where there’s smoke there’s forum fire
Hello, Guys
This question may be silly but I still want to ask:
Which Active D-Lighting option do you use on D90 most of the time or all the time?
I use the default option "auto" and I shoot JPEG most of the time. However I read some article that the default "auto" does not give you the correct result. So is that true? Should I change it to "Normal"? If so, Active D-lighting will affect my image all the time, right?
Thanks,
I actually use the default and then I do my post processing in capture NX which allows me to change the active D-lighting afterward. but I shoot in raw so if you are using jpeg this wont help. You will really have to try them out with different lighting. I know that if you have an extremely backlit situation it can help but in other situations it can make your images look muddy by removing contrast and changing colors a bit.
aesnakes said:
I actually use the default and then I do my post processing in capture NX which allows me to change the active D-lighting afterward. but I shoot in raw so if you are using jpeg this wont help. You will really have to try them out with different lighting. I know that if you have an extremely backlit situation it can help but in other situations it can make your images look muddy by removing contrast and changing colors a bit.
Active D-Lighting will not affect raw shooting.
I agree with you that Active D-lighting will do some damage to image if shooting in jpeg under certain situation however I would also need Active D-Lighting to kick in in some other situation. So I keep it to "auto" and hope camera can make the proper decision.
I am just wonder what other people's opinion on this.
Active D-Light, IMO, is better left turned off. Then again, you shot JPEGs, so having it on isn't a bad idea, under some conditions. Play around with the different settings and see what gives you the best results, that's why digital is so nice. :-) ADL is best used in high contrast situations.
I would also suggest you try RAW, much more flexibility and you can change ADL in post processing to any value or mode you like. One size fits all is not applicable to ADL, or any other technique in photography.
I leave ADL in the default setting and shoot mostly JPEGS - I use RAW only if I want the absolute best quality and am prepared to put the time into post processing.
I haven't experimented as much as I'd like to yet, but the auto setting seems to cope quite well.
As an aside - I've been an amateur photographer for many years now, but the 'auto' settings on modern cameras are so good nowadays that they cope with most situations admirably. For example, I used to worry about exposure and I exposure-bracketed most of my shots. The auto metering system on my D90 gets exposure right first go about 9 times out of 10.
Anaxagoras said:
The auto metering system on my D90 gets exposure right first go about 9 times out of 10.
The most amazing part of that fact is that some people still complain about the metering capabilities of the D90. I don't notice a big difference between it and the D300 (but I should mention I'm in center-weighted 90% of the time). And both cameras give about the same exposure headroom in the highlights if you shoot raw—I've had no problem fixing highlights that were blown by about 2/3EV.
jonnyapple said:
I've had no problem fixing highlights that were blown by about 2/3EV.
On RAW I presume. Many people suggest you should shoot with smaller exposure and raise the values of shadows in postproduction but I find this just add noise, it is amazing how many details you could pull out from slightly overexposed highlights.
None and I shoot raw mostly, but I also shoot neutral optimization as well too...
So I am a bit confused. If you are shooting RAW, does it matter what the ADL setting is? Does the camera still adjust exposure level if ADL is on? I thought I've read that at least some RAW converters (like Capture NX) were smart enough to notice that ADL was on and layer on adjustments to the RAW file.
My impression was that a RAW file was more or less the straight data from the sensor that could be endlessly altered afterward without losing the original. I guess I'm asking what the additions/modifications the camera makes to the RAW file compared what happens in post proc. I know that if I adjust white balance settings in the camera while shooting RAW, the pics look different from each other when I import them to my computer. I can then make them look the same again by playing with settings in PP.
So I suppose my point is if you're shooting RAW, does it hurt to have ADL on? It might give a decent starting point for adjusting the RAW file, and if not, it can be totally undone.
mb said:
On RAW I presume. Many people suggest you should shoot with smaller exposure and raise the values of shadows in postproduction but I find this just add noise, it is amazing how many details you could pull out from slightly overexposed highlights.
Yes, that's what I meant, mb, and I agree about shadow noise. Overexposing a bit gives better-looking shadows when you pull exposure down in a raw converter. It is a bit risky, though, because I've also gone too far with it before. But I usually like the look of even those pictures.
Mcammer, you're exactly right about d-lighting if you shoot RAW. As far as I know, Capture/View are the only raw converters that read the d-lighting settings in the metadata.
You must log in to post.
