Off-Topic - advice, experiences and examples, for images that will be processed in PhotoLab

DxO PhotoLab
722

Short answer - very cold here today, turned on the heater for the first time in years. Check the weather for USA, and you’ll see what I mean.

Regarding photography, no reason not to try to also take images the way you prefer them to look. Probably not today, but Miami should be back to normal later in the next several days.

Regarding the lens, I checked KEH; they have at least 7 of that lens in stock, for very reasonable prices:
https://www.keh.com/shop/nikon-2191-28-mm-300-mm-f-3-5-5-6-zoom-lens-for-nikon-f.html
I also read four or five more reviews - yes, Ken Rockwell loves it, but I did a lot more reading:
https://improvephotography.com/1941/nikon-28-300mm-review-best-photowalk-and-travel-lens-ever/
They wrote what my gut feeling is telling me:
“There are a few use cases that I thought this lens would be perfect for: (1) Casually shooting outdoor pictures of the kids. I say “outdoor” because it isn’t the fastest lens, but the gigantic zoom range would help to shoot in many different situations without changing lenses. (2) Travel photography or photowalks where you want to take nice pictures of the area, but you are shooting somewhat casually on the go and don’t want to haul around a giant bag of gear. (3) Shooting well-lit sports games. Again, it isn’t terribly fast so you need good lighting, but the giant zoom range would be convenient for shooting little league sports where the players can be right up close to you on one side of the field, and later be far away on the other side of the field.”

It’s a lens that “does everything”, but it has limitations. I doubt I will spend $500 to buy one - I don’t even like my 28-120 because of the weight. I’m happy that you are happy with yours.

I rarely sell stuff - I’ve got lots of lenses and accessories and cameras, the majority of which I don’t use. I even bought a second Nikon F4 not that long ago, because the price was too good to pass up, and it used to be my “do everything” camera. Maybe I have too much “collector” blood in me - I’ve even got an ancient 120 folding camera, which is fun to look at, but I’ll never use. One day when I felt overwhelmed, and KEH came to Miami to buy cameras, I piled a lot of old stuff into a box and sold all of it. What they didn’t buy, I gave to a fellow at the store. I didn’t want to take any of it home.

Other than your seagull photo, the other photos you just posted are not the kind of photography I am interested in. Helen’s photo of the wonderful boat in front of a fantastic sky is exactly what kind of photography I prefer - wonderful sky, and wonderful photograph. Since you like it too, that’s one more “plus”. Leaving out the first photo, the four photos I posted up above are the kinds of photos I enjoy taking, for the past many years. Just “fun” photos.

Back to the present. I have put away my Df, and I’ll see what I can accomplish with my D780. I’ll try to dump the backgrounds, and fill the frame with my photo, no cropping. I think you will enjoy photos from here:
https://www.miamiandbeaches.com/l/attractions/art-deco-historic-district/2116
I ought to be able to photograph some scenes from there that will meet your criteria.

723

Yes, but you have for too much depth of field. The one with the two bollards whatever they are. If you was using a 50 mm lens then the aperture should have been around F4 or larger. This would have given some depth to the picture. The one with the crocodile why did you need the building behind so sharp. The same with the other two photographs.

As both @Joanna and I have said you are still not framing your pictures in the viewfinder. You are rather leaving the framing to when you get back to post process later.
I’m afraid that is the journalism in you and that is something you will probably never forget in spite of the amount of criticism we give you.

1 Like
724

I forgot to mention the one with the rocks. If that had some water running over it, then that might have made an interesting picture otherwise, it is just a snapshot.

1 Like
725

I agree with all your points. Need less depth of field. Mr. crocodile was shot at f/9, my mistake. The two sculptures were shot at f/2.5, with my f/1.8 50mm lens. I ought to have left the lens wide open for both. All were shot in (M)anual mode, with me adjusting the aperture or shutter to get a proper exposure. My gut feeling is that I should be setting both the aperture and the shutter to settings I like, and allow auto-ISO to adjust the exposure.

About the rocks, yes, about the water, but there wasn’t any water. I liked what I saw, and took three shots until I was satisfied. This shot was f/9 because I wanted everything sharp.

Actually, all of these were “framed” in my camera, but I changed my mind while editing. I should have deleted the photo of the valves, useless. The rocks created a photo I like. The crocodile, or alligator, is a nothing-photo, should have deleted it. The car - better than what I did last time, but I had to crop out the “railings” as much as I could. Also useless. The King Kong photo I also took an hour or so earlier, but when walking home, the sun was shining on them, and it looked much better because of the lighting. That photo, and the rocks, in retrospect, are the only two photos I should have uploaded.

I know where there are rocks, with running water, but I haven’t liked my previous attempts to capture the scene. I will try again later this week.

You are all telling me this. In retrospect, I agree, and will try to do better.

726

I hesitate to even post this - I tried to capture rocks, and water, and trees, and branches, but the finished image didn’t excite me. It looks much better full-size, where you can actually see the detail in the water. I know we want un-cropped photos, but the very top and the very bottom look bad, but I wanted the full width of the image. It was very much an attempt to create an “artistic” photo, not a “snapshot”, but I didn’t know how to bring out the middle part of the image, that I love, without losing the “framing” from the trees and branches.

I worked on it a week or so ago, but wasn’t satisfied. After reading your post, I went back to it for another look. I was going to post it earlier, but I wasn’t happy with it. Now I’m “confused” because I love what’s inside the picture, but it’s too small to see those details on my screen without viewing it at 100%.

L1004710 | 2022-12-06.dng (26.9 MB)
L1004710 | 2022-12-06.dng.dop (18.2 KB)

L1004710 2022-12-06_DxO-2
L1004710 2022-12-06_DxO-21920×2394 518 KB

727

I liked both versions, but preferred the one you have just posted. You have confirmed something I wasn’t quite sure of, and that is the width of the picture. On the left hand side three quarters of the way up. The bend in the tree could have done with a little bit more tree showing as it does tend to try and drag your eye out of the picture. Apart from that I cannot fault it.

728

For @Joanna

The 70-300 that I bought is the latest version of that lens, not the one that the various reviews are talking about. It’s a “Nikon VR ED AF-P Nikkor 70-300 1:4.5-5.6E”, with a "pulse motor - not sure yet what that is.

Here are the reviews from the Nikon website:

One review/summary:
https://photographylife.com/lenses/nikon-af-p-nikkor-70-300mm-f4-5-5-6e-ed-vr

It is compatible with your D850 and my D780, but not with all previous Nikon cameras.

I bought mine direct from Nikon when they were on sale, refurbished.

729

I always visit this website too when I want to know something about a lens.

George

730

Maybe but its advantages outweigh them in most practical uses.

One of the most important advantages is that you can fit-and-forget it for most outings, thus avoiding having to change lenses in the open air, with the, not insignificant, risk of introducing dust on the sensor.

Apart from the auto-focus not being as fast as some, and not being as tack-sharp as a prime lens, I really can’t see the problem. For the most, you’re not using it to follow fast moving subjects and, even if you were, I found it to be perfectly adequate for photographing both surfers and the aircraft of La Patrouille de France. As to sharpness and distortion, that is why DxO created a lens module for it, which cancels out most of those faults.

What did you see that put you off?

The idea of those photos was to demonstrate isolation of a subject, any subject, not just as ideas for your images.

But to achieve such images, you need to put in a lot more effort than…

Possibly, but don’t try to take whole buildings unless you have a relatively uninterrupted view of them and, if you do, don’t forget to expose for the sky.

If you want to “straighten” perspective then don’t forget to allow enough room when shooting to allow for adjustment (one of the few times you can reframe in post production)

Try to find interesting “bits” of a building, or a geometric image taken at an unusual angle. Art Deco buildings are wonderfully geometric and one of their peculiarities is rounded corners and windows. Taken from the right angle, with the right framing (in camera) could yield some interesting images.

Oh, and don’t go for “record” shots :woozy_face:

But what is wrong with setting the ISO manually as well as the aperture and shutter speed? Or do you really not want to be in control?

But, don’t forget, DoF not only relies on aperture, but that in combination with focal length and distance as well.

e.g.

Focal Length Aperture Distance DoF
85mm f/5.6 6ft 5.2"
85mm f/5.6 30ft 12’10"
300mm f/5.6 30ft 11.2"

So, at 6ft away from your subject, you will get a really tight DoF of only 5.2", which is ideal for isolating a small subject but, at 30ft, the same sized subject will be far from isolated, as everything from 24’11" to 37’9" (12’10" of DoF :flushed:) will be acceptably sharp.

To get back to a more restricted DoF, you would need a 300mm focal length, which would then restrict the DoF to a much smaller 11.2", thus isolating the subject much better.

All this links in to why you should use longer focal lengths to frame in the camera, rather than cropping in post-processing. If you can fill the frame at 300mm focal length, you can better control the DoF than you could when cropping a shot taken with an 85mm lens.

Which is why it is a fairly futile exercise taking your Leica with short lenses on walkabout, unless you are absolutely certain you can fill the frame with every shot.

I know we have just talked about restricting DoF to isolate the subject but, in this case, you need to maximise DoF ensure that everything is acceptably sharp from front to back.

The main reason why the foreground looks particularly rough is because you haven’t calculated the DoF to include it.

e.g. to get everything from 3ft to 8’6" acceptably sharp, you would need to use a 28mm focal length at f/11, focused at 4’5".

731

Did you mean to post the same link to a ten year old lens two times? When I wake up I will check out that website. Thanks!!

732

Mistake. But you can find the other lens yourself. It’s much easier then DxOMark.

George

733

For my whole life I’ve had a feeling that individual prime lenses would get me better results than a do-anything super-zoom.

There isn’t any one thing - but look at all the improvements Nikon has made in the new “P” series of lenses. Why would I want to revert to an over-ten-year-old zoom? Nikon’s ancient 80-200 and 70-200 lenses were fantastic, but much too heavy for me. I had one, sold it, bought another, sold it, and then bought one at a good price from KEH. After buying this new 70-300 from Nikon, I have no more use for my old zoom, and will probably sell it back to KEH. …on the other hand, it has a tripod mount built-in, and it captures awesome images. The newest lens is much lighter, and easier to carry.

I know the 28-300 does what you want, and you’re happy with it, so end of debate. For you, it’s a very useful tool. As for me, I’m not about to give up all that new technology, just to get a lens that goes down to 28mm. I would want 24mm, and I’ve got that now, only it only goes up to 120. I have never wanted an “all in one” lens, and don’t want or need one now.

Agreed. Much to learn, and do.

Agreed - I have learned that over the past few months. Without doing so, I’m stuck when I try to “improve” the perspective.

I need to use a reasonable shutter speed, so my image is sharp, and I need to use a reasonable aperture so I get the depth of field I want, but other than dynamic range, does it matter if the ISO which I set to 100 or 400 jumps up to 800? If I am struggling for dynamic range, I’ll set it to 100 and turn off auto-iso, but for most of my photos, would it matter if the ISO was 100, 200, 400, or 800? You need to convince me of the need for this, once I’ve already determined the aperture and shutter speed I want. Most of the time, it doesn’t seem to matter very much.

When I’m not going after a specific photo, I rarely have more than one lens with me.

With a rangefinder camera, I can easily drop another lens into my pocket. Everything is so small and light. …I’m never absolutely certain about anything. Every time I go out, things are different, and I pick different places to go. The longest lens I take with me is 135mm.

I will need to try it that way, and see if the image I had in mind still works. Not today, much too cold. And preferably on a sunny day, so the things below the water look good too.

Thanks - 28mm, f/11, 4’5" focus.

One question though - if the rocks at the bottom are sharp, won’t that pull the viewer’s eye away from the middle of the image, in the water? That was my subject.

734

And you could be right but… there is always the questions of the best lens for the job in hand.

If I had all the time in the world and a Sherpa to carry my back pack full of prime lenses then why not?

But, like you, I am getting older and can no longer carry a 15kg backpack with all the gear I might just need, maybe. So I have a few prime lenses, mainly for studio work and the occasional field trip when I know which focal length I will need in advance.

Apart from those times, I have my beautiful, flexible, friend, which, once the files have been passed through DxO’s lens corrections, are very difficult to tell apart from prime lenses.

Here is the blurb on the Nikon site bout AF-P lenses…

AF-P Lenses

The newer AF-P lenses let you set certain settings from the camera’s menu system, such as VR (Vibration Reduction) and the AF/MF mode. Older lenses have switches on the lens barrel for turning VR on and off, as well as switching between manual focus mode and AF mode.

Because the focus mode and VR are set using the camera menus, not every Nikon DSLR is compatible with AF-P lenses, and those that are may need to have their firmware updated so they’ll show the correct menu items.

So, what I get from the “latest and greatest” is the ability/necessity to go footling around in the menus just to change VR or AF mode. And you’re saying that that is an improvement over having a couple of easy to access switches on the lens?

Who’s talking about reverting? The 28-300mm was introduced in late 2010. Compare that with the age of my fixed focal lenses…

Lens Launch Date
AF-S Nikkor 20mm 1:1.8 G ED 2014
AF-S Nikkor 35mm 1:1.8 G 2014
AF Nikkor 50mm 1:1.8 D 2002
AF Nikkor 85mm 1:1.4 D 1995
AF Micro Nikkor 105mm 1:2.8 D 1990

If some of those older lenses are still producing stunning results, I don’t see why I would need to replace them, or the 28-300mm, unless the glass has suddenly wearing out.

I just checked and the 70-300mm lenses weigh around 500g but without a silent wave motor and around 750g with the SW motor, which is similar to the 28-300mm.

What new technology?

That’s fine and, as you can see from my kit list, it isn’t the only lens in my bag. I suppose the difference between us I don’t want to carry around a bag full of lenses that do almost the same job and which I might have to change in the field, risking dust on the sensor.

Most of the time, the only two lenses I use “in the field” are the 28-300mm and the 20mm - the rest hardly ever get used apart from in the studio.

Until the time it does matter. You used to say that you preferred the Leica over the Nikon because you felt the Nikon took away the control you had with the Leica. Now you are saying that you don’t really care about losing that control :woozy_face:

And it shows when you end up getting the wrong perspective, the wrong DoF and/or having to crop heavily in post, etc. I usually only ever have one lens, on the camera, and am able to grab anything from distant to wide angle to almost macro subjects with total control over perspective, DoF and framing, all at the point of taking the shot.

I am always certain that I have the right focal length for everything I come across, unless it is too far away for the 300mm, but with a 45Mpx image, cropping doesn’t have anywhere near the dire consequences as cropping a 24Mpx image.

Yes, you might get the odd serendipitous picture where everything works straight out of the camera but, if you are serious about wanting to leave journalism behind you and produce “art”, believe me, it needs a lot more planning.

Talking of which, I look forwards to your carefully planned shots of the Art Deco district.

So, how do you get that small distant subject without having to crop ¾ of the image, thus reducing the quality of the finished result? The answer is that you don’t.

Don’t forget @Prem’s advice on improving the framing.

Whoa! That was based on best guess of the distances involved. You really need to do some measuring on site and use something like TrueDOF-Pro to calculate the real numbers.

With everything else you have in the frame, as well as foreground, the subject is definitely not the water. In fact, I would regard the water as background. Once again, you are trying to include far too much in the image for what what you consider to be the principal subject.

The subject you have chosen really falls into the category of a “landscape”, where the whole image is the subject and you need to direct the viewer around, using compositional devices. Or, at least, that is how we make LF landscape images.

Or you can try reducing the DoF carefully to soften the trees as well as the rocks. Here is an image I made where I used the trees as a “frame”…

_JNA0001_DxO
_JNA0001_DxO1025×1536 269 KB

735

https://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2017/07/11/what-does-the-technology-in-nikons-new-af-p-70-300mm-f-4.5-5.6e-lens-mean
“The autofocus performance is faster, quieter and more accurate.”

“It can be confusing to keep track of all the different Nikon lens designations, but it’s important to understand the AF-P and E models in particular, as they are sure to be appearing in many upcoming Nikon lenses. As mentioned earlier, the new 70-300mm AF-P lens marks the first full-frame lens to employ the AF-P technology, so it will be very interesting to see which other full-frame lenses might utilize the stepping motor autofocus system. It is worth considering that not only is the new 70-300mm lens the first full-frame optic with AF-P, but it is also the longest lens (tied with the DX 70-300mm AF-P lens released earlier this year).”

I already bought it, new, at a good price (actually refurbished) direct from Nikon. Maybe I should take more photos with it to post here, so you can judge for yourself how good it is, or isn’t.

I understand it doesn’t fit your need of a “one lens does all”. That being the case, you are better off with what you use now.

736

Aha! So I should buy a M11 camera with 60 megapixel sensor?

(I’m not being serious here - I think 24 Mpx is far more than enough, for what I do - but if I got serious about making huge enlargements, I know I would feel very different about this. The new M11 is a fascinating camera, but not for me… They still have issues that are being sorted out. Anyway, Santa told me I already have too much stuff, and nothing new is on the way.)

Personally, I would enjoy this image more if you moved forwards a bit, and left out the “frame”. Beautiful boat, and beautiful reflection. Wow!!! That the trees are out of focus makes it even worse, but to me, they are just blocking my view. Did you take a photo without the trees? If so, please upload! To me, nothing in the image is “in focus”, or my eyes are tired…

737

I’m not sure how to respond. To me, control means taking what I see with my eyes, and capturing what I’m thinking as I take the photo. The camera should help me do that. So far, it seems to me that the most important function of ISO (beyond getting me a properly exposed image) is dynamic range. I must be missing something here, as I don’t know why I should be concerned with ISO for most of my photos. Aperture and shutter speed sound far more important to me. On the other hand, if I decide on a specific ISO, then shutter and/or aperture need to be changed accordingly. Please elaborate…

Added later:

  • Aperture is required to get me the depth of field I need.
  • Once that is done, I need a shutter speed fast enough to get a sharp image, and maybe allow some thing to be blurred, like moving water.
  • Once both of those are determined, ISO needs to be set to get me a good exposure.

Where am I going wrong?

738

Quick question - we are discussing how DxO Photolab is correcting issues in the lenses we are using. I assume that is the “optical corrections” that I leave turned on so all this is done before I start editing (if I’m using a supported lens).

Is there an easy way to compare the same image, with and without the DxO optical corrections?

More specifically, my Nikon 24-120 lens is supposed to have all sorts of issues which I assume DxO is now correcting. Can I get the “COMPARE” tool to show me the image with and without those corrections?

Second question, but does DxO Photolab allow us to create our own corrections for a non-supported lens, and save them for future use? If so, is there a write-up on how to do so?

739
740

By taking over control?

Tell me, when you were shooting film, did you let the camera store decide which film to sell you? :wink:

Agreed you could leave the ISO on auto but that could mean getting more noise than you would necessarily want, which could lose critical detail in shadows, etc.

As you know, I shoot Jazz concerts. I decide to use 10,000 ISO because I know from experience that much higher than that makes it difficult to get clean, detailed images. If I were to allow the camera to decide, it could choose 25,600 or more, which I know will make it very difficult to de-noise.

You might say you would limit the auto-ISO, but, if the is the case, you are effectively back to setting it manually, even though it might only be the upper limit. Why if you set the limit to 8,000 and the camera decided you really needed 16,000? What is going to happen? Will the camera force the speed or aperture, or will it simply under-expose the image?

Not forgetting that auto-ISO means that you can’t nail down a precise exposure, like for the highlights. When you reframe after metering, the ISO will change to a level for the centre of an image that you measured for the light in the corner.

The most important setting is usually aperture - at least if you want to control DoF. But a lot of folks are used to phone cameras with their infinite DoF and artificial Bokeh. A “real” camera allows you ultimate control over every aspect of your photography.

The D780 has everything you need to adjust within reach of your right finger and thumb…

  • change the speed - rear wheel
  • change the aperture - front wheel
  • change the ISO - press the ISO button with your finger and rotate the rear wheel.
  • focus - press the back button with your thumb

Once you know this, you can set the exposure via the viewfinder meter without your eye ever leaving the viewfinder. The aperture, speed and iso are all visible in the viewfinder, as is the rangefinder for checking critical focus.

By not being familiar with one camera and having to constantly recall what happens where and on which camera.

Apart from the Ebony, for high days and holidays, when I can be bothered to get back into film photography, I use one camera - the D850. I can use it almost without thinking in full manual mode with back button focusing.

When I go out, I judge the lighting conditions and adjust the ISO, checking what kind of shutter speeds I can get to avoid unwanted blur. Then I switch the camera off and start looking for or setting up subjects.

When I find something, the routine is…

  1. back button focus
  2. calculate and adjust aperture for desired DoF
  3. meter for the highlight and offset as necessary
  4. calculate the shutter speed to see if I can handhold or do I need a tripod to keep the ISO down
  5. frame the subject
  6. double-check everything
  7. press the shutter

Or, if I am shooting sport…

  1. set to aperture priority
  2. set aperture to f/10
  3. set to center-weighted exposure metering
  4. set to multi-point dynamic auto-focus
  5. check that shutter speed is fast enough for handholding
  6. point, follow and start shooting
741

grafik
grafik1614×653 159 KB

from Interface – PhotoLab Guidelines

  • playing / experimenting with PhotoLab is a good way to get familiar with
    (doing instead of reading & forgetting)