (I've used them both on the D700, but have never mounted the 28-300 on the D3s since it isn't what I use as a walkaround camera.)
I have the D700 and both the 24-120 and 28-300. I'm with Mick; the 24-120 is sharper and faster to focus. The 28-300 is, for a 10.7 zoom, a heck of a lens, but it's no 24-120. It's great for walking around when you don't know what will come up and it's certainly better than carrying and switching lenses, especially on vacation.
As for the original posters question, have you set picture control to Vivid?
The photo has plenty of pop and color, etc., etc. Obviously I do not know what your original looks like, but in the file you posted the levels are well off the ends, color saturation is low and vibrance is low. Levels alone make a huge difference. Here is what ACDSee Pro 3 does with the file.
. . . and one more - the smaller shot/crop. Again, there's plenty of color and pop, but your levels were way off the chart. Some light frequency adjustments in ACDSee Pro 3 also help avoid blowing out the near-background tree, burning back the general distant background and making the pooch more prominent.
Jerry - Here's my output from Capture NX2. As soon as you load the cropped image, pull in the left and right Levels sliders to the actual light frequency/histogram edges. That will correct/get rid of all the excess softness and haze. Pull the left slider in a bit more to drop a little more brightness out of the distant background - it will help feature the pooch.
After that, I used Exposure Compensation 0, Contrast +18, Highlight Protection 0, Shadow Protection +28, Saturation +16. In the Adjust>Saturation/Warmth controls I used Saturation +6, Warmth 0.
There's more you can do in NX2, especially with its strongest feature - UPoint - but I'd rather use the light frequency dialog in ACDSee Pro 3 for that sort of thing because ACDSee is much faster to use. The trade-off is that UPoint, as implemented in Capture NX2, is more accurate for really specific fine tuning. Nonetheless, I prefer ACDSee Pro 3. Attachment#1 (jpg file)
When the current "new" 24-120 F4 appeared, I was able to part exchange my older 24-120 for the new model at my local camera store, Birmingham Cameras in Dublin. I am delighted with the lens especially on short "city breaks" where you are very limited by airlines in terms of luggage.
But when will Lightroom have this lens listed as an option so that the distorsion can be corrected when images are imported? Currently, Lightroom 3.3 supports only the old 24-120.
My versions of LR3 both support the new 24-120 lens. I'm not sure where the lens profiles are stored, but I think it is with the Adobe Camera Raw Plugin which both Photoshop and Lightroom use. Adobe has updated LR to 3.3, which you apparently already have, and ACR and the DNG Converter to v6.3. I suggest that you download ACR and the DNG converter from http://www.adobe.com/downloads and give that a try.
If those downloads don't fix the issue, go to the Adobe Labs site at http://labs.adobe.com and get the ACR v6.4 beta release candidate which was released on March 10.
I have version 3.3 which is current, and version 3.4, a Beta Release Candidate, plus I have updated Adobe Camera Raw to the version 6.4 Beta Release, so I'm not sure where the lens support was updated. I have had no problems with the Beta releases, but please take this as information, nor a recommendation.
I am new to the forum, Nikon and the D700. I've had my camera for a little over a month now and I love it! I find the 24-120 to be a great walk around lens. I came from using a Pentax K7 and some gorgeous Pentax primes and their DA*lenses, which were excellent. I was worried that I might be disappointed with the Nikon lenses I could afford, but that worry has been put to rest. In addition to the 24-120mm VR, I purchased the 70-300mm VR which is a wonderfully sharp lens at a very reasonable price. Part of the reason for moving to Nikon was the VR lenses. I have a hand tremor that in-body shake reduction just could not compensate for fully (and I don't like being tied to a tripod or monopod all the time). My first pictures were of some birds I could see from my front porch. I used the 70-300mm and was just amazed by the image quality, quick, accurate focus and the fact that I could get a blur free bird image hand held. I am sooo looking forward to summer this year. I have so much still to learn about the capablilities of the camera and the lenses I've purchased (including the 105mm VR macro and the 50mm f/1.4 G). I've uploaded my first D700 picture taken handheld with the 70-300mm lens.
That really is a beautiful image, Lisa. We'll be looking for some posts from you in the "A Picture I Took" forum. You have a wonderful set of lenses, all of which I have and enjoy. And I agree that the VR image stabilization is extremely helpful. An interesting thing that I have noticed is that "relatively heavy" lenses aid in the stabilization, e.g., I have an 80-400mm lens that appears to get slightly better images than my 70-300 when handheld (most often) and I attribute this mainly to the weight.
I haven't made it over to that forum yet, but I will take a look. I agree about weight aiding stability. I found that the camera and the lens need to balance well together. The problem that I had with the Pentax was the body was relatively small and if I used the battery grip with it, it was uncomfortable for me. It was partly the ergonomics of the D700 that helped me decide to make the change. The high ISO ability and full frame sealed the deal.
I think that I may have been inaccurate in saying that I had never posted a picture on-line. I think I posted 2 or 3 on the Pentax Formums as part of a couple of ads for lenses I posted in their marketplace. I guess this one is the first that've I've posted just for the joy of it