Photos From The New Camera - A Work In Progress

[woaface]

I definitely need to go back and try some more again downtown, but I'm really enjoying this camera, and the quality of photo it produces. Now if I only had a tripod that wasn't missing and a UV filter, and some fun filters, for the day.

Also, I didn't upload these to Nikon.net at 100% original quality. Sorry, ya'll just get an idea.

The suspension bridge is a new installation over a river downtown. 10 years ago when we moved here the "west end" of downtown was appalling. However it's going over some mutimillion dollar improvements and in another 5 or 10 years it will be extremely impressive!

Enjoy!

(Go To Second Page To See Pictures. Nikon Doesn't Allow Me To Hotlink After A Few Hours)

[BK_GrandMarquis]

I like the last one where the person walking is faded. Kinda cool.

[Mike Poore]

I like the last one where the person walking is faded. Kinda cool.
It's a Michael Jackson aberration.

Is that Elaine? I cant wait for Marty an Todd's comment(s), James just put it there to get 'em stirred up, the rascal.

They may be gone, though; I think it's a Legal Kanevel/Hell Boy weekend.

I liked the cups & saucers. Wonderful color balance and metering; it's why Nikon keeps getting such high marks from the experts.

Good going James.:2thumbs:

[CRUZTAKER]

You had me all anticipated...and now all I get are red X's. :razz:

[MarauderMark]

You had me all anticipated...and now all I get are red X's. :razz:


Yepperz me too. :(

[martyo]

You had me all anticipated...and now all I get are red X's. :razz:

Those are some of the nicest red x's I have ever seen! :P

[Bluerauder]

You had me all anticipated...and now all I get are red X's. :razz:
Me too !!! All "Red X's"

[Patrick]

Thier were thier! Why did you take them down??? And I think it was her!!!

[MM03MOK]

James! WAKE UP! We can't see your pics!! Don't do this to us!!

[woaface]

Uh...I dunno, I'll have to check, that's awfully odd! Give me a few minutes.

[woaface]

Nikon doesn't allow me to hotlink after x amount of time...

[MarauderMark]

http://home1.nikonnet.com/sessions/009391360460/10004695lg.jpg


I like this one beemer in the lot by itself against the rough brick wall..:up: Kinda like rough and smooth.Good shot ..

[Patrick]

Good work James!!!! :high5:

[CRUZTAKER]

James...use the software that came with the Nikon. It's not super powerfull, but quickly makes basic changes such as sharpness, color, brightness, zoom, and cut and crop. I noticed with this camera, one must 'sharpen' the images a tad with software. If you shoot in A mode, nearly all of your indoor shots will not be as bright as one might like.

Try the Nikon picture project. It works! A couple of those pics need sharpened.

Also, try letting the camera take the image as you desire without using photoshop. In p-mode to start, as this is the easiest for beginners. Make changes to ISO, white balance, and exposure rate.

Otherwise, nice job. Keep clicking.

[CRUZTAKER]

Thanks for the PM and clarification James.

As I said, keep your pic sizes at 1024X768 if you need to resize them for posting. Our gallery easily supports that size, files are small as well.

If you are using WINDOWS XP, go to this 'not so known' Microsoft powertool website and download 'XP IMAGE RESIZER'

MICROSOFT POWER TOYS FOR WINDOWS XP (http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/downloads/powertoys/xppowertoys.mspx)

It will install a new line you will see in the right click menu, when clicked on an image thumbnail.

You no longer have to go to another program to safely resize your images. It options you to resize the original, or make a resized copy. Resolution remains sweet at 1024X768.

[TripleTransAm]

Some nice stuff you shot there. I've been waiting to see some output from that camera of yours, 'bout time! ;)

Addictive, isn't it?

Most digital camera outputs need sharpening, so it's no biggie if you ever find things looking a little flat right out of the camera. Here's a technique I've read about on how to sharpen photos without making them seem artifically sharpened... as it was described, anytime you do any operation to an image (resize, color changes, levels, etc.), you should finish up with sharpening as the very last step.

1. change the image to LAB mode.
2. select the Luminance channel. Things will not look black/white.
3. select Unsharp Mask from the filters menu.
4. for most 800-1000 pixel wide images, use settings like 60-70%, 0.6-0.8 pixels-wide, and a threshold of 3-5 (depending on how your camera generates images).
5. change back to RGB mode.

Apparently, sharpening the entire image instead of sharpening just the luminance channel might result in some colour distortion and aliasing (in bad cases, the color of a photographed item can appear to bleed outside the actual item).

Happy shooting.

[CRUZTAKER]

Apparently, sharpening the entire image instead of sharpening just the luminance channel might result in some colour distortion and aliasing (in bad cases, the color of a photographed item can appear to bleed outside the actual item).Hey Steve, is that why some of the imagages I shoot appear almost FAKE?

For example, we were graced with a really nice Hibiscus bloom on one of my trees in the house. I took this pic a few minutes ago, used Nikon Pic Proj and then resized with XP RESIZING TOOL to 1024X768. The pic appears to be almost fake...

http://www.mercurygallery.net/mmnet/data/3039/627HIBISCUS.jpg
<TABLE cellSpacing=1 cellPadding=2 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=tddetails align=left width="25%">File name:</TD><TD class=tddetails align=left width="25%">HIBISCUS.jpg</TD><TD class=tddetails align=left width="25%">File size:</TD><TD class=tddetails align=left width="25%">68513 bytes</TD></TR><TR><TD class=tddetails align=left width="25%">File date:</TD><TD class=tddetails align=left width="25%">2005:02:20 17:32:16</TD><TD class=tddetails align=left width="25%">Camera make:</TD><TD class=tddetails align=left width="25%">NIKON CORPORATION</TD></TR><TR><TD class=tddetails align=left width="25%">Camera model:</TD><TD class=tddetails align=left width="25%">NIKON D70</TD><TD class=tddetails align=left width="25%">Date/Time:</TD><TD class=tddetails align=left width="25%">2005:02:20 18:53:16</TD></TR><TR><TD class=tddetails align=left width="25%">Resolution:</TD><TD class=tddetails align=left width="25%">1024 x 681</TD><TD class=tddetails align=left width="25%">Flash used:</TD><TD class=tddetails align=left width="25%">Yes</TD></TR><TR><TD class=tddetails align=left width="25%">Focal length:</TD><TD class=tddetails align=left width="25%">52.0mm</TD><TD class=tddetails align=left width="25%">Exposure time:</TD><TD class=tddetails align=left width="25%">0.017 s (1/60)</TD></TR><TR><TD class=tddetails align=left width="25%">Aperture:</TD><TD class=tddetails align=left width="25%">f/4.0</TD><TD class=tddetails align=left width="25%">Exposure bias:</TD><TD class=tddetails align=left width="25%">1</TD></TR><TR><TD class=tddetails align=left width="25%">Whitebalance:</TD><TD class=tddetails align=left width="25%">incandescent</TD><TD class=tddetails align=left width="25%">Metering Mode:</TD><TD class=tddetails align=left width="25%">matrix</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

[woaface]

Wait a second Barry, even though it resizes one demension (1024) it keeps the other in preportion (687 or something) so it doesn't really make a difference...

I guess I'm better off to click "keep preportion" under "resize image" in Photoshop and then type in any random lower digit number, say 800, and let it resize it appropriately a then post it. Keeps quality too.

[CRUZTAKER]

Not to mention that's some quick stuff! Damn, I would have never found that on my own!
You rock!
:D
No problem James. I have no idea why the creators at MS didn't add these powertools in the first place. There are some other cool ones on their site as well.

The resizer however, is REALLY good, and works seamlessly with the right click image bar.

Now...go resize those originals you posted previously, edit your post, and let's see what that camera can really do!

[TripleTransAm]

I'd have a hard time calling it "fake", what you just posted, so I'm not sure what you mean. I have to admit I don't know what your bloom is supposed to look like but what you posted looks pleasing, albeit perhaps JPEG'ed a bit much in order not to suck up extreme amounts of bytes (ie. the halos and artifacts visible around high contrast edges).

One thing I have to note is that most JPGs out of cheapo resizers / converters are just that: cheap looking. I haven't used the s/w in the link you posted, so I can't compare, but when I shoot RAW with my Fuji S2, I always immediately auto-JPG them (using a Fuji-supplied quick-JPG'er) so I can manually scroll through them in a separate viewer before choosing which ones to manually convert from RAW to 12 megapixel TIFF (which will then be sent to Photoshop for resizing, light sharpening as mentioned above, and JPG'ing). The output auto-JPGs end up 1440x960 pixels and let me tell you they are the ugliest 1440x960 pixels you could ask for. I only use them for preview purposes (kind of a waste, at around 300k per image) until I can process them manually and end up with an image approximately 800-900 pixels wide and much more pleasant-looking. Maybe this extractor simply coughs out a bigger version of the stored thumbnail JPG? I dunno, but it sucks. And this might be the case for the Microsnot resizer as well. Again, I cannot say for sure.

Another thing that can throw a wrench into posted images is monitor calibration. I think I have my monitor settings fairly close to displaying what it should be displaying colour-wise, but sometimes I think my contrast/brightness is off. The same can apply to others... what can look pleasing on my 22-inch CRT monitor at home can sometimes look dull and lifeless on my ho-hum 15-inch LCD monitor on my work laptop. Which one is more true-to-life? (I think my CRT is closer to reality, because the few times I've taken my camera on business trips and uploaded stuff to my laptop, it didn't look too lifelike there, whereas it looked okay on my CRT, so there's a data point to work with). Anyway, anyone serious about imaging should look into monitor calibration... there really is a large range of tools available (large range in terms of price and effectiveness). I'm currently researching a few on whatever spare time I find... all the recent photo-related threads have gotten me much more active in the hobby and have jump-started the learning curve once again! (just tested my new SB-800 flash today, and it can wirelessly link with my older SB-80DX flash, so Papa's gonna go ape***** with car photos at shows this summer! ;) )

Does Nikon offer an additional-cost RAW (NEF?) converter? The basic RAW-to-TIFF converter that came with my Fuji S2 was next-to-useless... I had to fork over a couple of hundred $$ for the good converter. In the case of the above flower photo, what was the workflow in getting the image to the final product posted above? Do you have access to Photoshop 7.0 or thereabouts? (ie. CS or elements or 6.0, etc.)

[TripleTransAm]

I guess I'm better off to click "keep preportion" under "resize image" in Photoshop and then type in any random lower digit number, say 800, and let it resize it appropriately a then post it. Keeps quality too.

In line with my previous post, I'd be inclined to think Photoshop's resizing algorithms are better than the ones in a free software, but I can't say for sure.

And here's another trick for "upsizing"... even though we digi-cam users have more mega-pixels coming out of our mega-rears than we know what to do with, there can be times when you might get a hold of an image too small for printing that we might want to upsize. Resizing to a larger size usually means lots of jaggies, but there is a technique to upsizing with minimal image damage: increasing image size by increments of 10% (proportions locked, as you indicated above). Some experts swear by values of 3%, but using the 10% value I've read about seems to do the trick.

In the Image resizing dialog box, pull down the options for units for any of the X or Y dimensions (from the current "pixels" or "inches"/"cm" settings) to "percent". Obviously, the value of that line will change to 100 (indicating the current demanded image size is 100% of the image currently loaded in memory). Change this to 110 and hit apply (the other values will adapt accordingly). Do this over and over again until you reach the size you need. Strange, but it works... must have something to do with whatever algorithm Photoshop uses to 'create' pixels that just weren't there before.

Apply sharpening as previously mentioned, and you're good to go.

[woaface]

I'm sure it's just me but I just discovered simply clicking "sharpen" or "sharpen edges" won't cut it, and looks crappy (in photoshop). However if you choose "unsharpen mask" and fix it accordingly...it works pretty well!

Thanks for the tips TTA.

[MM03MOK]

I still don't see either set of photos. :dunno:

[jgc61sr2002]

What Mary said. :( ^^^^^^

[woaface]

http://img209.exs.cx/img209/2217/dsc00211og.jpg
Nikon D70
JPEG (8-bit) Normal
Image Size: Large (3008 x 2000)
Lens: 18-70mm F/3.5-4.5 G
Focal Length: 70mm
Exposure Mode: Manual
Metering Mode: Multi-Pattern
1/60 sec - F/7.1
Exposure Comp.: 0 EV
Sensitivity: ISO 200
Optimize Image: Normal
White Balance: Auto
AF Mode: AF-C
http://img209.exs.cx/img209/9308/dsc00457oe.jpg
Nikon D70
JPEG (8-bit) Normal
Lens: 18-70mm F/3.5-4.5 G
Focal Length: 29mm
Exposure Mode: Manual
Metering Mode: Multi-Pattern
1/400 sec - F/4.5
Exposure Comp.: 0 EV
Sensitivity: ISO 200
Optimize Image: Normal
White Balance: Auto
AF Mode: AF-C

http://img209.exs.cx/img209/9040/dsc00663kh.jpg
Nikon D70
JPEG (8-bit) Normal
Image Size: Large (3008 x 2000)
Lens: 18-70mm F/3.5-4.5 G
Focal Length: 35mm
Exposure Mode: Manual
Metering Mode: Multi-Pattern
1/30 sec - F/10
Exposure Comp.: 0 EV
Sensitivity: ISO 200
Optimize Image: Normal
White Balance: Auto
AF Mode: AF-C
http://img209.exs.cx/img209/1313/dsc01360gx.jpg
Nikon D70
JPEG (8-bit) Normal
Image Size: Large (3008 x 2000)
Lens: 18-70mm F/3.5-4.5 G
Focal Length: 35mm
Exposure Mode: Manual
Metering Mode: Multi-Pattern
1/30 sec - F/10
Exposure Comp.: 0 EV
Sensitivity: ISO 200
Optimize Image: Normal
White Balance: Auto
AF Mode: AF-C
http://img209.exs.cx/img209/976/dsc01383vu.jpg
Nikon D70
JPEG (8-bit) Normal
Image Size: Large (3008 x 2000)
Lens: 18-70mm F/3.5-4.5 G
Focal Length: 60mm
Exposure Mode: Manual
Metering Mode: Multi-Pattern
1/250 sec - F/4.5
Exposure Comp.: 0 EV
Sensitivity: ISO 200
Optimize Image: Normal
White Balance: Auto
AF Mode: AF-C
http://img209.exs.cx/img209/5317/dsc01487vs.jpg
Nikon D70
JPEG (8-bit) Normal
Image Size: Large (3008 x 2000)
Lens: 18-70mm F/3.5-4.5 G
Focal Length: 22mm
Exposure Mode: Manual
Metering Mode: Multi-Pattern
4 sec - F/3.8
Exposure Comp.: 0 EV
Sensitivity: ISO 200
Optimize Image: Normal
White Balance: Auto
AF Mode: AF-C
http://img209.exs.cx/img209/9972/lonelysuburbanite3on.jpg
Nikon D70
JPEG (8-bit) Normal
Image Size: Large (3008 x 2000)
Lens: 18-70mm F/3.5-4.5 G
Focal Length: 70mm
Exposure Mode: Manual
Metering Mode: Multi-Pattern
1/640 sec - F/7.1
Exposure Comp.: 0 EV
Sensitivity: ISO 200
Optimize Image: Normal
White Balance: Auto
AF Mode: AF-C

[ncmm]

very nice, i like the walkway especially. . .but they all are good, enjoy your new toy!

[jgc61sr2002]

:up: James - Nice pictures thanks.

[CRUZTAKER]

James trickery.....you keep changing the pics.

And each time they're better.:P

BTW: Start posting your EXIF file info as well. I'm still learning too.

[woaface]

How about now:)

[CRUZTAKER]

Nice!!!

They say a picture says a thousand words....actually the EXIF file does!

I see you leave your WB on auto and always shoot at ISO 200.

The pic of the building, with the blue and purple clouds....I like that one...alot. I wish you would have taken that shot several times fussing with the exposure comp and perhaps at 400. The EXP COMP likely would have brought out the purples and blues in the clouds that your eyes saw, but the image captured did not.

I'm serious James, you have a good eye. Bracket your shots with different WB, EXPOS, and ISO. See what happens on a bright day when you shoot ISO 4-800 and underexpose the image. That's how I got these winter pics, that originally shot on auto, were completely awash with white, with no color or definition.

http://www.mercurygallery.net/mmnet/data/3039/627winter2004_112_Large_.jpg

[CRUZTAKER]

This is very cool! I have truoble shooting directly into light. Nice!!!

http://img209.exs.cx/img209/9040/dsc00663kh.jpg

[woaface]

Great point Barry! And thank you.

I haven't quite figured out the braketing yet, haven't had a spare moment to go through the manual. I did take that cloud shot twice, the first time, the apeture was a tad smaller and it was a very white sky, the second time it came out like that.

Then I'll start braketing my ISO and white balance, but what is EXPOS? It wasn't fear, but forgetfulness when I didn't use different WB yesterday.

There's always 100 things to think about when taking each shot:D

[CRUZTAKER]

...... but what is EXPOS? It wasn't fear, but forgetfulness when I didn't use different WB yesterday.


Exposure. Use the +/- button and the rear thumbwheel to change the exposure rate plus or minus.

Plus figures such as +.7 to +2 work great indoors with the WB set for flash. Remember to manually raise the flash however.

[Sactown]

Nice work!

You are right about the unsharp mask in Photoshop, much better than the default settings. Also I noticed the shots you posted are in JPEG. I don't know the D70, but if it has a RAW file format, I hope you use it and keep a master file, sort of a digital "film". JPEG's destroy image data that can't be recovered. They are great for web posting but that is about it. You can go back to your RAW files to make prints or new edits (such as WB) as you learn new tricks in the software. You've got a great eye, keep at it and never stop having fun with it.

[woaface]

Sactown, it does have a RAW format, but that's the difference between 450 pictures of space and 50:)

[Sactown]

Sactown, it does have a RAW format, but that's the difference between 450 pictures of space and 50:)You are very right, but you get that space at a price. If you have a CD or DVD burner, use it. If you were doing snapshot quality work, I wouldn't have mentioned it but you have a great eye for color, composition, and an increasing mastery of light. I hate to see your images get a life sentence into the jail of JPEG.

[woaface]

Thank you! I'll take that into consideration when I want a good shot. I do have a DVD burner, I'm just worried about being out and about and running out of space. But I do have a big project ahead of me, which is mastering pictures for a group for Prom in April. This will be a help.


You are very right, but you get that space at a price. If you have a CD or DVD burner, use it. If you were doing snapshot quality work, I wouldn't have mentioned it but you have a great eye for color, composition, and an increasing mastery of light. I hate to see your images get a life sentence into the jail of JPEG.