Nikon D70 and cropping photos

[JimPurdy]

Shouldn't the "fine" setting give you the best quality pic you can get?

No, the best quality picture will be by using the "Raw" setting. You have much more data to work with but you will have to sharpen the image and perform some other modifications.

Jim

[RachelleFav]

I have yet to venture into "raw" settings but that is next on my list. I am having quite a bit of computer troubles but am having it replaced in a few weeks which should make photo editing much easier as this one is incredibly slow. A new system shoudl make things much easier to learn. Thanks again.

[another view]

The jpeg vs. RAW debate is almost like the film vs. digital debate - a properly exposed and processed jpeg file can give you a great print. It's like shooting slide film, you have to get it right at time of capture - post processing (like Photoshop work) will only go so far, more like fine adjustments.

RAW gives you tons of flexibility later, but you'll get only a fraction of the shots onto a memory card and will have to do post processing work later. Capture (taking the picture) is only part of this process. With a lot of shots, it can be very time consuming.

Like the choice between film and digital, I use both for different situations. Each has it's own pros and cons, it just depends on what you need and what you can put up with. Have tricky lighting and need to get good people shots? Shoot RAW. Outside in excellent light and think that you're getting portfolio-grade shots? Probably stick with RAW here too. Shooting in an indoor controlled (lighting) environment? JPEG will be just fine, as long as you use a custom white balance. Outside in "normal" lighting conditions? JPEG again. Don't have time for post process (like newspaper work)? JPEG.

These are my guidelines, and you'll figure out when to use each. But notice I didn't say anything about big prints. Either type of file will work well here - it's how you handle the shooting and post process that's important.

[RachelleFav]

...great info as always!

[RachelleFav]

The jpeg vs. RAW debate is almost like the film vs. digital debate - a properly exposed and processed jpeg file can give you a great print. It's like shooting slide film, you have to get it right at time of capture - post processing (like Photoshop work) will only go so far, more like fine adjustments.

RAW gives you tons of flexibility later, but you'll get only a fraction of the shots onto a memory card and will have to do post processing work later. Capture (taking the picture) is only part of this process. With a lot of shots, it can be very time consuming.

Like the choice between film and digital, I use both for different situations. Each has it's own pros and cons, it just depends on what you need and what you can put up with. Have tricky lighting and need to get good people shots? Shoot RAW. Outside in excellent light and think that you're getting portfolio-grade shots? Probably stick with RAW here too. Shooting in an indoor controlled (lighting) environment? JPEG will be just fine, as long as you use a custom white balance. Outside in "normal" lighting conditions? JPEG again. Don't have time for post process (like newspaper work)? JPEG.

These are my guidelines, and you'll figure out when to use each. But notice I didn't say anything about big prints. Either type of file will work well here - it's how you handle the shooting and post process that's important.

Okay...another question for you. I've looked through my D70 guide and not a lot of info on RAW. Here is my first question...can't pictures only be printed at stores etc. in jpeg format? Can you go from RAW to JPEG once the photos are edited?

[RachelleFav]

Once you take a picture in RAW and edit it how do you print it? Is it convertible to a JPEG file?

[another view]

Once you take a picture in RAW and edit it how do you print it? Is it convertible to a JPEG file?

There won't be much info in the camera manual about it because it's really more software dependant than anything. You just set the camera to shoot that way and from there you're dealing with the RAW file converter. For me, that used to be Fuji's program (can't remember the name but doesn't really matter) but now I use Photoshop CS.

Basically, this is how I do it: Set the camera in RAW mode and take a picture. Download the card into the computer (I use the "drag & drop" method here). Open Photoshop CS and open the browser screen. That gives me thumbnails (looks kind of like Nikon View). Double click on an image and it opens up the RAW converter screen. Here is where the white balance, mode (Adobe RGB, 16 bit, etc) and a bunch of other things are or can be set. Click OK, and those changes are made and the item opens up like normal in Photoshop.

Caveat: The way I do it isn't necessarily right or wrong but may be different than how other people do it. Probably is, actually. The big advantage is that RAW converter screen where you can make all of those changes. Think of it as still being "in camera" at that point. You can even change exposure by at least a stop either way and not have problems.

To answer your question (finally ), save that finished image (after conversion and any other editing) as a jpeg or TIFF file. Which one is a whole different chapter... Simple answer: Save it only once as a jpeg in the highest quality (least compression) you can. Every time you re-save a jpeg (after more editing), you'll throw out data. You can use a TIFF file which is basically a compression-less jpeg, but that file size is quite large. Matter of fact Fuji Frontier minilabs don't like them because they're so big (don't ask how I know this ...). I usually save an edited image as a TIFF file as a master file. Then I make a copy as a jpeg that's sized to whatever I need and bring that to the lab.

[RachelleFav]

I'm going to have to experiment with that. I am expecting a new computer in two weeks so I should be able to do more. My current system is dreadfully slow and near death so it takes about ten minutes to edit a jpeg file! I still don't have photoshop...just Nikon Picture Project. Doesn't it run about $400 or so?

[another view]

I'm going to have to experiment with that. I am expecting a new computer in two weeks so I should be able to do more. My current system is dreadfully slow and near death so it takes about ten minutes to edit a jpeg file! I still don't have photoshop...just Nikon Picture Project. Doesn't it run about $400 or so?

Photoshop CS is the "full" version and about $650. I was able to buy an educational version for half that, though - long story. What you could do is take a class at a community college and buy a bunch of software, Adobe isn't the only one that has these deals. Other than that, most normal people will get Photoshop Elements. It's got most of what CS has other than the RAW converter, and under $100. I don't know about Picture Project, but if it doesn't have the RAW converter then you'd need Nikon Capture for about $150-200 I think.

Photoshop uses up a lot of RAM in a computer. I have 512 but think I should upgrade to one gig. New software and 256 would probably be pretty slow especially if you're doing a lot of RAW stuff...

[Todd Patten]

With the Nikon D70 comes software to do Raw-->JPG conversion. PopPhoto however recommends that you use the previous version of the Nikon View Software to do the conversion as it seems to be much better. Go to popphoto.com and do a search for the D70 review and you should get more info.

Also, this is simply a guess, but even if you are shooting in RAW or Fine with the D70, you may be losing quality if your ISO is set high. If you are shooting at 400 or 800 as opposed to 200, you are going to lose quality.

Who did you use for processing. I find local supermarket labs to be lagging in digital processing. Ofoto.com does a very fine job.

[RachelleFav]

Thanks. I think I need better software but I'm still in need of a flash too. Pictures still aren't coming out as good as I'd like them too. So I need to find software with a RAW converter then. My new system will have a gig of ram. I have 128 now! Can you believe it. It's awful how slow it is with the photo program.

[RachelleFav]

I think ISO is typically set at 400. I'll move it down to 200...good idea. I had been bringing my pics to Wal-Mart. I had changed from them with my film camera and got much better results. I had used them again for the digitals because they had the system there to print them from disk. Not much better. I've given them three shots. I just uploaded some online to get printed. I'll check ofoto.com next time. I'm going to try a few out. Even when I had my 1 megapixel digital my prints from photoworks weren't that bad. I'll let y'all know if they are any better. I love my digital camera...being able to take a million pictures is great and I've learned so much more quickly than with my film camera. The pics just aren't the same though. I wish I could get closer. All of my shots are of people so I think the fact that it's digital is obvious.

[Todd Patten]

The pics just aren't the same though. I wish I could get closer. All of my shots are of people so I think the fact that it's digital is obvious.

This confuses me a bit. If you have the D70, at 6.3 mega-pixels the quality should be equal to and possibly even surpase 35mm film. How is it obvious that the photo's are digital? I find mine to be very sharp and very crisp. When I have them printed, the comment I get is, "Those are from a digital camera?!?"

If you want to get closer to the subjects, Nikon has a very affordable 70-300 G lense -- particularly if you find a photo shop on ebay. The 70-300 ED lense is a bit more expensive, but by all accounts the glass is exceptional with very little loss at the edges regardless of what stop you are using.

[RachelleFav]

what I am doing! It seems my first round of photos came out better than more recent ones. I'm not sure what is going wrong. Did you see the picture I posted earlier in this message. You can see what I mean. What settings do you typically have your camera on? What flash are you using? I think my flash may be part of the problem but I am typically going with default settings. I have it set to large and fine jpeg shots. I need to see what my last round of pictures look like when I get them in a few days. Not sure what to do from here. Thanks for the efoto link. I checked it out and can't wait to use them next time. I like the Kodak Perfect Touch processing. Maybe that will help me!

[another view]

OK, maybe I don't know when to quit - but...

Take a look at the shots in this viewfinder thread: Some NYC snaps...

I know Charles shoots both film & digital but knew these were digital before I read that they were. Digital does have a different look to it. This is even more true of digital P&S cameras (as this one is) because typically DSLR's don't do that much "work" to the image - it's up to you. Further opportunities for creativity, but more learning curve. I'm not picking on Charles, he's an incredible photographer and a valuable addition here.

A telephoto zoom might be a good thing to have, but I'm going to disagree that it's the best way to get closer. Try moving in closer - it's not the same thing once again. There's a great quote from years ago which I wish now I knew exactly, but something like "If I can't feel your pictures then you're not close enough!". Anyway, you get the point...

P.S. I regularly use ISO800 on my Fuji with great results - but only when necessary. Don't know specifically about the D70 but at least ISO400 should be fine. You will start to see "noise" which looks like grain - more in higher speeds, just like film.

[RachelleFav]

I appreciate your advice. I agree that digital look digital...wish it didn't though I think I have lots of room to improve just not quite sure how. I notice in my digital pictures that the background images taken are all crisp and have tons of detail. It's the people portion of the picture that I'm not happy with. How can this be? Could the fact that I never have a still subject have a lot to do with it? I found a setting on the camera yesterday when reading again where you can optimize images to be normal, sharp, vivid, portrait, soft, directprint, landscape or custom. I am going to check those things out and then check out RAW when I get my new system. Thanks again for all of your help.

[another view]

Could the fact that I never have a still subject have a lot to do with it?

Were you getting shots like that on film? I don't think that is a film/digital thing - maybe a matter of learning the new camera, it's just that this one happens to be digital.

The settings that you mention are probably a good place to start with - this will shorten the learning curve a little. Think of it as "automatic Photoshop" but it can't really be undone later. Down the road, you might not use these - or at least not all the time - when you get more familiar with how you want to do things in Photoshop. The advantage is that it's very quick and easy but the disadvantage is the lack of flexibility. Try it, it might work for you. Like I said before, there's a lot of ways to do the same thing and it's the end result that counts.

Glad to help - I feel partly responsible for getting you into this mess !

[RachelleFav]

Hey...you did get me into this mess didn't you??? Just joking!!! I think I was having some issues on film too. I think I should blame it on my kids not keeping still for me! I'm going to work with those settings and need to work on getting a compatible flash and better software. Whew...the list is growing!!! Good thing is that I am just messing around with the camera and I can practice all I want so I'm going to keep at it. Once I get my faster computer it should make it not such a pain to look at what I've done and figure out what to do. Thanks for all your advice.