Putting up with the D700

[Auminer]

...and it's oversensitive red channel. I keep making excuses for it, then there are times it looks good. I realize lighting is a big player at times etc, but it ain't right!
Here's an untouched shot for an example:

Anyone else having issues? Is there a setting I'm missing? :confused:

[Tom V]

I've never noticed anything like that with my D700 or any other digital camera. Do you have your vibrancy turned way up? Have you tried a reset to default settings?

[fujifilmnut]

Dave,

The exposure looks off in this photo - the whites in the auto look blown. Is it cropped? What does the histogram look like? Were you in Standard picture control?

Sometimes high contrast situations will fool matrix metering, like the dark rocks and bright sign, leading to overexposure. About the only time I see blown reds is really bright scenes in direct sunlight with loads of red/orange color in the central subject. Day lillies seem to cause this.

[Auminer]

I've never noticed anything like that with my D700 or any other digital camera. Do you have your vibrancy turned way up? Have you tried a reset to default settings?Ya, me neither. Had it set to "Vivid" which might have done it, I'm trying to locate other shots I've taken with this. No, don't want to lose current settings... I know there is a way to copy/save them, guess I'll look into where it is.The exposure looks off in this photo - the whites in the auto look blown. Is it cropped? What does the histogram look like? Were you in Standard picture control?Here's the original shot, f3.5, 1/500, iso 1600 and of course you can see I cropped it to show the red stuff.

Thanks Tom and Jim for commenting, I'll see if I can find a red flower photo I'm thinking of and post it.

I don't see the other red's being that much off, but is that "blasting sign" doing it?

[KeithM]

Hi Dave.

In that shot, it looks like it's the high reflectivity safety signs/clothing ( and to a certain extent the cones ) that are causing trouble.... Is it simply the case that with them being overly reflective towards red, they're swamping the red channel in Vivid mode as it pumps up the saturation ??

Keith.

[Auminer]

Is it simply the case that with them being overly reflective towards red, they're swamping the red channel in Vivid mode as it pumps up the saturation ??I think you have something there Keith, the vivid mode and reflective reds don't seem to get along together! :(

Thanks! :)

If anyone that's shooting the D700 wants to try shooting this combination, I would be interested in seeing how it comes out on your specific D700. :help:

[High ISO!]

Hi Dave
I agree with Keith on the reflective stuff. I think it's messing with the sensor.

Do you shoot RAW? Do you use NX2?

If so, you can change the setting, so if you shoot in Vivid, you can change it to any other setting the camera offers. I used to shoot my D3 in VIVID. After playing with several images, in NX2, I realized shooting in STANDARD gave me better results. I usually do very little tweaking in NX2 now that I am shooting in STANDARD mode in the camera.

That's the beauty of NX2, you can change in camera settings.......I don't think any other RAW processor can do this with NEF files. IIRC......:)

Alissa

[easternherp]

That's the beauty of NX2, you can change in camera settings.......I don't think any other RAW processor can do this with NEF files. IIRC......:)

Alissa

Other RAW processors can do changes, but they are not necessarily labelled up the same. RAW is RAW. All that NX does is read what the camera was set to which other convertors don't always read but the same information is in the RAW file.
The Fuji software does the same for RAF files, you can change the colour settings etc the same as you can in NX with nef files

[proberts]

That's the beauty of NX2, you can change in camera settings.......I don't think any other RAW processor can do this with NEF files. IIRC......:)

Alissa

The "settings" are just adjustments to the raw image. Personally, unless I need Active D-Lighting or moire reduction, I much prefer my camera-presets for RPP to NX, especially with the film gamma curve. If you're running a Mac, RPP is a free program and well-worth the download (turn off chroma blur, choose AHDHwhatever and film gamma and save those for your defaults, run a couple of images through and compare the results.

Paul

[High ISO!]

Sorry Dave,
I didn't mean to get this into a RAW conversion discussion....:surrend

From what I've read, and (I think) I understand.....It's thought that Nikon has encrypted certain NEF info, such as in WB. Nikon convertors, like NX2, are the only ones who can gather all the NEF info to render WB etc. correctly. Other programs are (supposedly) *faking* WB, and some other settings. Something to do with algorythyms (sp?)?

I could be misinterpreting what I *think* I have read.....if I have sorry...:doh: I'm not the best at understanding computer stuff.:Screen_of

Alissa

[KeithM]

In a nutshell Alissa, that is correct.

The best way to think of it is that with the manufacturers Raw convertor, you should be able to emulate the settings available on the camera with a degree of confidence and accuracy ( except that as the software is developed, it can gradually drift away from emulating the camera... Fuji did that to an extent with HS-V2 and the S3 - they implemented increasing noise reduction, for example, to try and compete with newer dSLRs, so raw converted images were lower noise than in camera jpeg, but at the expense of fine detail and texture ). I guess firmware updates could be used to keep track with the raw convertor though.

Other raw convertors, whilst not having access to the encryted data can produce equally good, superior or inferior conversions - and that is often a personal assessment based on how, what, and why you shoot.


Keith.

[proberts]

Sorry Dave,
I didn't mean to get this into a RAW conversion discussion....:surrend

From what I've read, and (I think) I understand.....It's thought that Nikon has encrypted certain NEF info, such as in WB. Nikon convertors, like NX2, are the only ones who can gather all the NEF info to render WB etc. correctly. Other programs are (supposedly) *faking* WB, and some other settings. Something to do with algorythyms (sp?)?

I could be misinterpreting what I *think* I have read.....if I have sorry...:doh: I'm not the best at understanding computer stuff.:Screen_of

Alissa

Dave Coffin figured out the obfuscation (it's not really encryption when the key is enciphered with the data) a long time ago- I'm pretty sure Adobe uses the core DCRaw code with some adjustments, or perhaps these days they're using libRAW, which likely has the same info. RPP certainly lets me use "as shot" WB for my D2x and D3x files. RPP certainly uses libRAW. (It's algorithms.)

Paul

[proberts]

Dave,

You may find this interesting...

http://www.libraw.org/articles/magenta-filters-on-digicam.html

Paul

[Auminer]

Sorry Dave,
I didn't mean to get this into a RAW conversion discussion....Hey Alissa, good seeing ya here! :D Not a problem, I'm always learning.You may find this interesting...Thanks Paul, but I'm not one to use filters...they get in the way. ;)I think you have something there Keith, the vivid mode and reflective reds don't seem to get along together! :(

If anyone that's shooting the D700 wants to try shooting this combination, I would be interested in seeing how it comes out on your specific D700. :help::worthless Any takers??

[Auminer]

Ok, I haven't proven it yet, but think I'm on to something...
I was looking at a few shots I took yesterday with people wearing reflective clothing. Looked ok, then I "assign profile" to "sRGB(whatever)" in PS and the weird red is gone!
What's up?? :confused:
Is this specific only to the D700, or haven't I noticed it before?

I personally don't like to use sRGB in camera 'cause it limits colors available, but some print shops recommend it. I've got my 700 set to RGB.

I'm needing a lesson here... :help:

[Theo2005]

I don't have a D700 but assigning a profile in PS is normally the wrong way to go about these things. You should only assign a profile if PS doesn't know what the correct profile is and you are certain which one it is.

Assigning the inproper profile for an image will normally harm the image. But in some cases it may remove unwanted colors as might be the case in your image.

I think you have selected Adobe-RGB (aRGB) in your D700. This colourspace has more colours in it than the smaller colourspace sRGB (which stands for small RGB for a reason). This may very well replace certains red/orange colours with more subdued colours. Thereby removing the typical cast you dread.

However, other colours (blue, green etc) in your image may also be replaced thus harming the image. It's quite possible to get totally different colours this way.

This is because assigning a profile simply leaves the colour numbers intact but relating them to the colourtable of the profile used.

So the aRGB pixel with colour 128,45,89 simply becomes an sRGB pixel with colour 128,45,89. Not the same colour, see samples attached. You will need to look at the sample in PS as you probably won't see the difference in a web browser. The web browser will be using sRGB and will not be able to show the aRGB patch correctly

If on the other hand you "convert to a profile" than the colours will more or less remain the same.

[Auminer]

I wasn't trying to cure the problem by assigning a profile in PS, I was trying anything to lead me to an answer.I think you have selected Adobe-RGB (aRGB) in your D700.This colourspace has more colours in it than the smaller colourspace sRGB (which stands for small RGB for a reason). This may very well replace certains red/orange colours with more subdued colours. Thereby removing the typical cast you dread.Yes I'm using aRGB because it uses more colors as you are saying. But if I use sRGB I would be losing colors, and would be reducing the red cast as you say...I'll stick with aRGB and PS the reflective reds.
BUT this shouldn't be necessary...should it?? I mean hasn't Nikon realized this?? Does anyone else have this problem?? I haven't seen anyone else's photo demonstrating or not this problem, am I the only D700 owner with it?? :confused:

Thanks Theo you have enlightened me, and have helped bunches! :clap::cheers:

[Auminer]

Theo, I have another question now that you've brought it up. Where do you get those numbers on your samples? I'm using pixie.exe and getting different numbers ie., 254,94,0 (later assigned to sRGB) and 255,76,2 (in aRGB). Just wanting to compare...

[Theo2005]

Theo, I have another question now that you've brought it up. Where do you get those numbers on your samples? I'm using pixie.exe and getting different numbers ie., 254,94,0 (later assigned to sRGB) and 255,76,2 (in aRGB). Just wanting to compare...

I did this sample in PhotoShop. The main thing is you grasp the idea of a set of RGB numbers represented different colours in different colourspaces.

A colourspace is essentially a table of colours with the "name" of each colour. The name being a set of numbers. For sRGB a set of three numbers, for YMCK a set of 4 numbers etc.

Both sRGB and aRGB use sets of three numbers but unfortunately -since the aRGB colourspace is wider than the sRGB space- not the same numbers for the same colour. Tricky stuff :)

In order to preserve the original colours in PhotoShop we always use "convert to colourspace" instead of "assign to colourspace". The first one translates the set of numbers, trying to find the same colour of as close to it as possible, the latter leaves the set of numbers intact thus actually changing the colours in the image.

As for why the D700 is so sensitive to these fluorescent colours, I have no idea. Your vibrant setting may have some impact on this.

Mind you, here in the Netherlands our warning signs don't have these fluorescent colour but simple subdued reds and whites, so I have never seen anything like this before in my own pictures, no matter what camera I used.

I can actually only guess what your signs look like as I haven't seen them in real life.