p.2 #1 · D300, a bit underwhelmed at high ISO performance
CRFTony wrote:
Quick question. Lightroom automatically adjusts some settings on my Raw files when "developing" the nef file. Brightness is always at +50, Contrast at +25, Blacks at +5, etc. I always season to taste, but I assumed that it was a given that these basic changes were expected of raw files. That's why I figured going up an extra couple of points in brightness wasn't a huge deal. Should I be zero'ing everything out instead?
Regardless, I took some exterior shots at ISO 1600 today and was very pleased with the performance.
Lightrooms defaults are just defaults. They aren't tailored to any particular camera. You'll be much better off making your own set of defaults. My defaults have the brightness much lower at around +25, even that's too much sometimes for a well exposed photo.
p.2 #2 · D300, a bit underwhelmed at high ISO performance
Jammy Straub wrote:
Lightrooms defaults are just defaults. They aren't tailored to any particular camera. You'll be much better off making your own set of defaults. My defaults have the brightness much lower at around +25, even that's too much sometimes for a well exposed photo.
Well darn, I thought they had some secret sauce and that's why they kept telling me to download new versions for new cameras.
I do have different presets I made for different subjects (landscapes, people, indoor/outdoor) and then work off of, but I really thought LR had info relating to specific cameras. I'm glad I know better now.
p.2 #3 · D300, a bit underwhelmed at high ISO performance
CRFTony wrote:
Well darn, I thought they had some secret sauce and that's why they kept telling me to download new versions for new cameras.
I do have different presets I made for different subjects (landscapes, people, indoor/outdoor) and then work off of, but I really thought LR had info relating to specific cameras. I'm glad I know better now.
It's kind of silly, the defaults are way over cooked IMHO. I've got a feeling it's part of the reason a lot of new users are unhappy with the software.
Having specific presets for different scene types is a good start. My import defaults are something like +3 Black, +25 Brightness, +15 Contrast
Then I've got individual presents for things like '+10 Saturation & +10 Vividness' that don't effect anything but those specific settings.
p.2 #4 · D300, a bit underwhelmed at high ISO performance
I could be all wet on this, but I'm of the opinion that Lightroom and/or ACR are NOT the software of choice to optimize your NEF's... especially at higher ISO's. I have Lightroom and really don't see the quality out of it ( and I'm not saying that it is a bad piece of software ) as I do Capture NX. I guess I'd use it for volume work as opposed to NX... but I don't work that way.
I'm of the opinion, and have read similar reviews, that Adobe caters to Canon. It is a universal software, but I think they are still pi$$ed at Nikon for that WB issue a few years back and don't go out of their way to make Nikon images really shine, IMHO.
I went through ALL of the availabe trial versions of EVERYTHING, to find a replacement for NX and there simply isn't anything that nails a NEF like NX....PERIOD!
p.2 #5 · D300, a bit underwhelmed at high ISO performance
So much confusion about "noise" : dozens of reason for unsharp final image but we seem to balme camera sensor for everything. Evevn in film days there were numerous causes for lack of detail, with digital even more but noise has become a catch all. One big problem is raw pp. Even I am having problems with raw so I mostly shoot jpegs and do further pp with Nx. And people comment on fine detail of my posted imges as opposed to my artistic abillities if any.
In my op Nikon raw loses its magic when not processed with Nx.
Same iso jpeg shots of my apartment taken with D 300 are far superior to ones from my D80 or previously Canon 20D.
p.2 #6 · D300, a bit underwhelmed at high ISO performance
Terry D wrote:
I could be all wet on this, but I'm of the opinion that Lightroom and/or ACR are NOT the software of choice to optimize your NEF's... especially at higher ISO's. I have Lightroom and really don't see the quality out of it ( and I'm not saying that it is a bad piece of software ) as I do Capture NX. I guess I'd use it for volume work as opposed to NX... but I don't work that way.
I'm of the opinion, and have read similar reviews, that Adobe caters to Canon. It is a universal software, but I think they are still pi$$ed at Nikon for that WB issue a few years back and don't go out of their way to make Nikon images really shine, IMHO.
I went through ALL of the availabe trial versions of EVERYTHING, to find a replacement for NX and there simply isn't anything that nails a NEF like NX....PERIOD!
p.2 #8 · D300, a bit underwhelmed at high ISO performance
Gerald, assuming that I don't want to use Lightroom (I don't have it) could Bridge substitute for download, convert (for archive) to DNG on the way in, and Bridge for the organisation part, and Capture NX for processing? if so, how would you do it?
I simply disliked the mouse-driven interface of the first version of NX that came with the D3. Has that improved with the upgrades? And (perhaps because I am a 'batch processing pro' in the ACR window) I would need to be able to use NX to batch process hundreds, sometimes over a thousand images—can this be done with NX without getting mouse-induced wrist/hand problems? All suggestions gratefully received. Cheers, KL
p.2 #9 · D300, a bit underwhelmed at high ISO performance
NX does have a batch feature.
You apply the adjustments you want on one image for instance.
Save the sequence as a batch instruction and then apply it to all the frames you want.
It seems to work well for me.
p.2 #10 · D300, a bit underwhelmed at high ISO performance
Kit,
What Soupdragon said. You can easily batch as many files as you want. Edit one image as you like, then you save that information in a file that NX uses to process the remaining ones in the directory that you select. This works rather well.
I haven't really used Adobe Bridge, but I think you can use it for some of what Lightroom does. What I do, actually, is download with Lightroom so that I can assign appropriate keywords to my images for later search and retrieval. I don't use Lightroom for anything else - just possibly to search / sort / tag later on.
I actually use View NX to browse my images. You should be able to right click on any images of interest in View NX, select Edit with Capture NX, and bring images directly into Capture NX. I then do my Capture NX edits, and open my file by using the File, Open With command (after registering PS in Capture). I leave my files in NEF format, unless I'm need to send them someone else to look at. In general, the only thing I use Photoshop for is to retouch (dust spots, mainly - everything else I do in NX), resize (Genuine Fractals Print Pro), and print.
Gerald
Edited by chemprof on Apr 20, 2008 at 03:32 PM GMT
p.2 #12 · D300, a bit underwhelmed at high ISO performance
James R wrote:
Chem,
You can do the same thing within Lightroom. I've set mine up to edit with CS3 and NX. What value does View NX add over just using LR?
James,
I, as many others, believe that the output quality is superior. Also, only Capture NX will allow you to alter most camera settings on any Nikon camera after the shot.
p.2 #14 · D300, a bit underwhelmed at high ISO performance
View NX is just quicker to see the RAW thumbnails than what I've seen using the other programs. I've tried all manner of combinations myself, and one combination I have found useful is: View NX to have a look at the thumbnail and then opening them in the editing software.
Apr 20, 2008 at 06:32 PM
Andre Labonte Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #15 · D300, a bit underwhelmed at high ISO performance
View is almost like using Windows Explorer but for NEF files. It has some minor editing capability, but better to use Capture NX.
Where I shoot raw 100% of the time, I love View as I can move, orgnaize and veiw NEF files without having to convert them to JPG. Thus I only convert the files that are keepers. It is saving me tons of time and disk space.
p.2 #16 · D300, a bit underwhelmed at high ISO performance
Andre Labonte wrote:
View is almost like using Windows Explorer but for NEF files. It has some minor editing capability, but better to use Capture NX.
Where I shoot raw 100% of the time, I love View as I can move, orgnaize and veiw NEF files without having to convert them to JPG. Thus I only convert the files that are keepers. It is saving me tons of time and disk space.
I'm glad I'm not the only one who shoots raw all the time!
Are you using 14 or 12 bit?
p.2 #17 · D300, a bit underwhelmed at high ISO performance
CRFTony wrote:
I posted this shot in the people section, but am more interested in getting feedback on the noise issue than the photo itself. This was shot at 1600 in a poorly lit gymnasium. I was a little underwhelmed with the performance of the D300. I don't see it as a huge step up from my D80. I'll post a D80 shot below too.
Is this what I should be expecting from the camera? I know I can't hope for D3-like noise, but I guess I just expected... more...
I dont se why you shot the d80 pic at 1600 when the sky is blown out. Seems to me you could have gone a lot lower to get the sky in. I am betting the girls were underexposed because the sky was so bright it had to drop the shutter. Then you brought them back out in post and that is why there is the added noise.
just a thought,.
Apr 21, 2008 at 10:10 AM
Andre Labonte Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #18 · D300, a bit underwhelmed at high ISO performance
Soupdragon wrote:
I'm glad I'm not the only one who shoots raw all the time!
Are you using 14 or 12 bit?
I use 12 bit. I don't think 14 bit buys me that much other than a slower frame rate and post processing. If I do a killer landscape where I need the dynamic range I may dabble in 14 bit, but right now I need speed more than anything.
p.2 #19 · D300, a bit underwhelmed at high ISO performance
Mike Mahoney wrote:
+1 .. exposing to the right is important to keeping native noise at the lowest possible levels ... but not always possible, in particular with shots where a minimum shutter speed must be maintained to stop subject movement and you're already at your wide open aperture and highest ISO. So you're forced to underexpose on the basis of a noisy file being preferable to a blurred one.
Bear in mind that the Nikon cameras have the meter reversed when compared to Canon - which would mean exposing to the left in this scenario using a D300 camera. The Nikon meter default display is +....|....-
Use custom setting f10 if you want to reverse the meter.
p.2 #20 · D300, a bit underwhelmed at high ISO performance
Andre Labonte wrote:
I use 12 bit. I don't think 14 bit buys me that much other than a slower frame rate and post processing. If I do a killer landscape where I need the dynamic range I may dabble in 14 bit, but right now I need speed more than anything.
14 bit buys you some notable increases in shadow detail. And that's it.
