Why my D2 BW files look better than my D80's?

[rivi1969]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hello friends,

 

While retouching some photographs this evening I notice again how good the raw files from the D2 are when converted to BW in Photoshop... (the color files are also beautiful!)

I just add some contrast and that's it. To my eyes they look very natural with high contrast and lots of detail specially in the shadows, a very pleasant tonal range.

 

I been trying to emulate that look with my D80 raw files using the same process I use with the D2 files with no success... Obviously the Nikon files are bigger, sharper and way cleaner but they still look like a digital BW file, I can't squeeze such a broad latitude from them. (I used to get pretty nice BW files from the Epson R-D1 by the way)

 

The first 2 files are from the D80, the last 3 from the D2. What do you think? This takes me to another question: I wonder if the D3 offers exactly the same D2 look in terms of tonal range but again in a bigger, sharper and cleaner version... if so, I think I would love to have one and forget about the R-D1 that I am almost buying.

 

 

Kind Regards

Ricardo Villagran

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[asabet]

I don't know the answer to your question. I can only say that your D2 conversions look terrific. Your D80 images also look good to me, though I agree that the D2 images look even better.

[rivi1969]

Thanks for your comment Asabet,

 

To my eyes there is a huge difference in the BW conversions when they come from a raw file to when they come from an original jpg because the tonal range is far wider, that is why I only shoot raw and don't care about the 6 secs of waiting... for me it is worthy. You never know when you will need that little extra in your files!

 

Regards,

Ricardo

[asabet]

I agree completely Ricardo. I shoot exclusively RAW with my D2, and I am not bothered by the wait between shots.

 

Regards,

Amin

[Annie135]

Ricardo. If you don't mind me asking, how do you do the B/W conversion in PS? From your post it would appear that you might only use the Auto facility then add contrast, am I right? I have always used 'Channel' mixers' and Jpegs but my B/W is nowhere near yours.

 

So to get your sort of quality it would seem the first thing to do is change to RAW.

 

Brian.

[rivi1969]

Hello Brian,

 

You are right, raw is the way to go no doubt. I have made BW conversions from the same images using jpgs and raws and the difference in tonal range is huge, I could say more or less 2 stop of latitude. At first sight the jpgs looks bolder, more richer in color but that's just it, the raw files have far more detail in shadows and the highlights are almost always under control. Pretty much is like having an slide with your original jpg and a negative with the one coming from raw.

 

What I do is usually work first my raws in Adobe Lighroom until I get satisfied with the color versions, I take care of having a broad range of tones there. What I do next is save the raws as jpgs, then convert them to BW simply using the grayscale option in Photoshop. I duplicate the layer and play with curves a little, one layer for highlights, one for shadows, then I add more or less 30% of contrast to the image, taking care of not blowing the highlights and loosing the shadow information.

 

Here you have a BW picture the same file, the first one from the jpg and the second one from the raw to see the difference.

 

Regards,

Ricardo

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[Annie135]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Thanks for the reply Ricardo. Next time out I shall certainly give it a whirl.. In fact I couldn't see any difference re your last two. But that was on my laptop. Going upstairs to the PC with a calibrated monitor made all the difference. There is certainly more detail in the shadow area.

 

Now I better find out how to post a picture on this forum.

 

Thanks again for the advice,

 

Brian.

[Guest flatfour]

I have been making my B&W Digilux 2 files by using grayscale conversion but have been really pleased with RAW B&W files, so that's now my route. Thanks for the pics the tonal range is superb.

[Annie135]

This is about as good as I can get it with the D200 and Jpeg. I am really looking forward to getting out with the D2 and RAW. The Nikon is alright but the D2 is exactly right for my type of candid snaps. I might add that my D2 has just been returned after suffering a sensor blowup. Sometime we moan about the price of Leica, but I have had the D2 for some three years and when it came back it was a new camera. The leather was scuffed and even that had been replaced.....well done Leitz ( As I still insist on calling them, )

 

Brian.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[rivi1969]

Brian,

 

Great shot I really think you got it there with the tonal range... Try now with both cameras taking the same shots in raw and please post them to see your results. Apart from tonal range, I have to say that my D80 files are far more easy to work with specially while sharpening them, the D2's tend to look over sharpened specially when posting on the web I don't know why.

 

Anyway, I think if I can get the exact same look with the D3 with noticeable improvements over the D2 I will get one very soon, unfortunately I will have to sell the D2 to afford the 3 so I won't be able to compare both at the same time . :-((

 

 

Cheers

Ricardo

[asabet]

Even when shooting JPEG, the D2 does a great job with dynamic range and tone separation for a small sensor camera. Here's one I shot as JPEG with all settings at default and then converted to B&W in Photoshop. The noon sun was as harsh and contrasty as could be.

 

 

Here's a link to the full size image showing shadow detail: Flickr Photo Download: L1020261.jpg

 

Of course, RAW gives better results.

[Annie135]

Of course, RAW gives better results.

 

I'm not so sure in the 'real' world. I am just wonderig if we are kidding ourselves. Ricardo's two pictures do show an improvement using RAW, however perhaps another small tweak in curves would level things out a bit.. But Amin, I fail to see how the contrast and shadow detail would 'Of course' be better in RAW with your example, they are excellent. Since the advent of the current Nikon DSLRs the D70/80/200 and many other offerings not forgetting of course the Digilux 2 I have given up using RAW. The current generation of cameras seem to just produce way better output. In fact I have almost given up on Photoshop other than Elements 2 and that nowadays I find increasingly get the camera right before pressing the button and post processing almost becomes a thing of the past. Might it have been the case that it was so easy to put things right after pressing the button that we took the lazy route relying on electronic wizardry to get us out of the poo afterwards.

 

I note with interest that Ricardo converts in " Greyscale" now a while ago that would have been frowned on as the 'simple' approach by those who love complicating things. I do about the same now. As I wrote earlier I have used 'channel mixer' for converting however recently I find myself just clicking remove colour, knocking off a touch of brightness and adding a touch of contrast seems to do the trick. The only thing I do is to make sure everything is right at the taking stage.

 

Re sharpening I leave it to 'Normal' on the D2 " ( and the D200 for that matter) then run it through the Vtie progamme. Free download, I hate spending money. Same with the Raw convertor for the very rare occassions that I feel the need to play,,I use Raw Shooter (again free) .I hate spending money.

 

.

But I shall go out tomorrow and try the D2 in Raw...You have been warned.

 

Brian.

[asabet]

Brian, I do not doubt that in-camera JPEGs can look as good as processed RAW files, whether the goal is B&W or color. However, as you know, RAW gives us the flexibility to develop our pictures in different ways. A portion of a photo with very high contrast where some detail has been lost, such as in Ricardo's JPEG example, is often not recoverable in JPEG when it would have been in RAW. I hear you about the hating spending money part, but I recommend that you try the 30-day trial of Adobe Lightroom. The developing tools there are just terrific IMO.

 

As far as converting to "greyscale" rather than using the channel mixer, I sometimes do this too. Usually I play with the individual color contributions for a while to see if I can come up with something better, but sometimes I cannot.

 

Looking forward to seeing some of your RAW conversions =). Amin

[rivi1969]

Besides the wider tonal range that raw files offer there are additional benefits specially that are more noticeable with cameras like the D2 who above iso 100 offers pretty poor quality... (I just check my jpgs @ iso 400 and they look like giant cell phone pictures, so the need of raw @ iso 400 is a must even when they don't look that good) I can even live with the EVF and slow raw, the main drawback of the D2 is that can only be used @ iso 100 for serious work. Of course D80/D200 etc jpg files at almost any iso look very impressive without the watercolor effect very common in small sensors.

 

For me the best digicam would be a Digilux 2 with an improved sensor, optical finder, faster raw and the same bold and deep colors and tones from the D2... (Did I just described the Digilux 3?)

[hpu]

There is a good article in LFI 4/2007. It is called "Expressive Greys". As I am now dabbling in Photoshop Adobe 4.0, which came with the Digilux 3. it seems to me very interesting.

Bye.

[krabat]

... For me the best digicam would be a Digilux 2 with an improved sensor, optical finder, faster raw and the same bold and deep colors and tones from the D2...

 

Yes, the sensor urgently needs improvement with respect to higher ISO speed. With some other improvements, I even could live with the electronic view finder, if improved markedly in its resolution, for it offers the opportunity of magnification during focussing, and useful information can be displayed.

 

Regards, Peter.

[wda]

I wonder how many members who use the D2 for black and white shooting raw set the viewfinder to black and white to aid picture selection? It does make a difference. Also there are two benefits: you have colour and bw derivatives. Wonderful value!

 

David

[rivi1969]

Peter, I guess we all agree on that but I really don't think we will see that happen, maybe if some 3rd party company could replace the sensor for a better one leaving everything else just as is...!!

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Guest stnami]

David I do set mine to B&W whenever i can remember,with the Ricoh GRD it's B&W set as my intent is B&W photos only,................................................. it's a pity that it cannot be done to a film camera:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[Annie135]

I find the D2 viewfinder is so bad that half the time I would have to guess what I had selected.

 

Re the sensor. I am one of the very few who shoot almost exclusively in low light conditions, but my camera is always set to 100ASA. I don't need more speed. As the snap above shows a wine glass makes a very good camera stand. and of course the contents help to steady the shakes.

 

If the D2 could be improved I would go for a decent optical finder, even a clip on would be acceptable. But the one improvement that would have me running to the dealer would be a 'Flippable' LCD and a durable black finish without the stupid cosmetic viewfinder.

 

Brian.