I own a D3x, when I purchased this camera I understood the limitation and difference between this and the other Nikon bodies that I own, D3/D700. I do no use this camera in the same maner as I would my D3. It is perfect for landscape and in studio. I wouldnt say it has the colour tone as the Hassy. But anyone is strongly mistaken if they purchased or thinking of this camera and using in the same maner as they would the D3. I love the D3 it is a amazing everyday camera and amazing at high ISO. The D3x dont expect the same, enjoy the high pixel count as when you crop in and crop in like you never could in the D3/D700 you will notice how sharp and clear your images are.

As for Ken Rock… well I might not agree with everyhing you post on your site, but I do vist yeah now and then..

It doesn’t bother me that someone might do something different. But people talking out of their ass drives me up a wall.

I’ll be back with examples.

Getting it right in camera is exactly what I like to do. However, this is not always possible. I find I can remove color casts/balance color with much more latitude in a RAW workflow. I shoot weddings, so I have to produce many quality images to please a client. Many more than would fit in a magazine. Perhaps someday I’ll be able to work for a magazine and choose the most striking shots with a proper editor. Right now I have to catch every “important moment” and I don’t always have time to white balance before each shot, and auto-wb is still not perfect under artificial light (though getting better every gen I see).

I will admit to using jpegs for volume product shots strobes. But if it’s going to be used for anything past 8×10, RAW still goes further.

I don’t like the in camera processing of jpegs or the identical results Capture NX2. I can get far more information out of a file when shot RAW and run through ACR.

I store RAWs on DVD and jpegs on cd. A full dvd burns in about the same time as a cd on my computer. I have off site storage of a copy of both cd and dvd and keep more recent stuff on an external hard drive for easy access.

I guess we could go back and forth about RAW and jpeg ad nauseum, but instead I’ll take a shot and give you details at 100% to illustrate what I’m talking about.

I’ll post it as a comment here and admin feel free to repost someplace else if you like.

http://kenrockwell.com/radio/audio/ken-rockwell-interview_5-4-06.mp3

Ryan

http://www.ryanhollowayphotography.com

YOU ARE FALLING FOR THE MARKETING PRITTLE PRATTLE THAT THE SOFTWARE COMPANIES SPLURGE FORTH EVERY SECOND DAY. TRUST ME ON THIS – I MAY BE AN AMATEUR PHOTOGRAPHER BUT I AM ALSO AN IT PROFESSIONAL – FUNNILY ENOUGH IN SOFTWARE MARKETING AT MOMENT.

I am an amateur photographer but I am an IT professional and have to pull you up on your understanding of the formats from a technology perspective.

What do you store your RAW files as once you have corrected your errors when you took the image – you say JPEGS are crap (nonesense – YES, nonesense – my friends have billboards the size of small countries outside major aiports around the world printed from JPEGs) – but you add TIFF is too big.

God help you if you are storing as RAW files. A totally variable format that is unlikely to remain the same for long. Regardless how the format develops, I can guarantee that anything you store today as RAW will be unreadable within 7 years – yes there is a reason I specify 7.

You confuse me slightly though as “storage is a non-issue since its paid for by the client” and yet “TIFFs are unnecessarily large” Which is it cos I am confused?

I think many don’t even have a box brownie and if they did they really wouldn’t know what to do.

I have drawn the conclusion that it is all a farce – DO YOU REALLY THINK SOCCER STARS SIT WRITING ON SPORTS/FOOTBALL FORUMS – NO, THEY ARE OUT PRACTICING!

The guy above raving about JPEG v RAW v TIFF. I am just an amateur – with several pro friends though, including one who shoots for National Geographic on occasion – they all shoot JPEG. “Get in right in camera” they say, “just like when you used to shoot film”.

As I say I am an amateur photographer but I am an IT professional and have to pull you up on your understanding of the formats from a technology perspective.

What do you store your RAW files as once you have corrected your errors when you took the image – you say JPEGS are crap (nonesense – YES, nonesense – my friends have billboards the size of small countries outside major aiports around the world printed from JPEGs) – but you add TIFF is too big.

God help you if you are storing as RAW files. A totally variable format that is unlikely to remain the same for long. Regardless how the format develops, I can guarantee that anything you store today as RAW will be unreadable within 7 years – yes there is a reason I specify 7.

You confuse me slightly though as “storage is a non-issue since its paid for by the client” and yet “TIFFs are unnecessarily large” Which is it cos I am confused?

fortunately, he/she couldn’t use my avatar

To me, jpegs look like shit, and Tiffs are unnecessarily large. Raw is a nice compromise between the two. My workflow is quite quick with PS3 and ACR.

Storage is a non-issue since it’s paid for by clients. Speed is a non-issue since download takes 4 mins for a full 16gb card and my computer sees and processes nef and jpg with equal quickness. So does my camera and card.

Raw is for people with up to date computer systems that can handle it. And those who demand ultimate image quality. And for those who know how to extract that extra information/quality from RAW.

If you don’t know how to get more out of RAW, then it’s not for you. Just like 9 fps and kickass weather sealing, you get RAW as a pro level feature which some people know what to do with.

A former employer insisted on using f22 on his 1ds level camera and couldn’t understand why it wasn’t sharper. He can’t tell the difference between RAW and jpeg either. The man still makes a living and for the most part, gets the results he wants. That doesn’t mean that his work couldn’t be improved by some technical knowledge and features that he isn’t using.

But hey, don’t take my word for it, try it.

If it doesn’t work for you, then stick with what does. But don’t try and make pointless statements about what “most” people do, because that’s useless information, that you don’t even have.

I think it is more probable that just a few people here are shooting anything at all.

Most of the posts here are from a bunch of guys dreaming about the equipment they don’t really need and don’t know how to use too, or as some like to put it, they are just talking about it and not really doing it. I will remind them of something that they have probably forgotten and will sound as a surprise to them; cameras are really made for making pictures you know.

High-end equipment, strangely enough just like low-end one, has higher rate of less than optimal copies. On the lower end this renders copies useless and calls for replacement, but on high-end it is just a matter of adjustment and sometimes on a regular basis too, and it is necessity when you are aiming for perfection, something most of you people would not even notice.

Of course some of us are making a living from selling photo gear and we really do love people that are spending loads of money, so please go on and change your gear every other month please.

In the meantime we are missing all that new products that this site should really be about, like new lenses, brand new Dx000 line of Nikon cameras …