D700 Controls & Settings (Image Comparisons)

met

I recently got my D700 and even though I usually shoot RAW, I wanted to test what all the settings look like to get the best SOOC shots. I hope someone finds this useful. It helped me determine what I'm going to keep my settings on.


Conditions: Mid-late afternoon. Nice sunny day, but it wasn't direct harsh sunlight. Perfect overhead lighting conditions.


In Camera Settings tested:

• D-Lighting
• Picture Control
• Color Space
• Vignette Control

Whenever I moved on to the next test, I reset the previous one to default or auto.


1.) FIRST TEST IMAGE: Aperture Priority (ISO 200, 2.8, 1/1000)





I decided to manually expose and drop the shutter a bit because I usually prefer a little more ambient than what it gives me for A priority. Although now that I see them compared in a large size on the screen, I think I might prefer the one that was A priority.


2. CONTROL IMAGE Manual Exposure (ISO 200, 2.8, 1/800), Everything set to Default (Auto or Off)



Turned on D-LIGHTING

3. Everything else the same, D-Lighting AUTO




4. D-Lighting HIGH



5. D-Lighting NORMAL



6. D-Lighting LOW



TESTING PICTURE CONTROL (With this next set of images I kept the D-Lighting on auto)

7. Picture Control NEUTRAL



8. Picture Control VIVID



9. Picture Control MONOCHROME



TESTED COLOR SPACE (All the previous images were sRGB.)

10. Changed to Adobe Color Space, Standard Picture Control



11. Adobe Color Space, Vivid Picture Control


12. Adobe Color Space, Neutral Picture Control


13. Adobe Color Space, Monochrome Picture Control


TESTED VIGNETTE CONTROL

14. Back to sRGB, HIGH Vignette


15. LOW Vignette


16. Vignette OFF

Matthew Saville

I usually find myself shooting one of the following scenarios and picture controls:

* Wedding day and/or portraits - Vivid, with contrast turned up one or two clicks depending on if the light is flat, and maybe saturation turned up one click.

* Wedding day low light - Neutral, with contrast turned up two or three clicks, and saturation turned up one or two clicks.

* Wedding day B&W - often I will shoot in-camera B&W during a wedding, and when I do I usually turn the contrast to the max, brightness to normal, filtering set to Orange for lighter skin tones, and the sepia toning set to the 1st or 2nd level just to make a faintly warm image.

* Wedding day and/or portraits creative B&W - sometimes, when regular B&W isn't enough "fun", I'll use a custom profile I created in Nikon's free program, that applies a custom curve directly to the in-camera image. (Not the RAW of course, just JPG's and RAW previews.) It's got flattened highlights and shadows, to give it that faded, washed-out look.

* Sometimes, I like D2X mode 3 for misc. color shooting. It's a good blend of pleasing skin tones, yet popping colors in general.

* ALWAYS leave your sharpening down at zero if you shoot JPG, or if you plan to output your RAW photos straight to JPG in Nikon View NX2. The only time you should EVER turn up in-camera sharpening is if you're NEVER going to print the image larger than 8x10, or if you're shooting RAW and you're going to re-process any print that will be larger than 8x10. Of course, why? Because the in-camera sharpening simply butcher's that fine level of detail / acuity that you see with a properly processed RAW file. So, keep your sharpening down. You may feel like your images are too soft, but trust me the same amount of image DETAIL is still there. You just ALWAYS want to do all your sharpening as the very last step in the whole process, to get the maximum possible detail...


Take care, and happy shooting!
=Matt=

met

Thanks for the reply and info. I decided that for normal conditions, I'm going to stick with VIVID as well because I really liked the pop. I think I'll leave the D-Lighting off. Next I'll try messing with the contrast and saturation. I did skim the manual to kind of see what everything is supposed to do, but I tend to learn best by experimenting and comparing.

I do love shooting in RAW and will continue for important things. But for everyday family things, I'm going to shoot RAW + JPG and then make the decision later if I have time to monkey with the files. I want to get the most bang out of the JPG that I can in case I don't have the time or inclination to process everything.

Thanks for the heads up about the in camera sharpening. I probably would have tried to turn that up.

ThatCanonGuy

May I ask why there is any reason to do in-camera monochrome when you can just do it in PS? I mean, with in-camera, you only have B&W; by shooting in color and then converting, you've got B&W and color, in case you ever want it.

Then again, I don't shoot B&W much if at all.

insanefred

I have tried so many combinations of Picture Controls with the D700. They simply don't work for me. The highlights clip too abruptly, most obvious with skin tones, here is a thread I posted. http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=193912

Compares two Picture Controls from NX 2, LR3 and C1.

Matthew Saville

ThatCanonGuy wrote: »

Then again, I don't shoot B&W much if at all.

I'm sorry to hear that! You're missing out on a truly beautiful, artistic aspect of photography!

ThatCanonGuy wrote: »

May I ask why there is any reason to do in-camera monochrome when you can just do it in PS? I mean, with in-camera, you only have B&W; by shooting in color and then converting, you've got B&W and color, in case you ever want it.

I only shoot JPG B&W when I'm not "on the job", and feel like living life on the wild side. Usually in extremely low-light situations where I simply know that shooting color is going to be pointless.

The rest of the time, yes I do shoot RAW however, as I've outlined recently in another thread here, I use Nikon View NX to cull / proof images, and that gives me access to the in-camera processing.

Honestly, I just do it because I like to, there's no real reason other than I feel it is a creative passion of mine to "nail it in-camera".

Every photographer has the things that give them a great sense of accomplishment, for me it is to capture an image that needs absolutely zero "photoshop"... Again, check that other forum reply for examples of "SOOC" processing. Or just peruse my blog and look for comments on whether or not images are SOOC...


=Matt=

Matthew Saville

met wrote: »

Thanks for the reply and info. I decided that for normal conditions, I'm going to stick with VIVID as well because I really liked the pop. I think I'll leave the D-Lighting off. Next I'll try messing with the contrast and saturation. I did skim the manual to kind of see what everything is supposed to do, but I tend to learn best by experimenting and comparing.

I do love shooting in RAW and will continue for important things. But for everyday family things, I'm going to shoot RAW + JPG and then make the decision later if I have time to monkey with the files. I want to get the most bang out of the JPG that I can in case I don't have the time or inclination to process everything.

Thanks for the heads up about the in camera sharpening. I probably would have tried to turn that up.

If you cull images in Nikon View NX, you won't ever need to shoot RAW+JPG again... View NX will allow you to sort through images with the in-camera processing still applied, and output JPG files from those RAW files.

=Matt=

Matthew Saville

insanefred wrote: »

I have tried so many combinations of Picture Controls with the D700. They simply don't work for me. The highlights clip too abruptly, most obvious with skin tones, here is a thread I posted. http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=193912

Compares two Picture Controls from NX 2, LR3 and C1.

Again, I'm sorry to hear that. All I can say is, I've never had a problem with blowing out highlights, nor have I ever had problems with dynamic range, within good reason.

Maybe it's just because I'm never "assuming" that my light meter is going to give me a perfect exposure every single time. Whether I'm shooting in Manual or aperture priority, Matrix or Center-Weight or Spot, ...I'm never going to trust the camera's guestimate at what *I* want as an artistic decision. Forget 18% grey. Forget whether or not this or that mode will blow your highlights. Just shoot, adjust, and shoot. :-)

=Matt=

ThatCanonGuy

Matthew Saville wrote: »

I only shoot JPG B&W when I'm not "on the job", and feel like living life on the wild side. Usually in extremely low-light situations where I simply know that shooting color is going to be pointless.

The rest of the time, yes I do shoot RAW however, as I've outlined recently in another thread here, I use Nikon View NX to cull / proof images, and that gives me access to the in-camera processing.

Honestly, I just do it because I like to, there's no real reason other than I feel it is a creative passion of mine to "nail it in-camera".

Every photographer has the things that give them a great sense of accomplishment, for me it is to capture an image that needs absolutely zero "photoshop"... Again, check that other forum reply for examples of "SOOC" processing. Or just peruse my blog and look for comments on whether or not images are SOOC...


=Matt=

Thanks for the reply!

Matthew Saville wrote: »

...I'm never "assuming" that my light meter is going to give me a perfect exposure every single time. Whether I'm shooting in Manual or aperture priority, Matrix or Center-Weight or Spot, ...I'm never going to trust the camera's guestimate at what *I* want as an artistic decision. Forget 18% grey. Forget whether or not this or that mode will blow your highlights. Just shoot, adjust, and shoot. :-)

+1. Cannot agree more.

insanefred

Matthew Saville wrote: »

Again, I'm sorry to hear that. All I can say is, I've never had a problem with blowing out highlights, nor have I ever had problems with dynamic range, within good reason.

Maybe it's just because I'm never "assuming" that my light meter is going to give me a perfect exposure every single time. Whether I'm shooting in Manual or aperture priority, Matrix or Center-Weight or Spot, ...I'm never going to trust the camera's guestimate at what *I* want as an artistic decision. Forget 18% grey. Forget whether or not this or that mode will blow your highlights. Just shoot, adjust, and shoot. :-)

=Matt=

I didn't mention anything about metering.
The metering is fine, but it's the software that's blowing out the highlights too soon.

Matthew Saville

insanefred wrote: »

I didn't mention anything about metering.
The metering is fine, but it's the software that's blowing out the highlights too soon.

Again, all I can say is that in my own experience, I have no problems with highlights, and I couldn't be happier with the dynamic range coming from the D700. I have no experience with this "too soon" measurement you're talking about, the only time I ever blow out highlights beyond recovery is when I truly, truly ruin an exposure. The rest of the time, a "nailed" exposure has never given me any trouble. (I've also shot with practically every DSLR sensor that Nikon and Canon have ever employed, by the way. Just so that you can be sure, I am not a Nikon (nor Canon) fanboy, just someone who uses these cameras full-time for work. I hope that in the long run, this particular camera / sensor stops giving you trouble!


=Matt=

insanefred

Matthew Saville wrote: »

Again, all I can say is that in my own experience, I have no problems with highlights, and I couldn't be happier with the dynamic range coming from the D700. I have no experience with this "too soon" measurement you're talking about, the only time I ever blow out highlights beyond recovery is when I truly, truly ruin an exposure. The rest of the time, a "nailed" exposure has never given me any trouble. (I've also shot with practically every DSLR sensor that Nikon and Canon have ever employed, by the way. Just so that you can be sure, I am not a Nikon (nor Canon) fanboy, just someone who uses these cameras full-time for work. I hope that in the long run, this particular camera / sensor stops giving you trouble!


=Matt=

Once again, my point doesn't have anything to do with hardware. It's a software issue.
As, far as resolving my issue, it already has been resolved by using competent software.

NeilL

did I not look HARD enough, met? the differences in all those variations seem to me to be pretty inconsequential... in more extreme challenge exposure, they might become significant...?

Neil

Zerodog

The thing to remember is if you use any other software besides NX you loose all of these groovy settings in RAW. They only apply in JPEG. The only way I shoot SOC is with JPEG. I turn all in camera processing off when shooting RAW and tune to taste in LR. It just fakes you out. Especially active D. It is a bummer that Nikon makes these things proprietary and unavailable to Adobe users. The in camera processing is pretty powerful and can be a great tool.

Matthew Saville

Zerodog wrote: »

The thing to remember is if you use any other software besides NX you loose all of these groovy settings in RAW. They only apply in JPEG. The only way I shoot SOC is with JPEG. I turn all in camera processing off when shooting RAW and tune to taste in LR. It just fakes you out. Especially active D. It is a bummer that Nikon makes these things proprietary and unavailable to Adobe users. The in camera processing is pretty powerful and can be a great tool.

...Which is why View NX ROCKS!

I definitely love Active D-lighting. Maybe I'm not a purist, maybe I'm missing out on some higher standard, but I love un-edited images that were properly captured in the first place. Here's a completely un-edited JPG using Active D-lighting on my D300, back in 2009.




=Matt=

ThatCanonGuy

Matt... wow, all I can say is I love that image.

Matthew Saville

ThatCanonGuy wrote: »

Matt... wow, all I can say is I love that image.

Active D-Lighting, FTW! I love shooting JPG's (or viewing NEF's in ViewNX2) when I'm just goofing around with friends or family. That shot was taken at Disneyland on a D300 and an old manual focus 24mm AIS I got on Ebay. Such a fun combo!! I'm hoping Nikon makes a 20mm or 24mm DX f/2 or f/2.8 soon; I'd use it on the D7000 as the ULTIMATE street-scape setup. Or, Canon could make a similar lens and it would sell like hotcakes for the latest Rebels with the 7D sensor...

=Matt=

ThatCanonGuy

Agree on the wide fast primes. The closest thing Canon has is the 24 2.8, which is FF. I think Canon gives APS-C shooters WA with the WA EF-S (DX) zooms. Oh well, the 24mm is nice (I plan on buying it someday) but you're right an EF-S 24/2 would sell nicely. I wouldn't mind having one with an FF image circle. Oh, and my most wanted lens right now is a 35/2 update with USM

Matthew Saville

ThatCanonGuy wrote: »

Agree on the wide fast primes. The closest thing Canon has is the 24 2.8, which is FF. I think Canon gives APS-C shooters WA with the WA EF-S (DX) zooms. Oh well, the 24mm is nice (I plan on buying it someday) but you're right an EF-S 24/2 would sell nicely. I wouldn't mind having one with an FF image circle. Oh, and my most wanted lens right now is a 35/2 update with USM

Yeah, I'd buy a 5D mk1 and a 35 f/2 (USM or not) in a heartbeat, that'd be a fantastic street camera. I wish Nikon had an older, slightly outdated but still classic FX body. The D700 and 35 f/2 is obviously an amazing combo, but a bit expensive and heavy to be lugging around to casual events. That's the whole reason I want a basic DSLR with a crop-sensor wide prime. Sigh... I guess I gotta buy into the hybrid system for that...

=Matt=

insanefred

Matthew Saville wrote: »

Yeah, I'd buy a 5D mk1 and a 35 f/2 (USM or not) in a heartbeat, that'd be a fantastic street camera. I wish Nikon had an older, slightly outdated but still classic FX body. The D700 and 35 f/2 is obviously an amazing combo, but a bit expensive and heavy to be lugging around to casual events. That's the whole reason I want a basic DSLR with a crop-sensor wide prime. Sigh... I guess I gotta buy into the hybrid system for that...

=Matt=

Now what if Nikon came out with a FF in a D3000 or D5000 body made out of carbon fiber and weather seals and a 35mm f/2 pancake lens?.... with AF!

ThatCanonGuy

Heck, I might even buy that... that would be nice. But I don't think there's enough of a market. I know, you hear pros harping on about how they want a small light FF camera, but it's still a niche market and wouldn't generate enough sales. Plus, it wouldn't be cheap. The FF sensor is very expensive for the camera companies. When you buy a $2600 5D Mark II, you're paying a few hundred for the AF, a few hundred for the metal body, a few for the shutter and mirror, etc. But the big price comes from the FF sensor. It's gotta cost Canon at least $1000 to make it. Take the 7D, for example. It's very similar in body, battery etc. to the 5DII, but it's $1000 less. It'd be even less if they didn't put the 8fps in it (or maybe it doesn't matter ) or the very good AF, but they've gotta give you a reason to buy it....

Matthew Saville

ThatCanonGuy wrote: »

Heck, I might even buy that... that would be nice. But I don't think there's enough of a market. I know, you hear pros harping on about how they want a small light FF camera, but it's still a niche market and wouldn't generate enough sales. Plus, it wouldn't be cheap. The FF sensor is very expensive for the camera companies. When you buy a $2600 5D Mark II, you're paying a few hundred for the AF, a few hundred for the metal body, a few for the shutter and mirror, etc. But the big price comes from the FF sensor. It's gotta cost Canon at least $1000 to make it. Take the 7D, for example. It's very similar in body, battery etc. to the 5DII, but it's $1000 less. It'd be even less if they didn't put the 8fps in it (or maybe it doesn't matter ) or the very good AF, but they've gotta give you a reason to buy it....

I seem to remember Thom Hogan having some pretty good figures / statistics on this subject. I forget what he proved, but it was either that profit margins are way HIGHER than we think they are, or it could have been way lower but I'm not sure haha...

Anyways, for your consideration I present the Sony A850. A 24 megapixel full-frame DSLR that costs $1999, brand new. Which brings us slightly closer to the POSSIBILITY of more "affordable" full-frame DSLRs. Honestly? Since my work is portraits / weddings and my hobby is landscapes, why DON'T I have the A850 and at least one or two lenses? Even if only as a complimentary item to my current system, I'm pretty sure that Nikon's equivalent "affordable" 24 megapixel camera will be $3000 minimum. And that's beside the whole point; the point of a $1999 full-frame DSLR is to eventually find it for $1200 used. :-P But anyways... With in-camera stabilization to (sort of) make up for the poorer high ISO performance, I'd happily take an A850 and a small 35 prime out for a stroll, or even on a landscape shoot depending on the sharpness.

=Matt=

NeilL

when the pros and semipros and their money and taxdeductability have migrated to the pricing stratosphere of upcoming customisable and modular systems we mere photographer mortals will have sweet pickings of all the gear they abandon and we will be happy (not likely!)

Neil

insanefred

Matthew Saville wrote: »

I seem to remember Thom Hogan having some pretty good figures / statistics on this subject. I forget what he proved, but it was either that profit margins are way HIGHER than we think they are, or it could have been way lower but I'm not sure haha...

Anyways, for your consideration I present the Sony A850. A 24 megapixel full-frame DSLR that costs $1999, brand new. Which brings us slightly closer to the POSSIBILITY of more "affordable" full-frame DSLRs. Honestly? Since my work is portraits / weddings and my hobby is landscapes, why DON'T I have the A850 and at least one or two lenses? Even if only as a complimentary item to my current system, I'm pretty sure that Nikon's equivalent "affordable" 24 megapixel camera will be $3000 minimum. And that's beside the whole point; the point of a $1999 full-frame DSLR is to eventually find it for $1200 used. :-P But anyways... With in-camera stabilization to (sort of) make up for the poorer high ISO performance, I'd happily take an A850 and a small 35 prime out for a stroll, or even on a landscape shoot depending on the sharpness.

=Matt=

Yeah, why aren't we shooting sony by now?!

Matthew Saville

NeilL wrote: »

when the pros and semipros and their money and taxdeductability have migrated to the pricing stratosphere of upcoming customisable and modular systems we mere photographer mortals will have sweet pickings of all the gear they abandon and we will be happy (not likely!)

Neil

I would love to see this day! Give me a market where used D700's can be had for $1200, and used D3s's can be had for $2500, and I'll happily never buy anything else...

insanefred wrote: »

Yeah, why aren't we shooting sony by now?!

I'm horribly bad with sensing sarcasm, but I'll assume that was approximately 50% tongue-in-cheek. But seriously? The moment I'm independently wealthy, I'm buying everything. Nikon, Canon, Sony, Olympus, and Pentax. And Leica! I'm just not a "fanboy" in that sense. The only reason I only own Nikon is cause I'm too poor to own more than one system. For now. :-D

=Matt=

NeilL

Matthew Saville wrote: »

The only reason I only own Nikon is cause I'm too poor to own more than one system. For now. :-D=Matt=

Likewise, and lucky I'm not even ticklishly tempted by any on your list, or off! If I can do stuff half as impressive as what I see has been done to date around the world, with gear no better than mine, I'll be inexpressibly grateful!

Neil