[Steinar1]

Thanks a lot Rainer and Serkan!! <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' /> This should help me get going. I must admit I am a little overwhelmed some times by all the things you have to master in the digital world. But then it is lots of fun when you get there. Thanks again. Kindly Vieux Loup <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />

[wim]

[quote name='Vieux loup' timestamp='1284971614' post='2949']

Thanks Wim,

I do enjoy it, but for reasons that shall not be described here I can not be directly in the sun, so it is much for the pleasure of my wife <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' /> , but it is very nice to wander about and try to get a nice shot somewhere. Lots of nice plants, trees and, if you drive a little, monuments of all kinds. Unfortunately have to go back north tomorrow, but the water is still good for swimming and the sun is hot.

The more I use the equipment, the more I am convinced that for me it would have been a smart thing to start with one or two lenses only and then buy as you really see the need. That being said, what I got is really good. I took some handheld shots with the 70-300 at 300mm across a bay that is 2 km large and the sharpness and detail are amazing.

What do hink of the D7000? I think it shows things to come from Nikon and when the D700 gets the new sensor, there I will be <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />

So, I will have the courage to show some of my pics when I get home and select a little closer. Until then, kind regards Vieux Loup

[/quote]

Sorry to hear about your condition. OTOH, this provides with ample opportunity I guess to go out and go shooting, as you are (were) doing <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />.



Starting with less lenses when you're entirly new ot something is probably a good thing; however, it does look liek you got some good lenses for sure, so even if you don't get around to working with all of them now, it'll be great when you do. Good glass always is the real investment with cameras, especially in the digital age <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />



The D7000 sounds like an awful lot of value for money to me. Everything in a single camera, plus a new sensor. I think it is really funny how Canon created a camera more similar to the D90 with the 60D, and Nikon decided to do a one-up to the 50D <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />. Very clever, they still aren't competing in this market segment now, they just switched segments <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />. Well, that's my interpretation anyway <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />.



And I am looking forward to see some of your photographs!



Kind regards, Wim



.

[wim]

[quote name='Vieux loup' timestamp='1285508133' post='3249']

Thanks a lot Rainer and Serkan!! <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' /> This should help me get going. I must admit I am a little overwhelmed some times by all the things you have to master in the digital world. But then it is lots of fun when you get there. Thanks again. Kindly Vieux Loup <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />

[/quote]

If you don't mind, and Markus and Serkan neither, I'll add my comments and experience.



First of all, sizing: personally I use jpeg quality 10, and resize to 1000 pixels for the largest size, either width for landscape view, or height for portrait view. That works well for me, and gives me image sizes of anywhere between 300 K and 500 K. By reducing the quality further, you generally get a lot smaller files.



I was quite dissatisfied in the beginning when resizing files, and after some research and experimenting I actually found a way to get around the problems when viewing files on the web. Rather than reduce in one go, I do this in steps of approximately 2/3 of the previous size, and I use bicubic sharpen, every second reduction step as a general rule. 2/3 the original size or slightly bigger, like 0.7X, makes the software work harder by it having to regenerate and interpolate an entirely new image. The danger with downsizing in larger steps, especially steps of 0.5X and smaller, may make it simpler and faster for the software, because it may only have to throw away pixels, but I find the results not as good. I do get artefacts I find when I use the faster step downs.



The bicubic sharpen steps are required because the interpolation makes the images softer. Now, how often you have to do this depends to a degree on the camera used, the lens used, aperture and shutter speed, and exactness of focus achieved. IOW, it may depend on image parameters which are controlled at the point the image was taken. As I mentioned, it also depends on the lens used, and I find there is a pattern emerging here, for me anyway. F.e., images taken with the TS-E 17L require very little sharpening I find, if not no sharpening, or even smoothing over (bicubic smoother), as just sizing it down may add sharpening artefacts.



Before I forget: all of this I only do after I have created the for me perfect 16-bit full size image, i.e., I convert Raw to 16-bit tiff with minimal changes, only exposure and white balance corrections, and some curves. I then proceed to work on the 16-bit tiff until I have a good result (sharpening, contrast, colour, brightness, whatever is required to create what I had in mind when taking the shot; no different than in my analog days <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />). The final tiff file then gets downsized to the required size for the web, and only then converted to 8-bit and saved as jpeg. That way it'll look the same for me both in 16-bit and in 8-bit formats, and following the steps outlined above for downsizing, gives me results I am generally happy with.



Kind regards, Wim



P.S.: I only do these for shots I really like. It takes as much time to do this in digital as it used to with film <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />.

[Steinar1]

Thanks again Wim, you always seem to be there. I will try what you describe in Capture NX2. I have it on trial and think I will end up buying it. It makes sense to me to use software that really is compatible with the camera software. I also have found myPicturetown, the Nikon photostorage site, which seems to be simple and do what I want.

With respect to the photos, I actually have some that I am proud of and I will be sure to let you know when I have them available on myPicturetown. Kind regards Vieux Loup

[Rainer]

[quote name='wim' timestamp='1285534192' post='3269']

I was quite dissatisfied in the beginning when resizing files, and after some research and experimenting I actually found a way to get around the problems when viewing files on the web. Rather than reduce in one go, I do this in steps of approximately 2/3 of the previous size, and I use bicubic sharpen, every second reduction step as a general rule. 2/3 the original size or slightly bigger, like 0.7X, makes the software work harder by it having to regenerate and interpolate an entirely new image. The danger with downsizing in larger steps, especially steps of 0.5X and smaller, may make it simpler and faster for the software, because it may only have to throw away pixels, but I find the results not as good. I do get artefacts I find when I use the faster step downs.

[/quote]



I believe that this way produced the better results, when programs did the reduction in pixels by simple "resize" operations. But today most (if not all) programs at least give you the choice how the reduction is done. (IrfanView for instance (and because I mentioned it before) will let you choose between "resize" (quick but leading to somewhat dissatisfying results) and "resample ... along with a selection of resample functions" (MUCH better results, but takes noticably longer). Today I belive the cumbersome process of reducing the size in several small steps including a certain amount of sharpening can savely be skipped, if you select the resample-way (rather than the resize-way) to let your images "lose some weight". At least, in the few tests I did (when I heard of the method mentioned by Wim) I couldn't see a noticable difference to the result of IrfanView (with resample + the Lancos-function) or PS/PSE and its bicubic-functions. But ... to each his own ... you should certanly give it a try and see if it works for you.



Rainer

[wim]

Hi Rainer,

[quote name='Rainer' timestamp='1285536433' post='3273']

I believe that this way produced the better results, when programs did the reduction in pixels by simple "resize" operations. But today most (if not all) programs at least give you the choice how the reduction is done. (IrfanView for instance (and because I mentioned it before) will let you choose between "resize" (quick but leading to somewhat dissatisfying results) and "resample ... along with a selection of resample functions" (MUCH better results, but takes noticably longer). Today I belive the cumbersome process of reducing the size in several small steps including a certain amount of sharpening can savely be skipped, if you select the resample-way (rather than the resize-way) to let your images "lose some weight". At least, in the few tests I did (when I heard of the method mentioned by Wim) I couldn't see a noticable difference to the result of IrfanView (with resample + the Lancos-function) or PS/PSE and its bicubic-functions. But ... to each his own ... you should certanly give it a try and see if it works for you.



Rainer

[/quote]

Thank you for the additional information.



I did my tests and checks in CS3 and CS4, haven't tried CS5 yet, so I can't speak for many other tools, other than DPP or DxO Optics Pro. The last time I used DPP to do resizing, I wasn't too happy, and the same is true with DxO, although in both cases I haven't tried to do this in the last versions either, but rather in last year versions <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />.



One thing, however: the difference only became obvious when viewing a file on the web, either through a site, flash or otherwise, a forum. or just plain with a browser, not when viewing it with any of the processing software applications. Using the above method fixed that for me. And maybe I am just a nitpicker <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />.



Kind regards, Wim <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />

[wim]

[quote name='Vieux loup' timestamp='1285535133' post='3271']

Thanks again Wim, you always seem to be there. I will try what you describe in Capture NX2. I have it on trial and think I will end up buying it. It makes sense to me to use software that really is compatible with the camera software. I also have found myPicturetown, the Nikon photostorage site, which seems to be simple and do what I want.

With respect to the photos, I actually have some that I am proud of and I will be sure to let you know when I have them available on myPicturetown. Kind regards Vieux Loup

[/quote]

Thank you, Wolf! Looking forward to seeing your photographs!



Kind regards, Wim

[Rainer]

[quote name='wim' timestamp='1285537936' post='3274']

One thing, however: the difference only became obvious when viewing a file on the web,

either through a site, flash or otherwise, a forum. or just plain with a browser, not when viewing

it with any of the processing software applications. Using the above method fixed that for

me. And maybe I am just a nitpicker .

[/quote]



Well, that is at least strange ... because this means to make this effect visible another

step of resizing (by the browser or by flash) is eventually required. Did it make a difference

which browser you used?



For a test, I just displayed an image containing my daughters hair with ie8, with firefox and

with irfanview ... the browsers display this image absolutely awful ... the hair contains a

horrible amount of stair-like artefacts ... the display by irfanview is flawless. Now, if I resize this

image with irfanview to a size that can be displayed by the browsers without additional resizing, the

display by the browser is also flawless. ... My conclusion would be ... your attempt to resize eventuelly

left you with an image that was still too large (and therefore required additional resizing by

the browser).



Just a thought...Rainer

[wim]

Hi Rainer,

[quote name='Rainer' timestamp='1285539148' post='3276']

Well, that is at least strange ... because this means to make this effect visible another

step of resizing (by the browser or by flash) is eventually required. Did it make a difference

which browser you used?



For a test, I just displayed an image containing my daughters hair with ie8, with firefox and

with irfanview ... the browsers display this image absolutely awful ... the hair contains a

horrible amount of stair-like artefacts ... the display by irfanview is flawless. Now, if I resize this

image with irfanview to a size that can be displayed by the browsers without additional resizing, the

display by the browser is also flawless. ... My conclusion would be ... your attempt to resize eventuelly

left you with an image that was still too large (and therefore required additional resizing by

the browser).



Just a thought...Rainer

[/quote]

No, it didn't actually make a difference in my case. I deliberately tested for that too. And I tested with 4 different browsers <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />. If a picture happened to look good, it seemed to be a random thing, although the same picture looking good once, looked good anywhere. I couldn't get this to work consistenly, until I started the workflow described higher up.



Currently, my pictures look good to me now in any browser, whether it downsizes further or not, and on most screens, except on the cheaper non-calibrated tft/lcd screens <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />. However, I don't care about the latter, as a little of manual "calibration" goes a long way <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />.



Kind regards, Wim

[Steinar1]

Help, help. I am trying to print my pictures from a D300s raw file with a Canon Pixma MP830 printer. The results are not good. Does one of you have any experience with this combination D300s, Capture NX2 through Canon Pixma MP830? I have some questions in this regard;



- Do I absolutely have to convert to JPEG before printing?

- How do I adjust the printer? Capture NX2 says you need to turn off the printer colour management if you use Capture NX2 colour management (which I want to do)How do I turn the printer colour management off? I can not find anything in the manual.



I should add that I only have my portable Acer PC as a monitor, so no calibration done on either monitor nor printer.



Any help to solve my problem would be dearly appreciated and please forgive me if my questions are too stupid. I have to try to get a usable result with what I have for the moment. I am considering buying an Epson 1400. Any comments to that? Any suggestions for a monitor?



Kind regards Stupid feeling Wolf.