NikonGear'23
Gear Talk => Camera Talk => Topic started by: Frode on September 29, 2015, 22:01:12
-
I`ve always used neutral with my D3/D3S, and flat with my D810. Why? To get the best starting point regarding PP (especially when it comes to preserving highlights and minimal needs for lifting the shadows). Now lately, I`m wondering if the "extra" work is worth it....might be better off using f.ex. standard.. What`s your experience?
-
I`ve always used neutral with my D3/D3S, and flat with my D810. Why? To get the best starting point regarding PP (especially when it comes to preserving highlights and minimal needs for lifting the shadows). Now lately, I`m wondering if the "extra" work is worth it....might be better off using f.ex. standard.. What`s your experience?
I may be wrong, but I assume there is no information lost if processing a more aggressive profile in RAW, e.g. in Lightroom. One could always back off the sliders instead of adding. I'm so accustomed to starting with camera neutral, that I'm unlikely to do otherwise. My latest acquisition D7200 is set to flat, however, but, as I use it more, I'm likely to reset that to neutral (just trying it out.) The only advantage I can see might be in the jpg view on LCD, the histogram or highlight warning, which may more accurately relay information whether I've exceeded the dynamic range.
-
That would apply only if you are shooting jpgs, or use a RAW converter capable of understanding Nikon's profiles. I don't think PhotoNinja cares much though.
The histogram on camera requires the white balance to be appropriate for the final processing otherwise it can be very misleading.
-
That would apply only if you are shooting jpgs, or use a RAW converter capable of understanding Nikon's profiles. I don't think PhotoNinja cares much though.
Yes, you are right. In Lightroom you can choose a profile default, but it is an Adobe simulation of the in-camera Nikon version.
-
The histogram on camera requires the white balance to be appropriate for the final processing otherwise it can be very misleading.
Would I be correct to assume that, all things equal, using a flat or neutral profile gives more accurate dynamic range indication when chimping jpg?
-
Hard to say, but my hunch is yes.
You can easily see the response to the histogram if you shoot under stable light conditions and change the in-camera w/b, but keep the exposure identical.
For the small number of us doing UV, the histogram is wildly misleading almost no matter how the camera is set up.
-
That would apply only if you are shooting jpgs, or use a RAW converter capable of understanding Nikon's profiles. I don't think PhotoNinja cares much though.
The histogram on camera requires the white balance to be appropriate for the final processing otherwise it can be very misleading.
Good point regarding the white balance. I for one might be using the auto WB to often. How do you folks adjust WB when you`re in the field? Do you use greycard, liveview or the standard settings in the camera?
-
Re. WB:
Outdoors - I rarely use any calibration tools. I shoot raw and get the WB sorted later.
Indoors stage performances - I leave it at Auto and, because of the range of color tempereatures from stage lights, do selective WB adjustments during PP.
Re. histogram:
Outdoors - I learn/experience the different cameras' behaviour and expose as bright as I can.
Indoors stage performance - I try to back off a little to leave some extra headroom to be able to pull in any "difficult" stage light color temperatures.
-
Shooting a Colorchecker Passport or similar target and building a session profile say in PhotoNinja is a breeze, and certainly makes for the most accurate colour rendition. However, not every occasion calls for such stringent measures so I for one usually have my camera set to 'auto w/b' and this is a very good starting point for further processing. In fact, I but rarely need to adjust w/b later.
-
I find that auto white balance works as a starting point and does, in most instances, reflect the spirit if not the exact letter of the colour balance. On the other hand, if adjusting to grey card every time, the light becomes the same boring sunshine. I do find it helpful, and pleasing to the eye, to use a camera profile presets created by color checker passport. Of course that, in itself, is not colour balanced to neutral grey. That's a choice still to be made. In some difficult cases, for example, verdant rain forest scene, taking a grey card or color checker shot is very helpful to get the greens right in post.
-
Odd man out here....My typical way of shooting my normal** fotos is to make use of all in-camera settings to get the photo as close to what I want as possible while on the scene. That means I have some Pic Control presets to work with in-camera. And I flip around amongst those, tweaking them and and also the ADL settings and WB settings. I carry a card for in-camera white balance while on scene if wanted or needed although sometimes of course we don't want "perfect" colour adjustments (example, for very late afternoon or very early morning lights.) Also carry & use Colour Checker Passport to make my own colour profiles if wanted/needed.
I perform all this tweaking and settings misery while on scene because human colour memory is notoriously inaccurate and because I really truly hate editing. It has all worked out well for me. But I'm not a fanatic about it. And it certainly is not the thing to do in every shooting circumstance.
I've found while on scene I become very uninspired when making & reviewing my fotos if I just use auto everything and a Flat or Neutral Pic Control. For me it is hard to work with inaccurate settings. But for sure there are some difficult shooting circumstances where you simply must shoot Flat or Neutral and sort it out later.
As a side note, with the D810, I've seen that while the D810 has a huge amount of 'headroom' and we certainly can do the ETTR thing with this camera, I find that I actually get equally good if not better results from simply making judicious use of in-camera settings - particularly ADL - and by setting "proper" exposures. That's because the D810 has good dynamic range and keeps the highlights under control all by itself in many scenes.
** [my normal fotos] being a purely subjective term meaning something like non-UV, non-IR, non-abstract, non-extreme fotos. And we nope non-boring too. Please note that I do not shoot weddings, babies or theatre. "-)
Aw heck. I'm just blathering on. Please totally ignore this. It does not matter what I do. Or what anyone else does. We can tell you all our details. but you must still find what works best for you and produces finished fotos which make you happy!!!
-
Ditto Sten
I set the camera on Kelvin - around 5200 and make changes in ACR.
Auto WB can bugger you around if you want a consistent output of files you have to deliver to clients.
Apart from colour correction for products etc using the colour checker passport, I seldom have to correct my WB
-
I have the camera set at the little sun icon, which is "daylight". I like having the fixed WB, regardless of the scene lighting. It acts as a fixed reference. I got used to it when shooting film. If processing in Adobe, I apply a user-created Develop preset upon import. This works really well for the Fujifilm X files, but the Nikon files need more adjustments than the Fuji ones.
-
Neutral is a good starting point if shooting conditions are such that JPEG use is possible.
BUT
After having figured out how to use Photo Ninja properly I am spoiled.
DREAM
What I really wish for would be to load my measured calibration onto my camera and apply a custom response curve too.
Then my JPEGs would look to my liking ooc and I would still have my RAWs as backup.
F.
-
The histogram on camera requires the white balance to be appropriate for the final processing otherwise it can be very misleading.
If your final processing boosts one channel a lot, your camera histogram might show severe clipping of that channel even though it still has enough headroom. So by setting the in-camera white balance to that used in the final shot, you are led to underexpose the image (not in terms of final exposure, but in terms of exposure maximizing the S/N ratio). In your opinion, what are the benefits of doing so?
If my goal is to expose as far to the right as possible, I prefer to use UniWB. But since I hate to see that dreadful green tint during my image review, when I'm outside I will have my camera set to sunny WB almost all the time. However, I will get the blinking highlights quite early in some cases, and sometimes paying too much attention to them will lead to up to one stop less exposure than what is possible. This is a small pet peeve of mine: Exposure involves more guesswork than necessary -- technology would in principle allow us to have a really precise feedback about channel clipping, yet camera manufacturers choose to not give us this information.
As for profiles, I use custom profiles (made with a color chart) if I want accurate color, otherwise it matters very little except maybe giving a better starting point.
-
Wow, what a fantastic respons! Thank you all for your contributions, I really appreciate them.
I will not totally ignore yours or anybody elses post, because I find them very interesting, Andrea :-)!
I know, there is no correct workflow, but I wish I could spend more time out taking pictures, rather spending so much time in front of my computer :-).
I`m learning, getting there....
-
Shooting digital UV back in 2004 required a UniWB and custom tone curve. I also found it useful for IR work, and ETTR in visible, and have therefore been using UWB with a custom tone curve ever since. You get used to the "green" in-camera jpg previews but I find it a worthwhile trade off for more accurate histograms. The only concession I made was switching from UWB with a custom inverse tone curve, to UWB with a custom linear tone curve. If you think your previews look too green with UWB try it with an inverse tone curve!
-
I used to use standard for most shooting RAW, and a dedicated 3rd party profile in Lightroom for producing the jpegs (or standard again if no dedicated profile is available).
I now use neutral with sharpness pushed to +9 for easy sharpness check and easier focussing in LV. With my frequently using MF lenses and not-so-good eyesight, it is very useful. Focussing, say, the 20/2.8 in a dark church may be very difficult and with those modern hi-res cameras, the DOF is not what it used to be...
-
I support the idea of turning CNX2 into an open source project or at least enough parts and APIs of it to allow for
sensible community effort. I guess some of the techniques like U Point are still owned by NIK now owned by Google.