Confused

[DanK]

I will give you an example of the WB problem. the two comditons where the WB lets me down very often is when I shoot in light from a fire or in broad daylight. In fire the colours are not accurate the Warm nature of light is missed and in Broadday light the pictures are more towards the Blue spectrum of light.

I'll zoom out a bit from Bill's excellent answer.

the basic point is that if you want good results, you have to take control. The camera has no idea what you are shooting, and it has no idea that you don't want it to offset the temperature of the light at that time. So, you have to take control and make the white balance what you want. one way, as Bill showed, is to set the temperature yourself, rather than setting the camera to auto. Another is postprocessing. If you want the finest control of white balance, you will get more by shooting raw and adjusting in postprocessing, because in that case, NOTHING about white balance is baked into the file. But either way, the key is not a more expensive body. It's taking control of the process.

[kaushikkartik]

Thank u all for the very good and technical advise. I am fairly clear now tha postprocessing is one of the most important part of every photographers work flow.
But what i still fail to understand is that why then do people Upgrade their Cameras. According to all the answers I have read I should continue with my 3 year old camera. I dont intend to rush into a rash decision, Photography is my Hobby which i take very seriously and want to improve.
So is there a time frame when someone should upgrade or number of shots, what is the general consensus on Camera upgrade. I have read that a large number of people upgraded to a D600, D800, D4 or canon, Then a large number of people changed from Canon to nikon and vice versa when the D800 was launched.
Why did they do that ? I am sure it was not because they had extra money lying around in the House.
Also as an enthusiast when should someone Upgrade.
I do a lot of my Photography indoor with all kinds of light and some time poor lighting, and my camera was not giving me accurate results, I use 35mm, 1,8 most of the time apart from the kit lens (18-105) and a 70-300.

[Adrian]

Kartik

For enthusiastic amateurs like you and me, we change cameras not because we have exhausted the capabilities of whet we have right now, but because we desire the latest technology and features. This is part of the pleasure of the hobby and we should not kid ourselves about that desire to replace the old with the new.

That said, technology has advanced. I have had several cameras but on the Canon trail I went from a 40D to a 5DIII. The 40D has 10 Mp and the 5DIII has around two and a half times that on a full frame sensor. If I take the pro quality glass and put it on the 40D, I can get superb pictures. The camera was not the limiting factor: I was.

That said the technology advances are significant. In my case I value the huge uplift in ISO capability. I wanted the excellent video functionality and we use it daily (and have now bought a 6D as a second body). For me the larger, brighter viewfinder on the full frame cameras is a big improvement. And the 5DIII autofocus is superb (the D600 Nikon is quite similar).

The snag with technology upscaling is that a) you must be willing to uplift your skills a lot as well. The cameras are more complex and it is a waste of money if you fail to exploit that. And b) you really will need to invest in much better lenses. This is a big deal as the lens investment is substantial if you want fast glass (f2.8 or better) and triumvirate of lenses covering wide to tele. You will also spend more on large, high speed memory cards.

You can undoubtedly get superb images from your existing gear. But if part of your hobby is enjoying more sophisticated equipment, then there is nothing wrong with that and I would encourage you to go for it. In your shoes, I would have no hesitation in going for the D600 and if I were in your shoes and feeling extra flush with cash, I would buy the D800E. Either one will last you for many a year and you will struggle to exceed the capabilities of these tools.

Comparing camera bodies is a bit invidious. They are just light boxes in the end. Get your attention focussed on the glass too.

Best of luck, Adrian

[Manfred M]

But what i still fail to understand is that why then do people Upgrade their Cameras. According to all the answers I have read I should continue with my 3 year old camera. I dont intend to rush into a rash decision.

Everyone has a different reason for upgrading, so I can’t say why other people do it. In my case, I went from a D90 to a D800 because I was getting frustrated with certain limitations that the D90 has for the way I shoot. This was a combination of my not liking the control layout (certain functions that I use a lot like different focus modes can only be adjusted through menu settings on the D90, while on the D800 I can do so without taking my eye off the viewfinder), the tiny viewfinder, the low-light performance, being able to get a really wide, fast ultra-wide angle lens, a more “normal” working range for pro glass, the larger sensor that allows for more aggressive cropping, etc.

That being said, I still shoot the D90 and still get excellent results. I find that it is my go-to camera when I travel on foot or by air because it is a lot lighter and of course of less consequence should it get damaged or stolen. It is showing signs of age and while I have had it over four years now, I rather doubt it will still be with me in another four years.

I think the other reason for upgrading is that the technology has come a very long way in the past 10 years. Each new model release showed compelling image quality improvements between generations. I don’t necessarily feel this is quite as compelling an argument as it was in the past. The improvements between the lower end pro cameras; Nikon D700 to D800 and Canon 5D Mk II and 5D Mk III in many ways seem more evolutionary than revolutionary. Gazing into the crystal ball, I suspect that I might skip the next generation camera just because what I have is more than good enough for the shooting I do. Nicely said; I still have not become frustrated by the limitations of the D800.

[Dave Humphries]

Hi Kartik,

Welcome to the CiC forums from me.

From what you say you shoot, a move to full frame might be worthwhile; better low light performance, bigger, brighter viewfinder than DX bodies.

The down side is that of the three lenses you have - only the 70-300mm is FF, I believe the other two are DX, so will need replacing. I gather the 24mm f/1.4 is a cracker, but of course it isn't cheap. Either the 50mm f/1.4 or f/1.8 could replace the 35mm prime you have now.

Of course, for the ultimate digital vs film comparison, you should not only set the WB to 5600 Kelvin and leave it there, you should probably also set the iso to 100 and not use anything higher - but that's rather like having a Bugatti Veyron and only using it in first gear and never exceeding 25 kph

The thing with digital is - it gives you more choices than film, but as you're realising, that may not help if you don't know which are the correct choices to make in certain shooting situations. Just as a Veyron could get us into trouble exceeding speed limits

Your D90 has the capability, by using a fixed WB, fixed iso and configuring the jpg options for things like sharpening, saturation and Picture Styles, to imitate your film camera and 'standard' laboratory film processing very well.

But of course, you do choose to use the higher iso.s, because you want to shoot (perhaps moving subjects) indoors in low light, something you cannot do with film. Since this does seem to be a part of what you'd like to do, that larger viewfinder, better AF performance, and improved high iso quality all 'beckon' you to upgrade.

I would however, also recommend getting to grips with RAW shooting and PP (Post Processing) though, you're missing so much.

Hope that's been helpful,

[Colin Southern]

I told u I am not that good at post processing.
I will Post some of my pictures taken recently so that u can help me further.

Since post-production is a full 1/2 of the 2-part process - and you've told us that you're not that good at it - then it would seem logical to me that improving in this area will give you the best return on your investment.

Looking forward to seeing some of your shots so that we can help

[William W]

There are several reasons why people upgade their cameras.

The point is your original question was predicated upon your suggestion that upgrading your camera would improve your results.

From what you have disclosed: I am of the opinion that buying a new camera will not significantly improve your results.

According to all the answers I have read I should continue with my 3 year old camera.

Not quite so.
The overwhelming and general thrust if the advice in this thread, was that you continue with your current camera AND to learn how to use it and also learn the post processing of the digital files from it.

I do a lot of my Photography indoor with all kinds of light and some time poor lighting, and my camera was not giving me accurate results

And that’s the crux of this thread.
As it occurs to me it is highly UNLIKELY that your camera was NOT giving you accurate results.
My advice is that you should consider that your camera was indeed giving you accurate results and exactly as it was designed so to do - but you are using your digital tools neither correctly nor appropriately.

WW

[kaushikkartik]

So I am posting some of my recent photos, all advise is most welcome......


Nikon D90, 35mm, 1/1000s, f/5, iso 400, aRGB, Aperture Priority, CS5, WB Auto



Nikon D90, 35mm, 1/40s, f/6.3, iso 250, aRGB, Manual, CS5, WB Cloudy 6500K



Nikon D90, 35mm, 1/20s, f/6.3, iso 500, aRGB, Aperture Priority and -5/3 EC, CS5, WB Custom

[Adrian]

This is a great start! Some nice images. I especially like the last one. Compositions are a bit distracting and I would crop them somewhat. For example the orange lights in the foreground of the last image distract from the striking orange building through the trees.

In your shoes I would get my hands on either the latest version of Aperture (Mac) or Lightroom 4 (Mac or PC) and experiment with white balance, exposure, etc. You may be surprised what can be achieved, especially if you shoot raw. But even with jpeg there is a lot you can do.

[William W]

Thanks for posting the images.

1. What do you see wrong with them?
2. Also, if you think the Colour Balance is wrong, then did you have the White Balance of the camera set to auto? (I believe I have asked that question previously)
3. Also, the EXIF details would be useful for each shot, specifically: Shutter Speed; Aperture; ISO; Lens FL; and whether a Tripod was used or not?

WW

[Stagecoach]

Kartik

I have read this thread through from the start and make the following comments based upon the main discussion topic of which has been white balance and upgrading to 'improve' your images.

No 1 - f5, 1/1000s, ISO 400, 35mm
No 2 - f6.3, 1/40s, ISO 250, 35mm
No 3 - f6.3, 1/20s, ISO 500, 35mm

To me all images lack sharpness anywhere within them whilst taking account of the aperture used. I suspect this could be improved with some basic PP. As Bill has asked, was a tripod used ?

On my uncalibrated monitor the colour looks fine (to me) and can only be confirmed by you as it is you who were there. As previously covered the WB is very easily corrected if they were taken in RAW.

In none of the images at the settings you used and this resolution do I see where an 'upgrade' in camera body would have given superior results.

[Dave Humphries]

I can't tell if a tripod was used, but I have extracted what I think is the pertinent EXIF data

Hi Kartik,

The use of Adobe RGB (aRGB) in camera, when you will be viewing using sRGB, is a well known cause "colour disappointment".

Cheers,

[xpatUSA]

I took a look at the Adobe XMP content file #3. Quite a lot of editing but nothing really drastic.

The Adobe RGB profile is embedded in the image file, so it should look OK on a color-managed monitor if opened with e.g. FireFox but not Chrome?

At first, I though the snow had a blue cast but, poking around, it seems more often a slight lack of red.

Zooming in, there's more sharpening than I would apply personally but some folks like it that way.

I agree with those who said keep the D90 and work on post-processing for a while . . .

[Colin Southern]

The Adobe RGB profile is embedded in the image file, so it should look OK on a color-managed monitor if opened with e.g. FireFox but not Chrome?

It should look OK, but since most monitors are still only physically capable of displaying an sRGB gamut, the reason it may look OK in a colour-managed environment is that - in essence - the colour management software is simply converting it back to sRGB.

Or put another way, one may just as well convert it to sRGB in the first place.

[Colin Southern]

Hi Kartic,

Just to give you some ideas as to what some more advanced post-processing can do to an image ... (click for bigger view)

[William W]

Thanks Dave H for the EXIF.

***

I should have written that frame #1 appeared the sharpest to me, on my first glance: my guess is all were shot hand held

Other comments:

• - I reckon that that Frame #3 is likely underexposed (tell: the blue cast).
• - The colour of the other two look "OK to me" - I haven't my calibrated Studio Monitor with me but my laptop is balanced as well as one can and it serves my professional purposes whilst I am travelling.
• - I'd pump the green a bit in the first - but considering the long shadows it appear late in the day and there's cloud overcast so the richness is being sapped out of the green, by that light. If one were shooting that scene in that lighting with Neg Film, one would choose Fuji over Kodak, for example.
• - All need post production sharpening (I concur with the previous comment by Grahame)
• - I'd not have chosen 1/40s for the sunset- maybe more around 1/8s (and tripod): that would have made the water smoothing more "in camera" than in post-production - but I am just like that - good post work can do it too as we note (nice job, Colin).
• - I would like detailed rationale as to the Shooting Specs for frame three as they make no sense to me at all - specifically: Why 1/40s (if hand held)?; Why Av Priority – not watching the shutter speed when in Av Mode I’d reckon: that s a common error? But the big question is why a MINUS Exposure Compensation, when shooting snow?

WW

[jcuknz]

I see this discussion as pointless becuase you didn't tell us what you find wrong or unsatisfactory with each image ...a lot is personal taste and when I saw Colin's rework my reaction was Gawd not another drop shadow and yuk such a heavy white border. Though the composition is much improved by the crop.

Photo one puzzles me ... why would an experienced photographer take such a shot except as a hurried snap being under pressure to move on ... is it a shot of the trees and grass in which case the background building should be out of focus .... or if it is a shot of the building I invisage a much nicer compostion, if a bit hacknied, with the building clearly viewed and framed with the branches.
Picture three is a mess and one doesn't know if one should be looking at the bottom half or the top half of the image, either is reasonable but the top half is much better. It is a case of two objects and one doesn't know which one one is supposed to look at, also that trunk across the bottom should be used or cropped/edited out. One of the things about digital is that you have the choice which was rather difficult with film and beyond my competance.

But those are my reactions based on my approach to photography and may not be justified in the wider world. You could also note that my interest is what the photo shows rather than its colour and if it was handheld. I doubt if any of them would escape from my computer ... sorry but without knowing what you think I can only offer you the above.

[Colin Southern]

when I saw Colin's rework my reaction was Gawd not another drop shadow and yuk such a heavy white border.

[kaushikkartik]

To start with, I have shot all of them Handheld. I am sorry but i am not convinced with the image colin had posted, I find it a bit artificial. but then may be its just me.
I understand the 1/20, 1/40 are not good but i shoot most of the time app priority and more than iso 500 i can not afford.
I will find a pair of pics taken indoor where the wb has not worked properly. And yes I dont use the flash, as somehow I cant get the right image with a flash.

[Colin Southern]

I am sorry but i am not convinced with the image colin had posted, I find it a bit artificial. but then may be its just me.

It simulates the effect you'd get using a long exposure (on a tripod). With water shots, long exposures smooth out the distracting ripple that you can get with faster shutterspeeds.

I understand the 1/20, 1/40 are not good but i shoot most of the time app priority and more than iso 500 i can not afford.

Why can't you afford to go higher than ISO 500?

And yes I dont use the flash, as somehow I cant get the right image with a flash.

I use flashes a LOT - couldn't do without them for portraiture (not so useful for landscape). If you can't get the right image with a flash, sounds like we might need to investigate more as to what you're trying to achieve.

Anyway - we're starting to get a bit off-track here. This probably isn't what you want to hear, but from all we've discussed, my personal opinion is that replacing your D90 will give you mediocre improvements in your photography, at best; I think there are several other areas that'll give you far more "bang for your buck".