Growing as a photographer

DxO PhotoLab
101

Hi Mike, fair enough, but it works really well for me so I’m very happy. For you, then just carry on using your current camera :slight_smile:

I appreciate you may never have had a problem viewing the viewfinder when wearing your glasses, and that is great. But humans are a population of billions and we are all different shapes and sizes, and those with less than ideal eyesight wear glasses made of different shapes, sizes and lenses. When wearing my glasses, I can’t get my eye close enough to the viewfinder to be able to see the entire image frame.

The DP Review forum thread you found is from 2019, Nikon didn’t introduce this solution until the launch of the Z9 in 2021. That would explain why the people posting in that thread did not discuss this solution. The solution was also included in the Z8, which was launched earlier this year, and was added to the Z6ii and Z7ii via a firmware update in August '23. I do not know if the new zf camera has this function. As far as I’m aware this function is not currently available with the Z5, the original Z6 and Z7, and their DX ‘Z’ cameras.

I guess this is about choice? I’m glad I’ve the choice to select this option on my camera. Yes, it makes the image size smaller but I’m now able to easily see the entire frame, which I prefer. You don’t need to enable this camera function and you still get the larger image in the EVF.

Here is the Z9 menu guide for this:
Finder Display Size (Photo Lv) (nikonimglib.com)

And this blog post about the Aug '23 Z6ii firmware update explains the function nicely imo.
The Nikon Z6 II Update Gives You New Customization Features (thephoblographer.com)

102

Well, you’re happy, and now that I’ve replaced the “magnifying viewfinder eyepiece” with the standard eyepiece, I’m satisfied. (I read all the articles on the magnifying eyepiece, and got excited about it, but I didn’t understand all the implications.)

Curious - which mirrorless model Nikon are you shooting with?

103

This is what will probably force my hand at some point. Or, as has already been stated… compelling new technology makes a mirrorless much more desirable.

But I don’t think either of those things will be any time soon. My current Pentax KP was, I think, less than 12 months old when I bought it in 2017. It’s still as good today as it was then, and I’m really pleased with the photos I am getting. I have upgraded lenses a couple of times since then, but I still occasionally use my father’s old lenses bought in the 1970s. I’ve also bought or been given other old lenses that make my photography more fun, and that’s a big part of why I’ve stuck with Pentax all these years. Yes the modern lenses have gained all manner of extra functions, but every Pentax 35mm system lens ever made just fits right on my camera, only the very oldest requiring a screw-to-bayonet adaptor.

I know there are adaptors between systems, but in my mind it’s not the same. My Dad chose Pentax in the 1960s, and I still honour his choice today.

2 Likes
104

I use a Nikon Z6 ii, along with a Z50 as a lightweight backup/2nd body (the Z50 image quality is excellent, but I wouldn’t want to use it as a primary work tool as it is very small in my hands and lacks a few functions that I use regularly on my main camera). I’ll probably end up getting a Z6 iii (whenever one is released, I’m in no rush) and use that as the main camera. The Z6 ii would then become the backup/2nd body with the Z50 then being sold.

105

Nice!

My Dad shot with Olympus, and I used their cameras for a long time. I transitioned to Nikon when I got my first auto-focus camera (the venerable F90X) and have been using their cameras ever since. Dad continued to use Olympus though and we had lots of lovely camera chats over the years :slight_smile:

1 Like
106

I’m sure you will get a lot of great advice here, but I’m going to give you what is often an unpopular opinion, and one that ties it into the purpose of this forum.

One of the things that improved my photography is a few years ago, when I add a simple step to when I am trying to ‘see’ the image. That step is think about the processing.

As a photographer for over 20 years, I’ve been inundated by the ‘get it right in camera mantra.’ And there is a lot to be said about that, and much to be learned by it.

But since dodging and burning in the dark room became a thing, images have always been processed. They have been changed. The scene the photographer ‘saw’ couldn’t be achieved in camera under the circumstances, so they altered what the camera saw into what they saw.

And since the advent of digital photographer and processing software, that ability gets broader and better. So, as a photographer, as an artist, you need to make a decision. Are you going to fit yourself into the rigid (and usually false) idea of getting it right in camera, or are you going to take advantage of the tools available to raise you art and deliver your image of your image.

As a side note, before I get back to my long-winded point, where is the line drawn. Is it not okay to crop out a portion of the image, but it is okay to zoom with your feet? Is it wrong to clone out the garbage can, but it’s okay to move two steps to the left?

A portrait photographer once showed me his outdoor portrait image of getting it right in camera instead of ‘fakery’ in processing. I told him I had been to that location, and I was pretty sure the mountains in the distance were not out of focus.

But I digress.

As I look at my LCD, I still mentally scroll through the normal things to make sure get the image right, aperture, shutter speed, ISO, composition, but I also factor in processing. The biggest and most blatant of these is when the sky is boring or blown out. Instead of trying to strike a balance or shoot images with HDR in mind (another post processing trick), I know that I will likely replace the sky, so I can ignore now. Now I focus on the other elements and make them the best they can be.

But it doesn’t have to be that obvious. In a scene with HDR, I think about my software aresenals ability. Is it better at bringing out shadows while avoiding or eliminating noise, or is it better at toning down highlights.

In a way, I backed into this methodology. As I was processing images, I began to think, if I knew I was going to do this in post, I would have shot it differently. Then over time, I reversed the thought process.

Anyway, TL;DR, think about the processing. It’s part of the process.

107

It’s even simpler than that. One of the first things I learned when I switched from SLR to DSLR is that I had been underexposing my images all the time. Almost every single roll of film I took to the 1 hour processing place required the operator to crank up the exposure. Once I had to contend with it myself, I learned to use exposure compensation effectively.

Legend! You could also have demanded to see it in stereo. :wink:

This is one reason I do not so much think about the processing at shooting time. I’m not looking at an LCD but rather at my subject, through the lens. It’s one reason I’m not, at this stage, keen to switch to mirrorless.

But… I will underexpose in low light situations because I know my software can compensate for that and will have a much harder time with a too-slow shutter speed and camera or subject movement.

108

Reading the last two posts I found myself thinking about what photography is (only briefly though - guessing we all have thought at length about this before.)

If the only goal is the final image, irrespective of the process, then you could use software like Blender to create photorealist scenes or environments - giving you much more control. People perhaps not so easy due to skin. But then you get an AI to create a person for you and add that to your 3d scene. I’ve also seen works from 2d digi artists where you wouldn’t think it’s all brush (tablet pen) strokes.

I also think walking a few steps or kneeling etc. is very different from replacing a sky and using a HDR tool on single images. Nothing to do with right or wrong.

It only happens rarely, but sometimes I find that any processing other than perhaps NR and lens sharpening spoils the image. Something personal but I raise my eyebrows because I feel to have really achieved something. Generally I intentionally underexpose a bit.

Some form of processing happens in the camera anyway, so when getting pedantic about it, you’d have to say unprocessed digital images do not exist (you could also get philosophical about whether to include the mental process as processing.)

Sure, if you want to do certain forms of processing, it’s good to think about it when you’re taking the shot. But that is something generic which applies to any kind of workflow: Make sure the current step does not cause you problems in the next step.

1 Like
109

How to respond…
All of the above is SO true to me - trying to do my best… When I read your posts, they remind me of my own thoughts about photography. I don’t want my camera to change anything unless I deliberately tell it to do so.

With almost all my cameras in the past, I was looking at the live scene with my eyes, looking through whatever kind of viewfinder the camera used. With the new “mirrorless” cameras, it annoys me that I am now looking at a TV screen. Similar, but not the same.

To “grow as a photographer”, the camera part of this isn’t relevant - wonderful photographers with the right attitude towards photography have been doing this for ages, regardless of whatever equipment they used.

I’ve resisted any thoughts of buying a “mirrorless” camera, as it takes away something I find necessary, the ability to see with my own eyes what the camera is about to do. I never liked any of the mirrorless stuff I was exposed to, as I felt I was watching a TV screen.

Irrelevant comment - while I’ve felt this way for many years, I liked the Nikon Df because it had manual controls for just about everything. Then Nikon released their Zf, which looked so similar to “manual” cameras, but it was all “smoke and mirrors” - it was designed to look great, not to work great.
https://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/z/zf.htm
I was so close to buying one - but no longer. If I buy another camera body, it will be a D850.

Actually, if I had it all over to do again, instead of buying my Nikon D780 (because I wanted to capture 4K video), I now wish I had bought a D850. Just for the heck of it, on my recent two-month trip to India, I brought my smaller and lighter Df. Worked fine for me, with some small inconveniences. Images were not technically as good as what my D780 could do, but the camera was smaller, lighter, and more comfortable in my hands.

Back to this thread - to me, growing as a photographer refers to everything that I can do in capturing good photographs, which basically comes down to MY EYES, for seeing what I want, and MY TIMING for when to capture the image. I want to be watching the scene “live”, with a framing of what is included/excluded from the image.

(I’m talking about generalized photography, me, walking around with a camera, and seeing something I would like to photograph - not specialized photography. And the final result is what people get to see, when they view my image - but timing, composition, my camera settings, my choice of optics, all lead to that final result. We all have different goals, and we all see things differently, and I think we all learn by first making mistakes, then correcting them. …oh, and from feedback from knowledgable people, not the people who just say “oh, how wonderful”. )

110

It’s unlikely you’ll ever see what the camera captures. The way the optics and processing work in human vision and cameras is too different.

Keep in mind that what you are seeing is a collection of small images captured by your eye, which is then pieced together by your brain. Often a combination of portions you see in the moment and the rest “painted in” by what’s in your head. Don’t know if it’s true for everyone, but apparently you only see anything properly at any given moment in an area the size of your thumbnail if you extend your arm in front of you. Also for most people one eye does this detailed scanning, with the other eye just providing some support.

Take a look at the three articles by Dr. Adam Brocket linked here: https://www.reddit.com/r/DxOPhotoLab/wiki/index/

There are a lot of other articles available on the subject, but I found these three to be the best overall. They also include plenty of sources for further reading.

Don’t decide on a camera body until you’re ready to buy one. Technology is moving fast. You have for example been able to get mirrorless cameras with a viewfinder that has no noticeable delay for a while now. And also consider other manufacturers - unless you can use existing lenses on a new mount with an adapter.