dSLR shopping

[shuurajou]

Oooo camera battle... naaah, I have always liked Nikon the best but can't blame anyone who chooses the Other brand. I felt Canon was way ahead in developing the SLR cameras of the future when the EOS series came out in the 80's (I mean, just look at a camera like the EOS R600, it just left all the others standing), but I had already bought Nikon lenses, and couldn't afford the system change. And I still enjoyed shooting with my FM2, there was something very right about that camera for the way I like to work.

I admit I did a lot of thinking before deciding for Nikon when going digital. Very happy with how it turned out though, when Nikon announced the D200 I knew that was the proverbial "it".
The arrival of the D200 meant I could use all of my old lenses (early 80's or late 70's Nikkor lenses with manual focus), including the trusty Nikkor 50/1.4, which has turned out to be a marvellous lens for the DX format. The D200 with the old lenses behaves just like a slightly larger and more ergonomic FM2, only I now have access to AE exposure and can see the images directly after I have shot them... plus I don't have to wind or rewind.

I was only kidding . Both Nikon and Canon are wonderful cameras and I'd be happy with either. I don't get the heated war some Nikon and Canon photographers have. I went with Canon as their telephoto L glass lens was more affordable than the Nikon option at the time, and also the lower noise (at the time of 300D) canon sensors at higher ISOs really added value for wild life photography through a telephoto lens. So ya know, I'm bought into the Canon system now.

Enjoy the D200!

[zix]

Oh, I do enjoy it!
Full format sensor and CMOS technology would be nice, alas the Nikon D700 is still too expensive... But as I have already confessed to steves, I still like the images from the old Rollei 6x6/120 TLR better than digital anything. There is something about them that is just... so right. But I never use it, so there you are.

Congratulations on the Olympus, cakey! Those were good cameras too, in their day, and Olympus were always the ones to go their own way - small is beautiful was their motto. "They build their SLR:s like swiss watches" a fellow student once said, who loved his OM-4. Hard to see this from the images, but when you get the chance to hold one, yep - compared to the pro series Nikons and Canons, it feels like a little gem.
So choosing the smaller sensor size 4/3:s system is logical for Olympus, and they have already produced lots of lenses for it (wikipedia says 20 original (Zuiko) lenses, 12 Sigmas and 4 Leitz), so not to worry.

Interesting reading on the 4/3 system (sorry if this link was already posted): http://four-thirds.org/

[dsc]

Hi guys,

so I've had my camera for almost a month and I have to say it's a very nice piece of equipment. Usually I shot in Shutter Priority mode as I often take picture in the kitchen where there's not enough light. I can take a reasonable photo with 1/13s and up, so I check the F settings that the camera automatically applies and know whether I need to crank up the shutter or maybe switch to a higher ISO. I'm not sure if that's what normal people do, but it's just something I learned from my Canon A560 which was basically showing under/over exposure when in Shutter Priority mode (it was compensating for incorrect light settings via Exposure compensation so I new that when I'm getting a +-0 it should be reasonable).

The main problem I have now is the brightness of the photos, they all seem to be much, much darker than on the camera LCD. I know it's normal that the photos appear a bit lighter on the LCD, but the difference is rather big. For example I took this photo the other day and was happy with how it looked on the camera:



after checking it on the PC it was definitely too dark. Or maybe it's my PC LCD that's too dark? does it look dark on your monitors? Here's how it looks like after doing Auto-levels on it in Photoshop:



still dark(ish), but the colours changed a bit (I know I can alter it via WB settings in the camera).

I guess I understand around 70% of the camera's options and (at least for now) I won't be using the other 30%. As you have foreseen Dom I'm now looking for a book that will actually offer some tips, show photo examples and ways to achieve similar effects. I was thinking of buying Thor's Nikon D90 book, but I'm not sure how it's written. Anything else you would recommend? I know some people say that Kelby's books are quite nice.

Regards,
dsc.

[zix]

That doesn't look like an unsaveable kind of underexposure, anyway. Yes, first picture does look a bit dark on my screen, if it can be trusted.

Try setting it on +2/3 stops over exposure to begin with, that should get you closer to perfect exposure. I wouldn't go one full stop up just yet, a bit dark is fine if you can set your RAW converter on compensating it. You might also like to change the colour space to something else. Is it Adobe RGB right now?

After a while you will get used to the LCD display. I know the old pro Canon displays where awfully light - did a couple of shots with one of them three years ago. It turned out I underexposed most of those images quite badly because of that dreadful display.

Hmmm... is this happening mostly on indoors photos?
On the other hand, come to think of it, most of the outdoor light is rather bleak and dark now too, so maybe you will get different results when the sun comes out.

P.S. Auto levels in Photoshop is not to be trusted. Colours will shift, sometimes badly so, when you use it. A better choice is measuring a part of the picture you know should be grey or almost white (say, your towel) and compensating by pulling the Curves in each channel until they have the same values. This will affect colour balance in your entire picture, usually much for the better. D.S.

[zix]

Come to think of it, if this is OK with you, I´ll jot down some quick tips on the curve balancing method with your picture as the example.

[zix]

First of all, set some measuring points with the colour sampler tool (push the eyedropper tool button, the one above the hand button on the tool palette, until you see an eyedropper with a haircross. This is the one.)
As you see from the PNG, I try to find a greyish part, another light part (usually this should be the lightest part in the picture that still is not burnt out. Not a specular highlight, for instance, never use those, they are what they are and cannot be changed) and one or two dark parts, but not pitch black.
Point number 1 has 190 R, 184 G and 160 B. I decide to push G and B up to 190. To do this, go into the Curves dialog, change the popup menu where it says RGB to Green to bring out the Green channel. Add a point on the diagonal line. If you ctrl-click (cmd-click on a mac) on your colour sampler marking you will automatically get the point in the right place on that diagonal line. It should read 184 in the In-value field.
Now, change Out-value to 190.
Go to the Blue channel and do the same thing - cmd/ctrl-klick on your colour sampler point, change Out value to 190 (if you didn't click in quite the right place, maybe the In value wasn't what your colour sampler point said - in this case, you can write 160 in the In-field).

This simple move (well - it is simple once you have got the hang of how to do it) has not only corrected the colour cast, it has also made the picture slightly lighter. Perhaps it would need to be even lighter than this? Just bring the values up to higher than 190 and see what happens. 255 is white, 0 is black. Don't click OK until you are happy with what you see. You can have many curve points on each curve

The bad thing about curves - and all the other colour/contrast tools - is that you can't get back to your original image once you have changed something. The tools reset themselves and you can't see the changes you did. But if you use the same tools from an adjustment layer, the settings will be remembered and you can change them. Nice!

I'll try to post the PSD image too, it is better since you can see exactly where I put the points and how I pulled the Curves.

[Gouezeri]

Right, I'm just back from far too many hours down the pub, so I'm not going to go into any great detail
First off, Zix, nice though the old Rollys are, 6x6 is far to small, you wanna try LF

Now, Tom, give the kind of shot you appear to be taking, I would shoot in Ap priority, as to put it simply your subject is not moving, therefore pick your aperture according to your aesthetic desires, then look at the shutter speed (and ISO) and see whether it is something you can handhold or not. Given that I'm not into sports, people or wildlife, I shoot about 90% of the time in Ap priority for landscape/scenics and still lifes.

Next, judging exposure by the image on the small LCD on the camera, or by an uncalibrated monitor, is always going to limiting. If you want to save on frustration and wasted time, I would definitely recommend looking at the colorvision spyders (provided your monitor is worth calibrating in the first place - you can forget most laptops).

Now I suppose this may seem old school to some, but for me the most important thing is getting the shot right "in camera" rather than in post-processing. You do have a major advantage over analogue cameras though in the form of histograms. Definitely read up on Zix's comments above, but really get your head around histograms first, and learn to read exposure through them. In the long run this will make things far more successful for you.

Hope some of the above makes sense time for bed now I think

BTW, finally got chance to play with a D90 today (and it is sitting next to me charging as I type). Nice camera, with definitely plenty of good features. Not quite as well built as I'm used to (6x7s and bigger), and a little plasticky for me. At the end of the day, I like a well featured light metre, but only adjustments for focus, aperture and shutter speed on camera/lens.

[zix]

Dom, I have a Horseman optical bench, a hand made leather bellows, good for 8x10 backs and a 250/5.6 Rodenstock lying in a box in the attic. I haven't put any of them to use so far. Is this wrong?

Did some LF photography in the 90's, but haven't had the time to finish the camera yet. Yes, fantastic quality from these large negatives. My idea was to combine alternative processes and 8x10 LF negatives. wouldn't need an enlarger to make the large negative then, and the rest of the process is usually contact copying. Enlargers for LF are kind of costly...

about histograms: Absolutely right Dom, it is best to have a look at the histograms first.
I admit I haven't come to like them quite as much as people say I should. Perhaps because I learnt to use them mostly for setting black and white points, which is fine for "repro" jobs (you call them - what? pre-press?) in Photoshop, but not as useful for making master images, the way I see it. Only setting the b and w point, without learning to interpret the histograms themselves, is not very good, I think. So when learning to use the histograms, please learn from someone like Dom, not from a pre-press person.

[zix]

OK, the PSD image is uploaded now, but not on TMC as it became too big, even when zipped.
Fetch it here.
I updated it with a levels adjustment layer, where you can see it lacks the brightest tones. I pushed the white point triangle close to the brightest tone, this will spread all tones out through 0 to 255 (black to white) without affecting the black point. The towel becomes whiter as a result of this - I am not sure it makes the picture better though. Perhaps. Technically, it is better for print.

[Gouezeri]

Dom, I have a Horseman optical bench, a hand made leather bellows, good for 8x10 backs and a 250/5.6 Rodenstock

Ah, now you're talking my kinda language! Be careful with those leather bellows though, they don't like being stored unused for years on end in the wrong kind of conditions.

lying in a box in the attic. I haven't put any of them to use so far. Is this wrong?

Putting it into terms that others around here would understand... the evil Zix essentially has a KVDW lying unused in his loft

Did some LF photography in the 90's, but haven't had the time to finish the camera yet. Yes, fantastic quality from these large negatives. My idea was to combine alternative processes and 8x10 LF negatives. wouldn't need an enlarger to make the large negative then, and the rest of the process is usually contact copying. Enlargers for LF are kind of costly...

Whilst I love using analogue cameras, I do prefer the digital processes for transfer and print. The results from relatively modest equipment more than compares with the best of what is available in digital. No, this probably wont always be the case, but then I'll probably have a digital back for my 5x4 by then I do like cibas though

about histograms: Absolutely right Dom, it is best to have a look at the histograms first.
I admit I haven't come to like them quite as much as people say I should.

Dare I say, it's probably because you have learnt photography in the traditional manner, learning how to actually read the scene and choose your exposure accordingly. This is very much a skill which is developed over time, to the extent where histograms become relegated to only a mere reference, because you have learnt how to expose for the light in the first place.

So when learning to use the histograms, please learn from someone like Dom, not from a pre-press person.

Now I definitely wouldn't say that!
As I was playing with a D90 today, with somebody who had just bought it and is relatively new to "serious" digital cameras, I was using the histograms to explain precisely how the camera was exposing for the scene. This is where learning contrast ranges in Black and White makes all the difference. Whilst I'm not a zone photographer and would never swear by it religiously, I think it does teach you to assess a scene properly. Histograms are a nice visual way of providing people with this kind of feedback. It's not going to make them great photographers in a day, but it does help to teach an appreciation of light and contrast. If I remember correctly tom, just press the down arrow when a shot you've just taken is on the display, to access the histogram. Then start learning how to spot meter

I did enjoy playing with the D90 today and I'm sure that I could find a use for one. But it still really felt as though I was playing, the processes involved tended to be very quick, so I felt like I was taking "snapshots" with it. Which is great in itself for certain types of photography, but it's just not the way I like to work. The kit lens seemed ok (definitely for the money), but I really didn't like it for manual focusing , not that many people seem to do this any more! I did find it pretty intuitive to use with good features and ergonomics and didn't find all the electronics too intrusive, though it really isn't my style of camera at the end of the day.
I actually enjoy the time and effort I put into taking just one shot, and one shot is all I actually took today on my LF gear (shot a fair bit of MF though). The one shot that I did take though, would have been impossible on anything but a camera with movements.

I think you've bought a great camera Tom, it definitely does everything you could want as a first proper SLR, and more!

Zix, I'm sure your processing skills are much better than mine, as I tend to stick to just the odd bit of contrast masking and USM. At the end of the day the contrast range on RVP50/100 is such that I'm used to trying to get things right in camera, even if it means using my Lee ND Grads. I just find it easier and more enjoyable than spending hours on the computer afterwards!

[bruceb]

Dom I still have that Linhof kicking around here someplace (also behind the bags of plaster). I wonder what the bellows look like on it!

[Gouezeri]

You sure those are bags of plaster and not more hidden beans!
Thankfully most belows can be replaced, though they can be costly to have custom made.
As much as I like real leather belows, they aren't really practical. At the end of the day, you can normally fix holes with a bit of gaffer tape!

[zix]

the evil Zix essentially has a KVDW lying unused in his loft

Well, half a KvdW, to be precise. No front or back standards, no film holders, no ball head for the tripod... actually, come to think of it, the tripod probably isn't sturdy enough anyway.

Gaffa tape is great, probably helps the bellows "keep in shape" too.

Zix, I'm sure your processing skills are much better than mine, as I tend to stick to just the odd bit of contrast masking and USM

"the odd bit of contrast masking" indeed - well, I had to read up on that one. Thanks for the tip, by the way. Yes, I tried to do that in the lab, but failed miserably as I recall it. Photoshop is my lab nowadays, and I can't say I miss the old darkroom.... well, parts of it.
The dry room, and also those precious moments in the b/w developer when you see you have got something special coming out (no, not your hydrokinonic hands :/). Oh, and another thing - the two-step overexpose - underdevelop method. Can't quite get the same look in digital as those old silver halides had, and still have. Perhaps I should try that contrast masking technique...

Sorry for the OT ramblings, Tom and ye others. Can't help it, photography is fun, and doubly so when you get people like Dom chatting about it. Stirs up memories (I sound like an old wart: oh, dear old 90's, where did you go...)

[Gouezeri]

Yeah, like we ever stick on topic here!
Contrast masking is great (have a read of some of the Luminous Landscape or Norman Koren guides on it), and almost a necessity to get the most out of really contrasty slides, as is often the case with Velvia. I'm definitely no pro at it though, and tend to stick to "less is more" in order to avoid making any effects or processing too apparent. You see some horrific examples of oversharpening or mucking about with curves these days. It's almost as though we've gone back to the 80s and silly chocolate coloured grads for the sky

The shop I bought the D90 in (btw folks, Nikon UK have just upped their prices by ~20% on new stock!) there was a really nice guy, who was clearly a bit confused as I obviously had some knowledge about cameras, yet was asking some odd questions as well. So I finally explained that I mainly shoot 5x4, which got a look of respect from the salesman.... who then proceeded to mention that a customer had come in with a manual focus Nikon during the week... and he hadn't see one of these for about 10 years! That really put me in my place as, if I shoot 35mm, it's with an FM3a (or an FE2). I realise that I have somewhat specialist needs for these cameras, but still, as far as this salesman was concerned, I am a dying breed (at least for 35mm, LF is having somewhat of a resurgence).

Thankfully I never got into developing (though I have huge respect for it as a separate art), as I simply don't have the room or the money (sheets of fuji quickload don't come cheap these days!). I don't know if any of the rest of you saw the Rankin program on BBC4 (7 photographs...), there was a great moment with Bourdin's assistant (I think it was) who when he saw that Rankin was shooting digital (all be it with a Mam RZ), gave a very gallic shrug of disapproval, to which he added in a derisory tone... "where is the suspense". And that really struck a chord, digital is great for a lot of things, and I'm sure it would allow me to shoot abstracts which I would normally never attempt. However, that sense of instantaneous pleasure though loses a lot of the sense of magic, of "suspense" I get out of photography, out of taking the time to really make the right shot, rather than just firing off loads, to get one that works (this is a generalisation though). I did find it funny to see that on occasions Rankin didn't even fire the shutter, he got his assistant to do it (along with all the rest of the setting up!). I clearly don't pay my long suffering assistant (wife) enough

[dsc]

Hi guys,

zix: thanks for the photo! I'm not going to print it anyway as it's no good, but thanks for your efforts:) I will try to set the WB a bit better next time which hopefully should decrease time spent on post-processing.

Dom: I switched to Ap mode and it works pretty well. As you said I'm not really shooting anything in motion, so I just set the DOF I want and work from there.

I think I'm generally ready to buy a book about photography and try to learn more. I just need to do the research which are worthy of reading/paying for.

Regards,
dsc.