Sorely Dissapointed With d7000

[Okayyou]

Originally Posted by i_am_hydrogen

If the colors of your photos change when you upload them to flickr, try converting to sRGB IEC61966-2.1 profile.

Edit > Convert to Profile > sRGB IEC61966-2.1

If you are working with a lot of photos you can make a batch macro that will handle as many files as you can throw at it. Record what i am hydrogen mentioned above in Photoshop's action panel along with a save and close command. Once you get your batch of images ready, run the macro (file>automate>batch) and the computer will convert all your files to the proper color profile. You can convert to jpeg and save as a copy all in the same macro. I had the flickr color profile problem and this was the easiest way around it. Saves a lot of time.

I imagine it is pretty rare for photographers to request less dynamic range from their cameras. If you want to black out your blacks or blow your highlights you may as well do that in photoshop. I think it is better to capture more data and trim than to capture less in the first place.

[flar]

On DSLRs there is one very important thing to know: The RAW file is just sensor information, and it is dull. A colour profile and tone curve is applied to the raw file to make it look nice.


With Nikon specifically:

If you have the Nikon software (CaptureNX), when you open the RAW file there is a menu on the right side that allows you to change "Picture Controls". The Picture Controls are simply a base tone curve and colour profile. If you use CaptureNX, it saves the colour profiles in a temp folder.

***You can copy the colour profiles from that temp folder and use them in other software! These are standard .icm profiles that all kinds of software use.

If you open a raw file in Adobe Lightroom or whatever, the software applies its own base curve and colour profile, and the output will look different than if you were shooting JPEG in the camera.

The Picture Controls in CaptureNX are the same as the menu options on your camera (e.g. standard, neutral, vivid, portrait, landscape, etc.) When you shoot in jpeg mode, the camera applies the Picture Controls to the RAW sensor information and converts it to a jpeg.

CaptureNX allows you to create a custom base curve and colour profile. You can then upload it to your camera.

The base curve allows you to adjust the tones in the photo. In a nutshell, it controls how you "brighten" the image capture by the sensor. For example, if you want more detail in the shadows, you would lift the bottom left part of the curve a bit.

The colour profile controls how the sensor information is converted into a colour space. It's basically just a table of colour value conversions.

CaptureNX has a free 60 day trial. Take the time to install it, tweak some photos how you like them, and save the profile on your camera.

Yes, it took me a long time to figure this shit out!

[photoLith]

^
How much is this CaptureNX program?

[flar]

^^I don't know how much it is, but there is a free trial. I just used the Nikon software to get the profiles because I was unhappy with the colour I've been getting. I haven't used the profiles on any of my photos posted here yet, I just figured this out on the weekend. But it looks like it will work perfectly with the software I use (Darktable, like Lightroom but it only runs on Linux and Mac)

[diskojoe]

i have to agree with everyone else this is just a simple white balance issue. It just doesnt register exactly the same as your d200. if you like it with that yellow hue the just set it manually to be a bit warmer or you can always change easily in post. the shots you are getting look truer to the surroundings then your d200 did. See the issue is not that it is not as good but you are just used to and like what is not correct. But the manual white balance would probably be a good place to start. usually there will be some photo filters built in so you can tweek it more from there too.

but there is nothing wrong with your camera except it works right, lol.

[diskojoe]

Originally Posted by photolitherland

I know all about white balance and most of those photos were taken with the white balance set to overcast. Mr John those photos are good but to me, they still don't have the subtle detail in the shadows and skin tones that the d200 would produce. Maybe I'm being too picky or maybe I should have saved more money and bought the d700. I probably also need to buy Photoshop since I'm just using iPhoto to edit the photos which is a pretty crappy editing program.

i missed this the first time i saw the thread. get photoshop and your probablem will be solved. Thats how I make the magic happen. It definitely not all coming from my sony a200 which is not even close to on par with your nikon.

Also if you know a student you can get a student copy of lightroom for about $80 direct from adobe.

[Rizzo]

Originally Posted by diskojoe

i have to agree with everyone else this is just a simple white balance issue. It just doesnt register exactly the same as your d200. if you like it with that yellow hue the just set it manually to be a bit warmer or you can always change easily in post. the shots you are getting look truer to the surroundings then your d200 did. See the issue is not that it is not as good but you are just used to and like what is not correct. But the manual white balance would probably be a good place to start. usually there will be some photo filters built in so you can tweek it more from there too.

but there is nothing wrong with your camera except it works right, lol.

Exactly, but the only complaint I have is Nikons white balance "steps" are waaaay too big. I just upped setting by just one and look how dramatic it is. Why would I ever toggle each to -3 or +3?

[Via Chicago]

Originally Posted by flar

I've always preferred the colours from my old D50 to the D90. I've messed with the picture controls a lot and can't get quite what I want. I've been shooting in RAW for the past while and getting even worse results (I think I made a breakthrough yesterday, but that's another topic).

Straight out of the camera, RAW will always look "worse". JPEG adds a lot of processing to your photos right off the bat, which is why they will look richer without any retouching. This can be handy if you're just tossing photos up for web publishing, or something similar. The files are also smaller. However, your options are very limited when editing JEPGs as they can not sustain serious adjustments without degrading. The beauty of RAW is that you can set things like white balance/contrast/shadows after the fact to suit how YOU saw the image, not the camera's sensor. And it is non-destructive.

[Via Chicago]

Originally Posted by photolitherland

I probably also need to buy Photoshop since I'm just using iPhoto to edit the photos which is a pretty crappy editing program.

Personally, I would skip Photoshop and get Lightroom instead. Lightroom is probably 1/2 the cost, way more intuitive and user friendly out of the box, and is geared strictly towards photography. Photoshop is more of an all around professional graphic design program with tons of complex functions you will probably never have a need for. If you want to add something to your photograph that wasn't there to begin with (or remove an object entirely), or do intensive editing, Photoshop would be necessary, but for the average person Lightroom will cover just about all your needs.

Definitely take the time to learn it, and you will be amazed what a difference a few minutes of editing can make. Think of your RAW file as a film negative, and your editing software as the darkroom. Each 1/2 of the equation is just as important as the other.

[glowrock]

As an aside, I think I'll try out my new D5100 this weekend and put up a few test shots for you guys to give a good once-over too. Keep in mind that I'm most definitely NOT a true photographer, I will likely take a lot of my shots in auto mode, etc... etc... That being said, just playing around with a few shots around my townhouse this evening gave me a taste of just how powerful this camera is! No D7000, but damn, it's such a huge step up from my freaking Panasonic Lumix it's not even funny!

Aaron (Glowrock)

[flar]

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

Straight out of the camera, RAW will always look "worse". JPEG adds a lot of processing to your photos right off the bat, which is why they will look richer without any retouching. This can be handy if you're just tossing photos up for web publishing, or something similar. The files are also smaller. However, your options are very limited when editing JEPGs as they can not sustain serious adjustments without degrading. The beauty of RAW is that you can set things like white balance/contrast/shadows after the fact to suit how YOU saw the image, not the camera's sensor. And it is non-destructive.

I know, that's why I continue to shoot RAW. I think I've got some colour profiles that work for me now, but it was definitely an adjustment and the first few months of shooting RAW I definitely wasn't getting results that looked as good as the jpegs I was shooting on my D50.

[photoLith]

I still think my D200 shoots way better during the day outside. But, Ive learned that my D7000 takes way way way better photos at night, indoors, and with portraits outside with overcast conditions. But, Im just going to use my D200 for daytime wide angle stuff until it just dies out I guess. The D200 in my opinion was one of Nikons greatest mid range DSLRs ever, up to this point. Although, I never used the D300 but they were basically the same camera, one just had a wider lcd screen.

[photoLith]

I am slowly changing my mind on the D7000. Ive gotten some great pictures with it here recently. I just had to get used to the new camera I guess, but I still have a lot to learn and how to hone it in and whatnot for high contrasty wide angle shots. Ive taken these photos in the past two days with the camera and Im very pleased with the results. Way better than what I could have gotten with the D200.