Macro with 5700 Looks Dull Compared to 5400

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Larry R Harrison Jr, Oct 19, 2004.

  1. 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
     
    Larry R Harrison Jr, Oct 19, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Larry R Harrison Jr

    ArtKramr Guest

    >Subject: Macro with 5700 Looks Dull Compared to 5400
    >From: "Larry R Harrison Jr"
    >Date: 10/18/2004 4:29 PM Pacific Standard Time
    >Message-id: <>
    >
    >
    >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
     
    ArtKramr, Oct 19, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Larry R Harrison Jr

    Ed Ruf Guest

    On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 16:29:15 -0700, in rec.photo.digital "Larry R Harrison
    Jr" <> 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 ()
    http://EdwardGRuf.com
     
    Ed Ruf, Oct 19, 2004
    #3
  4. 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" <> wrote in message
    news:p...
    > On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 16:29:15 -0700, in rec.photo.digital "Larry R Harrison
    > Jr" <> 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 ()
    > http://EdwardGRuf.com
     
    Larry R Harrison Jr, Oct 19, 2004
    #4
  5. 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" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > 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
    >
     
    Larry R Harrison Jr, Oct 19, 2004
    #5
  6. Larry R Harrison Jr

    Ed Ruf Guest

    On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 20:31:27 -0700, in rec.photo.digital "Larry R Harrison
    Jr" <> 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 ()
    http://EdwardGRuf.com
     
    Ed Ruf, Oct 19, 2004
    #6
  7. Larry R Harrison Jr

    Ed Ruf Guest

    On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 18:45:39 -0700, in rec.photo.digital "Larry R
    Harrison Jr" <> 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 ()
    See images taken with my CP-990 and 5700 at
    http://EdwardGRuf.com
     
    Ed Ruf, Oct 19, 2004
    #7
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Mike
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    699
  2. John Houghton

    Re: Looks great in Photoshop, dull everywhere else!

    John Houghton, Jul 10, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    747
    John Houghton
    Jul 10, 2003
  3. Bart van der Wolf

    Re: Looks great in Photoshop, dull everywhere else!

    Bart van der Wolf, Jul 10, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    1,355
  4. Steve Bouton

    Nikon 5400 or 5700

    Steve Bouton, Aug 9, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    396
  5. Replies:
    4
    Views:
    917
    gunner
    Feb 11, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page