Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Macro with 5700 Looks Dull Compared to 5400

Reply
Thread Tools

Macro with 5700 Looks Dull Compared to 5400

 
 
Larry R Harrison Jr
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-18-2004

I've had a Nikon Coolpix 5700 which I've had since May and I'm happy with it
save for one thing: the macros to me just look so freaking dull. I have
never been able to figure out why.

I just got a 5400 last Saturday and to me, the colors and everything are so
much punchier. I just don't get it.

Here is one flower shot with a 5700

http://www.dbases.net/tmp/dscn8004b_rz.jpg

Here is the same flower, shot at the same time of day, with a 5400:

http://www.dbases.net/tmp/dscn5581_rz.jpg

Notice how much "punchier" the 5400 is?


I shot the 5700 in RAW and the saturation was on +1 (as high as it will go)
and I jacked it as high as possible in saving it from RAW to JPEG.

The 5400 has a +2 setting for saturation and I just shot it straight in
JPEG.


The 5700 was shot at 1/125 second at f/4.4 focal length of 14.7 (about same
as 56mm in 35mm format). The 5400 was 1/100 second at f/3.1, focal length of
5.8mm (equal to 28mm in 35mm format).

The shutter speeds are almost the same, both enough to cover blur from
movement, apertures are about the same. I just don't see why the 5400 looks
so much "punchier." I just don't understand why the 5700 looks so relatively
dull by comparision.

--
LRH


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
ArtKramr
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-18-2004
>Subject: Macro with 5700 Looks Dull Compared to 5400
>From: "Larry R Harrison Jr" http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed)
>Date: 10/18/2004 4:29 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <(E-Mail Removed)>
>
>
>I've had a Nikon Coolpix 5700 which I've had since May and I'm happy with it
>save for one thing: the macros to me just look so freaking dull. I have
>never been able to figure out why.
>
>I just got a 5400 last Saturday and to me, the colors and everything are so
>much punchier. I just don't get it.
>
>Here is one flower shot with a 5700
>
>http://www.dbases.net/tmp/dscn8004b_rz.jpg
>
>Here is the same flower, shot at the same time of day, with a 5400:
>
>http://www.dbases.net/tmp/dscn5581_rz.jpg
>
>Notice how much "punchier" the 5400 is?
>
>
>I shot the 5700 in RAW and the saturation was on +1 (as high as it will go)
>and I jacked it as high as possible in saving it from RAW to JPEG.
>
>The 5400 has a +2 setting for saturation and I just shot it straight in
>JPEG.
>
>
>The 5700 was shot at 1/125 second at f/4.4 focal length of 14.7 (about same
>as 56mm in 35mm format). The 5400 was 1/100 second at f/3.1, focal length of
>5.8mm (equal to 28mm in 35mm format).
>
>The shutter speeds are almost the same, both enough to cover blur from
>movement, apertures are about the same. I just don't see why the 5400 looks
>so much "punchier." I just don't understand why the 5700 looks so relatively
>dull by comparision.
>
>--
>LRH



More elements for a longer zoom. The longer the zoom the greater the optical
loss in terms of flare (contrast) for example.


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Ed Ruf
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-18-2004
On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 16:29:15 -0700, in rec.photo.digital "Larry R Harrison
Jr" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
>I've had a Nikon Coolpix 5700 which I've had since May and I'm happy with it
>save for one thing: the macros to me just look so freaking dull. I have
>never been able to figure out why.


I've never had this issue with my 5700. I've never had to set the
saturation higher.

>I just got a 5400 last Saturday and to me, the colors and everything are so
>much punchier. I just don't get it.
>
>Here is one flower shot with a 5700
>
>http://www.dbases.net/tmp/dscn8004b_rz.jpg
>
>Here is the same flower, shot at the same time of day, with a 5400:
>
>http://www.dbases.net/tmp/dscn5581_rz.jpg
>
>Notice how much "punchier" the 5400 is?
>
>
>I shot the 5700 in RAW and the saturation was on +1 (as high as it will go)
>and I jacked it as high as possible in saving it from RAW to JPEG.


That's not what the exif info in the file says. In any case the saturation
setting when taking the image shouldn't matter as you saved to raw, only
the post processing setting matters, no?

>The 5400 has a +2 setting for saturation and I just shot it straight in
>JPEG.
>
>
>The 5700 was shot at 1/125 second at f/4.4 focal length of 14.7 (about same
>as 56mm in 35mm format). The 5400 was 1/100 second at f/3.1, focal length of
>5.8mm (equal to 28mm in 35mm format).
>
>The shutter speeds are almost the same, both enough to cover blur from
>movement, apertures are about the same. I just don't see why the 5400 looks
>so much "punchier." I just don't understand why the 5700 looks so relatively
>dull by comparision.


ISO50 vs ISO100 >> Different sensors. I also noticed flash synch value for
the 5400 wasn't unconnected, did you use a flash on this by any chance? Any
chance in change in lighting, from sunny to cloudy?


__________________________________________________ ______
Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 ((E-Mail Removed))
http://EdwardGRuf.com
 
Reply With Quote
 
Larry R Harrison Jr
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-19-2004
This one here:

also looks pretty brilliant. I checked the EXIF data and in fact there was
no flash used. Saturation was +2.

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2792746

Then maybe the reason the 5700 looked "duller" was a lighting issue, here's
an older one taken when I first got the 5700 and it looks fine:

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2397914

Do you agree with me that the 5700 one I posted originally looks kind of
dull?

If it is lighting, what type of lighting makes better shots for macros? It
has been kind of frustrating doing macros, they really are very difficult it
seems. If they are this difficult with all-in-one digitals with their vast
depth of field, I can't imagine how hard it must be with an SLR with its
less depth of field leading to smaller apertures to compensate leading to
even slower shutter speeds which can lead to blur. I don't know, maybe
macros aren't for me.

LRH

"Ed Ruf" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 16:29:15 -0700, in rec.photo.digital "Larry R Harrison
> Jr" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>
>>I've had a Nikon Coolpix 5700 which I've had since May and I'm happy with
>>it
>>save for one thing: the macros to me just look so freaking dull. I have
>>never been able to figure out why.

>
> I've never had this issue with my 5700. I've never had to set the
> saturation higher.
>
>>I just got a 5400 last Saturday and to me, the colors and everything are
>>so
>>much punchier. I just don't get it.
>>
>>Here is one flower shot with a 5700
>>
>>http://www.dbases.net/tmp/dscn8004b_rz.jpg
>>
>>Here is the same flower, shot at the same time of day, with a 5400:
>>
>>http://www.dbases.net/tmp/dscn5581_rz.jpg
>>
>>Notice how much "punchier" the 5400 is?
>>
>>
>>I shot the 5700 in RAW and the saturation was on +1 (as high as it will
>>go)
>>and I jacked it as high as possible in saving it from RAW to JPEG.

>
> That's not what the exif info in the file says. In any case the saturation
> setting when taking the image shouldn't matter as you saved to raw, only
> the post processing setting matters, no?
>
>>The 5400 has a +2 setting for saturation and I just shot it straight in
>>JPEG.
>>
>>
>>The 5700 was shot at 1/125 second at f/4.4 focal length of 14.7 (about
>>same
>>as 56mm in 35mm format). The 5400 was 1/100 second at f/3.1, focal length
>>of
>>5.8mm (equal to 28mm in 35mm format).
>>
>>The shutter speeds are almost the same, both enough to cover blur from
>>movement, apertures are about the same. I just don't see why the 5400
>>looks
>>so much "punchier." I just don't understand why the 5700 looks so
>>relatively
>>dull by comparision.

>
> ISO50 vs ISO100 >> Different sensors. I also noticed flash synch value for
> the 5400 wasn't unconnected, did you use a flash on this by any chance?
> Any
> chance in change in lighting, from sunny to cloudy?
>
>
> __________________________________________________ ______
> Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 ((E-Mail Removed))
> http://EdwardGRuf.com



 
Reply With Quote
 
Larry R Harrison Jr
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-19-2004
Like I said, white balance was on auto for both the 5400 and 5700. But since
I shot the 5700 as a RAW, I went back and tweaked the white balance.

It was a cloudy day, so I told it to set a Daylight--Cloudy White Balance.

Wow, it looks MUCH better--at least to me, anyway, it sure looks less
"dull." Here is how it looks now:

http://www.dbases.net/tmp/dscn8004c_rz.jpg

I don't know if this is my favorite macro shot of all, but it sure (to me
anyway) is dramatically improved since I changed the white balance.

Funny, because both the 5400 and 5700 have always received high marks for
the accuracy of their white balance. At any rate, looks like shooting RAW
with the 5700 saved the day.

Any other comments? Am I on the right track here?

LRH

"Larry R Harrison Jr" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> I've had a Nikon Coolpix 5700 which I've had since May and I'm happy with
> it save for one thing: the macros to me just look so freaking dull. I have
> never been able to figure out why.
>
> I just got a 5400 last Saturday and to me, the colors and everything are
> so much punchier. I just don't get it.
>
> Here is one flower shot with a 5700
>
> http://www.dbases.net/tmp/dscn8004b_rz.jpg
>
> Here is the same flower, shot at the same time of day, with a 5400:
>
> http://www.dbases.net/tmp/dscn5581_rz.jpg
>
> Notice how much "punchier" the 5400 is?
>
>
> I shot the 5700 in RAW and the saturation was on +1 (as high as it will
> go) and I jacked it as high as possible in saving it from RAW to JPEG.
>
> The 5400 has a +2 setting for saturation and I just shot it straight in
> JPEG.
>
>
> The 5700 was shot at 1/125 second at f/4.4 focal length of 14.7 (about
> same as 56mm in 35mm format). The 5400 was 1/100 second at f/3.1, focal
> length of 5.8mm (equal to 28mm in 35mm format).
>
> The shutter speeds are almost the same, both enough to cover blur from
> movement, apertures are about the same. I just don't see why the 5400
> looks so much "punchier." I just don't understand why the 5700 looks so
> relatively dull by comparision.
>
> --
> LRH
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
Ed Ruf
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-19-2004
On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 20:31:27 -0700, in rec.photo.digital "Larry R Harrison
Jr" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Like I said, white balance was on auto for both the 5400 and 5700. But since
>I shot the 5700 as a RAW, I went back and tweaked the white balance.
>
>It was a cloudy day, so I told it to set a Daylight--Cloudy White Balance.
>
>Wow, it looks MUCH better--at least to me, anyway, it sure looks less
>"dull." Here is how it looks now:
>
>http://www.dbases.net/tmp/dscn8004c_rz.jpg
>
>I don't know if this is my favorite macro shot of all, but it sure (to me
>anyway) is dramatically improved since I changed the white balance.
>
>Funny, because both the 5400 and 5700 have always received high marks for
>the accuracy of their white balance. At any rate, looks like shooting RAW
>with the 5700 saved the day.
>
>Any other comments? Am I on the right track here?


That would have been my next suggestion. You're setting mult-pattern
exposure and with the 5400 shot you are not zoomed in as far. There is a
very large difference between the flower in the foreground and the
background in terms of color. That could be a difference in how the auto WB
is being set. It's trying to make gray be gray, but if the majority of the
data is way off gray, it can't do this well. For macros like this do
yourself a favor and the WB manually. I have found this to be true on my
990 and 5700.

As far as raw saving the day, I'm not sure I'd go that far.It makes it
easier. But it is possible to make WB or color temperature corrections on
JPGs. PSP8 even has a Gray World Color Balance tool specifically for this.
A very quick attempt starting with all ready tweaked resized image can be
seen at:
http://edwardgruf.com/Stuff/dscn8004b_rz_3500F.jpg
__________________________________________________ ______
Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 ((E-Mail Removed))
http://EdwardGRuf.com
 
Reply With Quote
 
Ed Ruf
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-19-2004
On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 18:45:39 -0700, in rec.photo.digital "Larry R
Harrison Jr" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>If it is lighting, what type of lighting makes better shots for macros? It
>has been kind of frustrating doing macros, they really are very difficult it
>seems. If they are this difficult with all-in-one digitals with their vast
>depth of field, I can't imagine how hard it must be with an SLR with its
>less depth of field leading to smaller apertures to compensate leading to
>even slower shutter speeds which can lead to blur. I don't know, maybe
>macros aren't for me.


Don't forget on a dSLR there's the added fact it takes a macro lens to
do this. One thing I keep forgetting just moving over to a D70 from a
900 and then a 5700. The kit lens can only focus to ~1.5 ft. not in.
__________________________________________________ ______
Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 ((E-Mail Removed))
See images taken with my CP-990 and 5700 at
http://EdwardGRuf.com
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Re: Coolpix 5700, 5400, or Sony DSC717 Mike G. Digital Photography 0 09-13-2003 03:22 AM
Nikon 5400 or 5700 Steve Bouton Digital Photography 3 08-10-2003 03:52 PM
Re: Looks great in Photoshop, dull everywhere else! Bart van der Wolf Digital Photography 1 07-11-2003 04:30 AM
Re: Looks great in Photoshop, dull everywhere else! John Houghton Digital Photography 0 07-10-2003 07:27 AM
Re: Looks great in Photoshop, dull everywhere else! Mike Digital Photography 0 07-10-2003 07:05 AM



Advertisments