Nikon D70 - Do pictures require Photoshop fixing?

What happens if your clients find out they are getting P&S images at
professional prices?
They don't pay people to pump gas anymore either.

"bmoag" writes:
If you primarily want a good jpeg shooter you should not get the D70.
You will bet better jpeg results from upper level P&S or electronic view
finder cameras.

Why do you say that? DSLR jpeg images I've seen online look better
than anything I've seen from a P&S, just because the DSLR's CCD cells
are larger. With the recent price cuts I think I'm finally about to
buy a D70. I guess I'll do some RAW comparisons but my expectation
has been that I'll generally shoot jpeg.

"Paul Rubin" wrote in message
...
"bmoag" writes:
If you primarily want a good jpeg shooter you should not get the D70.
You will bet better jpeg results from upper level P&S or electronic view
finder cameras.

Why do you say that? DSLR jpeg images I've seen online look better
than anything I've seen from a P&S, just because the DSLR's CCD cells
are larger. With the recent price cuts I think I'm finally about to
buy a D70. I guess I'll do some RAW comparisons but my expectation
has been that I'll generally shoot jpeg.

I get my best result with RAW, but a lot of how your image turns out has to
do with light. The D70 produces great jpeg's, IMHO, when outside with good
lighting, or inside with flash. When the lighting is bad outside you have
to adjust for what you want. Do you want a muddy looking picture on a muddy
looking day, or do you want to snap it up? And my worst photos have been
indoors with low light where even Photoshop can't do much to make them look
like they came from a $1K camera. This is the only place my old point and
shoot beat the D70. Also, you gotta keep on eye on WB. Some cameras do a
much better job in automatic mode.

The weather around here has been pretty yucky since I got my camera.
Looking forward to sunny days, daylight savings and blooming flowers. :-)
It's a great camera. I just need to make some great opportunities, and most
of my shots are saved as jpeg's.

"Sheldon" writes:
I get my best result with RAW, but a lot of how your image turns out has to
do with light. The D70 produces great jpeg's, IMHO, when outside with good
lighting, or inside with flash. When the lighting is bad outside you have
to adjust for what you want. Do you want a muddy looking picture on a muddy
looking day, or do you want to snap it up?

Are you saying that RAW is better for adjusting underexposed shots?

And my worst photos have been indoors with low light where even
Photoshop can't do much to make them look like they came from a $1K
camera. This is the only place my old point and shoot beat the D70.

You mean there's a digital P/S that does better in low light? Or do
you mean a film P/S with fast film? I still have film SLR's but haven't
used them in years. I've had the impression that the D70 does far better
at 400 or 800 ISO than any digital P/S possibly could, because of the
D70's much larger sensor.

I see I can get a used D1 for around what I can get a used D70 for.
Maybe I should think about that, since it has even larger pixels (2.7 MP)
and will meter and autoexpose with my 35/1.4 MF Nikkor (my favorite lens
for indoor shooting). The closest thing to it in an AF lens is the
28/1.4 AF which costs something like $1600 :-(.

Also, you gotta keep on eye on WB. Some cameras do a much better
job in automatic mode.

Hmm, interesting.

"Sheldon" writes:
I get my best result with RAW, but a lot of how your image turns out has to
do with light. The D70 produces great jpeg's, IMHO, when outside with good
lighting, or inside with flash. When the lighting is bad outside you have
to adjust for what you want. Do you want a muddy looking picture on a muddy
looking day, or do you want to snap it up?

Are you saying that RAW is better for adjusting underexposed shots?

And my worst photos have been indoors with low light where even
Photoshop can't do much to make them look like they came from a $1K
camera. This is the only place my old point and shoot beat the D70.

You mean there's a digital P/S that does better in low light? Or do
you mean a film P/S with fast film? I still have film SLR's but haven't
used them in years. I've had the impression that the D70 does far better
at 400 or 800 ISO than any digital P/S possibly could, because of the
D70's much larger sensor.

I see I can get a used D1 for around what I can get a used D70 for.
Maybe I should think about that, since it has even larger pixels (2.7 MP)
and will meter and autoexpose with my 35/1.4 MF Nikkor (my favorite lens
for indoor shooting). The closest thing to it in an AF lens is the
28/1.4 AF which costs something like $1600 :-(.

Also, you gotta keep on eye on WB. Some cameras do a much better
job in automatic mode.

Hmm, interesting.

Ed Ruf wrote:

On 02 Apr 2005 20:00:35 -0800, in rec.photo.digital Paul Rubin
wrote:


"Sheldon" writes:

I get my best result with RAW, but a lot of how your image turns out has to
do with light. The D70 produces great jpeg's, IMHO, when outside with good
lighting, or inside with flash. When the lighting is bad outside you have
to adjust for what you want. Do you want a muddy looking picture on a muddy
looking day, or do you want to snap it up?

Are you saying that RAW is better for adjusting underexposed shots?


Yes, you have the 12 bit sensor data to work with, not the 8 bit jpg data.


RAW is better for any adjustments to brighten up a muddy scene.

Actually, here in Oregon, they do still pump your gas for you and they
do pay people to do it

I wouldn't consider that getting P&S images and professional prices, as
I see it, the camera itself a does not a great photographer make.. but
the skills and eye for the subject and composition is what defines a
great photographer. That is what you pay for, the skills and
knowledge.

Isn't it?