Nikon D70 and cropping photos

[RachelleFav]

Is there a way to take a photo and then crop out the desired portion without losing sharpness? I have my camera set to fine and large but I've found that there isn't fine detail as I'd hoped. Can anyone help with this? Thanks!

[another view]

Is your concern about print size? Highest resolution and fine mode should give you a file that can be printed as a pretty nice 16x24 or so, maybe bigger. Of course, all of this depends on how sharp the image is, etc. In my experience, a print of this size works better on my Fuji S2 than 35mm film. Even if you crop the image, you still should be able to get a good print - how much cropping you do and what print quality you expect will determine how big you can make a print. Also, there is a difference between looking at a print and looking at the 100% file in Photoshop.

You can't add detail that's not there, but are you sharpening in the camera? Some people do, some do it later in Photoshop (more control but extra work). You still may be able to sharpen a little more in Photoshop or any other image editing program - be careful here though, over-sharpened images just look wierd.

[RachelleFav]

That would better explain what I'm trying to do. My camera came with Picture Project and there are four different levels of sharpness. You are right when it is overdone it doesn't look good. I'm not trying to get larger prints...just 4x6 prints but this past round of picture taking I took tons horizontally since my flash was mounted on my camera and not a bracket and then cropped them down to get more emphasis on the facial shots or into vertical shots and when I had them printed at the store I found they didn't look good at all. I thought I had the settings on maximum but that is perhaps to allow to enlarge them. Any ideas or can I not just crop so much? Thanks...you are always so kind to respond!

[another view]

Put it this way - if you were to print one of those shots as a 16x24 and then take a pair of scissors to cut the cropped final image out of it, how big would it be? From what you say, maybe an 11x14 vertical? Since we're physically cutting it out of the same 16x24 print, the quality will be the same, right? And that final image is a lot bigger than a 4x6! I'm using a 16x24 because of past experience with my camera and I'm really happy with those prints (shot in JPEG, too).

So, something doesn't sound right - you can't get a good 4x6 when you're cropping about half the image out (approximate guess?). Have to admit that I don't know the exact terminology used on the D70, but any time you know you're going to crop you should shoot a bigger file than what you need. Actually, when shooting jpeg I always shoot the highest resolution and lowest compression I can. Make sure by checking the manual that you're doing this.

If you're shooting something you know will be a big print, then you drag out the tripod, shoot a sharp lens, cable release, the whole bit. But getting a print the way you describe - especially with flash - should be pretty easy without being very critical of your shooting technique. However, if you're cropping too much, you might have problems. Say you've got a group shot of 500 people, if you crop one person out of that group chances are you're not going to get a very good print. Do you want to post an example?

[RachelleFav]

Here is one picture I am talking about. I think it came out quite fuzzy once printed.

I am shooting the highest resolution possible per the manual. What do you mean by compression? I am wondering if flash has a bit to do with it as well. I have an sb50dx which is not fully compatible with the D70 so I have to shoot on manual flash...it stinks! It takes a lot of ajusting with aperture to get a reasonably decent shot. In this particular shot my daughter was far away so it may have not had the proper lighting either. I need to get that flash sooner or later!!! Let me know what you think...if the picture attaches correctly. Thanks.

[FREELANCE2004]

this picture really isnt terrible,considering.it looks like very low light.it looks like the photo needs to be sharpened a bit.i think if you were trying to get facials,you should of zoomed in a bit more,do you have a way of editing this picture.photoshop should be able to get a pretty good final result.
this is just my opinion, im kinda curious to see your final picture.it should make a great 8x10.
bye bye
freelance2004

[RachelleFav]

I have already edited it in Picture Project. I perhaps could have sharpened it a bit but the pics look so digital. I think a sb800 will help lots but haven't quite talked the hubby into it yet! He he. I just got the camera a few months ago. As for zooming...man I WISH I could keep those kids to keep still so I could take a decent picture and have time to adjust the aperture, etc. to get the flash to work but those boogers won't stop. I may try to sharpen it and see what happens. I really like facial shots of the kids most. That flash is causing my grief as their faces are so white in the pics. I can't seem to get it right. Thanks again.

[RachelleFav]

For some reason I don't think that was my edited picture. I am going to try to send it again. Here goes.

[another view]

Doesn't look bad from here, but then we're looking at small images on a screen - what you see on a print can be different. A little sharpening and it would probably be fine in an 8x10 - even the cropped one.

The flash is a little bright though. The SB800 is one option, but dialing in some flash compensation would probably help. When I use fill flash, my starting point is to put the flash at -1.0. That brings the subject out without a "flashed" look. Keeping up with all of the latest technology is pretty tough. You can probably experiment with your SB50DX and get different results from it - one thing I'm usually doing on my DSLR is shooting my SB28's (old, non-DX which doesn't work with Fuji anyway) is using good-old-fashioned "A" mode. That uses the sensor in the flash instead of TTL. It's working pretty well for me, but I know the latest stuff like the D2H or D70 with the SB800 is supposed to be almost as good as it was with film cameras.

[RachelleFav]

I have already sharpened this one as much as I can I think. With the flash though I'm not sure how to adjust compensation. The thing about the sb50dx with the D70 is that it will only work on full manual mode and always fires at 100%. Is there a way around that other than adjusting aperture?

[Lava Lamp]

I have already sharpened this one as much as I can I think. With the flash though I'm not sure how to adjust compensation. The thing about the sb50dx with the D70 is that it will only work on full manual mode and always fires at 100%. Is there a way around that other than adjusting aperture?

You can adjust flash compensation by holding down the button that makes the flash pop up. I've found my printing results to vary widely among my own Epson and several different labs.

[RachelleFav]

I've got some more reading to do!

[another view]

I am shooting the highest resolution possible per the manual. What do you mean by compression?

Forgot to answer this one. BTW, with the new boards here it's kind of a leap of faith to attach a picture! Here's the short (hopefully I can keep it that way) answer.

A jpeg is a compressed file. Basically, the software that creates the file - in this case the camera - that throws out information that's redundant. Say you take a shot of a clear blue sky - you'll probably have more colors of blue than you might think, but a lot of it is very similar. You'll notice that the file size for this shot is somewhat smaller than the file size for a shot with a lot of detail in it with the same camera settings. How much data you can throw out before it becomes a problem is the real question - and can vary from shot to shot.

Your camera should have a few different compression (maybe called quality) settings. On my Coolpix and Fuji, "FINE" is the highest quality/least compression. This is still about 4:1 compression - that 16mb file gets shrunk down to 4mb (depending on the shot, as explained above). Photoshop will show it back at the 16mb file size when you open the image because it "fills in the holes" of that information that was left out of the jpeg. Don't know how else to explain it - it's just magic! My experience is that FINE mode works great in all circumstances I've used it. Advantage is that you just quadrupled how many shots you can get on a card, downsize is that higher compression/lower quality will give you problems with enlargements. The bigger the enlargement and lower the quality, the bigger the problem.

I didn't do so good with a "short version", did I? I'm outta here - see everybody in a week!!

[RachelleFav]

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

[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.