Flink,
Glad you took it in the right way Actually I used C1 the first time, and commented that I didn't get better results than ACR. A pro (who used Hasselblad+Imacon and Canon 1Ds) said exactly the same "You're using it wrong." At the time I thought "Yeah, right, what does he know!"
Now I know he was right!!
Matt

You're using it wrong.
The response curve is on the "Exposure" tab. My suggestion is for portraiture you select the film response curve "More Shadows". You have to spend time and do the tutorial.

Sort the WB out first, then the film response, then the basic exposure settings, then finally the curves adjustment. Then move onto the "Focus" tab.

I too compared ACR and C1, and initially thought that C1 had absolutely no benefit over ACR. But then I didn't read the manual.
Came back a few months later, with some RAW shots I just couldn't get right in ACR, this time I took the time to read the C1 manual, and now I know how to use it and am seriously considering the Pro version for its extra features

As to speed - C1 is just fine. The actual conversion may be slower (or may not), but the fact you can queue up one image and get to work immediately on the next means I can rattle through a whole memory card in absolutely no time at all. For me, I found it saved me time in conversion, and also in post-processing (often having to do none!).

Matt

Locked

I agree Kim

Maybe it's time to lock this thread and move on...

Wow!
I've no problem with film at all, and have great respect for those who use it well.
But for me, since going *ist-D I've found my photography has improved vastly (quality and content), and the results show it. It has taken a lot of editing time to learn the techniques needed, but now I can edit extremely quickly and exactly to my tastes. Since I used to scan and re-edit 99% of my film work I can say that overall it is vastly quicker. Haven't shot film for two years, and have taken over 10000 images on the *ist-D, mostly in RAW Now, I accept that this isn't a rule, and that film can be more convenient, and can produce better results.

I will appreciate a good photo however it was shot.

Matt

It depends what you use for processing...

If you shoot JPG, then it's probably best left enabled. You can use products like NeatImage to filter the JPG afterward, but I've not tried that.

If you shoot RAW, then using Capture One will give you excellent noise reduction already. Adobe Camera RAW can filter noise, but it is quite a trial-and-error approach. Personally I find that Capture One does a great job. It also removes "hot-pixels" automatically (bright green, blue, or red dots). Saves hours of Photoshop time!

If you are taking a series of shots at the same exposure time, with either JPG or RAW, you can do the dark-frame-subtraction manually - take one shot with the lens cap on, then take the rest. In Photoshop you can subtract the dark frame from the rest.

Just do a Google search for "dark frame subtraction" or "digital astronomy" and I'm sure you'll find the info you need.

All I can say is - try it!
I would suggest you setup one of the custom menus for "night shots", and leave your regular custom option alone. (Assuming you are using the *ist-D) I leave (1) for regular shots, and always have (3) for when I want complete control and best quality (ie MTF mode, no ISO boosting etc).

Hope that helps,
Matt

Yes, it's normal... normally
After a long exposure, the camera takes another shot of the same duration with the shutter closed and performs dark-frame-subtraction to reduce the noise. (The second shot is a black image that has just the noise and isn't recorded directly.)

In the *ist-D you can disable the noise reduction for long exposures in the custom menu

Matt

Just another thing:

Shoot RAW because it will cope with about 1 stop overexposure, and 2 stops underexposure.

This is particularly helpful as you can claw back detail from shadows that would otherwise have been lost.
If you haven't used RAW, I would say there are two good choices:

1. Pixmantec Rawshooter Essentials. www.pixmantec.com This is free, and does an admirable job.

2. Capture One LE. www.phaseone.com Well priced, and my convertor of choice (over all the rest, and I've tried them). I've documented my reasons on other threads here.

In both cases you will need to read the manual and tutorials. Expect a few hours of playing around before you get the best... and it's still a learning process. Another advantage of RAW is you can start on one convertor, then move to another (I used Adobe Camera RAW in Photoshop CS before C1LE for instance, and reprocessed many of my older RAW files.)

Hope that helps
Matt

Hi Colin,

First of all, the flash does fires for manual white balance selection. I have done it with the internal pop-up flash, but can double check with an attached flash just in case (though I don't see why it shouldn't work).

It is going to be difficult to do with a grey card - mostly because to fill the frame with the card and light it directly with the flashes is going to be near impossible.

You have two options:

1. Shoot RAW. This enables you to manually adjust the white balance on the PC, after the event. You can either guess the colour temperature, or sample off a piece of white that happens to be in the shot.

2. Use an Expodisc. These are not cheap, mind you. I have just bought a 67mm version to fit my SMC-FA 24-90 and SMC-DA 16-45. The results have been superb though and have saved a lot of post-processing time.

My suggestion is to do both If you don't have time, or can't afford, an Expodisc - that's fine. Just shoot RAW, take one test shot with a black/grey/white card (like the QPcard available from http://www.robertwhite.co.uk/colour%20management.htm - £10+vat) - just get a friend to hold the card while you take the shot (i.e. don't stick the card right close up to the lens - you want it lit like the people). Then, when processing the RAW data, you can sample off that test shot, obtain a white balance reading from the card and apply those settings to all the other shots taken in the same lighting conditions.

Hope that makes sense!
Matt

I only ever notice the CA on very strong highlights, and I'm probably asking a bit too much of the lens+camera. Otherwise, never (on the F).
Matt