DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register

DPChallenge Forums >> Individual Photograph Discussion >> D70 1st sunset shoot
Showing posts 1 - 15 of 15, (reverse)
04/16/2004 05:02:46 PM · #1
These are the first real shots that I have taken with the new camera. Local lake, obviously at sunset. Nikon D70 w/ Nikkor 17-35mm 2.8 tripod mounted. Sandisk 256 Ultra cf card. jpeg Fine L settings. Shot roughly 45 shots using auto, aperature priority, and some of the selected settings like landscape and night landscape. ISO 200 with aperatures ranging from 2.8 to 16.
Grid was on to assist me in aligning the horizon and 3rds placement of subjects.

' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/12223/thumb/70504.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/12223/thumb/70504.jpg', '/') + 1) . '

' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/12223/thumb/70506.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/12223/thumb/70506.jpg', '/') + 1) . '

Message edited by author 2004-04-18 20:30:01.
04/16/2004 05:09:13 PM · #2
I think that's the first time I've seen someone list the make and type and size of the memory card on which their shots have been saved.

All shots seem OK - though there are a number of compression artefacts. Seeems a shame to have that fabulous new camera and not to present them in the best possible manner.


04/16/2004 10:57:25 PM · #3

Certainly appreciate the critique. Not sure I completely understand the "best possible manner" comment. Pardon my ignorance, but my understanding has been that "resized" or compressed photos for "web" posting diminish the "best" data captured on the original, so for pics used as practice or intended for web posting, is it still necessary to shoot in RAW mode? TIFF is not an option on the D70 and the next highest settings below RAW is jpeg Fine L, which is what I used.

If you could explain the benefit of shooting in RAW for web posts, then it would be greatly beneficial to me.


04/16/2004 11:04:35 PM · #4
I don't think he said RAW. I think he (or maybe she) mentioned that you have some compression artifacts because of your choice of compression. In other words, I too just bought the d70 and noted that if I shoot with the basic setting (the factory default) then using that Nikon Picture Project and compressing to have a smaller size there are artifacts, distortion of the image. The shot you took providing you used the kit lens should look a bit sharper. Could be in camera processing that you've decided to use or out of camera processing.

Now, the benefit of RAW? Well I took a shot today using some WB that was not at all what it should have been, using Nikon Capture I was able to alter that WB setting thus saving the photograph.
RAW gives me only about 26 shots on a 256 card, but I carry a 40gig image bank and I have another 512 card on order so I am not concerned.
RAW can save an image because you have more control over it by using Nikon Capture or probably Photoshop CS (which I don't have, I have v7).
04/16/2004 11:21:18 PM · #5

I appreciate the discussion. I cannot remember which settings the camera was on for these particular posts, however it is quite possible that these could have come from a set while on a landscape setting where some in camera processing was taking place. Also these "compression artifacts" could have come from or been added to in PSP8's "one step photo fix".

Regarding your choice to shoot RAW, I believe I understand the advantage from a file's "pureness" standpoint, but again my manual says that 8x10's should be perfectly presentable at 200dpi when using jpeg Fine L. Now it may be the case that the manual does not know what it is talking about, which is why these discussions help me separate the wheat from the chaffe. So, do you intend to always shoot in RAW for the maximum benefit in editing or do you at times choose to shoot in modes other than RAW? If so, then what circumstances influence you on when to choose RAW and when to shoot something else?

04/17/2004 01:36:44 AM · #6
Actually, I wasn't making any comment about the out-of-camera image at all, much rather about whatever software you have used to re-size it for display. The third of those shots is only 37K or so, and it's that level of compression that's resulted in the evil lines around the tree.

Just seems a shame to have a $1,000 camera, and yet exhibit it's images like that. What software are you using?

04/17/2004 02:15:14 AM · #7
Originally posted by Flash:

Also these "compression artifacts" could have come from or been added to in PSP8's "one step photo fix".

He's using Paint Shop Pro v8. I don't know about that program. But in Photoshop I just select "save for web" and then adjust the "quality setting number" so that the file size is somewhere between 120-250kb (for a 640x480 image). This file/image size combo seems to produce good photos for web posting.

I'm sure PSP8 has a similar save for web feature. Hope this helps.
04/17/2004 08:49:09 AM · #8
Actually both replys are helpful. e301 indicates a 37K file size and so now I understand his comment clearly. lykofos mention of the resize process is PS is also helpful. I have never used that particular option and I have elements 2.0 on my system, so I'll check it out.

Regarding these three particular images, I did not resize them at all, specifically because I wanted to optimize the "representation" of what the camera actually took. When I uploaded them to my portfolio page, I uploaded the full file. So that was where some of my confusion was coming from. If I uploaded the full file, (without resizing compression)to specifically increase the potential for an actual representation, then what are these comments about compression atrifacts, when there shouldn't be any? But obviously, there is some compressing going on, so now I have to find out what I did or what contributed to the "resizing". Maybe it occurred in the "photo fix" and I just didn't pick up on it.

Again thanks for expanding my understanding. I am determined to get this yet.

The Nikon manual lists jpeg Fine L as an image 3008x2000 pixels which is supposed to provide prints of 15"x10" at 200dpi. I initially believed that that file size should translate into a "high quality" representation, so I obviously do not understand the interactions of image capture size in the camera and the transitions that the file goes through as it is processed and posted. Any explanations would be great.

Message edited by author 2004-04-17 09:14:09.
04/17/2004 10:10:20 AM · #9
Update on file compression.....

The original file was 2.65mb (jpeg Fine L)
PSP8 "one step fix" reduced it automatically to 802KB
Uploading to portfolio page converted it to 785.4KB and in medium 43.6KB

So here is an example of ZERO intentional compression or resizing and a 2.65MB file ending up at 43.6KB.

Question.....how do I prevent "compression artifacts"? How does one "optimize" the veiwing properties of their photos?

(sp) edit

Message edited by author 2004-04-17 10:12:46.
04/17/2004 09:03:57 PM · #10
I don't know about Elements - though I belive there are file size setting available in 'save for web' - but that's just from memory of others' comments. In PSP8 there's an optimiser feature in the save window - click on that and it gives you options to change the level of compression, and tells you how large the resulting file will be. That's the process I use for every challenge submission of mine.

The site's native re-size for images over 640 in any dimension is not very good - those artefacts are absolutely typical of it.

04/17/2004 11:26:57 PM · #11

Thanks for the replys and thanks for the insight for furture corrections.
04/18/2004 05:08:53 PM · #12
Todays attempt at a "save for the web"

' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/12223/thumb/70811.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/12223/thumb/70811.jpg', '/') + 1) . '

D70, Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8
04/18/2004 05:18:27 PM · #13
This appears to be a "gif" Daniel, not reccomended for photographs, it is very lossy.
Save for web as a jpeg and just alter the % til you get the size you want, and still have reasonable quality.
04/18/2004 07:31:33 PM · #14

new effort.
' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/12223/thumb/70843.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/12223/thumb/70843.jpg', '/') + 1) . '

original file was 1.74MB at 2240x1488
04/18/2004 08:26:06 PM · #15
Originally posted by e301:

Actually, I wasn't making any comment about the out-of-camera image at all, much rather about whatever software you have used to re-size it for display. The third of those shots is only 37K or so, and it's that level of compression that's resulted in the evil lines around the tree.

Just seems a shame to have a $1,000 camera, and yet exhibit it's images like that. What software are you using?


Just out of curiosity, where are these “evil lines” that you mention? I looked carefully at all three images and I didn’t see any. The quality of the photos looks okay to me--certainly as good as the majority of photos I see on this site. With file sizes limited to 150K you’re bound to loose some definition. Could you point them out please?


Current Server Time: 05/24/2022 05:17:58 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.

Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2022 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 05/24/2022 05:17:58 PM EDT.