DSLRUsers.com

Here’s a question for those that shoot weddings or portraits with the D200.

I have adjusted the following settings after trail and error:


Shooting Menu:
Optimize Image> Custom> Image Sharpening +2
Image Quality> Fine
Image Size: Large
JPEG Compression: Optimal Quality
ISO Sensitivity: 100


Custom Setting Menu:
Metering/Exposure> ISO Auto> Max. Sensitivity> 400
Metering/Exposure> ISO Auto> ON
Bracketing/Flash> Flash Sync Speed> 1/250s (Auto FP)


Is there any downside to having ISO set to Auto? I have it set to go between 100 and 400 with the above settings.

Cheers

I played with this on the d70 and found I didn't like it - it always went straight to 1600 when in manual a bit frustrating.

But I've set this up in the d200 now I can limit it - but haven't tried it yet.

So - more a message of support - I think it's a really great feature.

And in theory, you shouldn't notice much noise between 100 to 400.

Justin wrote:And in theory, you shouldn't notice much noise between 100 to 400.

That's what I have been reading and was also told by a photographer mate of mine who's just going Digital this week. I use to use ISO 400 with film all the time, never shot with anything else. I tried the variable setting this afternoon and it stays within the range set (100 - 400), so that's how it will remain unless someone can point out a bad point. I didn't want to set it higher and have the potential of noise.

Cheers

i'd turn off all the in camera post processing, shoot in raw and sharpen in photoshop.

obzelite wrote:i'd turn off all the in camera post processing, shoot in raw and sharpen in photoshop.

I 2nd this opinion.

I don't shoot weddings, but I certainly agree with shooting in RAW and turning off in camera PP.

The auto ISO feature - with the limiting available on the d200 - has more potential than the unlimited (and un indicated!) situation on the d70. Personally, I don't have it on, I want ISO choice to be a conscious decision.

I'm still maintaining to shoot raw for weddings - although for workflow reasons I am still considering JPEG (the debate rages in my head). With the auto ISO you have to also set your min sutter speed. This is where the option falls down for me as I often will have need and desire to shoot slow shutter speeds. I'm a natural light junkie and not a flash junkie, so natural light where possible.

Also having shot my first wedding with the D200 last weekend I have noticed a difference in noise between 100 and 400 iso. Not that 400 wasn't acceptable but if you are trying to save an underexposed image you will appreciate 100 over 400.

I do have the auto ISO configured in my sports/action bank and see its application where I cannot comprimise on shutter speed.

As for the +2 sharpness. Depending on the lenses you are using I would consider this over the top for wedding work. I am finding in many instances when shooting without any in camera sharpening I will have to soften some images down for the benifit of portraits. So to me any sharpening that needs to be done is best handled outside of the camera.

I always keep in mind sharpness as it pertains to the printed image - not as it relates to a 100% crop on the brides eye, although I find this very easy to loose sight of in the digital world.

When ever I am using JPEG I always have JPEG Compression = Optimal Quality.

Good questions - I'm very keen to watch other responses to this.

Cheers,

Blackspear wrote:Is there any downside to having ISO set to Auto? I have it set to go between 100 and 400 with the above settings.

Can I turn this question around?

Why on earth would you want to do this?

WhileI don't shoot weddings these days, I cannot think of one reason - good or bad - why I would want to use this sort of feature.

As a professional photographer, surely you want to be in control of what your camera is doing? You need to understand how your camera is going to operate, and if the camera is going to start to hunt for ISO settings, I would think that you're photographic outcome is going to be a grab bag of images with varying settings applied, and in all honesty, that would be the last thing I would want to see on any sort of a commercial shoot.

I would rather take the approach of determining - in advance - the outcomes I expect to see, and plan my approach to the shoot to ensure I achieve those outcomes.

Remember that wedding and portrait shoots are often very formulaic, and as such, you can frequently predetermine much of what and how you are going to be shooting.

I would turn sharpen off in camera and do all sharpening later on.

Also I 2nd what gary has mentioned above.

Vince

JordanP wrote:I'm still maintaining to shoot raw for weddings - although for workflow reasons I am still considering JPEG (the debate rages in my head).

Craig,

Why not shoot in raw + jpg? That permits you to provide your clients with a quick and dirty proof set - consider doing that as a slide show to help protect your IP in the images shot - and still have absolute control over the final images through your workflow based upon the raw files.

As Gary has said...RAW + JPG is a good idea. Perhaps set ISO 400 and shoot all at that setting. A gentle tad of noise removal at PP would keep them sweet.

gstark wrote:Craig,

Why not shoot in raw + jpg?

Hi Gary, when I looked for comparisons I have found that there is little or no difference between RAW and JPEG, not only this but RAW+JPEG fills up 2GB cards very quickly. As to my other settings:

Vivid
Sharpening
Sharpening
RAW vs JPEG
RAW vs JPEG
Noise Reduction

Cheers

I wouldn't trust auto ISO for the same reasons as Gary. I'd never really considered RAW + JPEG, good idea.

Blackspear wrote:

gstark wrote:Craig,

Why not shoot in raw + jpg?

Hi Gary, in my research I have found that there is little or no difference between RAW and JPEG, as well RAW+JPEG fills up 2GB cards very quickly.

Filling up a CF card should be the least of your worries.

And with respect, if your research led you to the belief that there is little difference between raw and jpg, then your research and/or sources perhaps needs revision.

A couple of significant points that you may have failed to consider in this research:

Raw is a pure record of what you've taken, and in a lossless format: you save your image as a record of what your image captured, along with a set of tags describing any settings that you have applied. You can, at a later time, modify those settings, without modifying your basic image. And being lossless, you always retain the original image quality whenever you revisit, alter, and then resave the image.

By way of comparison, jpg is a processed interpretation of what you've shot, and inherently lossy. The settings are applied to the image BEFORE it is saved, and they, effectively, cannot be undone.

Ever.

But what's worse, every time that you then open your jpg image, make a small change, and then save it back to your HDD, you lose some of your image quality. Do that three or four times - or more - and you may as well be shooting with our Coke bottle lens, rather than the several thousand dollar glass that you may have chosen to buy and fit to front of your camera.

So yes, straight from the camera your jpgs and raws will look somewhat similar, and often even acceptable. That's why I suggested shooting in this mode and using the jpgs as the basis of your client presentation.

But if you've screwed up in any way, you will be eternally grateful that you shot in raw.

And again - filling up your cards should be the least of your worries. I'll even go further - if your concern is about filling up your cards, then there's something very wrong, somewhere, in what you're doing. You either don't have enough cards, or you're shooting indiscriminately with no real concept of what you're trying to achieve, or ....

I only shoot RAW and convert later.

I can’t see any advantage in shooting with jpg. You lose out on quality and control. And if you want some jpgs, when you get home batch all your RAWs and convert them to jpg overnight. In the morning you have a bunch of dirty jpgs.

Regarding auto ISO, I have seen two sides to this, ‘indoors low light’ and ‘outdoors good light’.

-Indoors low light; I like this option when I’m in a dark church and stuck between ISO800 and ISO1600. I’ve found that in this high ISO range it always selects what I’d be going for, and over a period of five months have come to trust it. As long as you set the limits.
Here is an iso1400 shot, 200mm @ f2 taken indoors.



-Outdoors good light; auto ISO is terrible. When I’m looking for ISO100, it always wants to stick to ISO400. It’s absolute rubbish.

The idea that you lose control is like suggesting that auto focus is like losing control too. If you don’t like what the D200 has suggested, just change it, it’s not like you HAVE to do what it suggests.

gstark wrote:Filling up a CF card should be the least of your worries.

It is, I should have added a *wink* at the end.

gstark wrote:And with respect, if your research led you to the belief that there is little difference between raw and jpg, then your research and/or sources perhaps needs revision.

I can only go on these people having far more technical ability than me, this is why I am here, to learn from those with more knowledge.

gstark wrote:Raw is a pure record of what you've taken, and in a lossless format: you save your image as a record of what your image captured, along with a set of tags describing any settings that you have applied. You can, at a later time, modify those settings, without modifying your basic image. And being lossless, you always retain the original image quality whenever you revisit, alter, and then resave the image.

By way of comparison, jpg is a processed interpretation of what you've shot, and inherently lossy. The settings are applied to the image BEFORE it is saved, and they, effectively, cannot be undone.

Ever.

I understand what you are saying.

gstark wrote:And again - filling up your cards should be the least of your worries. I'll even go further - if your concern is about filling up your cards, then there's something very wrong, somewhere, in what you're doing. You either don't have enough cards, or you're shooting indiscriminately with no real concept of what you're trying to achieve, or ....

I have 6 x 2GB cards, 3 for each camera plus a few smaller cards hanging around. I’m not shooting machine gun style, so no, I’m not worried about filling up a card per say.

Cheers

padey wrote:Regarding auto ISO, I have seen two sides to this, ‘indoors low light’ and ‘outdoors good light’.

-Indoors low light; I like this option when I’m in a dark church and stuck between ISO800 and ISO1600. I’ve found that in this high ISO range it always selects what I’d be going for, and over a period of five months have come to trust it. As long as you set the limits.

If you are shooting at ISO800 or ISO1600, what limits are you referring to, as in the limits are predetermined as far as I can see 200 / 400 / 800 / 1600 I gather you would be limiting to 400 and take it beyond when the need arises as described above, or are you talking about fully auto indoors and selection outdoors?

padey wrote:Outdoors good light; auto ISO is terrible. When I’m looking for ISO100, it always wants to stick to ISO400. It’s absolute rubbish.

The idea that you lose control is like suggesting that auto focus is like losing control too. If you don’t like what the D200 has suggested, just change it, it’s not like you HAVE to do what it suggests.

No argument here about that

Cheers

gstark wrote:

JordanP wrote:I'm still maintaining to shoot raw for weddings - although for workflow reasons I am still considering JPEG (the debate rages in my head).

Craig,

Why not shoot in raw + jpg? That permits you to provide your clients with a quick and dirty proof set - consider doing that as a slide show to help protect your IP in the images shot - and still have absolute control over the final images through your workflow based upon the raw files.

Yep, that is an option I have considered - at the moment the contest is firmly in favour of RAW - if the scales start to tip I will begin shooting raw+ jpg. Right now just raw is serving me well.

Certainly there is more control if you shoot RAW, but it virtually makes PP compulsory, doesn't it?

I shoot RAW, but I'm not a wedding photographer. I could understand the rationale of someone trying to find a way of developing in-camera settings that would reduce the work flow, and therefore the time, of every job.

I guess the question then becomes whether or not the reduced work flow compromises the finished product.

cricketfan wrote:Certainly there is more control if you shoot RAW, but it virtually makes PP compulsory, doesn't it?

As above, if your settings are set as you would if you were shooting jpg all you have to do is set up a batch conversion from NEF to jpg, very easy and doesn't take too long. Of course you can PP the NEFs individually if you like, and if you're doing this as a matter of course then you might be better off shooting RAW + JPG.

gstark wrote:Raw is a pure record of what you've taken, and in a lossless format

It's worth mentioning that on the D200 this is only the case if you're using the uncompressed RAW option. The D200's compressed RAW files, just like the D70's compressed RAW files, are not lossless.

MCWB wrote:It's worth mentioning that on the D200 this is only the case if you're using the uncompressed RAW option. The D200's compressed RAW files, just like the D70's compressed RAW files, are not lossless.

Good point.

The uncompressed NEF files are 15.8 Mb, while the compressed NEFs are around 8 Mb. Quite clearly, something has to give!

If file size is an issue, compressed NEFs (which Nikon amusingly describe as "virtually lossless") may be an acceptable compromise, but personally, I think if you want NEFs, then you want uncompressed NEFs.

Does anyone know what you lose by going "compressed NEF", compared to the uncompressed NEF....and what significance will this have on the final image ?

Dave, you lose some of the highlight data, and hence some loss of detail in the highlights. The D200 seems to be rather sensitive about exposing so as not to blow the highlights though (much more so than the D70, would other D200 owners agree with this?), so it's not as big a problem as it may seem. Of course the D70 has no uncompressed NEF option, so we just lived with it!

Greg B wrote:The uncompressed NEF files are 15.8 Mb, while the compressed NEFs are around 8 Mb. Quite clearly, something has to give!

Not neccessarily, but it depends upon how the compression algorithms are implemented.

Let me give you a very simple example.

Let's assume that a digital value for a pure black pixel might be 0, and that there's some black in the image. For a small section of black in the image, say 20 consecutive pixels, in an uncompressed format, this might be stored as 20 bytes, each with a value of zero. Something like "00000000000000000000".

If we were to conpress this, we might set up an algorithm for storage and retieval that stores the value, and then the number of times that value appears. So ... "020" would be the compressed version of "00000000000000000000", resulting in a net saving of 17 bytes, with no loss of any data.

Yes, this is a grossly oversimplified example, but it gives you, I hope, some feel for the way that this might be accomplished, and hopefully demonstrates that compression doesn't have to mean a loss of any data.

So in summary, the more you blow your highlights the smaller the file will be? I'll test this - a completely blown image should be all 255 therefore d200 approx 4000*3000*255 should go down to a couple of megs (with the inbuilt jpegs and overheads etc)

Gary, I take your point, and we know that lossless compression is an everyday occurence with, for example, files processed through WinZip or WinRAR. The zipped file is smaller, but it unzips to its original state.

However, I don't believe that Nikon is claiming lossless compression, but there is certainly less loss than the inherently lossy jpegs for example.

Justin wrote:So in summary, the more you blow your highlights the smaller the file will be? I'll test this - a completely blown image should be all 255 therefore d200 approx 4000*3000*255 should go down to a couple of megs (with the inbuilt jpegs and overheads etc)

To some extent, and in theory, yes. Equally, an image that is essentially all black should similarly be able to be copmpressed to a greater extent.

Understand that I'm talking about just a couple of basic elements of compression, that there are many ways of doing this, and that I have no knowledge of the engineering that Nikon have employed in their compression engine.

Greg B wrote:Gary, I take your point, and we know that lossless compression is an everyday occurence with, for example, files processed through WinZip or WinRAR. The zipped file is smaller, but it unzips to its original state.

However, I don't believe that Nikon is claiming lossless compression, but there is certainly less loss than the inherently lossy jpegs for example.

Greg, absolutely. There may be values that are able to be recorded by the sensor, but the algorithms might preclude storage. I don't know, and I don't pretend to know, the full details here, and I only have a rudimentary knowledge of this, and that's all I'm trying to impart here.

And yes, I expect that you understand and appreciate this too.

No I understand and I certainly am not going to get into anything more than a practical application with a couple of shots. If they are 'generally' smaller then we can 'generally' say compression works.

it will not answer the question about what 'virtually loss-less' is though..

Folk, a well exposed JPG is almost indistinguishable from a RAW captured print up to about A3. That's a fact! However, if the JPG was not well exposed, or the WB is off, then RAW wins every time. My advice to those who have been well served by JPG is stick with it and enjoy. Don't feel like you are getting something inferior because most of the time you are not. If, on the other hand, you need to make a very large print or poster, or the image is a very important one...go RAW for safety.

Matt. K wrote:Folk, a well exposed JPG is almost indistinguishable from a RAW captured print up to about A3. That's a fact!

Dreaming!

Detail and contrast in my S3 RAW files in both shadow detail and especially highlight area contains more detail compared to jpg shots.

Direct comparison between the two here: http://www.ics.uci.edu/~eppstein/pix/rawvsjpg/

Further discussion here: http://www.pixelpixel.org/helpinfo/35_r ... #FinalWord

Cheers

padey wrote:

Matt. K wrote:Folk, a well exposed JPG is almost indistinguishable from a RAW captured print up to about A3. That's a fact!

Dreaming!

Detail and contrast in my S3 RAW files in both shadow detail and especially highlight area contains more detail compared to jpg shots.

Andrew,

This thread is specifically discussing D200 issues. I'm not at all sure that bringing the S3 into the discussion is helpful or relevant.

Blackspear,

Do what works for you and your workflow

I am a 100% jpegger and I shoot weddings.

Cheers
Vince

shutterbug wrote:Blackspear,

Do what works for you and your workflow

I am a 100% jpegger and I shoot weddings.

Cheers
Vince

Thanks Vince, I am happy with Jpegs, and don't see a need to go RAW at this stage. I was mainly concerned with the Auto-ISO, and I can't see an issue with leaving it set to go between 100 and 400, I can adjust it on the fly when the need arises...

Cheers

Blackspear wrote:Direct comparison between the two here: http://www.ics.uci.edu/~eppstein/pix/rawvsjpg/

Further discussion here: http://www.pixelpixel.org/helpinfo/35_r ... #FinalWord

Cheers

You're showing a D60 RAW image V jpg. I might as well pull out my etch-a-sketch.

I print thousands of my files a month. My 14bit RAW files contain more data then a, 8bit jpg file.

gstark wrote:

padey wrote:

Matt. K wrote:Folk, a well exposed JPG is almost indistinguishable from a RAW captured print up to about A3. That's a fact!

Dreaming!

Detail and contrast in my S3 RAW files in both shadow detail and especially highlight area contains more detail compared to jpg shots.

Andrew,

This thread is specifically discussing D200 issues. I'm not at all sure that bringing the S3 into the discussion is helpful or relevant.

I would say the same for my D200, although not as much highlight data. Still more then a jpg out of the same camera.

padey wrote:You're showing a D60 RAW image V jpg. I might as well pull out my etch-a-sketch.

I print thousands of my files a month. My 14bit RAW files contain more data then a, 8bit jpg file.

Hi Andrew, my intention was not to get into a RAW vs JPEG debate in this thread, as such debates can go on and on and on.... I am happy with JPEG currently and may change my mind in the future, who knows

The question was about the use of Auto-ISO with a limit set to go between 100 and 400, which through a PM you have given me further answers.

Cheers

padey
I haven't met a photographer yet who could look at an A3 print and tell me it was shot in Raw or JPG provided they were both well handled. Different matter on a monitor at 300% perhaps but that's not the point. The point is an excellent image is an excellent image regardless of which file format it was shot in. I shoot RAW sometimes and JPG sometimes and most of the time I can't tell which is which. Images intended for extensive PP should be shot in RAW, no argument there, but otherwise it just ain't a serious consideration. IMHO.

Hhmmm. An interesting conversation.
I haven't taken any weddings since I have been digital, but did half a dozen or so with film.
Using film, I did not have the luxury of changing ISO without changing film (or bodies).
Also, not that it is relevant to the ISO debate, you are much more restricted in the number of shots you want to take when using film, so memory space should not be an issue as discussed.
Raw VS JPG - take your pick - I use RAW+JPG basic, only so I get a quick jpg to view before getting into PP.

ISO -
Generally my advice, and the way I use the camera - would be to leave it at the sharpest ISO setting (100) and adjust other aspects of the photo. Only when I need to, that is, I cannot obtain the image I am trying for with the current settings, do I adjust ISO - indoors for example, where you could soon detirmine what ISO setting would be needed to cover the shots you will be taking, then leave it set to that - and train the mind to change it again when lighting changes (eg. you go outside)
So in short, I would not use the Auto ISO setting. I like to have control of the camera at all times, not letting it decide for me.

Having said that, I said I hadn't done weddings using digital. Perhaps there is a genuine benefit to the facility - perhaps that benefit is in speed - not having to take the second or two to adjust the ISO might just mean capturing a moment that may have been missed. But I got great results with film - as did others before the digital era, and we couldn't change the ISO so why not leave it and only change it if you have to?

The feature (Auto ISO) exists, so someone thought it was a good idea, but then P mode exists too, and I don't use that!

One last thing - I like to go to rehearsals for weddings - allows me the benefit to plan shots in my head, talk to the minister or whoever about policy for flash, where to stand, what access I have etc. AND most importantly, I get an insight to what the lighting is like - daylight from one side for example so I know what side I would prefer to be on... And a rough idea on how well lit things are likely to be.
All sorts of things.

Just read the question again before posting - you say weddings and PORTRAITS.
Most portraits I have done has been well set up - I know where I am going to be and what the lighting will be like, so I see no need at all for Auto ISO under such controlled conditions. If you need to step it down to 200 or 400 or whatever, then it will be done and away you go concentrating on other elements of your photo, no worrying about what the Auto ISO will be doing.

Just my thoughts.

Could anyone give me some feedback on the usefulness or otherwise of using and setting the 'Nikon D200 Custom Functions Spreadsheet Ver. 1.5 (or is there a newer or better one out at the moment? )
Am interested, if for no other reason at present than to use the 4 banks of settings available on the D200 just 'because their there', does anyone recommend the 4 banks they have recommended on the spreadsheet. An particularly interested in something that will give me a good success rate in the various types of photography, particularly sports action, until I learn a little more about the D200 myself and start my own preference settings.
cheers
marco

marcotrov wrote:...using and setting the 'Nikon D200 Custom Functions Spreadsheet Ver. 1.5 (or is there a newer or better one out at the moment?

Hi Marco, where do you get this from?

Cheers

Obtainable form the attachment on this thread in Nikonians
http://www.nikonians.org/dcforum/DCForu ... 17033.html
but it is also somewhere in our forums archives I'm sure
cheers
marco

I have tried to read and consider all the comments already located within this thread, much of which does do my small brain in.
I don't understand the argument of jpg vrs NEF/RAW.

This would seem to be a no brainer for me. I simply don't see the point of investing in DSLR technology and not using the ultimate tool that it provides. RAW is the the best of what ever you got on the day, in the field, at the shoot - whatever.

It is the DIGITAL negative. If you want to make the most out of your pictures save a NEF original and fiddle with the jpg copy - very simple.

As for the D200 settings - well that is another story.

A new set of tests up at Ken Rockwells site: http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d200/q ... ttings.htm

Cheers

Blackspear wrote:

marcotrov wrote:...using and setting the 'Nikon D200 Custom Functions Spreadsheet Ver. 1.5 (or is there a newer or better one out at the moment?

Hi Marco, where do you get this from?

Cheers

Links on this thread D200 - Things I have found out

http://www.dslrusers.net/viewtopic.php? ... c&start=60

Thanks Greg.

Cheers

marcotrov wrote:Could anyone give me some feedback on the usefulness or otherwise of using and setting the 'Nikon D200 Custom Functions Spreadsheet Ver. 1.5 (or is there a newer or better one out at the moment? )
Am interested, if for no other reason at present than to use the 4 banks of settings available on the D200 just 'because their there', does anyone recommend the 4 banks they have recommended on the spreadsheet. An particularly interested in something that will give me a good success rate in the various types of photography, particularly sports action, until I learn a little more about the D200 myself and start my own preference settings.
cheers
marco

Marco, I think the idea of the speadsheet is to give you a simple overview of the settings you have in the four banks.

I have seen different suggestions for the banks, one might be NEF, one JPEGS, one with shutter priority for sport (for example) and so on.

Or you may choose to have four fairly similar and switch between them as a relatively easy means of making comparisons (in the field etc)

There are a lot of variables, and it is nice to have your tried and true set-up on Bank A, but use another Bank for making adjustments, knowing that you can always drop back to Bank A and you will know what you have.

Nikon Camera Remote (which used to be part of Capture in 4.4 but is now separate to NX) lets you set up everything on the computer, quite useful too.

Thanks Greg. I'm going to have to read the manual,especially regarding these 4 banks I just need 48 hrs in the day right now or just get organised.
cheers
marco