"The Nikon D3x offers the finest image quality in a DSLR the world has yet seen"

[Slough]

Yes, it is practical. You need to get a shot of a Macbeth *in approximately that light* with the camera you are using. Just takes a moment. BTW, there exists a pocket mini Macbeth card. What is happening here is that you need to re-establish the camera primaries in *those* light conditions.

On tests I did with my own profiling code, the local profile made all the difference. And I'm sure that Adobe's profiler is at least as good as mine. I'm not giving any secrets away here, to get pleasing color you still neeed skill and good eyes.


Edmund

Okay, I think I see your point. Take two pictures in the same light, one of the subject, and the other of a colour card, then use the latter to correct the colours in the former when back home. Hence no need to have profile kitin the field apart from a card. I guess that is rather like the WB preset option whereby you photograph a white card. Still, I can get what look like good colours using the knowledge I have. This is a very rare fungus and on my calibrated monitors the colours look spot on:

http://www.leifgoodwin.co.uk/Fungi/0__DSC6...%20parasite.jpg

And another rare fungus:

http://www.leifgoodwin.co.uk/Fungi/0__DSC1...0erubescens.jpg

Again, the colours appear spot on i.e. more than good enough. I use my pop-up flash trick to get good auto white balance. With film these would have been a nightmare. (Long exposures, colour shifts, reciprocity failure, colour casts etc.)

[lisa_r]

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/Image...d3)/Phase%20One

[eronald]

Look I'm not saying you won't get excellent colors most of the time with your method. I'm saying you will always get acceptable colors with mine

Edmund

Okay, I think I see your point. Take two pictures in the same light, one of the subject, and the other of a colour card, then use the latter to correct the colours in the former when back home. Hence no need to have profile kitin the field apart from a card. I guess that is rather like the WB preset option whereby you photograph a white card. Still, I can get what look like good colours using the knowledge I have. This is a very rare fungus and on my calibrated monitors the colours look spot on:

http://www.leifgoodwin.co.uk/Fungi/0__DSC6...%20parasite.jpg

And another rare fungus:

http://www.leifgoodwin.co.uk/Fungi/0__DSC1...0erubescens.jpg

Again, the colours appear spot on i.e. more than good enough. I use my pop-up flash trick to get good auto white balance. With film these would have been a nightmare. (Long exposures, colour shifts, reciprocity failure, colour casts etc.)

[Slough]

Look I'm not saying you won't get excellent colors most of the time with your method. I'm saying you will always get acceptable colors with mine

Edmund

Fair enough. BTW I don't suppose you know anything about the white balance algorithms used by Nikon et al? I think the flag ship cameras used to have a small incident light sensor on the top of the prism.

[harlemshooter]

i rented the canon 5Dm2, a900 and d3x for a 2 week period.  the $5k difference wasn't too much of an issue for me.

i liked the d3x the best in terms of overall handling and non-processed picture quality, but ended up buying the 5Dm2.  for my fine art apps (low, artificial light), the raw images looked about the same...i spend hours and hours in photoshop and couldn't distinguish the differences in the end product (30x40 inch digital c prints).

Fair enough. BTW I don't suppose you know anything about the white balance algorithms used by Nikon et al? I think the flag ship cameras used to have a small incident light sensor on the top of the prism.

[lisa_r]

harlemshooter, these are interesting findings. Did you find the 5D2 to be the best in low light? And what did you like about the non-processed D3x files as you mentioned? Thanks!

p.s. do you live in harlem?

[harlemshooter]

the a900 aside (too much noise at this iso), i really couldn't detect much difference in the raw files at 600-800 iso.  i thought the unprocessed d3x files were a bit more pleasing in the dark shadows.  but after processing both sets of files the way i like, they looked very similar.

yes, i'm in harlem...

harlemshooter, these are interesting findings. Did you find the 5D2 to be the best in low light? And what did you like about the non-processed D3x files as you mentioned? Thanks!

p.s. do you live in harlem?

[harlemshooter]

i find all these inclement weather related issues around the 5Dm2 most interesting.  i shot for 2.5 hours today in 28 degree weather with no issues (camera turned on w/o any sort of protection for the entirety).  it will be interesting to see how the camera behaves in the humidity of august (my manual says don't use in humidity exceeding 85%, but i intend to).

the a900 aside (too much noise at this iso), i really couldn't detect much difference in the raw files at 600-800 iso.  i thought the unprocessed d3x files were a bit more pleasing in the dark shadows.  but after processing both sets of files the way i like, they looked very similar.

yes, i'm in harlem...

[lisa_r]

Did Michael say the failed 5D2s had grips attached?