D70 vs D300 - I hate the images from the D300

Mr_Fox said:
I'm exactley the same. Ever since changing to the D300s i've regretted every minute...

Skin tones are completely horrendous!

I've worked with the D80, D90 and D2X and have never experienced anything like it.. I'm actually looking forward to the day i can afford to get rid of it..
Click to expand...

This is interesting. Yet I remember so many reviews that spoke so highly of the skin tones on the D300. I am beginning to wonder if there is a variaiton between batches.

Have you seen Scott's pictures he posted in this thread? The skin tones are more like the ones I've envied from my Canon buddies and very natural?

How would you describe the skin tones you are getting?
 
If you're shooting raw aren't these things as much to do with the software as the camera? After all, a raw file is basically just a load of photon counts. The software makes the colours, converts to a colour space, applies a tone curve and so on. I don't know what software you have, but results certainly can vary from one app to the next, and some apps offer alternative conversion profile options. I remember a while back that Lightroom seemed to lag behind new Canon cameras as they were released, and the first cut of the software did not do the greatest job of handling new raw formats. It took a further point release for the 40D, 50D and 7D before Adobe seemed to get the hang of the cameras. If you're on old software perhaps it is not optimised for the D300 as well as it might be.

Here's an old and simple evaluation of some raw converters by Thom Hogan (Nikon shooter) - http://www.bythom.com/raw.htm. I have seen more in depth comparisons, but Google is failing me at the moment. The point is, the camera is not alone in determining the results.

p.s. if your monitor is not calibrated, or not calibrated properly, or your ambient lighting is not sufficiently subdued and neutral in tone then I'm not sure that's the best environment for judging sking tones or colours in general, contrast too.
 
Last edited:
I agree. I use Lightroom when I need to work fast and if possible but otherwise I'll endure the pain of using Capture NX 2. More often than not I can get better results in Capture but the computer I work on is not powerful enough to endure the horrendous coding behind that program. It is better to use given that it understands the format better than any other software for obvious reasons.

LR on the other hand is getting much better by providing similar presets to the Nikon Standard/ neutral models and it was partly due to LR that gave me even more of a problem when I used it due to its default 'adobe standard' calibration being a bit on the red side.

When I was using the D70 I found LR intollerable as it really stripped everything away. I think the D70 always had some kind of curve attached even, the non-picture control (can't remember what it was called) didn't allow a completely raw result so putting it into LR was a shock. With the d300 at least you've already got a dull looking raw file so LR doesn't make it look much different, the starting points are roughtly the same in both packages now.


I didn't realise though that colour space & colours were processed via external software. I know NEFs are basically TIFF / as are CR2 and PSD files, and hence are capable of holding colour information, color space etc, so I assumed that part of the low end process was handled in camera but in a neutral way without any post processing data, wb, curves etc. Technically I've not gone that deep into what data is stored in a raw file but why would they use the TIFF format if that were the case?
 
I don't know the finer points of the raw format, especially for Nikon, but raw files should not have a colour space assigned. They should contain counts of photons and some metadata, and that should be pretty much it. One benefit of raw, amongst many, is that you retain all the colour information that the camera saw and captured. You get to decide what to throw away or massage later on when you decide which colour space to end up with. Well, that's how it works with Canon. I did read a few years ago that Nikon does something funny with the black level in the raw files, which helps conceal noise, whereas Canon leaves the data unmolested (or less molested), leaving it up to the photographer to decide what to do with that dirty data. Maybe there is more jiggling internally with the data than one might hope/suspect. But colour space conversion and assignment really should not be part of that processing.

Hmmmm..... http://www.completedigitalphotography.com/?p=489
 
Last edited:
tdodd said:
But colour space conversion and assignment really should not be part of that processing.
Click to expand...

I guess even though you can set srgb or adobe rgb as your colour space this is just passed as an indicator of what to do to the data. This should mean that if you swtiched from one to the othe in software, from a lower gamma to a higher gamma there'd be no loss as would result in a normal softwre conversion.

Hmmmm..... http://www.completedigitalphotography.com/?p=489
Click to expand...

Interesing, I've just been getting my head around the idea of shooting to the right and as soon as I began reading that I did wonder if it would negate this. Sure enough later on .. yep, all for nothing if you use compressed raw. I do use compressed raw, I think I'll sort that out right now. Thanks for the heads up.
 
Last edited:
While the colour space choice in camera should not affect the raw file, apart from the value in the colour space field, if you were to shoot to JPEG, or raw + JPEG then it would of course need to be set. However, even if shooting just to raw (for Canon at least) the choice of colour space will affect the embedded JPEG file used for preview display on the camera and from which the histogram is generated. Ditto other parameters such as WB, saturation, sharpness, contrast, picture style and more fancy adjustments. Since these parameters can have a definite impact on the histogram they should be set with due care in order to avoid a misleading impression of exposure.
 
Last edited:
I have one camera with a CCD sensor (the 1D classic), and my wife can tell from the colors which photos have been taken with it. Personally I think that the newer cameras I have with CMOS are maybe a bit closer to reality while the 1D tends to saturate more especially with reds and compresses the ends of the dynamic range more than CMOS.. this is very hard to see and is just a hunch after shooting hundreds of pictures with the 1D.

Know nothing about Nikons though and in any case I'm probably way off and imagining things here ;)

I shoot everything in RAW so in-camera processing shouldn't make a difference. Never really looked at what kind of default profiles Aperture has for the different cameras.
 
Hi, Haven't read all the thread in detail but I was in exactly the same boat as the OP when I upgraded from the D60 to D300, For some reason the standard colour schemes on the D300 are bogging! :D

DOwnloaded the colour scheme's from Nikon and now only shoot using the D2X simulation modes! (plus monochrome when the mood suits!)

Go and have a play!
http://nikonimglib.com/opc/index.html.en

Stuart
 
Last edited:
Could just be your d70 is a better match for your CRT. Pics look better from D300 on my iPad. Either way it's all subjective :).
 
I've been doing a bit more reading on the subject and have come across this...

DNG Profiles

"What is really nice about this new feature is that with Nikons the skin tones were spectacular right out of the camera - and the only way to preserve those colors in the past for raw image files was to use Nikon Capture NX or NX2. Now with the Adobe Camera Profiles we can have our cake and eat it because we can get those colors as a starting point for our raw images within Lightroom now."

http://blogs.oreilly.com/lightroom/2008/08/adobe-camera-profiles-and-ligh.html
 
tdodd said:
parameters such as WB, saturation, sharpness, contrast, picture style and more fancy adjustments. Since these parameters can have a definite impact on the histogram they should be set with due care in order to avoid a misleading impression of exposure.
Click to expand...

Yes I read Thom Hogan's remarks on this situation and it explains a bit more of what the LCD is showing. I would have preferred Nikon to allow an override on this option because it can be a bit of a problem if, as Hogan says, your PP intent is different to the settings.

Seeing this is what the histograms are created from I'm a little apprehensive about using them. If setting RAW standard or neutral I'm still a little in the dark about what actually is rendered to the LCD suffice to say that the LCD does not show and accurate view of a standard / neutral RAW, so it's kind of hard to understand Hogan's 'if you mismatch the settings your histogram will lie to you'. I can of course fully understand setting a picture control like Vivid and then, as I often do, set it to neutral in Capture NX.
 
PAHammond73 said:
Just been reading this thread on the subject

http://www.flickr.com/groups/508072@N22/discuss/72157622967844622/
Click to expand...

I've noticed the noise increase too on occasion but initially I put this down to the fact that LR automatically sets sharpening to +25 by default. There's another gotcha which many people didn't realise is that viewing 100% in the Library option is not the same as in the developer option. You'll see obvious Jpeg type artifacts when zoomed. No big though. LR 3 is a big impromement on it's predecessor but how much I can't say since I find it requires much more processing power so until I get it onto my i7 I won't really know.
 
PAHammond73 said:
I've been doing a bit more reading on the subject and have come across this...


"What is really nice about this new feature is that with Nikons the skin tones were spectacular right out of the camera - and the only way to preserve those colors in the past for raw image files was to use Nikon Capture NX or
Click to expand...

This is an old article (2008) Since then they released presets for Nikon's picture controls. These were tons better and quite close to what I'd expect to see in Capture. On second thoughts they may be the same thing, I just don't remember 'dng profiles' being mentioned when I downloaded those.

Adobe standard was quite reddish when applied to the Nikon (maybe for Canon too). ACR4 was closer but I found a shift in exposure when choosing that.
 
stu_the_flat said:
DOwnloaded the colour scheme's from Nikon and now only shoot using the D2X simulation modes! (plus monochrome when the mood suits!)

Stuart
Click to expand...

I find the D2x mode 2 a quite similar to neutral but don't undersand mode 1 or 3 which give odd results. I think those may suit people who owned a d2x and were used to processing those files. I've not played extensively with them though. I have them in camera though, just in case.
 
Am reading this thread and its answers wth great interest! I too have had a great deal of noise with my D300 and have had to treat ISO400 as an absolute maximum. I've done a bit of searching around recently, and have found suggestions that things like the picture control set to Vivid and the D-lighting being turned on will cause noise, even when shooting in raw. Now I'd always been under the impression these settings had no effect to raw files - I've not had much of a chance to try these things out yet, but so far it looks like such settings could well be my problems.

Just out of interest (and kind of related....) what are peoples thoughts of the in camera high ISO noise reduction?
 
It's well known that the D300 metering system is pretty 'bang on' when it comes to exposures, very very accurate in side by side tests with other camera's in it's class, i think it was camera of the year 2007.
 
Graham00 said:
It's well known that the D300 metering system is pretty 'bang on' when it comes to exposures, very very accurate in side by side tests with other camera's in it's class, i think it was camera of the year 2007.
Click to expand...

I wish that was true of flash exposure. With mine it undexposes by 1.3 - 1.5EV (TTL BL) or .7EV (TTL) which is a bit much for my taste even allowing for Nikon's intentional highlight protection.
 
GoLotus said:
to Vivid and the D-lighting
Click to expand...

I used to leave active d-lighting on all the time since Capture will allow you to turn it off anyway. If it's not on Capture won't show an option to turn it on. Recently I've turned it off to avoid even more undereposure but I don't notice a difference in the noise levels. Looks about the same to me.

Just out of interest (and kind of related....) what are peoples thoughts of the in camera high ISO noise reduction?
Click to expand...

Personally I don't rate it compared to using software which is better by far IMO. Like a lot of in camera ops I tend to turn them all off, sharpening, NR but this is when shooting RAW, for JPG it might be convenient if you don't want to fiddle with them after.
 
vaizki said:
I have one camera with a CCD sensor (the 1D classic), and my wife can tell from the colors which photos have been taken with it. Personally I think that the newer cameras I have with CMOS are maybe a bit closer to reality while the 1D tends to saturate more especially with reds and compresses the ends of the dynamic range more than CMOS..
Click to expand...

I feel it's the opposite and really what kind of bugs me. The D70's CCD seem to have better smoother tones with pleasing shadows. D300 gives harsh muddy shadows to my eye but I still don't know if this is the characteristic of the sensor technology. Perhaps not if your experience is the other way around.
 
I hate the imAges.from my d300 but that could be down.to the.fact my.other camera is a d3 :)
 
Last edited:
pouring through many more photos, I think the problem might be an overkeen red channel. I have an abundance of lobsters . People with awful red skin tones. This is one thing that stands out picture after picture.

Not so with pictures posted here or ones I've seen elsewhere. I'm wondering if this kind of thing has happened or even possible without it being obvious. Or perhaps WB calculations are wrong. I don't know if that's even possible.

I guess the only way to find out is to find someone with a d300 or d300s and do like for like comparisons.
 
I couldn't see where it said that. It mentions white balance in artificial light as poor.

I also see on that page the flash tests were well exposed. Something that convinces me that my need for +1.3EV when using TTL BL isn't right.
 
Hi Louis,

You know that there are four banks to store settings, you might want to play with them and store four different settings on them.

One you could have the NR on low, no light processing (dynamic one).
Also check the vivid/saturation/contrast settings. You can customise these to how every you like.

Two you could set on Adobe the other two on the other setting. This also affects the pictures. Some seem to be smooth, but lack contrast. The others tend to be contrast but not smooth between the colours.

I know people dont like Ken Rockwell, but he did mention these settings and has some defaults to start from.

I've used the d300 recently for some shots, so have a look through the flickr link in the siggy. I have some sets on there for the different lenses.

If you know anyone local with a d300 perhaps you can meet up with them and try their camera, see if the results are the same as yours (using the same lens and your memory card).
 
had a quick whizz through this thread but can't see thie mentioned anywhere but to the op
reading your exif details it looks like your D70 has saturation set as "high" and shaprness as "normal" and your d300 pics as saturation "normal" and shaprness as "soft". could this be part of the problem?
 
I would definitely have all your settings checked. Did you buy new or used? There are a lot of in camera settings to check.
 
You can see the lighting difference. I'm not sure I see no more of a problem the just getting into the menu and go line by line and adjust the camera
 
ecniv said:
If you know anyone local with a d300 perhaps you can meet up with them and try their camera, see if the results are the same as yours (using the same lens and your memory card).
Click to expand...

Hi thanks for the suggestions, I have tried virtually everything I can. I did try to lower the contrast as the D70s soft rich tones seem to start off less contrasty however, I don't get rich tones with the d300 although lowering the contrast gives a bit more latitude.

I do find it difficult to describe what I am having trouble with. If you feel inclined have a look at this NEF file. This is again not a good photo but I do want to keep away from anything arty or well lit so as to not distract from the image quality.

This is slightly under exposed but well within limits. Play with the levels and watch the area on the bridge of the babies nose and also her top left forhead.
When adjusting levels these patches seem not change much (as though they were blown) yet no channel is clipped. It looks awful and illustrates the kind of problem I find in so many photos. If I'd done this photo with the D70 a couple of tweaks would give me a pleasing image. But I just can't seem to do anything with this, it's harsh and because of those areas that don't adjust linearly with the rest of the tones it's hard to get any kind of smooth tones.

I'm sure many are going to tell me it's lighting or the way the photo was taken, but I have 1000 examples of images that were done in all kinds of conditions with the d70 that wouldn't give me any problems.

Here's the NEF I'd be interested in what you make of it and if you'd identify this kind of problem with your d300. (if you open it with capture nx2 just reset my adjustments).

http://www.louiscarresi.co.uk/gallery/test/DSC_7388.NEF

I guess the best way I can describe the differences between the D70 and quite a few other cameras is that it renders soft creamy tones, usually quite low in contrast but when you tweak them they come up a treat. I've lowered the contrast to some extent which does help with red clipping which always happens on the D300 almost every time but I don't get the latitude. I have a scene from outside my window taken with both cameras which really shows this up although lighting is different the richness is just not there with the D300. I could upload those but they are big and so I won't unless you request them.

At the end of the day I may just be looking at what the D300 is and comparing to what the d70 is. However, if that really is the case I'd say the quality of the D70 is far superiour in every way to the D300 in image quality and that doesn't make any sense given the reviews and what most people say.

As for comparing shot for shot my friend says he's going to ask someone at his camera club if I can compare some shots with a d300s owner although this may be while before I can arrange it.
 
Last edited:
BazEP said:
had a quick whizz through this thread but can't see thie mentioned anywhere but to the op
reading your exif details it looks like your D70 has saturation set as "high" and shaprness as "normal" and your d300 pics as saturation "normal" and shaprness as "soft". could this be part of the problem?
Click to expand...

Sure, the d70 had the previous version of picture control and the settings I had then are not that similar but rest assured when comparing I've taken all the settings off in Capture NX2 and even set the standard picture control on and it still looks smooth and pleasing in tones. I see none of the colour break up or harshness in highlight / shadow transitions that the D300 gives. If I had the D70 now I'd have been able to set up identical shots with both cameras which would show the differences much better. Sharpness / focus and all that should be ignored, this isn't what I am concentrating on. It's tones and quality of the images tones. I can only describe it as smoth and creamy for the D70 and harsh / muddy for the d300.

Not very technical terms I know.
 
Last edited:
Joepazzo said:
I would definitely have all your settings checked. Did you buy new or used? There are a lot of in camera settings to check.
Click to expand...

It was new when I got it but not in warranty now. This was a gradual process, I just had problems adjusting images and it never really occured to me why. I lost inspiration and confidence till a while ago I began to question why it was. I used to take a lot of photos, I just don't want to pick the camera up these days because I know it's not going to give me a good image.

A really good example was going to the Bluebell railway. I did this trip twice, once with the d70 and when I first got the d300. I had some very good pictures with the d70 and I ended up ditching everything I did on the day with the D300.

eg. This shot would be impossible on the d300.

http://www.louiscarresi.co.uk/gallery/test/DSC_0033_TrainWheel.jpg
 
I' m sick of this thread. You are a subtle troll Louis, but a troll none-the-less. Nothing anybody says is going to change your mind...so why post in the first place. If your D70 was so great sell your D300 and buy another D70 and quit whining about " not being inspired" to pick up your camera because you "know" the pictures will all be bad. Grow a pair of brass ones and either learn how to use what kit you have or get rid of it.
 
hunter20ga said:
I' m sick of this thread.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the kind words. I'm sure no one is forcing you to read this thread. Perhaps you should 'get some brass ones and learn' to move on when you don't like what you read. It's easy enough to do. And AFAIK a 'troll' is "someone who posts controversial and usually irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community". As the OP I hardly see how that applies to me, on the other hand your input might be a different matter.

I'm simply trying to find out if I have a fault or I do indeed have to learn to live with what I have, why is that so bad?

Of course as you are quite happy with your gear I'm sure no one else could possibly have a problem but thanks for the helpful comments anyway.
 
I had a look at the .NEF and to be honest I don't understand what the problem is. There are many ways to render the file, but I don't know what look you are aiming for. Here it is with just a change of camera profile. Is it better, worse, I don't know. It is different. It looks OK on my screen.

louiscar.jpg
 
louiscar I don't really know what you are looking for but I have found some processing problems myself.

Now I don't have LR or Photoshop what I use is normally PhotoPlus X2 which I got dirt cheap.

When I take a sot I always process it the same way whether Raw or JPEGs (for which I often get a lot of stick :lol:).

I use the Canon software DPP to convert them first to 16bit TIFF files before importing them into my editing programs.

Now I don't know how your program converts the RAW file so you can work on them but I once tried converting my JPEGs to 8 bit TIFF files to save space and time anf found the results were quite poor with the kind of thing you seem to be talking about.

Not so much in tonal variation but in in the breakup of the smooth tones into the kind of "banding" you get when JPEGs are compressed too much.

My advice would be to try a different system of processing.

First convert your RAW files into 16 bit (or better) TIFF files and then try processing them in a FREE editor like photoscape which is excellent.

And you can also check your monitor with this calibration image:

http://www.dscolourlabs.co.uk/images/calibration_image.jpg

check the B/W steps on the right hand side.

You should be able to see all the steps - if not adjust your monitor until you can or until you get thm the best you can.

Once you can see all the steps the colours in the pics should look vibrant and clean without being oversaturated.

Hope this is helpful to you.

.
 
Last edited:
tdodd said:
I had a look at the .NEF
Click to expand...

Yes it looks ok. I was trying to get you to look at the areas at the bridge of the nose and the top right. Pale patches. These didn't exist on the subject and I don't know why they turn up on skin tones. If you play with levels these areas seem to 'stick' - when you darken the image for instance they seem to resist going richer in tone as the other areas will. Does that make sense?

I'm familiar with this behaviour only when one or all channels blow, but I'm pretty sure no channel actually clips. Any ideas why these areas are troublesome? They become a problem when you are trying to maybe go for a high contrast image etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top