Compare Settings / Results on wife's Nikon 3100 v. My Nikon 7200
Aug 14, 2017 10:30:11 #
djb663
Loc: Massachusetts
What Dennis said. The brighter area is behind your subjects. So, in order to properly expose your subject, the background is somewhat blown out and the colors aren't as rich. To really compare the pictures and settings have to be identical.
Aug 14, 2017 13:02:58 #
My first thought was similar to dennis. If your camera is set to center weighted or spot metering, and it is focused on the two of you, the exposure could be several stops different from one that is average weighted over the whole scene with about half the picture being sky. I agree, the best test would be take the same scene with both cameras at the same time.
Aug 14, 2017 13:52:47 #
To me it looks as if your wife is shooting jpg. and as others have stated vivid, and you are shooting raw and normal in your picture control settings I shoot that way and bring up the colors in post processing as raw has all the information there but needs to be worked with to get your desired effect (what you saw when you composed and shot the photo.).
James L. wrote:
At the risk of showing my total status as a Novice... (show quote)
Aug 14, 2017 13:55:58 #
did not see this before I posted in that case what Dennis said.
James L. wrote:
No, both shooting in JPEG. I plan to start RAW after a bit...
Aug 14, 2017 14:12:16 #
terry44 wrote:
To me it looks as if your wife is shooting jpg. and as others have stated vivid, and you are shooting raw and normal in your picture control settings I shoot that way and bring up the colors in post processing as raw has all the information there but needs to be worked with to get your desired effect (what you saw when you composed and shot the photo.).
I really thought his looked like RAW also.
Aug 14, 2017 14:18:47 #
I get that look from my raw files nef. and nwr from the B700, then have to do the adjustments.
Pixelpixie88 wrote:
I really thought his looked like RAW also.
Aug 14, 2017 14:57:04 #
terry44 wrote:
To me it looks as if your wife is shooting jpg. and as others have stated vivid, and you are shooting raw and normal in your picture control settings I shoot that way and bring up the colors in post processing as raw has all the information there but needs to be worked with to get your desired effect (what you saw when you composed and shot the photo.).
Maybe my ignorance is showing but how can one possibly look at a photograph and tell whether it is RAW or jpeg? I wouldn't think that was possible.
Dennis
Aug 14, 2017 15:20:50 #
I was just comparing the colors of both and my raw photos are much more muted and need to be worked on to get the effect I saw when taking the photo than jpeg which is close to the finished product
dennis2146 wrote:
Maybe my ignorance is showing but how can one possibly look at a photograph and tell whether it is RAW or jpeg? I wouldn't think that was possible.
Dennis
Dennis
Aug 14, 2017 15:23:05 #
terry44 wrote:
I was just comparing the colors of both and my raw photos are much more muted and need to be worked on to get the effect I saw when taking the photo than jpeg which is close to the finished product
What does that mean? I understand you looking at colors but does that really mean anything? If you looked at two of my photos or anybody's photos could you say the same thing? I am asking if anyone can look at a RAW photo and tell it from a jpeg.
Dennis
Aug 14, 2017 15:35:54 #
Do not know what answer you are looking for, RAW files are unprocessed, they come out looking flat and dark (muted). RAW images need to be viewed and processed using software, JPEG files are processed right within the camera and processed the image to add blacks, contrast, brightness, noise reduction, sharpening and then render the file to a JPEG. These files are pretty well finished and can be viewed and printed immediately after shot or processed more in your software though you will not have the leeway that a RAW file gives. Hope that helps.
dennis2146 wrote:
What does that mean? I understand you looking at colors but does that really mean anything? If you looked at two of my photos or anybody's photos could you say the same thing? I am asking if anyone can look at a RAW photo and tell it from a jpeg.
Dennis
Dennis
Aug 14, 2017 15:57:13 #
dennis2146 wrote:
Maybe my ignorance is showing but how can one possibly look at a photograph and tell whether it is RAW or jpeg? I wouldn't think that was possible.
Dennis
Dennis
Hi Dennis....exactly what Terry44 said. Raw is like a negative and needs to be developed. The camera processes jpegs...not RAW. After awhile you can tell the difference just by looking at them online.
Aug 14, 2017 18:12:32 #
If you want a truly assessed comparison, set both cameras to take the same subject at the same time with the same settings. Just being in the same place isn't going to produce similar enough images. Have you and your wife agree to a common "target", then each take your photo at about the exact same time. Then post those images for comparison.
--Bob
--Bob
James L. wrote:
At the risk of showing my total status as a Novice... (show quote)
Aug 14, 2017 18:13:28 #
I think that putting a polarizing filter on the lens, you could improve the sky without changing the grass much. The shadows in the 2 photos look different, no sure why, but that makes up some of the difference.
Aug 14, 2017 18:15:03 #
Where are you from in Minnesota my wife is from International Falls and I lived in Big Falls for many years.
Pixelpixie88 wrote:
Hi Dennis....exactly what Terry44 said. Raw is like a negative and needs to be developed. The camera processes jpegs...not RAW. After awhile you can tell the difference just by looking at them online.
Aug 14, 2017 18:32:52 #
terry44 wrote:
Where are you from in Minnesota my wife is from International Falls and I lived in Big Falls for many years.
I am from I. Falls....:-)
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.