Team-BHP (https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/)

-   Gadgets, Computers & Software (https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/gadgets-computers-software/)

-   -   The DSLR Thread (https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/gadgets-computers-software/11582-dslr-thread-500.html)

I have the same Hoya filter. However, it will have no effect on image quality. It just does not degrate it, like the cheaper filters. Since I got it from US, I got it cheaper (35 USD approx). However, I do get some flare. Another one I have from a company called "Precision optics" cost me 49$, but it does not have the flare issue. That said, I shoot without UV filter. Finally have my CPL and ND8 with me, so UVs are useless
I think most APS-C have 3:2 ratios. Panasonic has 4/3 as well as other 4/3rds lenses

Shoot RAW 14 bit. You can use lossless compressed. I use the same on my D7000.

Here is the reason for my confusion. Never had so many options in life till date :D !!! Single image approximate file size from a D700 FX sensor:

NEF RAW lossless compressed 12 bit = 13.3 MB
NEF RAW lossless compressed 14 bit = 16.3 MB
NEF RAW compressed 12 bit = 11 MB
NEF RAW compressed 14 bit = 13 MB
NEF RAW uncompressed 12 bit = 18.8 MB
NEF RAW uncompressed 14 bit = 24.7 MB

TIFF (RGB) Large = 35.9 MB :Shockked:
TIFF (RGB) Medium = 20.7 MB
TIFF (RGB) Small = 10 MB

Also another doubt, do you guys use sRGB or Adobe RGB colour space ? Manual explains sRGB is for straight print or 'as is' usage. Latter is for extensive processing and retouching.

When you shoot RAW, you want the smallest file size possible without losing any data from sensor.
So lossless compressed is the best. File size = 16.3MB

This would be my choice too.

Yes, that is right. Stick with sRGB. Only a professional would need ever Adobe RGB. I remember dealing with the same question many years back. Professional books on retouching always say Adobe. But then we are no pros.

I learned it hard ways, I have been shooting on Adobe RGB for some time and noticed that it looks little better on my machine, but the moment I post them over net, colors on over the net are little dull from the original one. And I realized this is because most of the net apps are still not compatible with Adobe RGB and rendering the pics in Adobe RGB causes color lose.

SO this is what I am doing, I am still shooting in Adobe RGB, but have set the default color space in Capture NX to Nikon sRGB, so it automatically converts the colorspace to sRGB, but I still have the original NEF with wider color space of Adobe RGB, just in case if it gives better colors while printing.

I think I have been using sRGB throughout my DSLR journey so far. For the first time I tested Adobe RGB out of curiosity and not yet knowledgeable enough to distinguish the difference :), so that explains the situation !!

What I feel is, in-camera and on-PC processing programs should be matching each other for the optimum editing freedom and end result (open to correction). When I checked the color settings of my CS4, default is sRGB and its explained as the default choice of many printers, scanners, software/hardware manufacturers. So, once my curiosity level is low, I will shift back to sRGB !

Use RAW lossless compression at 14 bits. You can reduce the number of bits later on, but 14 bits will give you best colour transition.

The other options are just to speed up the in camera processing, hence the burst speed.

TIFF is if you do not have a RAW processor, but the demosaiking is done in camera and would slow it down.

You can process in one colour space, as required by the software, you have to convert it for publishing and it is just a button away. So use RGB in Adobe and convert it to sRGB for publishing. By the way the print sub system will convert the Adobe image to correct colour space and format so that you print what you see on the monitor. For the prints to be matching the monitor colours you have to calibrate the monitor. The calibration is a straight forward process if you use dedicated system consisting of a sensor and software, available quite cheap in US.

Ah..No! I was hoping nobody brought that up.:uncontrol You are pushing him further into the dSLR money pit.

Now Shaju will start researching calibration software, and move on to dedicated hardware based calibration kit. Then he will find his monitor not up to the task. Then he will get a pro grade monitor like Rudra's.

Guess what, after doing all that most of his photos will only be seen on uncalibrated computer monitors of the viewers who will miss seeing all the color details.:D

PS: I went through all that dilemma few years back after seeing the amazing details on Rudra's monitor. Then I sobered up.

Thanks Samurai san, I had heard about this calibration thing few months back, but as long as I am not making a penny out of this whole thing, I wont break my bank for sure :)

This was heard from many......... only time shall tell!!!

Copy n pasting from my post on the digicam thread, as alpha1 suggested.

DSLR buying tips (humour): The Online Photographer: Letter to George

Long story short : the above article says buy the most expensive thing you can afford, because you'll end up buying it anyway.


Adding to what some earlier posts about 18-55m vs 50mm prime as starter lens, they both end up teaching you something - different things, so you end up with more expensive lens but more suited to your purpose. The 50mm forces you into moving around physically, makes you think in terms of "what can I fit into this" , or "how does that fit" and then later, about DOF and shutter speed. By then you get annoyed about how focused , pardon the pun, a prime lens is and look for a focal length more suitable for the kind of shots you like to take.

The kit lens doesn't force anything upon you , until you start shooting in low light and find your shots too blurry or the camera blinking the flash icon. Then you get annoyed enough to go out any buy a fast lens.

So my camera bag always has the 50 f/1.8D sitting spare and the 18-105mm on the body, because its pretty versatile except when I need the all the photons I can get. The 55-300 was the first lens I bought, when booking the camera, and it's the least used. That might change if go on safaris/bird hunting a lot, but generally long focals are less useful.

sRGB had more range than AdobeRGB. And all the pros i know shoot sRGB with NEW RAW uncompressed 14 bit, or sRGB with jpeg LARGE FINE lol:

Is it? I thought both use RGB subset, and 16 million colors.

Oh, the classic Adobe RGB vs sRGB fight.

Adobe RGB was used heavily in publishing applications (read Adobe software) but needs special monitors & calibration to see the richness. This I know from my limited interaction with media companies.

I used to use Adobe RGB because it actually shows richer colors on my MBP, when compared to sRGB ones on the same monitor. But since long I've moved to SRGB after discovering that Adobe RGB tagged photos look very pale on Windows PCs. So it is not the best for real photography. Also it is convenient. I do not have to covert between them.

To see a balanced comparison between the two colorspaces, read this:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/adobe-rgb.htm

Yes, both have 16 million colors.

+1 to that, the prime is fun. The cheapest and technicality-free lens gives the user a piece of mind. Low light shooting, fast aperture can kill an expensive f/2.8 though.

And with the new f1.8 G coming soon, am sure the investment on it would be fruitful.