Frustrated
Mar 9, 2017 07:58:24 #
dixiesimon wrote:
Good Day All, br br I have had a Nikon Equipment ... (show quote)
In the case of vibrant photos you just need a good computer wiz who is adept very well adept in photo-shop. Or you need to try a new approach to to your old habits. You maybe too comfortable with using what you have try resetting all the controls on your camera to factory settings and get re-acquainted with your camera and while you are at it re-calibrate the color on your monitors. If nothing else it will give you a new insight into why your shots aren't as good as you want them to be. In fact enter a few new contests with new work by taking your old drive off line for a few months (the drive that contains your shots not the one with the programs on it). For a shooting break re-organize your shots so you can better find clouds from one shot to add to a different shot that needed clouds. Re-color that muddy river bed in that shot you have been wondering what to do with.
Basically break the mold and the rut you have been in and start fresh with new insights. In fact rent a top of the line Canon and give it a try. I'll bet you make the same shots the same way again with the Canon that you do with the Nikon. You are comfortable and I know how that feels. I too was in a rut as a wedding photographer after 1500 or more weddings they were all cookie cutter shots from one to the next. Yes I was paid well for it but....creativity I felt was not there and the digital hit so instead of buying that 8 mpx top of the line new camera I took a sabbatical from photography. I came back to it with a 24mxp that my daughter had to sell to make her rent. Then I went back to work shooting what I first shot when I became a pro, high school sports and activities. 3 seasons now and I have money to buy cameras and other retirement hobbies. Retirement sucks when you have nothing to do and now I just got a used motorcycle to tour around in and this summer when school is out and I am off work until late August I will be out shooting. My only question is how do I get this monster camera case with many lenses and 2 bodies on the back of the motorcycle.
Just look for trying new things and new approaches to help you out of the rut. I did and it has been an adventure my first ride since 30 years not riding a motorcycle was exhilarating yesterday. 30 years ago I promised myself after having to let that motorcycle go and raise my daughters alone was to buy a new one. So I have You are never too old to start fresh.
Mar 9, 2017 08:17:16 #
Avoid fretting over the question of whether your camera is as good as someone else's! It makes you look like an amateur. Forget Canon. Nikon equipment is superb. If you make the most of it you will have pictures that are technically unsurpassed.
However...as to your specific complaints: Could it be that you have been comparing Canon pictures that have been dramatically processed with your Nikon pictures? How much do you know about processing? You can accomplish a LOT without Photoshop, etc., in fact with nothing more than the adjustments that are readily available in "Preview" which is part of the standard Apple OS (or a comparable application in your OS). The only thing in Photoshop, etc., that could provide improvement is the ability to make local adjustments (to choose specific areas to lighten, darken, saturate, desaturate, etc.). With "Preview" adjustments apply to the entire image equally.
In "Preview" I work primarily with these sliders: EXPOSURE, Contrast, Shadows, SATURATION, TEMPERATURE, TINT, and SHARPNESS. Those in uppercase are the ones I use the most.
I have attached some examples. For comparison each is accompanied by the original (unprocessed) file at the left. You complain that "Canon has more vibrant and clear photos." "vibrant" and "clear" are not photographic terms -- they are slightly ambiguous, but I suspect that by "vibrant" you mean "saturated and possessed of contrasting colors," and by "clear" you mean "sharp."
"minimal": Here I have added SHARPNESS, warmed it up (TEMPERATURE slider) to compensate for the fact that it was shot in the shade (Remember on a sunny day anything in open shade is in blue light -- from the blue sky -- that suppresses all the colors but blue just as if you had a blue filter on your lens when you shot it. For the truest color in your pictures, without processing, shoot in direct sunlight), taken out a very slight green tinge (TINT slider to purple) that wasn't apparent until I had warmed it up, added a tad of CONTRAST, attempted (without much success) to open up the SHADOWS (which I could have done by sacrificing a bit of CONTRAST, but I did not want to do that -- less CONTRAST would have reduced, slightly, the texture -- "clarity" ?? -- of the dark specks on the dominant mushroom -- in that the dominant mushroom, especially where the touch of warm light contrasts with the dominant cool light, is the center of interest, I felt that it was important to maximize the content and activity it contains).
"maximal": Here I pushed some of the sliders to the max, "saved," and, with the sliders now zeroed with the previous adjustments preserved, did it again, and again. I particularly pushed SATURATION, but I also fiddled with the TEMPERATURE until I had it precisely balanced, at which point the blue cast was gone from the mushroom's light areas, but I shopped short of pushing the yellow until it became a yellow cast in the darker areas. I eliminated a bit of green with the TINT slider. Once things were in balance (the blue cast was gone), I was able to dramatize the color differences with the SATURATION slider. Remember: If you have dull color, it probably means there is a color cast throughout the picture, degrading and suppressing all of the colors, especially those that are dissimilar to itself. To see the full, glorious, range of colors in a photo you must remove any and all color casts!
"max smooth": In the previous picture I had exaggerated the grain by pushing SHARPNESS and CONTRAST. Everything became objectionably (to me) textured. So in this one I simply reduced SHARPNESS. In the result the details are realistically sharp, but less dramatically so than in the previous version.
Philosophical perspective: Photoshop is terribly seductive because with it you can do ANYTHING to a picture! In the tasteless hands of many people Photoshop produces images that are decidedly anti-photographic! I maintain that I have done nothing with "Preview" other than revealing what was there all the time -- in the subject and in the file. This is especially true regarding color. My principal adjustment involved removing a color cast that was masking and degrading the full range of colors that was there but was hidden. In addition, I enhanced the saturation of the colors, but the lack of saturation was due to suppression in the camera image, designed to conform to the limitations of the human eye. Insects and other non-humans viewing the mushrooms might see far more vivid color contrasts.
Two possible causes of lack of "clarity":
1. Protecting your lens with a clear or UV or skylight filter. Throw the filter away and keep your darn fingers off your lens. Use lens caps. 90% of unsharp photos are made with sharp lenses behind dirty, scratched UV filters!
2. Excess lens cleaning: Every time you clean a lens you scratch it. People who clean their lens every time they shoot no longer have sharp lenses. Don't clean your lens unless you can see that cleaning is necessary. Use an ear syringe (even better is an infant rectal syringe) to blow dust off the lens. Do NOT use the little rubber bulbs they sell in camera stores for lens cleaning. They are too small and flabby to produce a good jet of air and the brush is ideally designed to pick up grease, etc., and smear it across your lens. Never use a brush on your lens.
2a. If some idiot touches your lens you must clean it ASAP. Use lens tissue and lens cleaner. FIRST be sure to blow all the dust off the lens. If some dust won't blow off roll up a piece of lens tissue and tear off the end of the roll. The paper fibers then can act as a brush, with which you can very lightly push any stubborn dust particles off to the very edge of the lens. SECOND put a couple of drops of the fluid on a bunched up multiple thickness of tissue and use it to wipe the lens in a circular motion starting in the center and spiraling out to the edges. Immediately follow up with dry tissue, using it in the same way, to eliminate any residue of the fluid before it is completely dry. If it has dried breathe (do not spit) on the lens to slightly moisten it and then wipe it. Never apply the liquid lens cleaner directly to the lens!
3. Camera movement: 1/60 second is NOT sharp enough for the average person to be sure that her hand-held photos will be sharp. Use 1/125 or a tripod. And don't bother with a tripod unless you also use a CABLE RELEASE (unless you use the self-timer).
So please let me know if any of this proves helpful to you!
By the way, my picture was shot with my favorite camera, a simple, cheap, Nikon Coolpix P5100 (CA $150 used on eBay), but I'm switching to a Coolpix P7800 to shoot "raw" files.
Best,
Jim
However...as to your specific complaints: Could it be that you have been comparing Canon pictures that have been dramatically processed with your Nikon pictures? How much do you know about processing? You can accomplish a LOT without Photoshop, etc., in fact with nothing more than the adjustments that are readily available in "Preview" which is part of the standard Apple OS (or a comparable application in your OS). The only thing in Photoshop, etc., that could provide improvement is the ability to make local adjustments (to choose specific areas to lighten, darken, saturate, desaturate, etc.). With "Preview" adjustments apply to the entire image equally.
In "Preview" I work primarily with these sliders: EXPOSURE, Contrast, Shadows, SATURATION, TEMPERATURE, TINT, and SHARPNESS. Those in uppercase are the ones I use the most.
I have attached some examples. For comparison each is accompanied by the original (unprocessed) file at the left. You complain that "Canon has more vibrant and clear photos." "vibrant" and "clear" are not photographic terms -- they are slightly ambiguous, but I suspect that by "vibrant" you mean "saturated and possessed of contrasting colors," and by "clear" you mean "sharp."
"minimal": Here I have added SHARPNESS, warmed it up (TEMPERATURE slider) to compensate for the fact that it was shot in the shade (Remember on a sunny day anything in open shade is in blue light -- from the blue sky -- that suppresses all the colors but blue just as if you had a blue filter on your lens when you shot it. For the truest color in your pictures, without processing, shoot in direct sunlight), taken out a very slight green tinge (TINT slider to purple) that wasn't apparent until I had warmed it up, added a tad of CONTRAST, attempted (without much success) to open up the SHADOWS (which I could have done by sacrificing a bit of CONTRAST, but I did not want to do that -- less CONTRAST would have reduced, slightly, the texture -- "clarity" ?? -- of the dark specks on the dominant mushroom -- in that the dominant mushroom, especially where the touch of warm light contrasts with the dominant cool light, is the center of interest, I felt that it was important to maximize the content and activity it contains).
"maximal": Here I pushed some of the sliders to the max, "saved," and, with the sliders now zeroed with the previous adjustments preserved, did it again, and again. I particularly pushed SATURATION, but I also fiddled with the TEMPERATURE until I had it precisely balanced, at which point the blue cast was gone from the mushroom's light areas, but I shopped short of pushing the yellow until it became a yellow cast in the darker areas. I eliminated a bit of green with the TINT slider. Once things were in balance (the blue cast was gone), I was able to dramatize the color differences with the SATURATION slider. Remember: If you have dull color, it probably means there is a color cast throughout the picture, degrading and suppressing all of the colors, especially those that are dissimilar to itself. To see the full, glorious, range of colors in a photo you must remove any and all color casts!
"max smooth": In the previous picture I had exaggerated the grain by pushing SHARPNESS and CONTRAST. Everything became objectionably (to me) textured. So in this one I simply reduced SHARPNESS. In the result the details are realistically sharp, but less dramatically so than in the previous version.
Philosophical perspective: Photoshop is terribly seductive because with it you can do ANYTHING to a picture! In the tasteless hands of many people Photoshop produces images that are decidedly anti-photographic! I maintain that I have done nothing with "Preview" other than revealing what was there all the time -- in the subject and in the file. This is especially true regarding color. My principal adjustment involved removing a color cast that was masking and degrading the full range of colors that was there but was hidden. In addition, I enhanced the saturation of the colors, but the lack of saturation was due to suppression in the camera image, designed to conform to the limitations of the human eye. Insects and other non-humans viewing the mushrooms might see far more vivid color contrasts.
Two possible causes of lack of "clarity":
1. Protecting your lens with a clear or UV or skylight filter. Throw the filter away and keep your darn fingers off your lens. Use lens caps. 90% of unsharp photos are made with sharp lenses behind dirty, scratched UV filters!
2. Excess lens cleaning: Every time you clean a lens you scratch it. People who clean their lens every time they shoot no longer have sharp lenses. Don't clean your lens unless you can see that cleaning is necessary. Use an ear syringe (even better is an infant rectal syringe) to blow dust off the lens. Do NOT use the little rubber bulbs they sell in camera stores for lens cleaning. They are too small and flabby to produce a good jet of air and the brush is ideally designed to pick up grease, etc., and smear it across your lens. Never use a brush on your lens.
2a. If some idiot touches your lens you must clean it ASAP. Use lens tissue and lens cleaner. FIRST be sure to blow all the dust off the lens. If some dust won't blow off roll up a piece of lens tissue and tear off the end of the roll. The paper fibers then can act as a brush, with which you can very lightly push any stubborn dust particles off to the very edge of the lens. SECOND put a couple of drops of the fluid on a bunched up multiple thickness of tissue and use it to wipe the lens in a circular motion starting in the center and spiraling out to the edges. Immediately follow up with dry tissue, using it in the same way, to eliminate any residue of the fluid before it is completely dry. If it has dried breathe (do not spit) on the lens to slightly moisten it and then wipe it. Never apply the liquid lens cleaner directly to the lens!
3. Camera movement: 1/60 second is NOT sharp enough for the average person to be sure that her hand-held photos will be sharp. Use 1/125 or a tripod. And don't bother with a tripod unless you also use a CABLE RELEASE (unless you use the self-timer).
So please let me know if any of this proves helpful to you!
By the way, my picture was shot with my favorite camera, a simple, cheap, Nikon Coolpix P5100 (CA $150 used on eBay), but I'm switching to a Coolpix P7800 to shoot "raw" files.
Best,
Jim
Mar 9, 2017 08:36:34 #
dixiesimon wrote:
Good Day All, br br I have had a Nikon Equipment ... (show quote)
In addition to the other remarks, you need to compare your D300s against Canons of the same age. The Nikon D300s is several years old and its unfair to compare it to newer cameras. I have a Nikon D70s, a Nikon D7100 and a Nikon D610. The D7100 and D610 have considerably more pixels, resolution and modern features than the D70s. However the D70s is still a very viable camera though it's lowest ISO is 200 and my D7100 and D610 are 100. The main difference between my D610 and the D7100 is that the D610 is full frame and the D7100 is crop frame. There are other differences too but that is the big one.
Mar 9, 2017 08:37:55 #
It is the photographer that takes the picture, not the camera. When you start to understand this, read the book that came with the camera, take some basic photography classes, your photography might start to improve.
Mar 9, 2017 08:46:55 #
Gene51 wrote:
I sometimes use a second shooter on events, and she uses a Canon 5D Mk III. I use a Nikon D800. She has a color checker as do I, and we generate camera calibrations using an Xrite Color Checker Passport - and you cannot tell which camera took which picture after the profiles have been applied.
This quote may not perfectly answer the posed question. But it is at the top of the suspicions confirmed list! If you were to believe this as I do it could effectively shut down this web site. That is except for photo critique and amusement value. If only one of these cameras were cropped sensor and one full frame.
Mar 9, 2017 08:50:11 #
dixiesimon wrote:
Good Day All, br br I have had a Nikon Equipment ... (show quote)
I guarantee you it's not the camera!
Mar 9, 2017 08:55:11 #
leftj wrote:
You really need to be comparing the lenses used to take the photos between the Canons and the Nikons. They may be using a higher quality lens than you. Also post processing may be playing a role.
Operator error causes most such issues. That's the place to start.
Getting tack sharp images requires care. Getting the image sharpness requires setting the picture controls properly if you shoot jpeg or effective post processing if you shoot RAW. Likewise for color rendition. It is very unlikely to have anything to do with hardware.
Mar 9, 2017 09:08:28 #
Judsonc
Loc: Kansas City - west burbs
Can't speak to the better camera system -- your post does however remind me of something that happened a lot in my first profession, I was a golf course manager for 32 years, can't tell you how many members (country club) bought a new set of clubs with the mind set that a new set of clubs would improve their golf game ---- not. I a certainly not questioning your skill in the art of taking pictures, my point is that sometimes - not matter what the "hobby" - "skill" - etc. a person may look at the equipment when the equipment may not be the problem????? With taking pictures, can't begin to count the number of variables that effects the quality of a picture -
Mar 9, 2017 09:16:13 #
I shoot with a Canon ELPH 340. And I run everything through Photoshop Elements which can do wonders. Most serious photographers will laugh at my using such a simple camera and granted, it won't match some of the sophisticated equipment that many use. Here's why I like it. It's about the size of a cell phone so I can take it everywhere. It has 12x optical zoom. It shoots at 16 megapixels, so I can basically point it at what I want and crop the result. This is good because it has no viewfinder. It has an automatic lens cover. And if I lose it or it gets stolen, it won't cost me an arm and a leg to replace. But to go back to my original point, Elements is a great equalizer. I probably wouldn't be happy with this camera if I didn't have Elements.
Mar 9, 2017 09:18:37 #
I w as a Nikon user for years.
2yrs ago I switched to Fuji, starting with the XE2 until water damage killed it.
I replaced it with the XT10 & now the XT2.
I love the colours, the way I can switch from film mode like chrome to vivid for landscape to many others.
The shoot both Raw when I need to, but the jpegs are just so damn good.
I ended up selling off all my Nikon gear, I'm Fuji all the way.
I shoot landscape but not shy away from portraits & wildlife.
Way better on my back too so much lighter.
2yrs ago I switched to Fuji, starting with the XE2 until water damage killed it.
I replaced it with the XT10 & now the XT2.
I love the colours, the way I can switch from film mode like chrome to vivid for landscape to many others.
The shoot both Raw when I need to, but the jpegs are just so damn good.
I ended up selling off all my Nikon gear, I'm Fuji all the way.
I shoot landscape but not shy away from portraits & wildlife.
Way better on my back too so much lighter.
Mar 9, 2017 09:25:27 #
There has to be something wrong with your technique or perhaps the way you set the camera.
The D300 could be old technology but it is a very capable of excellent, vibrant photographs.
The D300 could be old technology but it is a very capable of excellent, vibrant photographs.
Mar 9, 2017 09:27:27 #
OviedoPhotos wrote:
The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence.
Until you make the jump😀😀😀😀
Mar 9, 2017 09:46:24 #
hochocke
Loc: Powell, Ohio
I saw the post stating, "Nikon sets the default sharpening for the Picture Controls low at level 3. Nikon expert, Ken Rockwell, recommends going through all of the Picture Controls and increasing the sharpening to level 6." I have a Nikon D3300 and can not find a Picture Controls menu option. Can anyone provide advice?
Mar 9, 2017 09:56:51 #
brucewells wrote:
I recall having those frustrations a few years ago. Then, it occurred to me that the photographer I was comparing against was a much better photographer than I (at the time), with better glass and did a better job of post processing.
Mar 9, 2017 10:01:04 #
So good to see there are some Canon users out there...and I do not compare because just shooting gives me the joy rather than get caught up in being a pro. Yes, I'm still learning my Canon and read read read and practice.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.