I have been pretty happy using 51 point 3D tracking and I usually prefer to shoot full manual with the exception of focusing, so that says a lot about how well it works, although I think the intended purpose would be fast moving subjects that have a lot of contrast between the background.

I used it for birds and was getting consistently sharp shots even at 200mm as they bombed right past me and I was tracking them through the viewfinder the entire time. Pretty much impossible to use single point focus as they blast past you real quickly when I tried that. I wasn't able to lock focus very quickly and missed a ton of opportunities.

Shooting birds isn't my thing, so I am not sure of the hit rate for birds that are dive bombing them at 200mm, but 3D tracking sure did make it kind of fun.

Rags Hef wrote:
View has a menu that allows WB change I picked auto calculation & damn if it didn't work. So far ...so good. Picassa3 picks up the files when opening. When Picassa picked up the files they ignored the View changes and loaded the blue images.

Picasa never even saw the View changes because they weren't there to see.

ViewNX, Lightroom, and CaptureNX do the right thing and edit all files non-destructively. They keep the changes you made in either a sidecar file (XMP) or in their internal database. The changes you make are not directly edited into the file at any point, so of course other programs like Picasa won't see them.

The solution is to export the files from View/LR/Capture, which will save a new copy in whatever format you select with all changes applied. I think that'd fix your problem. Please let us know.

"The solution is to export the files from View/LR/Capture, which will save a new copy in whatever format you select with all changes applied. I think that'd fix your problem. Please let us know. "

Thanks for your help Rodolfo.

If I had LR,Capture I would try them. Regrettably I don't have them, I'm software challenged.

I did get the images "deblued" in View NX by converting to jpeg & deselecting include camera settings. I wound up with no exif and no blue.

Here is an example of the limits of Picassa3 on WB on a raw image dealing with the blue caste (it's still too blue)



This image show the water as green (as it should be)


Rags

I haven't used ViewNX, so I can't comment on its abilities. Can it export the RAW file with the changes you've made? Or can it only export as JPEG?

By the way, that first image in blue has so much flying and sparkling water, that it looks phenomenal just as it is portrayed here. I realize you may still want to color-corrected, but you might also want to consider keeping this image in that shade of blue... it looks slightly abstract and absolutely beautiful. Love it!

By the way, if you really can't get the corrected RAW files exported from ViewNX, and there are a few files where you really want the white balance corrected and still maintain the NEF format, I'd be happy to make the adjustments for you, if that is useful to you.

Thanks Rodolfo, but they're all converted to jpeg with the changes. I deleted the original files.

This was the first time I used ViewNX. I thought it was bothersome when I downloaded with Transfer. After this experience I will use it more.

But there was a function in it I really liked. You can hit an icon and see your focus point. I shoot fast moving objects (cars, motorcycles, etc) and use continuous shoot.

So I was surprised when I saw so many images without an indicated focus point, where AF didn't have the chance to work.

That's not to say the images are out of focus at f11 with surfing, my guess is the dof can bail you out.

However it would be interesting to see my "markmanship" with the focus point shooting birds in flight at f2.8 for example.

thanks again everybody for your posts

Rags

Why would you delete the original files? It defeats the purpose of shooting raw IMO. That's why Big harddrives (relatively inexpensive nowadays) were invented. Also, using a program such as View NX, Lightroom, Capture NX or Aperture are all viable options that don't destroy your originals nor do they create Jpegs on every edit. deleting the files is like burning your negatives after making the first print.

Back to the point of the thread, I tried 51 point 3d at a soccer game tonight. Waste of my time and card space. 9 points gave me much more accurate focusing. D300 and 80-200 f2.8.

Awasos23 wrote:
Why would you delete the original files? It defeats the purpose of shooting raw IMO. That's why Big harddrives (relatively inexpensive nowadays) were invented. Also, using a program such as View NX, Lightroom, Capture NX or Aperture are all viable options that don't destroy your originals nor do they create Jpegs on every edit. deleting the files is like burning your negatives after making the first print.

The raw files were flawed, that's why I destroyed them.

That raises a different point and an interesting one (to me). I don't keep a large storage of photos. Like who am I ? somebody important whose pictures have some great value?

Nah. I shoot all raw (NEF). After I process them, I convert to jpeg.

I revisit old albums and delete shots that I consider poor (now that I know a little more & have faster glass). I keep pruning the old stock and delete entire albums unless they have "event" value.

Seems to me, when I shoot motogp at Laguna Seca, I'll take 1000-1500 snaps, I'll get them down to about 100. I'll delete very acceptable snaps & keep one or two out a continuous series 8-10 snaps (those snaps are almost duplicates)

It's just the way I do it. I'm a 9pt wide guy too.

Rags

Rags Hef wrote:
Awasos23 wrote:
Why would you delete the original files? It defeats the purpose of shooting raw IMO. That's why Big harddrives (relatively inexpensive nowadays) were invented. Also, using a program such as View NX, Lightroom, Capture NX or Aperture are all viable options that don't destroy your originals nor do they create Jpegs on every edit. deleting the files is like burning your negatives after making the first print.

The raw files were flawed, that's why I destroyed them.

That raises a different point and an interesting one (to me). I don't keep a large storage of photos. Like who am I ? somebody important whose pictures have some great value?

Nah. I shoot all raw (NEF). After I process them, I convert to jpeg.


Well, kind of the point of shooting RAW is that you can easily fix minor issues like WB, and major issues like blown highlights. Seems to me it's a waste of time to shoot RAW just to convert them as-is to JPEG. If you wanted JPEGs, you should just shoot JPEG SOOC with the settings that you find appropriate.

Well, I thought WB was fixable. In this case it wasn't. I don't usually convert them as is to jpeg.

I had to this time because my editing software was incapable of the fix and didn't recognize the fixes of ViewNX.

I've shot 30,000 - 40,000 images in NEF. So I do have some experience with it. It seems I have a problem with the hardware. I forget to review my initial settings.

further on... PP can't always fix blown highlights and now I know it can't always fix WB (in 3rd party software)

Rags

i have tried it often, and in most of my daily shooting situations (18-85mm primes, day to day stuff) it is not fast enough to keep up. When i shoot something like surfing or cars with my crappy 70-300g zoom, it is amazing.

This is almost the opposite of my experiences with the Canon 1D and 1DmkII i had previously. I say almost, because the AF on those always worked haha.

So, you are saying that you had the NEF in View, changed the WB and then Converted the file to JPEG and Picassa didn't see it?

The reason I ask, is you also stated that you had to delete the RAW files from Picassa. Did you uncheck the RAW box in Picassa?

The beauty of NEF, is you can never really get the WB wrong, because you can always change it. When you state that the NEF files were bad and you deleted them, was it because you had the WB set different from the ambient light that you thought they were bad?

I don't think you have a hardware problem. It seems that Picassa does not handle RAW very well and that has messed up your workflow in this situation.

Next time, try the demo for Capture or the LR3 beta and see if you get better results.

Back to focus:

I read the links that were posted and I have a question for those that use the AF/ON button as the sole AF activation. Do you set your AF priority (a1 and a2) to Release?

The reason I ask is, if you don't, then the feature of using AF/ON and then recomposing the frame doesn't work if you have priority set to Focus.

Rags Hef wrote:
Well, I thought WB was fixable. In this case it wasn't. I don't usually convert them as is to jpeg.

I had to this time because my editing software was incapable of the fix and didn't recognize the fixes of ViewNX.

I've shot 30,000 - 40,000 images in NEF. So I do have some experience with it. It seems I have a problem with the hardware. I forget to review my initial settings.

further on... PP can't always fix blown highlights and now I know it can't always fix WB (in 3rd party software)

Rags



Well, I guess then it was the choice of your RAW software. RAW software should not be saving changes to the RAW unless you ask it to. It's supposed to put the deltas in a meta-file or some internal meta-file. Anyway, I guess the problem is that particular RAW converter software. I use either Capture One LE 3.7 (90%+) or Capture NX for RAW editing. I find C1LE very fast to use.

Yes, you're right that shooting RAW can't always fix blown higlights, but it does give you that extra bit of headroom.

BTW, that shot you posted with the wrong WB is stellar. It looks awesome (even if it's "wrong").

MX727 wrote:
So, you are saying that you had the NEF in View, changed the WB and then Converted the file to JPEG and Picassa didn't see it?

*** No. Picassa saw both But rejected corrections made in View

The reason I ask, is you also stated that you had to delete the RAW files from Picassa. Did you uncheck the RAW box in Picassa?

*** I didn't have to. I didn't think there was a good reason to keep faulty files
There is a RAW box in Picassa? I didn't know that, thanks for the tip.

The beauty of NEF, is you can never really get the WB wrong, because you can always change it. When you state that the NEF files were bad and you deleted them, was it because you had the WB set different from the ambient light that you thought they were bad?

*** I mistakenly had the WB set to incandescent... my bad.

I don't think you have a hardware problem.

*** Nah. I have a mental problem. I just have to remember to check my shooting bank selection before shooting.

It seems that Picassa does not handle RAW very well and that has messed up your workflow in this situation.

*** Picassa has improved raw handling in Picassa3.

Next time, try the demo for Capture or the LR3 beta and see if you get better results.

*** I have LR 1.4. Nice functions for work flow, but it doesn't handle D700 NEF. I tried Capture NX and it wasn't intuitive for me.



Thanks for your thoughtful response.

Rags

Avi B wrote:
BTW, that shot you posted with the wrong WB is stellar. It looks awesome (even if it's "wrong").

Happened to me once too. Shot a polar bear underwater at the San Diego Zoo, face up with three paws touching the surface. Printed the picture all blue and hung it upside down, looked like the bear was walking on water... way cool. Then I had a lab print it, and they "fixed" the WB. Made the shot mundane as all hell. Color effects are sometimes very nice.

Mentioned it before too... that "Surfer Blue" shot is extraordinary as-is, at least partly because of the blue, not in spite of it.