Nikon D50 in-camera processing looks kinda bad

peestandingup

I seem to be doing an aweful lot of post-processing on just about every shot I take. I understand this is a "pro" DSLR & is supposed to leave room for the photographers finishing touches, but the pics just look kinda dark/dank & lifeless. Even when I set it to Auto mode in the highest quality jpeg setting. Oh, and im using the kit lens that came with it.

I dont mind the post processing, but not all the time for every single shot. That would get time consuming if I was shooting just some event for myself, like a family birthday party or something low key like that. It also makes the files quite a bit bigger.

This is my first DSLR so am I just used to point & shoot cameras and how they really turn up the colors so they pop out at you, is there a problem with the camera itself/lens or is it just the photographer (me) who sucks??

Click here to see for yourself. Blow them up to Large to get a better look.

DoctorIt

I'll be honest - I think you're doing too much post. Quite a few of those shots are bordering on really fake. At least to me, and especially when you show the "pre" picture.

That opinion aside, you can definitely change the in-camera processing parameters for the jpgs that come straight out. Your manual will tell you how to do it, so just crank up the contrast and saturation, and you'll have the "point-and-shoot pop".

One other thing, those pre-shots are in fact camera jpgs right? Those weren't RAW files that you simply converted to jpg without doing anything to them? I ask because, obviously, RAW files always come out with no processing, so if all you do is just convert them to jpg using ACR or Nikon Capture, they will look a bit lifeless.

ScottMcLeod

peestandingup wrote:

I seem to be doing an aweful lot of post-processing on just about every shot I take. I understand this is a "pro" DSLR & is supposed to leave room for the photographers finishing touches, but the pics just look kinda dark/dank & lifeless. Even when I set it to Auto mode in the highest quality jpeg setting. Oh, and im using the kit lens that came with it.

I dont mind the post processing, but not all the time for every single shot. That would get time consuming if I was shooting just some event for myself, like a family birthday party or something low key like that. It also makes the files quite a bit bigger.

This is my first DSLR so am I just used to point & shoot cameras and how they really turn up the colors so they pop out at you, is there a problem with the camera itself/lens or is it just the photographer (me) who sucks??

Click here to see for yourself. Blow them up to Large to get a better look.

I wholeheartedly disagree. I think Nikon's D50 is one of their best versions of the image processor that they include in their cameras to do the JPEG processing. Trumps the D70s IMHO.

The second shot underexposed because you had a HUGE white sign in the center of the photo that the camera based most of it's metering off of.

Are you expecting your camera to know exactly how you want the photos to turn out?

If you did manual white balance, manual exposure, manual flash comp, manual... then I could understand your complaint.

That being said, make sure the processing options on the camera haven't been changed from stock (and if not, bump up the contrast & saturation + 1). I have PLENTY of customers that print photos at work with D50's that come out rich and vivid (not perfect, but great) right out of the camera. Are you sure yours isn't having metering problems?

I can count the number of times on my hands that a shot came out perfect from any of my cameras (300D, 10D, 20D) without any tweaking.

Bakat

1st question (from a D50 user) What lens are you using?

My cheapie Tamrons that came with my camera never made me happy.

Kat

Zoom Raider

peestandingup wrote:

(I understand this is a "pro" DSLR)

I thought D50's were beginner and enthusiast cameras.
I didn't know they were professional, or even expert.
I thought something like those big square DSLR's, like the Nikon D2x,
or the Canon EOS 1Ds Mark II are professional models.
Maybe I've misread what you said.:):

peestandingup

DoctorIt wrote:

I'll be honest - I think you're doing too much post. Quite a few of those shots are bordering on really fake. At least to me, and especially when you show the "pre" picture.

That opinion aside, you can definitely change the in-camera processing parameters for the jpgs that come straight out. Your manual will tell you how to do it, so just crank up the contrast and saturation, and you'll have the "point-and-shoot pop".

One other thing, those pre-shots are in fact camera jpgs right? Those weren't RAW files that you simply converted to jpg without doing anything to them? I ask because, obviously, RAW files always come out with no processing, so if all you do is just convert them to jpg using ACR or Nikon Capture, they will look a bit lifeless.

You are probably right about me doing too much post processing. I think im comparing the D50 too much with my old P&S Canon SD450, which I had set to "vivid" & the colors were really rich (probably too rich). Do you think I should just leave them alone? Do they look good enough in the before??

No, those were all shot in jpeg Auto mode. Not tackling RAW just yet. As you can see, im not quite ready for that yet.

Bakat wrote:

1st question (from a D50 user) What lens are you using?

My cheapie Tamrons that came with my camera never made me happy.

Kat

Im using the Nikkor DX AF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G ED kit lens that came with it. Yeah, not the greatest lens. But still supposed to be very ok.

Zoom Raider wrote:

I thought D50's were beginner and enthusiast cameras.
I didn't know they were professional, or even expert.
I thought something like those big square DSLR's, like the Nikon D2x,
or the Canon EOS 1Ds Mark II are professional models.
Maybe I've misread what you said.:):

I think its really a matter of opinion whether or not you wanna call the D50 a Pro level camera. Thats why I put the word "pro" in quotations. I know some people who use it as their day to day camera who arent really beginners.

But, of course there are higher level cameras out there that blow it away. But, it is indeed geared towards beginners who just wanna learn more & some higher level pros use it as backup. I guess its just how you use it. But, yeah I would say its is a beginners camera capable of some pro-level shots.

saurora

peestandingup wrote:

You are probably right about me doing too much post processing. I think im comparing the D50 too much with my old P&S Canon SD450, which I had set to "vivid" & the colors were really rich (probably too rich). Do you think I should just leave them alone? Do they look good enough in the before??

Did you process your own P&S shots as well, or were you having them done by a service? Don't forget that when you use a service, most all of your shots are being "adjusted" by the computer before printing. I don't think your shots look all that far off, just a slight in-camera tweaking, like others have suggested, should help alot. By your description I expected some really dreary looking shots.

peestandingup

saurora wrote:

Did you process your own P&S shots as well, or were you having them done by a service? Don't forget that when you use a service, most all of your shots are being "adjusted" by the computer before printing. I don't think your shots look all that far off, just a slight in-camera tweaking, like others have suggested, should help alot. By your description I expected some really dreary looking shots.

No, there was no post processing on those. I just set my Canon to "vivid" because I liked the way the colors popped. So, I think my eyes were just used to that oversaturation.

Bakat

Photozone has a review on that lens, http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/nikkor_1855_3556/index.htm
I'd read it and see if it sounds "on the money" to you. I have found that all my problems with my D50 can be corrected with buying a good lens or learning to use my camera more effectively.

The D50 is infact a consumer level DSLR (that's what Nikon calls it) I believe that the Pro-series start with the D100 (or rather D200 now); However, alot of reveiwers believe that there is very little quality difference to justify the cost differiential. I'm quite pleased with my D50. I have the saturation cranked up on my D50 also.

Family pics...
In my house EVERYTHING goes thru Photoshop, that's just me. When I'm in a rush I'll hit Ctrl+Alt+L and do an auto levels thing which is usually a slight improvement and and I'll the time I want to spend 10th picture of my Grandmother wiping cake off my kids face....

There is also I "vivid" setting on the D50 but I usually don't use it unless it's another overcast day outside and I'm taking pictures of landscapes or something similar.

Kat

peestandingup

Bakat wrote:

Photozone has a review on that lens, http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/nikkor_1855_3556/index.htm
I'd read it and see if it sounds "on the money" to you. I have found that all my problems with my D50 can be corrected with buying a good lens or learning to use my camera more effectively.

Ken Rockwell likes it a lot.

Matthew Saville

To be honest, from an objective perspective, the photos you exhibit look almost identical. Your perspective is subjective at the moment, so the difference looks major. Give it a month, come back and look at them, and you'll find that you can be more objective about the images.

Having said that, I do see differences in the pictures. However, the "After" shots are nothing that the camera is in-capable of capturing.

What you must do now is treat your D50's sensor like your favorite film- test it. Testing your film is the first thing you must do at a photography school like Brooks; you must determine the exact, TRUE ISO rating of the film, how it reacts to different light conditions, how it reacts to lengthy exposures, and so on and so forth. If you read Galen Rowell's book "Mountain Light" you can find his description of every little nuance in the film of his choice at that time, the legendary K64 I believe it was. The way it reacts to overcast, cloudy days, not only the color cast but the fact that it must be pushed or pulled in this or that light condition, and so on and so forth. Not to mention the dynamic range of the film.

With your D50's sensor, things should be no different.

- Know how your matrix meter handles different situations. Mastering the center-weighted or spot meter is pretty helpful too. The camera only can measure light and expose accordingly, it can't know what you actually want unless you command it. And these days things are even worse because it seems like the 18% grey rule of film light meters has been thrown out the window by DSLR's in favor of "highlight preservation", which I hate.

- Test each WB setting in each light condition, and know how to use the pre-set WB measurement setting. The little "sun" icon is just a setting, determined by some engineer far away from where you're shooting right now. The same goes for cloudy, incandescent, fluorescent, and so on. There's a LOT of room for interpretation in those settings, and you need to translate each one into the language of your own photographic style...

- Test each "in-camera" processing setting, the contrast, sharpness, color space, saturation, and hue adjustment options in the "custom" processing option, if the D50 has it. These can make such a huge difference in the final image, especialy the hue adjusment. Discovering the perfect settings for a particular condition is like using a squeegee on dirty windows- the resulting clarity is stunning...

The D50 is indeed an "amateur" camera, and it does have user-friendly settings that really do a good job of capturing high-quality, ready-to-print pics. You can use those settings, but in doing so you must settle for giving more control to the camera. Most of the time this is fine for the kind of people who used Kodak Gold film in their $99 35mm SLR's. But the camera is always capable of much more. You could put Velvia in that $99 SLR, and with a decent lens take a picture just as good as any pro's. Or you could take that D50, master all the settings, (or switch to RAW and master your RAW processing) and take full control of all that the sensor has to offer.

Take care,
-Matt-

PS: For the record, you should try NOT to take "oh, just set the contrast to this and set the saturation to this and so on and so forth..." kind of advice without testing it yourself.

zigzag

peestandingup wrote:

Ken Rockwell likes it a lot.

Many have very little respect for Ken Rockwell's reviews of equipment. I would at least back up the things he says with other reviews of the same piece.

peestandingup

zigzag wrote:

Many have very little respect for Ken Rockwell's reviews of equipment. I would at least back up the things he says with other reviews of the same piece.

Oh, I always get multiple reviews from different sources for everything I buy, I just remembered his right off hand.

I heard that about his reviews (little respect). Why is that, btw? I know some people give him flack for not supporting RAW & how he doesnt like the mentality of some photographers that think if you dont shoot in RAW, then you're not a real "pro". Other than that, I dont know much about him.

Oh, and about my in-camera settings. I found some info online from a user (J3R) who uses these settings on his D70. They are supposed to give you awesome in-camera results. I tried them on my D50, and it does really help a lot! Here they are:

Optimize image settings:
Sharpening +2
Tone comp auto
Color mode iiia for landscapes ia for people
Saturation enhanced
Hue adjustment 0

Then set your white balance to auto -3 (WB fine tuning not available on D50)
Set your exposure comp to + 0.3

I also learned that the D50/D70 does slightly underexpose quite a bit when you use the Auto mode. I can totally see that.