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.
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.
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.
Edited on Jul 17, 2008 at 07:58 PM
Jul 17, 2008 at 07:58 PM
Andre Labonte Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
Terry D wrote:
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. ...Show more →
I take the Bryan Peterson approach, and that is "Get it right in the camera and spend more time taking pictures or spending it with family." I shoot a lot too and I do know what he means.
Andre Labonte wrote:
I take the Bryan Peterson approach, and that is "Get it right in the camera and spend more time taking pictures or spending it with family." I shoot a lot too and I do know what he means.
Still does.