Had my 800 since it came out, and no issues until Saturday night
when the first set of shots shots, at a dance event, seemed to have a green tint
I assumed it might have been the reception room which was very pale green

and when I moved to the ballroom the green tint vanished

later in the evening I checked the first set again and found they had lost the tint. when I downloaded them, there was no sign of any tint

Chris you made an important point: we consume media be it TV news or internet sites. We have to realize some of the "media" deliberately includes a strong entertainment component to boost ratings or traffic so they can charge advertisers more money and make more money for themselves. This is true of news channels and of websites. Sometimes the news channel will deliberately tilt conservative or liberal in order to draw in that group of people to boost ratings. We have to learn to discern these efforts to boost ratings or traffic to a website and learn to disregard them or spend our time elsewhere. We have to be educated and careful, not gullible, consumers.

donaldejose said:
Oh, I like KR and check his site often as an easy way to get some factual info about a lens or body. You have to realize that he writes part fact, part deliberate tongue-in-cheek fiction, part entertainment, and part over-the-top opinion. Think of it this way, his opinions are as over-saturated as his colors: some of the most ugly red skin tones I have seen: especially his own skin. Humble or talented, he is not.

Very well summarized.

molnarcs said:
Mostly bad or misleading information. KR has some strong opinions, what people perceive as "telling it as it is" - but what if that information is plain wrong?

I guess the whole problem boils down to that one sentence. To be honest, I think this is not a problem of KR, this is a problem of the people. Maybe that's why there's so much controversy about him, because people simply can't filter something they read and distinguish between opinion and fact-type information. I don't get it.

I wasn't a beginner when I started reading KR, but I was new to the D in DSLR, and looking back, it's really a different kind of shooting, so I could say I was a beginner in digital photography. Not once did I believe anything of all the things you mention in your examples. I've always considered all that exactly what I said before, self-righteous statements, photos without taste.

Apparently, people just need to learn to use their brains again. I don't want to get political, but that's also the ground on which something like Fox News is considered a news channel by so many.

Totally agree with your view about photographylife.com, molnarcs and golf!

molnarcs said:

....photographylife.com - their review photos are stunning. It also shows that they used best practices and at least tried the stuff they review in the field instead....

+1

donaldejose said:
Oh, I like KR and check his site often as an easy way to get some factual info about a lens or body. You have to realize that he writes part fact, part deliberate tongue-in-cheek fiction, part entertainment, and part over-the-top opinion. Think of it this way, his opinions are as over-saturated as his colors: some of the most ugly red skin tones I have seen: especially his own skin. Humble or talented, he is not.

I guess you're right if you look at it that way... Problem is, lots of people don't, and take him far too seriously.

Oh, I like KR and check his site often as an easy way to get some factual info about a lens or body. You have to realize that he writes part fact, part deliberate tongue-in-cheek fiction, part entertainment, and part over-the-top opinion. Think of it this way, his opinions are as over-saturated as his colors: some of the most ugly red skin tones I have seen: especially his own skin. Humble or talented, he is not.

chris_weinert said:
Just out of interest: What's the damage?

Mostly bad or misleading information. KR has some strong opinions, what people perceive as "telling it as it is" - but what if that information is plain wrong? Like his insistence that "real men shoot jpeg" and how RAW is a lie. Although I'm a raw shooter, I think jpeg is a valid choice with significant advantages (storage needs, processing power, compatibility) over raw. I chose to shoot raw because to me, the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. The problem here is attitude and arrogance to the point of being irrational. RAW is not simply a matter of choice for him, a choice you make after weighing advantages and disadvantages. No, raw is evil, raw is a lie.

He's a highly controversial figure, probably because he writes as if he spoke the Truth of God, and for some reason people fall for it. Some forums (like photo.net) banned links to his site because people posted with the same zeal and attitude resulting in flame wars.

And when it comes to his settings - he oversaturates his photos so much that he routinely blows out channels (mostly red) so with flowers, for example, you lose texture details. Then there are his reviews, especially lenses, which are highly suspect (ie I'm convinced that at times he didn't actually use the tools he reviews). Worse still, he promotes his settings for download... complete with copyright KR exif info that will be attached to YOUR images. Of course, it's not his fault if someone doesn't change this, but given the target audience (probably only beginners would download his file as is and apply it without understanding the reasons for those settings) there will be a lot of people unaware of this...

He has some OK articles, but then you look at his photos and wonder... When it comes to individuals who identify themselves as photographers writing about gear, I always take the quality of their photos into account. My personal favourite is the mansurovs at photographylife.com - their review photos are stunning. It also shows that they used best practices and at least tried the stuff they review in the field instead of just shooting plants in your backyard. KR's photos (if he has any) in his reviews... well, see them for yourself. For reivew sites like dpreview I don't mind bad photos though...

Overall, my main problems are
1) unreliability - lots of misleading information on his site, regarding both gear and techniques
2) his arrogant attitude that seem to be contagious among his fans, who than pop-up on various sites spreading his dumb and oversimplified views, such as "the only lens you'll ever need is the 18-200" and other nonsense.

Everything he says should be taken with a huge grain of salt. And there are far better alternatives on the net if you need good information on your gear or photography in general.

Yeah I understand.

Just out of interest: What's that damage?

chris_weinert said:
Haha, yes you guys are right.

On the other hand, it's as with the big media: I never understand how someone would want to get in an argument over the newspaper or magazine I'm reading. It's not a religion, and if you know what you're reading, you can filter accordingly (I live in Germany, the newspaper landscape here is still a bit less bad than in some other places). In KR's case, it means to just ignore the self-righteousness and anything that has to do with taste, the "the best XYZ, period" statements, and you're ok. It's just a source of "information", that's all.

Well, I really don't care what others read, it's just KR's misinformation came back to haunt me several times (like in the shop). I don't know what kind of SEO he does, but he's extremely popular among beginners, and I have to spend time undoing the damage in our workshops. Now I started to cringe when I hear his name :-/

TaoTeJared said:
First issues is listening to kr on anything.

molnarcs said:
I wish KR stopped writing anything about cameras.

Haha, yes you guys are right.

On the other hand, it's as with the big media: I never understand how someone would want to get in an argument over the newspaper or magazine I'm reading. It's not a religion, and if you know what you're reading, you can filter accordingly (I live in Germany, the newspaper landscape here is still a bit less bad than in some other places). In KR's case, it means to just ignore the self-righteousness and anything that has to do with taste, the "the best XYZ, period" statements, and you're ok. It's just a source of "information", that's all.

(On a sidenote, it's also the same for what gear one's using. Anytime someone is trying to get me into a conversation on "Why Nikon and not Canon", I try to escape quickly in order not to die of being bored. I shot Canon before, because at the time it was the best choice for me, now it's the D800, so what. Both brands suck here and are excellent there, so what's the fuzz about. Same goes for my computer brand which I just happen to hate less than Windows, or for my car, which I considered the least "look-I'm-driving-a-premium-brand-car" out of the so-called premium brands.)

I've had 2 d800s in my hands. The first had the green tint issue and the left-AF issue (or rather, in my case, both sides were off because the focusing module was physically misaligned with the sensor). When the Nikon Service centre fixed the focusing issue, it came back front focusing by about +30. Finally, after much arguing the shop I bought the camera at replaced it. The new d800 focuses perfectly, but it still has the green LCD issue.

Neither of the 2 cameras had any problems with the actual files. That is, the green tint was (and still is) apparent only on the camera LCD. And when I complained about this, somebody at the shop gave me that KR reply to "fix" the problem. I wish KR stopped writing anything about cameras. Again, there is no trace of a green tint in the final images, so changing the white balance to "fix" it will actually yield images with white-balance slightly off.

How bad is this issue? Well, on my d800, the difference is not slight. The LCD has a very recognizable shift towards green, compared both to my d7000 screen and my monitor. However, in practice, after shooting it for about a week, I got used to it. I'd still prefer to see more natural colours, and if a free option to calibrate it existed, I would take it. Unfortunately, service quality where I live is awful. I don't trust the local Nikon Service centre, especially not after their last "repair" - after which they simply refused to acknowledge that it's a problem. I have two lenses that need no adjustment on my d7000. They only work if I adjust both camera (+10) and lens (+20) after Nikon's fix! Shame! But to get back to the LCD issue - it's not a big deal.

As others have pointed out, never use the LCD for checking colour accuracy. I use it to check focus and to check for blinkies. Oh, and auto-white balance is pretty damn accurate, even in terrible lighting conditions. I shot an event in a great hall with mixed lighting plus huge strobes occasionally flooding the whole scene with green, purple, blue, etc. lights. I kept worrying about WB all the time, using grey cards in quickly changing lighting conditions was out of the question. This was my first major engagement with the d800, and it performed admirable.

Basically, only a handful of photos (out of 400 hundred shipped photos) needed WB adjustments, and although I shoot raw and post-process a lot in LR (using my custom presets + manual adjustments) the majority of photos didn't need any processing. Just cropped them here and there and exported them to my standard shipping resolutions (1.8 and 9.5 megapixel JPEGs). I must say I'm extremely impressed with this camera's performance (autofocus, metering and auto-wb, not to mention high-ISO performance).

@ chris_weinert Yes, the rear display was what I was talking about.....old folks get confused...ha, ha, ha... as the rear display is a bit like looking at a ground glass image in the old days except today we get to see it right side up! And, I agree, the image viewer in the rear...for me only as a focus aid or a general idea of what I have in the camera......not good for much else...

donaldejose said:
This reviewer (scroll down for Mariea Rummel's review) says the D800 green tint exists, is not just on the rear LCD and she shows an example to prove it.

"[…]I must note also that the Auto white balance is superb in the D800. When you don't have time to calibrate your white balance I would definitely use the Auto mode."

Ah, just read this now. This must be the reason why I the m+1 adjustment produces worse results with my camera. Whenever I use manual WB/Kelvin, I usually shoot RAW anyway, because those would be studio shots. When I shoot JPGs (and hence color casts would be more of a problem to correct), I usually would use Auto WB.

golf007sd said:
I followed KR recommendation a few months ago when this issue was brought to my attention. Once I implemented the tweak on my D4, I considered the matter closed.

Let's put it like this: So did I, but when I looked at my pictures, it feels like I should have never considered it opened... As I said, it doesn't look like my camera has the issue.

TaoTeJared said:
Second if I'm not mistaken, he was talking about tweaking the camera monitor - not the WB of the photo. That is why your photos are coming out magenta. The camera/photos are fine, it is just the monitor on the camera that has a color cast. My guess it is actually a coating on the protective glass that gives it the tint.

Using White Balance adjustments to cure a display fault? In other words, messing up your pictures just so they look ok on the camera's display? That would be pretty weird! And no, concerning the WB adjustment that Golf also used, Ken Rockwell was referring to a cast in the pictures. Can't find it right now, but it's mentioned here: http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/comparisons/d800-vs-5d-mark-iii.htm (scroll to "Better Colors")
and here: http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d600.htm (Introduction, search for "M1" to find it immediately).

msmoto said:
I am wondering in what environment everyone is looking at the images in the viewfinder. If one is in an area lit by fluorescent lights, this will tend to make the image appear more magenta as out eyes are compensating for the lack of red light in the primary light source. The same image, viewed in daylight may look more green.

I guess you're talking about the display and not the viewfinder, right? But what you're saying is exactly why I never use the display to judge anything but "in-focus" and checking the content quickly (did someone blink etc.). I once dialed in too much warmth just because in the environment, the images looked ok, but the next day, they were all awfully yellow. Probably exactly right for someone like KR, but... :-)

I am wondering in what environment everyone is looking at the images in the viewfinder. If one is in an area lit by fluorescent lights, this will tend to make the image appear more magenta as out eyes are compensating for the lack of red light in the primary light source. The same image, viewed in daylight may look more green.

If one looks at colors, the surrounding area will profoundly affect the impression one gets. For an exercise in this, try calibrating a color monitor without a calibration tool in a room lit by all tungsten lighting. Then go into a room with fluorescent lighting. The monitor will appear different.

Or, place this image at large size on your monitor and go into different rooms with different light sources and compare a white paper to the monitor.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/fantinesfotos/6823093006/in/photostream/lightbox/

You will see the white paper appear different under the various conditions when compared with a constant color on the monitor.

My guess is Nikon was attempting to find a color temperature in the viewfinder which is the most universal and pleasing under a variety of conditions.

TaoTeJared said:
Funny I always thought Nikon's past bodies pushed too far to magenta on skin tones - who is to say the D700/D300 wasn't to magenta to begin with? ;)

I have, like the reviewer found that finely Nikon pushed away (a small bit) from the magenta compared with my D300. But I wouldn't call the Nikon files green.

Different updated camera = different updated meters. I think it is all for the better.

+1

Funny I always thought Nikon's past bodies pushed too far to magenta on skin tones - who is to say the D700/D300 wasn't to magenta to begin with? ;)

I have, like the reviewer found that finely Nikon pushed away (a small bit) from the magenta compared with my D300. But I wouldn't call the Nikon files green.

Different updated camera = different updated meters. I think it is all for the better.

This reviewer (scroll down for Mariea Rummel's review) says the D800 green tint exists, is not just on the rear LCD and she shows an example to prove it. http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/nikon-d800/nikon-d800A.HTM

"Something else I realized quickly was the D800's LCD monitor had a greenish tint when I shot in Kelvin. My photography is very warm and I normally photograph in the shade around 5560K. I remembered as I shot that it was a little odd and decided to photograph a photo with the same setting, one with each camera so that when I came back to the office to load the photos into Lightroom, I could see if there was a difference in the file itself.

[two sample photos showing an obvious green tint in the skin]

It was there I noticed a minor green tone to the subject's skin compared to a more magenta tone with the D700. But one can overcome this issue by setting a custom white balance on the D800 and using the fine-tune function to adjust the tint. I must note also that the Auto white balance is superb in the D800. When you don't have time to calibrate your white balance I would definitely use the Auto mode."

I have not changed the Auto WB on my D800 but then again, I have been using it mainly for landscapes shot on Landscape or Vivid Picture Control setting and have not been shooting portraits set on Portrait Picture Control setting so I don't yet really have an educated opinion on this "green tint" issue. I do like warm tones so I am sure I well set some sort of default warming up of the photo if I see a problem. (maybe set hue to -1 in Portrait Picture Controls? or set Auto white balance to A1? or to M1 as KR suggests? or to both A1 and M1? only testing with the same subject will reveal my personal preference on this.)

I read somewhere Nikon has said the D800 colors are actually more "true" and the D700 was set too "warm." But if you send your camera in to Nikon they can adjust the D800 to the same default warm setting as the D700. I have also read some people saying the 1 step adjustments were too course and there should be half steps available.

All I can say is to try different things until you are happy with the skin tones.

TaoTeJared said:
First issues is listening to kr on anything.

+1

I keep thinking I need to invent a protective film for the monitors to color correct the off color - but I'm sure as soon as I did, Nikon would fix it.

chris_weinert said:
...I used the WB adjustment suggested by Ken Rockwell and it turns out that all my images have a magenta cast (JPG)

First issues is listening to kr on anything.

Second if I'm not mistaken, he was talking about tweaking the camera monitor - not the WB of the photo. That is why your photos are coming out magenta. The camera/photos are fine, it is just the monitor on the camera that has a color cast. My guess it is actually a coating on the protective glass that gives it the tint.

I usually use a color corrected custom white balance like expo disk or some cheap lens cap ones so I know the WB will always be almost spot on. I find the more neutral it is, the more latitude you have to edit. I find it helps with Raw files as well. It is not suppose to matter on raw, but the custom WB does push the file a bit - sometimes quite a bit - always to the "more" neutral which is good.

I followed KR recommendation a few months ago when this issue was brought to my attention. Once I implemented the tweak on my D4, I considered the matter closed. Moreover, given that I shot 100% in RAW, I never worry about the WB. If it needs fixing, I take care of that all in post. Nikon's auto WB are very acceptable to me.

As for the LCD, I used it much like OnTheRopes, TTJ, and msmoto.

The D4 is an amazing peace of hardware. Money well spent.

Yeah well, I don't really mind the diplay cast, nor do I notice it. I was more referring to the cast that the color balance of the in-camera image processing software (supposedly) produces, as Ken Rockwell describes.

Because that – well, I wrote that above already.

I have known of this 'issue' for a long time but I have never considered it a problem. I only use the LCD to check the exposure, composition and histogram etc. Any colour correction or WB is done in camera but I must say I raraely need to adjust either, only occasionally upping the WB for esthetic purposes.

@ chris_weinert....for sure on the D4 I would never use the rear screen to asses color balance. I suspect this is because of two factors.... in the film days the issue was always calculated and filters used in the studio. On location shooting transparency we would compensate via experience, e.g., florescent lights require 10 yellow + 30 magenta or something like that. And, secondly, the post processing available now with digital has all the capabilities to adjust color with some exceptions.

I rarely look at the image in the rear viewer unless I am doing a camera edit to delete fuzzy images, etc., or to check on composition.

My D4 looks fine as to color in the rear viewer...but then I have a great deal of confidence the camera will record what I want and am primarily fixed on the actual exposure. And, I will shoot several to get the image I want.