I shoot sport (skiing) and am going totally D3 next season. I have 2 at the moment but will kit out all 11 photog's I employ with D3's next season. I am wondering If I get them to shoot D lighting as a defalt.
Any experiance out there?
Gav

I have it activated all the time... it seems to give the illusion to get more dynamic range. I like the results.

Guy

I never use it, because I always shoot in RAW mode.

i always use 'normal' d-lighting and always shoot RAW.

if you don't set it in camera you can't activate 'in camera' (for lack of better term) d-lighting afterwards.

however, if you have set it to on and don't like the effects you can turn it off afterwards in Capture NX2.

by setting it to 'on' i have both options at my disposal.

however, i have shot action in snow (snowmobile) and don't like the effects of d-lighting, especially a rider wearing black against a blue sky. there is too much of an unnatural halo.

Edited by RONIN2 on Jul 14, 2008 at 03:40 PM GMT

RONIN2 wrote:
i always use 'normal' d-lighting and always shoot RAW.

you you don't set it in camera you can't activate 'in camera' (for lack of better term) d-lighting afterwards.

however, if you have set it to on and don't like the effects you can turn it off afterwards in Capture NX2.

by setting it to 'on' i have both options at my disposal.

however, i have shot action in snow (snowmobile) and don't like the effects of d-lighting, especially a rider wearing black against a blue sky. there is too much of an unnatural halo.

I'm not sure what you mean. I can apply as much or as little D-Lighting as I want in NX2, without having "in-camera" D-Lighting activated...

molson wrote:
RONIN2 wrote:
i always use 'normal' d-lighting and always shoot RAW.

you you don't set it in camera you can't activate 'in camera' (for lack of better term) d-lighting afterwards.

however, if you have set it to on and don't like the effects you can turn it off afterwards in Capture NX2.

by setting it to 'on' i have both options at my disposal.

however, i have shot action in snow (snowmobile) and don't like the effects of d-lighting, especially a rider wearing black against a blue sky. there is too much of an unnatural halo.

I'm not sure what you mean. I can apply as much or as little D-Lighting as I want in NX2, without having "in-camera" D-Lighting activated...


D-Lighting in NX2 is not the same as active D-Lighting in camera. Active D-lighting in camera will actually slightly under expose the shot to preserve highlights before boosting the shadow areas. I leave it on low most of the time.

low for me as well and neutral as colour mode with great results on my d300,

regards

molson wrote:
RONIN2 wrote:
i always use 'normal' d-lighting and always shoot RAW.

you you don't set it in camera you can't activate 'in camera' (for lack of better term) d-lighting afterwards.

however, if you have set it to on and don't like the effects you can turn it off afterwards in Capture NX2.

by setting it to 'on' i have both options at my disposal.

however, i have shot action in snow (snowmobile) and don't like the effects of d-lighting, especially a rider wearing black against a blue sky. there is too much of an unnatural halo.

I'm not sure what you mean. I can apply as much or as little D-Lighting as I want in NX2, without having "in-camera" D-Lighting activated...

there is a large difference in what is produced in camera and what is produced in software. the in camera d-lighting kills the software version, IMHO.

I used to use the D-lighting controls in Nikon Capture 4, but more often than not I find that I need to darken parts of an image (e.g., a black piece of clothing) by setting the black point. Dynamic range is rarely a problem, but low contrast is. I still use D2 bodies, so no D-Lighting options are available at capture, which is okay with me.

If I do want to boost luminance, I find that the tone curve and color luminance tools in Lightroom to be very powerful. This kind of control can only be done in post anyway.

During capture, I only want to focus on subject, composition, aperture, shutter speed, and focus. As far as I'm concerned, that's enough distraction! RAW editing is so easy these days, and faster in the long run than JPEG capture, that I prefer to wait and develop my images at the end of the day with a nice cup of coffee while relaxing in my office chair.


~Ted

I use the in-camera D-lighting all the time. Depending on the situation, I will either use the High or Low setting (never use the medium setting). Occasinally I shut it off if I want strong light-dark transistions in the shadows.

Perhaps a stupid question but I'm told it's only working for JPG's and not RAW's.
So if you shoot RAW and don't NX it's of no use.

Chris Dees wrote:
Perhaps a stupid question but I'm told it's only working for JPG's and not RAW's.
So if you shoot RAW and don't NX it's of no use.


That is incorrect. I shoot RAW 100% of the time. It works quite well in RAW.

Andre Labonte wrote:
Chris Dees wrote:
Perhaps a stupid question but I'm told it's only working for JPG's and not RAW's.
So if you shoot RAW and don't NX it's of no use.


That is incorrect. I shoot RAW 100% of the time. It works quite well in RAW.

Thanks, I'll give it a try.

no, i dont use jpegs or NX, and it takes too much buffer memory.

Which settings do you use? Low, Norm, High?

...I use it in camera on low, and I can tell a difference..very smooth and silky transitions...but I don't use it for people too much..it has a tendency to let the skin tone go to the pinkish hue...

gman1339 wrote:

D-Lighting in NX2 is not the same as active D-Lighting in camera. Active D-lighting in camera will actually slightly under expose the shot to preserve highlights before boosting the shadow areas. I leave it on low most of the time.

So, why can't you dial some EC, underexpose a little and then boost the shadow area?

I also shoot 14-bit RAW 100% of the time, and I leave active D-lighting on high almost 100% of the time. I find I can get great dynamic range in my shots without having to stack ND grads.

I use it on LOW in-cam for most of the shots I take, sometimes on MEDIUM depending on the contrast in the scene. It does a nicer job than the NX post job as I find it's far less destructive... YMMV.

I shoot in RAW and never use DL in camera. It reduces buffer size and I can do it afterwards anyhow.

I process pictures with DxO which has also very nice DL capabilities, better than original in-Camera.

I tried it a little bit, but for my landscape shooting I didn't really like the results as it seems to lighten the blacks (shadows) without pulling back on the highlights. The one thing I don't want is burnt out highlights, so I was hoping that it would help prevent that, but the only way to do that is to expose for the highlights as I normally do. So in the end it didn't seem like much of a point except to get washed out shadows...

I just shoot Raw, expose for the highlights and then double process the raw file. It only takes a few seconds to manually blend them.

So mark me down as one who had hoped Active D-lighting would help give me more range, but I was disappointed with the actual results.

Jim

I use ADL with my D300 at low at the moment because I'm very new with this camera, but I think the best argument for using it in the cam is that I want to make the best shots OOC.
Why should I use Caputure NX2 when I am able to get the same results directly without any further work on my pictures? If you shoot a lot you will know what I mean

I tried a few shots with D-Lighting turned on in-camera this morning. I was quite surprised at how much slower the files are processed with this feature activated.

For shooting without fill flash or bounced lighting modifiers...ADL is a must for harsh, contrasty light. I use it in different levels; low,normal,high... depending on the subject and the light I am dealing with. And yes you can get rid of the effect in NX if you do not like it, but you can not add it ( ADL in software is NOT the same as in camera) after the fact in RAW.

It is just another good tool if used appropriately.

T

alf103 wrote:
I use ADL with my D300 at low at the moment because I'm very new with this camera, but I think the best argument for using it in the cam is that I want to make the best shots OOC.
Why should I use Caputure NX2 when I am able to get the same results directly without any further work on my pictures? If you shoot a lot you will know what I mean

With all due respect..... I shoot a lot and I don't know what you mean. If you have ever shot Chromes, don't you rememeber how many got thrown in the trash or had to be preflashed in dupes or before they were shot to lower the contrast?

Pete Turner never got all that worked up about getting it right in the camera all the time... but he produced some spectacular shots in the duping machine... and he got published ALOT. Still does.

Ansel didn't produce his best work in the camera... he did it in the dark room using every trick in the book and some he made up... this argument goes on and on. Be a good technician, yes! But tools are tools to be used... during or after to produce your vision... whatever that vision is.