While reading the manual trying to understand an exposure problem (separate post) it occurred to me that leaving the camera (D300) on D-Lighting might not be a bad idea.

1. If set on, does it work when set on manual?

2. Is the effect consistent, or does it vary. Would be nice for panos it seems, or does it introduce too many inconsistencies?

BASED ON YOUR EXPERIENCE USING THIS FEATURE, what are the pros and cons?

Thanx!

have never liked it on all the time,,

on some deep shadow shots the d-lighting did good, and some slightly brighter shots I did not like it on,, I have used in dim gyms covering volleyball and it worked fine,,

since I use NX2 it is ease to apply and see how it can help and if I like run it as a part of the batch processing,,

you can also take a photo and then apply D-lighting to that photo in-camera and compare before firing away,, display your photo on the camera screen and press the OK button,, d-lighting menu will be at the top,, select and go from there,,

Derry

Should I add that i always shoot raw and process with CS3?

I dont care for D-Lighting in all my shots. I have it turned off but, like Derry, I used NX2 which allows me to toggle it on/off when I choose.

I *think* D-Lighting is not applied if your shooting RAW and processing your images with something other than NX2. In fact, I dont believe any of your settings are applied to the RAW file.

According to Thom Hogan, turn it off for high ISO.

gvg45 wrote:
I *think* D-Lighting is not applied if your shooting RAW and processing your images with something other than NX2. In fact, I dont believe any of your settings are applied to the RAW file.

I believe this is true for the most part... however when D-Lighting is set to medium or high, I understand that it applies a -1/3 stop exposure compensation right off the bat. If that is the case then it would seem that the RAW files would be affected as well when using those settings.

I always keep it on, on the high setting, and most of the time it gives better results than the raw file before processing of course. In 95% of the situations, the jpeg file is my final picture (with some simple tweaks, like sharpening, cropping etc...). For high ISO or critical exposure or when I need more dynamic range, I process the raw file of course.

Guy

Active D-Lighting decreases exposure and lifts shadows. If you shoot RAW the best advice is to turn D-Lighitng off forever and set your camera to neutral and Adobe RGB in order to get a in camera histogram that most closely resembles the RAW exposure. Learn how much headroom you have after the green channel clips with these settings and then use the histogram feedback to get perfect exposure.

With RAW one should expose to the right. D-Lighting does the opposite. With RAW the only thing that matters is to get the exposure correct. Everything else can be tweaked in PP.

papageno wrote:
Should I add that i always shoot raw and process with CS3?

For sports use, particularly outdoor sports in daylight, I always use it, and sometimes if the lighting's harsh I'll throw it on HIGH. It's a dream for anyone trying to even out exposures - especially when you're balancing really dramatic contrasts in jerseys and uniforms against harsh daylight. It's a feature I can't live without now in my camera bodies... and most posters in the sports forum seem to agree.

Why would you not be setting to sRGB when all labs and inkjets are printing sRGB?

I shoot RAW and make my own adjustments in ACR. This is the most flexible response to varying lighting conditions.

I used to use it all the time, but I have found I loose too much contrast doing so. Once in a while when conditions are consistently harsh, I will use it, but most of the time it's easier to leave it off and just fix one or two images in post.

I suppose you question is aimed at me.

Adobe RGB has a much wider gamut than sRGB. The in camera histogram is based on the embedded JPEG even if one shoots RAW. By setting the in camera color space to sRGB one would show clipping in highlights before there actually is any in the RAW file.The Adobe RGB is for the in camera histogram accuracy only.

You can switch the color space to whatever you prefer when importing to your RAW converter. A RAW file does not have a color space.

If you print at a typical photo kiosk is is better to set the color space after PP to sRGB. If you get the print made at a truly professional printing lab they will know how to process Adobe RGB. Also the better ink-jet printers have a wider gamut than sRGB so it is better to print on one of these ink-jets in Adobe RGB for a wider gamut and more true colors.

williamkazak wrote:
Why would you not be setting to sRGB when all labs and inkjets are printing sRGB?

gvg45 wrote:
I dont care for D-Lighting in all my shots. I have it turned off but, like Derry, I used NX2 which allows me to toggle it on/off when I choose.

I *think* D-Lighting is not applied if your shooting RAW and processing your images with something other than NX2. In fact, I dont believe any of your settings are applied to the RAW file.


My understanding is that Active D lighting reduces the in-camera exposure slightly. So if you process the raw with CS3 you will need to apply some exposure compensation. You will not however get the advantage of the tone-remapping that D lighting applies if processed in CNX2.

Apparently,turning the in-camera active D-lighting off and applying D-lighting in CNX2 gives slightly less favourable results because the exposure is less optimal for the tone re-mapping process.

If you are processing the raws in CS3 I would turn the active D lighting off.

For what its worth I usually have the D700 set to Auto, and the D3 set to Normal. For most images it seems to make an improvement (based on toggling off and on in CNX2). It does definitely degrade high ISO images. Would be nice if there was a feature that automatically deactivated it after a set ISO.

williamkazak wrote:
Why would you not be setting to sRGB when all labs and inkjets are printing sRGB?


I agree with this. I know RGB has more of a color range but I just recently bought an Epson R2880 and could not get my printer to match what was on my screen. I was getting frustrated. I was trying RGB but the colors were flat and not consistent. I changed to sRGB and set Photoshop to use the embedded profile in the image and set the printer to “Epson sRGB” and Auto. Let Printer control color, and the prints are beautiful. Everything I read, it said I would have to buy a Spyder 3 or Color Monkey and I just didn’t want to spring another $200 for a calibration tool if I didn’t have to.

Adam73 wrote:
williamkazak wrote:
Why would you not be setting to sRGB when all labs and inkjets are printing sRGB?


I agree with this. I know RGB has more of a color range but I just recently bought an Epson R2880 and could not get my printer to match what was on my screen. I was getting frustrated. I was trying RGB but the colors were flat and not consistent. I changed to sRGB and set Photoshop to use the embedded profile in the image and set the printer to “Epson sRGB” and Auto. Let Printer control color, and the prints are beautiful. Everything I read, it said I would have to buy a Spyder 3 or Color Monkey and I just didn’t want to spring another $200 for a calibration tool if I didn’t have to.

Yep, the prerequisite for prints that match what you see on your computer, is a calibrated display.

I used to shoot in Adobe RGB but I did not realize any benefit one way or another. I always shoot everything in RAW with sRGB now selected in the camera. I don't understand why anyone would shoot in lossy jpg. When you do your tweaks the jpg becomes even more lossy. I use a Canon printer and my prints look like my monitor, letting the Canon program do the work after I convert to jpg.

Adam73 wrote:
williamkazak wrote:
Why would you not be setting to sRGB when all labs and inkjets are printing sRGB?


I agree with this. I know RGB has more of a color range but I just recently bought an Epson R2880 and could not get my printer to match what was on my screen. I was getting frustrated. I was trying RGB but the colors were flat and not consistent. I changed to sRGB and set Photoshop to use the embedded profile in the image and set the printer to “Epson sRGB” and Auto. Let Printer control color, and the prints are beautiful. Everything I read, it said I would have to buy a Spyder 3 or Color Monkey and I just didn’t want to spring another $200 for a calibration tool if I didn’t have to.


I can't believe you would spend £500+ on a printer and not calibrate your display, i'm not suprised they didn't match! I own a R2880 myself, got a custom profile+ erm...calibrate my monitor and my prints are a fantastic match to my screen with a lot more depth than auto.I always let photoshop manage colours and not the printer+use prophoto colour space. I have tried it your way as well and there is absolutely no way 'auto' prints better. No wonder the quality of printing has declined,spend all that money on a fancy camera/lenses/printer and not get a calibration device lol

Why would you not be setting to sRGB when all labs and inkjets are printing sRGB?

It seems to work fine for me. Calibrated monitor/4880 is great!

I rarely go outside for printing....but costco does fine....altho I convert to srgb for them......

Kaj E wrote:
The in camera histogram is based on the embedded JPEG even if one shoots RAW. By setting the in camera color space to sRGB one would show clipping in highlights before there actually is any in the RAW file.

True, but I prefer a little extra headroom for error in the NEFs when using sRGB in camera.

EBH

EB-1 wrote:
Kaj E wrote:
The in camera histogram is based on the embedded JPEG even if one shoots RAW. By setting the in camera color space to sRGB one would show clipping in highlights before there actually is any in the RAW file.

True, but I prefer a little extra headroom for error in the NEFs when using sRGB in camera.

EBH


You rather err on the underexposure side than getting it right?

Kaj E wrote:

True, but I prefer a little extra headroom for error in the NEFs when using sRGB in camera.

EBH

You rather err on the underexposure side than getting it right?



If you really cared about getting it right, you would be using a hand-held exposure meter anyways...

Kaj E wrote:
If you shoot RAW the best advice is to turn D-Lighitng off forever and set your camera to neutral and Adobe RGB in order to get a in camera histogram that most closely resembles the RAW exposure.

To get an even better idea of where your dynamic range will clip, temporarily switch your camera over to JPEG and set the contrast level to as low as it will go. Save the setting and then switch the camera back to NEF mode.

The camera uses the JPEG processing settings to determine both the look of the preview and to calculate the Histogram.

Active D-Lighting processing is done on the CMOS itself before the signal goes to the EXPEED for packaging into Nikon's NEF "raw" package, so while Capture NX2 can virtually undo the effect, the Active D-Lighting is part and parcel of the origianl raw fdata. So if you choose notto use Capture NX2, but use Adobe Camera Raw In either Photoshop or Lightroom, Bibble, Capture One or another raw processor , the Active D-Lighting setting you choose on the camera is always respected, even if you convert Nikon's proprietary NEF raw to DNG as a part of your raw processing and archiving workflow.

I tend to leave it to normal unless it is a low contrast scene ( dynamic range of 4 stops or less) in which case I turn it off.

T. Hogan's suggestion of turning Active D-Lighting off for High ISo values theorectically makes sense. I'll try that when I review the D3s.

What I suggest you do is experiment and discover which Active D-Lighting setting works best in different kinds of lighting conditions and Different ISO settings for you. That is part of learning your camera.

williamkazak wrote:
Why would you not be setting to sRGB when all labs and inkjets are printing sRGB?

The inkjet printer I use is a Canon iPF imagePROGRAF 6100 and with high quality gloss and semi-gloss papers the gamut pretty much matches Adobe RGB(1998) and in some parts of the spectrum actually is slightly larger than Adobe RGB(1998).