D750 High ISO Posts

FYI, I've deleted both threads. I cannot generate unadulterated images from the D750 RAW files no matter what I've used. I've wasted about 8 hours of time, and lost at least half that more in sleeplessness trying to figure out how the hell to make this work without a full release version of ACR (why the hell don't manufacturers get RAW specs to software manufacturers earlier - don't they want us to be able to actually process our images properly?!?!).

I'm not going to waste any more time on this. What I had out there is tantamount to misinformation - or at least an utter misrepresentation of what the D750 RAW images look like. The only conclusion that can possibly be drawn on my original images are poorly drawn ones, and I have no desire to constantly say, "But that's not the way it is".

There are others who have done this a lot better - though still not at the level of detail I'd want to see. So, if you're interested, go look at their stuff.

Thanks for your efforts, jake. I appreciate the time and effort you put into doing this. I'm sorry it didn't work out, but I'm still interested. Do you know about a site I should go to, to see their results? I can't seem to find a good one. Thanks again, and I have loved your comparisons in the past. They were benchmark. I wished we had a good benchmark for the D750. Please don't give up!

We definitely appreciate your efforts Jake. You're an extremely valuable asset to this site.

BackdoorHippie said:

FYI, I've deleted both threads. I cannot generate unadulterated images from the D750 RAW files no matter what I've used. I've wasted about 8 hours of time, and lost half that in sleep trying to figure out how the hell to make this work without a full, release version of ACR. I'm not going to waste any more time, and what I had out there is tantamount to misinformation - or at least an utter misrepresentation of what the D750 images look like and are capable of - and I have zero desire to have to respond to others' conclusions based on that misinformation, or to be the basis on which poorly drawn conclusions are based. There are others who have done this a lot better - though still not at the level of detail I'd want to see. So, if you're interested, go look at their stuff.

Click to expand...

Jake, in my opinion, your time was not wasted. I enjoyed your comparisons between the two cameras. Your posts always are interesting, educational, and entertaining. Your images are among the best on Nikonites.

Thank you for your time and effort to pass along some of your skills and knowledge to other photographers. I really appreciate it.

sonicbuffalo said:

Thanks for your efforts, jake. I appreciate the time and effort you put into doing this. I'm sorry it didn't work out, but I'm still interested. Do you know about a site I should go to, to see their results? I can't seem to find a good one. Thanks again, and I have loved your comparisons in the past. They were benchmark. I wished we had a good benchmark for the D750. Please don't give up!

Click to expand...

Nasim Mansurov did comparisons (PhotographyLife.com) and someone posted a video yesterday of another guy doing them (he only showed the images on video but supposedly supplied links to at least one RAW file). Again, even with a RAW file, I don't know if any comparison is truly valid because it seems you can't really work with a D750 RAW file yet.

Ozarkite said:

Jake, in my opinion, your time was not wasted. I enjoyed your comparisons between the two cameras. Your posts always are interesting, educational, and entertaining. Your images are among the best on Nikonites.

Thank you for your time and effort to pass along some of your skills and knowledge to other photographers. I really appreciate it.

Click to expand...

It's only not wasted if there was something tangible that came out of it, and that didn't happen. But I appreciate the thought, and I appreciate that you all appreciate the effort.

Just to put a nail in this beast, I've shot and uploaded a video attempting to show you what I'm doing in ViewNX2 - how the images look as RAW files, and how they look once "Converted" into a format that I can actually use in Photoshop to create JPEGs to upload here. In it I show you precisely what I'm doing to create an image file from the NEF files.

If, and only if, you know (not guess, or think you might know - absolutely 100% know) what I am doing incorrectly them please PM me (I will not have a conversation about it here) and tell me precisely what I need to do to generate unaltered TIFF or JPEG images from the NEF. Please, don't try and be helpful - I'm past that, and do not need to get further pissed, at the product and particularly not at you. But, if I can invest 10 minutes and recoup all the time I've lost I will be glad to do it - but not much more.

BTW, the video I uploaded was 1080p, so if you want to try and see the differences please choose that option (though it seems to be giving me an error on anything above 480p).

It wasn't wasted, it was to me a real user in a real world creating comparisons. It worked for me and matched what Jared found. From I see its a nice high ISO camera, its better than the 600 thats for sure.

Thanks Jake for spending the time on this. Now go enjoy the camera on something that matters, like shooting what you want to shoot.

So, it's been a tough week. A royal PITA and not just here. I'm falling asleep at my computer, so I decide to go put my head down for 20 minutes (a great perk of working at home). My head is on the pillow 5 minutes and the brain kicks in about this nonsense. And then all of a sudden...

Sonovabich!!!!

When I shot these I did RAW + JPEG, because I wanted to have a JPEG comparison as well. I turned off all the extra JPEG-related nonsense except High ISO NR!!! Why? Because I wanted to show what the camera is capable of for JPEG shooters. What I'd forgotten is that ViewNX2 thinks it's smarter than we are and will apply all JPEG profiling to the RAW file on conversion because it figures we wanted it in the first place (just imagine how far into recesses of my brain I had to dig for that considering I haven't used ViewNX since March 2011 - no wonder I needed to be near-sleep).

Just tested it and sure enough, turn off the high ISO NR and both the RAW and JPEG files show all the noise in the world, as do the images created from the NEF files. Given that NR kicks in at ISO 800 and above, I suspect it was this function that caused the variations in textures and detail smoothing that people were seeing.

Now that I know... and I can't sleep...

(but I have so much work to do...)

Now the problem is trying to find a room where I can shoot consistently lit shots while clouds screw with how much sun comes into the office.

Argh!!!