Hey there,
I have a Nikon D200 and it has a low pass
filter over the sensor for protection.
Do the better Canon XTi,s, etc. also have filters over their
sensors ??
Fujifilm sensors ??
I'm spending more time in photoshop cleaning up
pics, than I am in the field.
I have a Fujifilm s5000 point & shoot and the color is great. No
sensor filter on fixed lenses.
>> I'm spending more time in photoshop cleaning up
>> pics, than I am in the field.
>
> So? What has that got to do with AA filters?
>
I guess you have to read between the lines, and guess that the OP is
talking about dust on the sensor/filter.
Then again that could be completely wrong.
On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 13:20:25 +1200, frederick <lost@sea.com>
wrote:
>John Bean wrote:
>
>>> I'm spending more time in photoshop cleaning up
>>> pics, than I am in the field.
>>
>> So? What has that got to do with AA filters?
>>
>
>I guess you have to read between the lines, and guess that the OP is
>talking about dust on the sensor/filter.
That's what I assumed. But I still have no idea what this
has to do with AA filters (or lack of them).
On Jun 10, 6:09 pm, John Bean <waterf...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 14:52:06 -0700, "sla...@fuse.net"
>
> <sla...@usa.com> wrote:
> >I have a Nikon D200 and it has a low pass
> >filter over the sensor for protection.
>
> No, you have a camera with a low pass filter to minimise
> aliasing by restricting the spacial frequency to that which
> the sensor can accomodate.
>
> >Do the better Canon XTi,s, etc. also have filters over their
> >sensors ??
> >Fujifilm sensors ??
>
> Most (but not all) digital cameras use anti-aliasing
> filters. Some notable exceptions are Sigma and Kodak dSLRs
> and the Leica M8.
>
> >I'm spending more time in photoshop cleaning up
> >pics, than I am in the field.
>
> So? What has that got to do with AA filters?
>
> >I have a Fujifilm s5000 point & shoot and the color is great. No
> >sensor filter on fixed lenses.
>
> Yes there is.
>
> --
> John Bean
John,
Well I was talking to the Nikon guy here locally and
he indicated that the filter might
make for a less than perfectly sharp picture. That's what I was
referring to as far as photoshop. I seem
to do less computer doctoring with my Fujifilm pictures from the S5000
point and shoot.
But you say there's a filter on there too.
I did not understand the use of the filter. I figured the filter
was blocking the sensor some, thus getting
a less sharp picture. They still seem a bit fuzzy and lack of color
saturation. I get better pics with the Fujifilm as far as color and
sharpness,,, I think !!
Thanks for your help. These groups can be a life saver
some times.
Point and shoot cameras apply sharpening and color enhancement when
they process the images, so you may get crisper and more colorful
images. DSLRs don't do this unless you set them to. What you get is
what the sensor sees.
On Jun 11, 11:06 pm, "sla...@fuse.net" <sla...@usa.com> wrote:
> John,
> Well I was talking to the Nikon guy here locally and
> he indicated that the filter might
> make for a less than perfectly sharp picture. That's what I was
> referring to as far as photoshop. I seem
> to do less computer doctoring with my Fujifilm pictures from the S5000
> point and shoot.
> But you say there's a filter on there too.
> I did not understand the use of the filter. I figured the filter
> was blocking the sensor some, thus getting
> a less sharp picture. They still seem a bit fuzzy and lack of color
> saturation. I get better pics with the Fujifilm as far as color and
> sharpness,,, I think !!
Hello,
The filter you're talking about (the low-pass filter) isn't there for
protection, but for other reasons. Most digital cameras have one (it's
necessary), but don't worry about why. One of the side-effects (sort
of) is that it softens the image slightly; many cameras (such as the
fuji s5000, I suppose) sharpen the image to compensate for this by
default, but dslrs (the d200 in particular) sharpen less, as some
people prefer it this way.
So if you find the images from the fuji better, you can go into the
menus in your d200 and set sharpening to medium high or high. You can
also set saturation to enhanced (or words to that effect!), and maybe
colour mode to III (colour modes basically change the overall colour
palette, so to speak; like choosing film), and you'll get much
punchier images. Also, if you're not using a colour-managed program to
view your images (photoshop is, but if you don't know what colour-
managed means, pretend your programs don't colour-manage), make sure
that colour space is set to srgb (otherwise, if you don't use an
application that reads profiles, you'll probably get highly
desaturated colours on-screen).
All these (except colour space) can be set from the "optimize image"
menu. "colour space" is, I think, in the shooting menu. I think you
can also select some presets in the "optimize image" submenu (vivid,
more vivid, things like that), which select all these automatically.
All this assumes you shoot jpeg.
In short, play a bit with the various options in the "optimize image"
submenu (it's in the "shooting menu", I think) until you get a result
you like. Have fun!
railfan wrote:
> Point and shoot cameras apply sharpening and color enhancement when
> they process the images, so you may get crisper and more colorful
> images. DSLRs don't do this unless you set them to. What you get is
> what the sensor sees.
>
> Bob B
> Canada
With many non-SLR cameras you can adjust the image enhancement to produce
a less-processed image (a DSLR-like image) should you prefer that
appearance.
On Jun 11, 8:17 pm, acl <achilleaslazari...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On Jun 11, 11:06 pm, "sla...@fuse.net" <sla...@usa.com> wrote:
>
> > John,
> > Well I was talking to the Nikon guy here locally and
> > he indicated that the filter might
> > make for a less than perfectly sharp picture. That's what I was
> > referring to as far as photoshop. I seem
> > to do less computer doctoring with my Fujifilm pictures from the S5000
> > point and shoot.
> > But you say there's a filter on there too.
> > I did not understand the use of the filter. I figured the filter
> > was blocking the sensor some, thus getting
> > a less sharp picture. They still seem a bit fuzzy and lack of color
> > saturation. I get better pics with the Fujifilm as far as color and
> > sharpness,,, I think !!
>
> Hello,
> The filter you're talking about (the low-pass filter) isn't there for
> protection, but for other reasons. Most digital cameras have one (it's
> necessary), but don't worry about why. One of the side-effects (sort
> of) is that it softens the image slightly; many cameras (such as the
> fuji s5000, I suppose) sharpen the image to compensate for this by
> default, but dslrs (the d200 in particular) sharpen less, as some
> people prefer it this way.
>
> So if you find the images from the fuji better, you can go into the
> menus in your d200 and set sharpening to medium high or high. You can
> also set saturation to enhanced (or words to that effect!), and maybe
> colour mode to III (colour modes basically change the overall colour
> palette, so to speak; like choosing film), and you'll get much
> punchier images. Also, if you're not using a colour-managed program to
> view your images (photoshop is, but if you don't know what colour-
> managed means, pretend your programs don't colour-manage), make sure
> that colour space is set to srgb (otherwise, if you don't use an
> application that reads profiles, you'll probably get highly
> desaturated colours on-screen).
>
> All these (except colour space) can be set from the "optimize image"
> menu. "colour space" is, I think, in the shooting menu. I think you
> can also select some presets in the "optimize image" submenu (vivid,
> more vivid, things like that), which select all these automatically.
>
> All this assumes you shoot jpeg.
>
> In short, play a bit with the various options in the "optimize image"
> submenu (it's in the "shooting menu", I think) until you get a result
> you like. Have fun!
ACL,
Wow ,, Thanks for all the information. I have been
checking the menu
on the camera , and changed a few setting to increase sharpness and
color.
I do however shoot nothing but RAW images in hopes of better
images.
You mentioned setting for JPG's. The setting changes only work for
JPG's and not RAW ??? LMK,,Please....
The color modes is a bit confusing too. I just need to sit down
and read more
I guess, but sometimes I get confused. The camera is set to Color
Space Adobe RGB, and Color Mode III.
Here's what I do. Shoot in Raw, save to my computer in TIFF, and
convert to JPG if I use the photo
for a pictures to print or submission to a web site. I shoot mostly
airplane pictures and submit them
to a site jetphotos.net. I'm still in the learning process at
age 57. I shot film when I was a kid, darkroom, etc.
The digital age is a few steps ahead of me,,ha,ha,,,,,
I love the D200, but I'd like some sharper more colorful pics. I
read where one guy, shoots all his pictures
under exposed and then uses curves or contrast in Photoshop. Oh yeal,
I'm using Photoshop 6 by the way.
I think it's a good program. Nikon has one for their RAW images
too.
Hey Thanks again for the info, much appreciated. LMK on this too
if you would,,,,
On Jun 13, 1:45 am, "sla...@fuse.net" <sla...@usa.com> wrote:
> ACL,
> Wow ,, Thanks for all the information. I have been
> checking the menu
> on the camera , and changed a few setting to increase sharpness and
> color.
> I do however shoot nothing but RAW images in hopes of better
> images.
> You mentioned setting for JPG's. The setting changes only work for
> JPG's and not RAW ??? LMK,,Please....
Hi, these settings affect the jpegs. If you shoot raw, then the
choices you made for sharpening, saturation etc are stored with the
file, but the data in the file itself isn't altered. If you use one of
the nikon converters (nikon capture, nx, or one of the ones that come
with the camera, I think), these choices are used. That is: if you
select high sharpening when shooting raw and use nikon capture to
convert to tiff or jpg, high sharpening is applied during conversion.
Now if you use instead some other converter (bibble, raw shooter or
whatever), then they ignore these settings (sharpening, saturation
etc). Note that some converters may use some of the data, but most
just ignore it. So, if you use (say) bibble to convert, then you need
to manually select eg high sharpening and saturation in bibble before
conversion: what you choose for these parameters in camera doesn't
matter.
So to summarise: if you are not using a nikon converter, what you need
to do is increase sharpening and saturation (and contrast etc) in the
raw converter until you get something you like. Basically, play with
the various parameters until you like the result!
> The color modes is a bit confusing too. I just need to sit down
> and read more
> I guess, but sometimes I get confused. The camera is set to Color
> Space Adobe RGB, and Color Mode III.
These are as above: if you use a nikon converter (or shoot jpeg) they
are used, otherwise they're mostly ignored (maybe colour space is used
by some, I don't know). Best to set that to srgb if you don't know
what that is, until you learn a bit more. About color mode, if you
shoot jpegs (or use a nikon converter), it's like selecting film. If
you use another converter, it's usually irrelevant. Try this to see
what color mode does: set your camera to jpeg, shoot the same thing,
same exposure, with color mode I and then III. You'll see the
difference (especially if it contains trees, grass etc). Best to do
this with daylight.
> Here's what I do. Shoot in Raw, save to my computer in TIFF, and
> convert to JPG if I use the photo
> for a pictures to print or submission to a web site. I shoot mostly
> airplane pictures and submit them
> to a site jetphotos.net.
Well in that case, it's best to shoot srgb, as most web browsers (on
windows and linux, at least) do not do colour management; that means
that anything in adobe rgb will look wrong. So, either a) shoot jpegs
with srgb, b) shoot raw and select srgb in the output options, or c)
output a tiff in adobe rgb from the raw converter and then convert to
srgb before saving as a jpeg (in photoshop).
> I'm still in the learning process at
> age 57. I shot film when I was a kid, darkroom, etc.
> The digital age is a few steps ahead of me,,ha,ha,,,,,
> I love the D200, but I'd like some sharper more colorful pics. I
Well maybe trying what I suggested will help. It's simple, especially
since you shoot raw: open the image in your raw converter, and play
with the various settings there until happy with the image. You can
see the result immediately! It does take a bit of practice to learn
which control does what, and how they affect each other, and what the
possible pitfalls are, but it's much much faster to learn than
darkroom work (due to the immediate feedback).
And make sure the resulting jpeg is in srgb space to avoid problems
with different web browsers!
> read where one guy, shoots all his pictures
> under exposed and then uses curves or contrast in Photoshop.
The idea probably is that you shoot at ISO 100 (or 200 or 400) but
meter for ISO 800, and compensate during raw conversion by moving the
whitepoint. This gives extra dynamic range (in the highlights) but
sometimes worse noise in the dark parts (depending on camera, raw
converter, ISO setting etc). But it's inconvenient, takes careful
metering, needs experimentation to find out what works and what the
tradeoffs are, makes the LCD preview useless, etc.
Best to ignore such acrobatics unless you really need them, is my
opinion.
> Oh yeal,
> I'm using Photoshop 6 by the way.
> I think it's a good program. Nikon has one for their RAW images
> too.
> Hey Thanks again for the info, much appreciated. LMK on this too
> if you would,,,,
>
Digital sensors Nikon Canon 
Linear Mode
