Nikon D800......

I mean you are compressing your JPEGs too much... setting too low a quality settings. Looking at your images, they seem to lack detail in places like the trees.. a sure sign of over compression.

You are using a £2000 full frame camera, and a £1200 prime lens... and then shooting JPEGs? It's not necessarily the fact that it's a JPEG in itself (although for shooting landscapes with high end equipment, I can think of no argument whatsoever for shooting in JPEG).. the ones I posted are now JPEGs because they're on Flickr... but mine are 25MB each... yours are 10MB.. which means they are over compressed. You've also cropped, or resized the images too.. that's not helping in the sharpness stakes.


Never mind hyperfocal distance... you have bigger issues to resolve. Focusing is not the issue with the images you posted.

If you are not cropping these images, then something in your workflow is definitely resizing them. The files for full size JPEGs are very small, and the compression data would suggest very low quality settings for JPEG.

Mine is left, yours is right

GgOm9Dk.jpg
 
Last edited:
macvisual said:
Thanks for the info!

I've set my D800 to 'FX' full-frame, then j-peg to large, and fine. Maybe I've set the compression wrong..?? (Edit below).
I've only got this camera about 2wks, so still learning the basics.

I hear what you say about shooting in RAW, but I don't have good digital editing skills or knowledge how to use this. That's why j-peg for me is better.

As I shoot j-peg, seems there's only 3 image quality settings, basic/normal/fine, all are compressed apparently.


Regards;
Peter
Click to expand...
Peter there are a number of settings that affect image quality in jpeg's - there are the settings you mention, i.e. Image Quality basic/normal/fine - fine will give more detail, then there is Image Size (next option below Image Quality in the menu) and this offers Large/Medium/Small - for want of a better way of explaining this effectively will re-size the image (losing detail) so set this to Large (won't resize). Then there is the JPEG compression setting, set this to Optimal Quality, otherwise images with lots of details will get compressed more (losing detail). Some of the other settings can have an impact on jpegs, but those three are the main ones to start with.
 
macvisual said:
Thanks Paul.

Just to confirm please, as I shoot in j-peg these are the settings I've opted for best quality on the D800;

Image Quality = fine
Image Size = large
J-Peg = optimal quality

And 'D-Lighting' set to auto.

Is this correct ?


Regards;
Peter
Click to expand...
That is a good starting point.

I think it is worth learning how to PP, even if it is just a bit of highlight/shadow recovery and crop and straighten or minor tweaks to contrast/saturation/exposure etc ... When I first went digital I shot only in jpeg, then when I got a higher res camera (a D7000 at the time) I decided that I wanted to get the best from the images so started to shoot jpeg fine + raw ... initially I used Nikon ViewNX, then tried Capture. What really convinced me was a program called DxO Optics Pro - even with jpegs they looked better after going through this, but it was night and day with raw files - the program makes it easy as it has a number of pre-sets and it's distortion correction and noise reduction is better than anything I've tried in my opinion (others may have a different view) needless to say I haven't used all of the image processing s/w. Programs like Light Room make life even easier in some respects and offer a finer degree of control, they also do non destructive editing (meaning you can change everything then if needed get back to the original really easily) - it also catalogues your work for you.
 
I for one have never understood why people spend thousands on very precise and technical equipment yet need to ask the most basic questions regarding hyperfocal focussing and dont
have any digital editing skills whatsoever
Click to expand...

Given the shots you have posted so far you would have been better spending £200 on a D200 and the rest on some photography courses, the D800 is the worst camera ever made if you put it in a poor photographers hands, just as the D40 can be the best camera ever made if put in a decent photographers hands.
 
macvisual said:
Thanks for the info!

I've set my D800 to 'FX' full-frame, then j-peg to large, and fine. Maybe I've set the compression wrong..?? (Edit below).
I've only got this camera about 2wks, so still learning the basics.

I hear what you say about shooting in RAW, but I don't have good digital editing skills or knowledge how to use this. That's why j-peg for me is better.

As I shoot j-peg, seems there's only 3 image quality settings, basic/normal/fine, all are compressed apparently.


Regards;
Peter
Click to expand...
macvisual said:
Thanks Paul.

Just to confirm please, as I shoot in j-peg these are the settings I've opted for best quality on the D800;

Image Quality = fine
Image Size = large
J-Peg = optimal quality

And 'D-Lighting' set to auto.

Is this correct ?


Regards;
Peter
Click to expand...

Looks like you have the camera set to produce the highest quality JPEGs, yes.

What else are you doing? What is your process? Are you downloading straight from camera, and then straight to Flickr? What are you using to transfer the files? Talk us through literally every single step you do.. including what software you use at every stage.

For instance, one of the images I've examined above is not the full resolution of the D800.. Yours seemed to be 6648x4316 whereas the full resolution from the D800 is 7318x 4912. Did you crop any of the images? If not, then something is altering the size, and compression of them.

There is also the JPEG Compression menu Peter... options are "Optimal Quality" and "Size Priority". Which do you have set? I've just shot a JPEG straight from my camera and it's just under 20MB. Yours seem to be around 10 or 11MB.

I'd turn D-lighting off... it's just more processing to add artefacts, at best it just lowers contrast unrealistically, and at worst, just makes it looks like some god awful HDR shot.

You say you do not shoot RAW because you have no digital skills.. and that's fine... but should you not therefore learn some? Otherwise, the quality of your images so far produced and published on Flickr, really are not making the best of the D800 and Zeiss lenses. Whilst Gary Cole seems to be his usual tactful self, he does have a valid point. Were you just going to use this £3200 combo of D800 and Zeiss lens to produce compressed JPEGs at lower than optimal resolution? Bit of a waste isn't it?

[edit]

That last image is higher in res... but still an odd figure. You're clearly cropping these Peter - that can't be straight from camera. What software are you using to crop, and how are you saving them from that software?

It could well be that what were seeing here is merely the difference between a JPEG shot relying on in-camera processing vs. a 14bit Lossless RAW, well processed in Lightroom, and then saved out carefully as a JPEG with as little compression as possible.

I just do not see the point in investing in such a high resolution camera, and expensive lenses... then shooting in JPEG. That's not really what the D800 was designed for. It'd designed for landscape, portrait and studio photographers who want the absolute maximum quality from a small format camera.... and probably those that need to print very large too.
 
Last edited:
macvisual said:
"Given the shots you have posted so far you would have been better spending £200 on a D200 and the rest on some photography courses, the D800 is the worst camera ever made if you put it in a poor photographers hands, just as the D40 can be the best camera ever made if put in a decent photographers hands".


Cheers Gary, inspirational words.....................not.
Click to expand...
I wont bullsh1t you thats for sure, theres no point.
 
boyfalldown said:
Is that set to the 1.2 crop image area in camera. It sounds about right (without looking it up)
Click to expand...

No idea... only ever shoot in FX. Don't see the point in the others. Looking at his images.. they're all over the place in terms of size. He must be cropping them.
 
macvisual said:
That recent building image I very very slightly cropped a bit off the bottom, but I mean about 2mm (or less),
Click to expand...

That makes sense because that image is 7360x4838... nearly full res. What about the others? Have you cropped them?






macvisual said:
that's it, then put cf card into card-reader, attach USB via my laptop, open up an editing suite called 'Faststone', possibly slightly adjust contrast/saturation/auto adjust colours/sharpen if needed, then save the j-peg file to an external 1 terabyte hard drive, upload file to Flickr.

That's it....... Any ideas were I may be going wrong would be great thanks?!

P.S. Might it help to maybe email you the original j-peg file.....?


Regards;
Peter
Click to expand...

Never heard of faststone, but it sounds like you're doing quite a lot to the image for someone who has no digital skills. Your images certainly seem over-sharpened because there is the tell tale signs of fringing around the mountains, trees etc. When you save from Faststone as a JPEG... are there any settings you can choose? It surely doesn't just save as a JPEG without any options does it? If so, that's shockingly bad.

It wold help to work out what's going on if I could compare the original size image on Flickr that you've processed to the file straight from camera. I've PMed you my e-mail address.
 
Essexash's point is that it is irrelevant how many AF points you have set if you are not using AF.


http://www.faststone.org/

Hmmm.. it's listed as a Photo Resizer. Personally... it looks utterly awful. You seem to have cash to splash... get Lightroom and start shooting RAW. Tons of tutorials about Lightroom online.
 
Last edited:
macvisual said:
essexash;

Manually focusing with a Zeiss 21mm f/2.8 lens.


Thanks;
Peter
Click to expand...

Yeah i know what lens you got, you keep mentioning it. Just wondering why worry about AF points when youre not interested in AF.
 
macvisual said:
open up an editing suite called 'Faststone', possibly slightly adjust contrast/saturation/auto adjust colours/sharpen if needed, then save the j-peg file to an external 1 terabyte hard drive, upload file to Flickr.
Click to expand...

If you can do all that you can process a RAW file. You just have more information to play with, and so more options to be able to edit with if you want to. You can do as much or as little editing as you usually do. :shrug:

The thing is to find the RAW processing software that works for you. Most software options have 30 day trials to see which you get on with. There are also free options to, but they tend not to be the most user friendly.
 
macvisual said:
I've recently emailed the original j-peg file to Pookeyhead, it shows a decent/healthy 19MB's, but when I save the original j-peg file to my external hard drive the file size shows 9.94MB's, hmmmm can't work it out ?
Click to expand...
That will be because there will be a setting somewhere that is compressing the file more. Usually goes by the name of quality or similar, a lot of these progs are "aimed" at web use so tend to go for a 60% compression or quality.
 
macvisual said:
Thanks Paul for the info, appreciated.

So using the likes of Lightroom version 5 there's not as much compression compared to my basic (free) Faststone editing programme I wonder ?
Click to expand...
You have far more control over the amount of compression applied which can be none or a lot.
 
As everyone has said already, I think it is worth spending even a little time learning how to edit when you have such good and unforgiving kit. I am personally useless at editing, but use NX2 which is good (apart from for dust spotting) though it is very slow and buggy. I am looking at Lightroom which I understand to be excellent and it is not overly expensive. Using hyperfocal focussing is also helpful, the 21mm should have hyperfocal markings on it which should assist.
 
macvisual said:
Thanks Paul for the info, appreciated.

So using the likes of Lightroom version 5 there's not as much compression compared to my basic (free) Faststone editing programme I wonder ?
Click to expand...

As someone else has said, you can take full control. There is ALWAYS compression with a JPEG though... you can't have no compression... but you can set it to absolute minimum required for the JPEG compression algorithm to work. Sounds like this Faststone is a piece of garbage.


macvisual said:
I've recently emailed the original j-peg file to Pookeyhead, it shows a decent/healthy 19MB's, but when I save the original j-peg file to my external hard drive the file size shows 9.94MB's, hmmmm can't work it out ?
Click to expand...


Got it. It shows here as 13.9MB on disk... but the bricks look smeared, and lacking texture though. It definitely looks like JPEG compression and the colours look a bit oversaturated. It's really difficult to assess unless compared to a RAW file shot on the same gear.

Personally, I'd switch off anything that may be adding processing.

All noise reduction,
Set Picture Controls - Standard,
no D Lighting
Vignette control off
Long Exposure NR off
High ISO NR off


I just think this is the difference between a 14bit lossless RAW and JPEG.

You don't need to get images to clients fast... you're not shooting hundreds of images at wedding.. you seem to be shooting landscapes... so you really, really shoudl be shooting 14bit lossless RAW files.. editing them carefully, and with skill in a decent package like Lightroom or Photoshop, and carefully saving a low compression JPEG for web use, and a 16bit TIFF for your own archive.... and of course, retain all your RAWs.

You've got very high end equipment... and you're using it like a complete beginner. If you have no interest in extracting the best from it... there really wasn't any point in buying it.

macvisual said:
Thanks for all the replies guys, great stuff.

Is it best to load the CD software that came with the D800 to start get used to shooting raw ?
Click to expand...

Yes... that would be my recommendation. NX Capture will be better than what you are using.
 
macvisual said:
Thanks for all the replies guys, great stuff.

Is it best to load the CD software that came with the D800 to start get used to shooting raw ?
Click to expand...
It will allow you to shoot raw if nothing else. tbh it isn't the easiest of software to get the best from an image with and it isn't great.

Most decent editing progs have free trials, which will be fully functional. Worth pulling a couple down and seeing what can be done. I'd set your camera to shoot jpeg fine + raw that way you will have a jpeg image from the camera which can at least act as a target for when you are editing the raw file. I'd recommend looking at Lightroom first as it will do 99% of what you need - rarely use photoshop these days - and for a newcomer to pp'ing lightroom is a good intro too.

Also looking at David's comments re file size, it may be worth you thinking through your workflow - it looks to me that you may have a step in there which is badly compromising quality
 
Last edited:
macvisual said:
In shooting Menu, NEF (RAW) recording, do I select NEF (RAW) bit depth 14-bit, or there's type that shows; On - Lossless compressed // On - compressed // Uncompressed, I'm not sure what to select guys?


Thanks;
Peter
Click to expand...
It almost doesn't matter - note I said almost! More bits = more data = more potential detail. The compression techniques used in raw are effective, loseess is the best compromise as it does what it says on the tin i.e. loses nothing. If it were me I'd set 14 bit lossless.
 
Anyone else had issues with metering on the D800?
I have experienced several instances recently where the metering has suddenly seemed very erratic, the latest being whilst shooting some wild duck in fairly stable light at WWT Slimbridge.
Using aperture priority and spot metering on the same area of white feather, two shots were fired off within 2 seconds of one another, (200-400 f4 on a tripod and gimbal - f6.3 ISO 200), one shot fired off at 1/500 and the next, just 2 seconds later, at 1/1250.
Obviously no bracketing or exposure compensation was set.
 
gramps said:
Anyone else had issues with metering on the D800?
I have experienced several instances recently where the metering has suddenly seemed very erratic, the latest being whilst shooting some wild duck in fairly stable light at WWT Slimbridge.
Using aperture priority and spot metering on the same area of white feather, two shots were fired off within 2 seconds of one another, (200-400 f4 on a tripod and gimbal - f6.3 ISO 200), one shot fired off at 1/500 and the next, just 2 seconds later, at 1/1250.
Obviously no bracketing or exposure compensation was set.
Click to expand...

Never had any issues and find spot metering excellent. I think it could be worth trying to repeat (several times) what you have done with a static subject to check if the metering is consistent. I would only have taken the edge of the spot area to stray on to a darker feather to get a different reading. You may not have noticed that happening.
 
arclight said:
I would only have taken the edge of the spot area to stray on to a darker feather to get a different reading. You may not have noticed that happening.
Click to expand...

Yes I wondered about that but View NX2 shows the focus point clearly on the same area of white feather, how much more expansive would the 'spot' in spot metering be?
 
And don't forget that the "spot" of spot metering is based on the focus point selected. Which is what you'd want if you have selected a single focus point. Dunno how it works if you have allowed the D800 to choose from it's 51 fouc points though.
 
Gary Coyle said:
the D800 is the worst camera ever made if you put it in a poor photographers hands, just as the D40 can be the best camera ever made if put in a decent photographers hands.
Click to expand...

Sorry but that is nonsense, the camera is still good but even the best cameras only produce what the person using them chooses via settings, lens selection etc.

Mike
 
Chris, i had an oil spotted D600 and sent it back, sent it back because of the oil but i would have sent it back anyway as it just felt like a toy as i had been used D3, D3S, D300S, D700 pro bodies, i then bought a D800 and the difference is light and day, not just the build but everything.

If you can afford the D800 then go for it, its amazing.
 
Gary Coyle said:
Chris, i had an oil spotted D600 and sent it back, sent it back because of the oil but i would have sent it back anyway as it just felt like a toy as i had been used D3, D3S, D300S, D700 pro bodies, i then bought a D800 and the difference is light and day, not just the build but everything.

If you can afford the D800 then go for it, its amazing.
Click to expand...

I'm very tempted, realistically unless I'm going to move to Canon (6D) I'm looking at there not being a massive price difference between the D610 and the D800 after cashback, my only real worry is size (although I use primes mainly) and it doesn't seem much larger than the D600 is.
Also a little concerned about the 36MP, I have heard a lot of folk talk about only getting the best out of it with astounding glass, which I currently don't have... only the Nikon 50 f1.8G and Nikon 24 f2.8D (and either the Siggy 35 or Nikon 28 f1.8G budget dependant)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top