Photos look washed out (Page 3): Program mode is the same as Auto on the D-200 If you change any settings, it is then P*...

bkyser Loc: Fly over country in Indiana

authorizeduser wrote:

D200 has no auto setting

Program mode is the same as Auto on the D-200 If you change any settings, it is then P*

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

bkyser wrote:

Program mode is the same as Auto on the D-200 If you change any settings, it is then P*

Damn, I thought 'P' was for Professional mode. Now I have to rethink my entire shooting method. 8-)

Meives Loc: FORT LAUDERDALE

[quote=authorizeduser] Authorizeduser, please post your original picture before processing and click on "store original".

This way we can check your camera settings. David

georgevedwards Loc: Essex, Maryland.

Did you buy the camera used? It came out in 2007 or so. From a private seller or refurbished by BH or similar?

authorizeduser wrote:

I just bought a nice D200 but I am having trouble getting photos which do not look washed out. Everything seems to be working. I can run the photos through Photoshop and make them look super. Any suggestions? I am, obviously not a pro ..... LOL

I have attached a sample - JPG right from the camera. No filters were used.
All the settings are set to normal. No sharpening.

authorizeduser Loc: Monroe, Michigan

Bought the camera March 2009 from Best Buy. They were clearing them out for $650.

Kinopless Loc: Mandurah, Western Australia

authorizeduser wrote:

Bought the camera March 2009 from Best Buy. They were clearing them out for $650.

Does that mean it's a new problem or have you been putting up with it for four years ?

authorizeduser Loc: Monroe, Michigan

I never knew how dull the photos were until I saw the photos from a friends Nikon D100. The D200 I would think should be better or at least as good as the old D100. I always used Photoshop to correct photos. I was not aware they should not be so dull from the camera. DUMB ME!

Kinopless Loc: Mandurah, Western Australia

authorizeduser wrote:

I never knew how dull the photos were until I saw the photos from a friends Nikon D100. The D200 I would think should be better or at least as good as the old D100. I always used Photoshop to correct photos. I was not aware they should not be so dull from the camera. DUMB ME!

Not dumb at all, you weren't sure what to expect I guess. The D200 is a good camera and the results straight out of the box should be fabulous, not as good as the latest whiz-bang models but certainly capable of great images and without the need to use Photoshop. PS and other enhancement programs can improve images but can equally spoil excellent photos.
Just one question, does the image look smoky and dull through the viewfinder or bright and clear?

EstherP

authorizeduser wrote:

I never knew how dull the photos were until I saw the photos from a friends Nikon D100. The D200 I would think should be better or at least as good as the old D100. I always used Photoshop to correct photos. I was not aware they should not be so dull from the camera. DUMB ME!

Have you looked at the manual at all?
If not, please go to page 60-62 and read them carefully.
Maybe even ask you friend what settings from these pages she has on her camera and duplicate them.
If you can't get those settings, play around with the settings as suggested on these pages and take lots of test-images.

If in the end, you have changed the settings so much that you can't find head or tail, reset the lot, see pages 144/145

Happy button-clicking ;-)
EstherP

authorizeduser Loc: Monroe, Michigan

Kinopless wrote:

Not dumb at all, you weren't sure what to expect I guess. The D200 is a good camera and the results straight out of the box should be fabulous, not as good as the latest whiz-bang models but certainly capable of great images and without the need to use Photoshop. PS and other enhancement programs can improve images but can equally spoil excellent photos.
Just one question, does the image look smoky and dull through the viewfinder or bright and clear?

So far as I am concerned the image through the viewfinder looks bright and clear. Do not see any dirt at all. Cleaned lens both front and back.

EstherP

EstherP wrote:

Have you looked at the manual at all?
If not, please go to page 60-62 and read them carefully.
Maybe even ask you friend what settings from these pages she has on her camera and duplicate them.
If you can't get those settings, play around with the settings as suggested on these pages and take lots of test-images.

If in the end, you have changed the settings so much that you can't find head or tail, reset the lot, see pages 144/145

Happy button-clicking ;-)
EstherP

Oops.... So sorry, I quoted the pages for the manual for the D100. So let me start this over again:
For the D200, check page 45 for Vivid and More Vivid images.

EstherP

authorizeduser Loc: Monroe, Michigan

Thanks everyone for all the help you have tried to give me. I just stimbled on something. I have always been told to shot RAW only thus the camera is always set to RAW. I set the camera to RAW and JPEG and did a comparison. After setting the camera to ENHANCED SATURATION and MORE VIVID here is what I got. The RAW did look noticeably better than the camera default settings but still IMHO dull. The JPEG on the other hand had brilliant colors which leaped out at you. Am I to assume that if I want brilliant colors straight from the camera I need to do JPEG? The RAW have always required post processing to get the same results. Will now go outside and try some shots. I may have had the camera for 4 years but have had little time to play with it. My shutter count is less than 7400.

Note: The RAW image was converted to jpg so I could post it

RAW ( NEF )

JPEG

Meives Loc: FORT LAUDERDALE

[quote=authorizeduser]Raw photos are not designed to look good. They contains all the camera capture and the raw data cane be used to brighten dark photos and produce the sharpest JPEG that is possable. I have the camera data from the faded picture #1.

authorizeduser Loc: Monroe, Michigan

This photo was taken on a sunny day. WHY SO DARK? This is what I do not understand! Is it the lens? The lens is a Nikon 28-105 4.5 - 5.5. I have tried every setting I can think of. I can effect the colors but noT the brightness. If I run the EV up +1 it is slightly brighter and +2 severely over exposes. I am wondering if this D200 is defective. It has always been this way. Damn, my phones camera does a better job. The second photo was taken a few minutes later after the sun was not so bright. If looks better and I do not understand why. The only thing changed was the zoom factor which does change the f stop.

F 4.5

F 5.6

Sandu Loc: Brasov, Romania

authorizeduser wrote:

This photo was taken on a sunny day. WHY SO DARK? This is what I do not understand! Is it the lens? The lens is a Nikon 28-105 4.5 - 5.5. I have tried every setting I can think of. I can effect the colors but noT the brightness. If I run the EV up +1 it is slightly brighter and +2 severely over exposes. I am wondering if this D200 is defective. It has always been this way. Damn, my cheap pocket camera does a better job.

There's nothing wrong with you and your camera! The problem is the light ... according to the lack of shadows, you took it in the worst moment of the day. If you want pictures taken at midday, try at least to move the dog somewhere in a shadow.