# D300 + 18-200VR test shots



## Rich @ PB (Oct 26, 2005)

Just a few of the many test shots I took last week with a borrowed D300 + 18-200VR lens. In general, I think I did pretty well given that I didn't even have a manual to hand to help with the more complicated functions! Most of the following shots were taken in aperture priority mode, to gauge depth of field variations when shooting in the studio. One thing that struck me when checking the histograms in Photoshop was the difficulty in getting exposure correct when working with a dark car in a bright studio; you can forget the classic bell shape graph, I had a U-shapes! I think some experimentation with the Active D-Lighting option will be on the cards when my camera arrives, in order to restore detail to the highlights and shadows respectively. Any help or suggestions welcomed.


----------



## -ROM- (Feb 23, 2007)

some very nice shots there, i'm not sure if you're aware but the D300's party piece is the fact you can crank the ISO up to 1600 and still have very useable photos with very little noise, 3200 is still acceptable for web images.

The previous generation nikons struggled at anything above ISO 800


----------



## Clark @ PB (Mar 1, 2006)

All that talk is way over my head but the pics look good to me!  :lol:


----------



## Rich @ PB (Oct 26, 2005)

rmorgan84 said:


> some very nice shots there, i'm not sure if you're aware but the D300's party piece is the fact you can crank the ISO up to 1600 and still have very useable photos with very little noise, 3200 is still acceptable for web images.
> 
> The previous generation nikons struggled at anything above ISO 800


Aye, I saw that in the tech specs, but ISO is something I've not played with before (even though my old compact had a 100-800 range). I am aware that stopping down makes the camera much more sensitive to incoming light, and thus more usable in lowlight conditions, but does it help in any way with the above type of situation, i.e. very high contrast?


----------



## dsolds (Feb 13, 2008)

Rich. The histogram issue you have is being exaggerated by this car. You have bright whites right next to inky blacks but precious little of the in between colours.
For these, better to underexpose slightly since the data will still be there. If you "burn" the whites with over-exposure then they cannot be recovered. A quick tweak in photoshop can adjust the levels to balance. From RAW, PS will also give enhancements in the conversion phase since there is more data there to start with. I also like being able to adjust the specific levels of highlights and tonal areas independant of CONTRAST and BRIGHTNESS functions. I have an article on this in one of my mags - if I can find it I'll scan it and send to you.
Overall, easy subjects you can use JPEG and get away with a lot. Harder stuff like this is much better if you shoot in RAW. And if you don't have PS, call me. Solutions can be found to help with this. 
Dom


----------



## -ROM- (Feb 23, 2007)

Stopping down means reducing the aperture so this makes the camera less sensitive, increasing the ISO means you can use a faster shutter speed to get nice out of focus background and you can pull more detail from the shadows in photoshop etc. A trick is to meter off a 18% grey equivalent colour (such as the tarmac) as the all black car is fooling the meter to thinking the lighting conditions are darker than they actually are.


----------



## Rich @ PB (Oct 26, 2005)

dsolds said:


> Rich. The histogram issue you have is being exaggerated by this car. You have bright whites right next to inky blacks but precious little of the in between colours.
> For these, better to underexpose slightly since the data will still be there. If you "burn" the whites with over-exposure then they cannot be recovered. A quick tweak in photoshop can adjust the levels to balance. From RAW, PS will also give enhancements in the conversion phase since there is more data there to start with. I also like being able to adjust the specific levels of highlights and tonal areas independant of CONTRAST and BRIGHTNESS functions. I have an article on this in one of my mags - if I can find it I'll scan it and send to you.
> Overall, easy subjects you can use JPEG and get away with a lot. Harder stuff like this is much better if you shoot in RAW. And if you don't have PS, call me. Solutions can be found to help with this.
> Dom


Hi Dom, yep, I have CS2, but have yet to broach RAW conversion - I've got a heap of articles on it from recent mags, so when I get chance I'm going to spend a few hours working my way though it. I suspected this might be the way forward with the studio work, so just a question of learning it all now. I am very grateful for your help over the past couple of weeks; I'll give you a call in the next day or two. :thumb:


----------



## Grizzle (Jul 12, 2006)

Clark said:


> All that talk is way over my head


You and me both :lol:


----------



## Rich @ PB (Oct 26, 2005)

rmorgan84 said:


> Stopping down means reducing the aperture so this makes the camera less sensitive, increasing the ISO means you can use a faster shutter speed to get nice out of focus background and you can pull more detail from the shadows in photoshop etc. A trick is to meter off a 18% grey equivalent colour (such as the tarmac) as the all black car is fooling the meter to thinking the lighting conditions are darker than they actually are.


Sorry, my bad with the jargon, reading it back I can see I have mislead you. When I said stopping down I actually meant increasing the ISO, not changing the aperture size. However, the second part of your response still answers my intended question, so thank you!


----------



## Clark @ PB (Mar 1, 2006)

Custom Detailers said:


> You and me both :lol:


Dont go dragging me to your level. My cleverness is far superior to yours  :lol:


----------



## dsolds (Feb 13, 2008)

Rich, as RMORGAN84 pointed out, by metering on a medium grey (tarmac) you are effectively moving down a shutter stop or two. A wider aperture means more light into the camera so you need to use a faster shutter speed. But, increasing ISO will also have a similar effect on shutter speed as well. The point is this, use one stop less than you think for shutter speed and under expose the image. This prevents the bright whites from burning (and thus losing the detail) but the darks will require attention. However, the detail IS there and can be gleaned using PS. See the 2 pics below. Frozen lake back in december I think. The RAW is underexposed by using a smallish aperture F11 at 1/500th, ISO 200 and 28mm. The Program mode would have used a slower shutter or larger aperture which would have burned the sky and sun reflection. However, the dark areas were not that dark to the naked eye.
Pic 1 shows what the camera took (converted to JPEG for photobucket.)
Pic 2 shows what can be recovered from the shadows. Rough and ready but demonstrates the point.


----------



## paddy328 (Mar 4, 2007)

I dont really understand the jargon, but i will be getting a d300 one day and i take it that everyone thinks its the nutts. has the second pic been run through photoshop or just taken with different settings on the camera?


----------



## -ROM- (Feb 23, 2007)

paddy328 said:


> I dont really understand the jargon, but i will be getting a d300 one day and i take it that everyone thinks its the nutts. has the second pic been run through photoshop or just taken with different settings on the camera?


yes they are the dog's danglies, but in order to get the best from it you really need to be on top of this jargon and then some, the "jargon" used in this thread really is at a very basic level.


----------



## paddy328 (Mar 4, 2007)

I do know bits and bobs, but i would need a crash course on how to get the best from it.


----------



## dsolds (Feb 13, 2008)

paddy328 said:


> I do know bits and bobs, but i would need a crash course on how to get the best from it.


Courses are available, not least from Nikon's website. All this stuff is basic as rmorgan84 points out, but basic is a good starting point. I have used SLR's since the 70's and still the D300 is showing me how to do things I never have before.
Yes, the second pic is photoshopped to demonstrate that data can be recovered from shadows whereas a burned highlight is effectively ruined but please understand it was done in less than a minute, purely to demonstrate the principle. And the subject was rather extreme to begin with. As it said, rough and ready. And it was to deal with an extreme situation of a really shiny black car in bright sunlight, a subject which is not the easiest thing to shoot well, primarily due to the extremes involved.

I think overall, the lesson which I learned after many years of 35mm photography is that with digital it is usually better to expose for the highlights whereas film tended to be the opposite. A sweeping generalisation which some might disagree with but this helps me get the best results. However, I'm no professional, purely a keen amateur. There are many more on this forum who are vastly more knowledgeable than me in this subject.


----------



## -ROM- (Feb 23, 2007)

yep you are right, golden rule with digital is expose for the highlights.

However the very best way to get good exposure is to buy a light meter and take incident readings rather than reflected.


----------



## Glider (Jan 10, 2006)

you've , you've replaced the Leon with a camera :speechles, are you mad. Enjoy the new toy, sorry essential piece of equipment


----------



## ModBod (Feb 19, 2008)

Have a look on this page, the Zones section, that should help a lot when shoting dark colours, in fact use this for any Colour and you will see an improvment. In saying that you well 

http://www.normankoren.com/zonesystem.html


----------



## Bigpikle (May 21, 2007)

...some good points above, but you also need to realise that a camera sensor simply cannot capture the same range of dark-light tones that the human eye does (or even that 35mm film is able to ). If you have deep shadows and bright highlights, like from you shop lights, it might well just present the camera with too great dynamic range for it to be able to capture both...so whatever you do you will lose some tones/details somewhere.

Photography is always a trade-off - what do you want to capture? The highlights or the shadow details? Photoshop and HDR technques to blend and merge exposures etc can help, but often it takes some skill to avoid the results looking anything from slightly 'wrong' to downright dreadful.

Dont confuse this with ISO etc - the sensitivity to light. That just means higher shutter speeds/larger apertures in lower light. In fact dynamic range tends to be reduced further at higher ISO's - yet another trade-off you need to consider.

One part of your solution Rich, is going to have to be thinking about lighting and how it falls on the cars. Bright spots of light on polished paintwork or metal are always going to cause an exposure issue. Its exactly what you want for detailing but there is a reason car photographers use 30' diffusers on their lights - to get the soft diffused light that avoids these bright spots and reflections etc....

The other thing is that you need to make sure you are using a calibrated screen on your editing computer. There is no point trying to edit and capture the highlights and shadow detail if your screen isnt accurately reproducing your image. Self calibrating kits like the Spyder etc are cheap and fairly easy to use on most screens as long as you have some manual adjustments etc, but as with all hobbies, once you start aiming for higher standards you need to start considering more and more elements


----------



## Rich @ PB (Oct 26, 2005)

Thank you for the further advice, much appreciated. :thumb:


----------



## parish (Jun 29, 2006)

Bigpikle said:


> ...some good points above, but you also need to realise that a camera sensor simply cannot capture the same range of dark-light tones that the human eye does (or even that 35mm film is able to ).


Yep, and this pro site (the guy who got one of his pics bought by Apple for the iPhone, as mentioned in another thread) quantifies the difference:

_No film records light, shade or colour in the same way as the human eye perceives it. You and I can perceive detail within a ten stop range. Fuji Velvia can barely record details over five stops, a serious shortcoming that has to be taken into account._

Five stops is a very big difference and 10 stops is massive. He doesn't mention digital but it is probably quite a bit less than film.


----------



## -ROM- (Feb 23, 2007)

Bigpikle said:


> ...some good points above, but you also need to realise that a camera sensor simply cannot capture the same range of dark-light tones that the human eye does (or even that 35mm film is able to ). If you have deep shadows and bright highlights, like from you shop lights, it might well just present the camera with too great dynamic range for it to be able to capture both...so whatever you do you will lose some tones/details somewhere.
> 
> Photography is always a trade-off - what do you want to capture? The highlights or the shadow details? Photoshop and HDR technques to blend and merge exposures etc can help, but often it takes some skill to avoid the results looking anything from slightly 'wrong' to downright dreadful.
> 
> ...


You make some excellent points however i feel that due to the fact that photos are purely for web use and not to be printed, then it is a bit pointless calibrating as the screens that customers will use to view them won't be calibrated anyway! I'd rather put the money towards a new lens/flash/soft box/etc

Some thing that you almost touched on with the lighting is a polarising filter which although technically will reduce the reflection and shine of the vehicle when viewing on a pc screen it may give a more pleasing result as the strength of colours and contrast will be increased.


----------



## Rich @ PB (Oct 26, 2005)

I have 2 x 60cm softboxes for use with the Lastolite studio setup, so will try to use these to maximum effect for some of the lighting in the future. :thumb:


----------



## Bigpikle (May 21, 2007)

rmorgan84 said:


> You make some excellent points however i feel that due to the fact that photos are purely for web use and not to be printed, then it is a bit pointless calibrating as the screens that customers will use to view them won't be calibrated anyway! I'd rather put the money towards a new lens/flash/soft box/etc
> 
> Some thing that you almost touched on with the lighting is a polarising filter which although technically will reduce the reflection and shine of the vehicle when viewing on a pc screen it may give a more pleasing result as the strength of colours and contrast will be increased.


good idea I forgot about :thumb: makes a huge difference on windows, and a bit less on paint.

On the screen point, it only matters if you are playing with exposure, even if it is for web use or whatever. No point trying to get detail in the highlights and finding your screen is not as bright as it needs to be....



WX51 TXR said:


> I have 2 x 60cm softboxes for use with the Lastolite studio setup, so will try to use these to maximum effect for some of the lighting in the future. :thumb:


they'll make a huge difference if you can make sure you dont see them in the reflections :thumb: Bouncing off your white walls will also help, assuming they are true white


----------



## CK888 (Apr 23, 2006)

> On the screen point, it only matters if you are playing with exposure, even if it is for web use or whatever. No point trying to get detail in the highlights and finding your screen is not as bright as it needs to be....
> 
> 
> > Agreed:thumb:


----------



## Scud (Jun 30, 2006)

I gotta invest in one of these dslr,them pics look real good


----------



## -ROM- (Feb 23, 2007)

Scud said:


> I gotta invest in one of these dslr,them pics look real good


yeah, the D300 is a stunning camera, but one thing to remember is you ca achieve 95% of the quality with a D60 or D80 which are well under half the price.


----------

