The D2H really shines

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by bendheim, Feb 10, 2005.

  1. The D2H really shines - and it's exceptionally and especially noticeable in print. I finally finished all my Thailand images and today I received them back after getting a whole bunch of professionally done prints of them. I am so happy with the results in the sense that the color, grain and overall look is so film like in texture and quality that I'm gobsmacked. Yes, I know I've had the camera for 6 months now, but so much of my work is digitally delivered for magazine work that I never get much in the way of proper frameable prints. So, the series of 57 images that I've just had done is quite a milestone for me with this camera and to me it knocks the socks off every other camera I've owned when it comes to the printed results. Screen viewed images just do not do the camera justice. You have to see a pro print and see the texture to really appreciate LBCAST.
    I think the D2H will go down as the most unfairly criticised camera ever made, just because of three things - some unfortunate early images, people who can't use it but have the bucks to buy it, and Canon trolls who've jumped on the bandwagon.
    Tonight I'm a more than happy D2H person. Call me a Nikon fanatic if you wish- it's a label I'm more than proud to wear!
     
  2. Being new to the D2H I am really glad to hear you say that. In the short time I have had it my keepers have gone up and my post processing has gone down. Where did you have your prints made as I am looking for a good lab (USA / So. Africa)? I will be doing my grand daughters wedding soon and I really would like to get some professionally done prints. Also, what format and color space did you use to deliver them to the lab? If you have any other advice relative to professional prints I would love to hear it..

    Congratulations on your whole experience with the D2H.
     
  3. Gordon - my high end stuff is done by a specialist printer in Cape Town, but my ordinary stuff is done locally on a frontier machine. It's always supplied on CD or DVD in Adobe 1998 in TIFF, all finally done and sized and ready when supplied, so all my upscaling is done by myself using either Fred Miranda's tools or on CS using bicubic smooth. I never ever send a Jpeg to anyone except for web posting. When my stuff is done in Durban, I've prechecked and soft-proofed it for the Frontier profile for that machine which you can get from <www.drycreekphoto.com> and upload into your computer - so I know exactly the output I will get from my home machine. And for the non-professional frontier prints I always insist my printing is done directly from Photoshop rather than the Frontier screen using the Fuji software. The Frontier software is bypassed and I think the results are better this way. I never use Kodak or Agfa or any other brand of machine for output - the results are much poorer IMHO. I've never seen the pro printer that does my stuff as it's a long way away (1000miles) I just send it, but it's a high end Epson process on special papers, so I'm told.
     
  4. Thanks Peter, I also have my prints made on a high end Frontier printer. When you say your prints are directly done from Photoshop rather than the Frontier screen what do you mean. I always tell them to print as I have submitted them and to bypass any enhancements by their machine. Are we talking the same thing. I also submit my prints on a CD after properly sizing them but have been sending JPEG's. I may rethink that based on what you say about submitting TIFF.
     
  5. Gordon, yes, I think we are talking about the same thing. I only shoot raw, unless I have to do otherwise. If I shoot a jpeg, the first thing I do is save it as a TIFF to prevent quality loss as I work on it and resave. After it's been saved as a TIFF, it never ever gets saved as a JPEG again unless as a reduced copy for email. And I only take TIFF to the Frontier. You might find it useful to look at the www.drycreekphoto.com site for profiles and some useful color device synch information.
     
  6. Thanks again and I will look at the DryCreek site. I too shoot RAW exclusively and save as a TIFF but have been doing my PS CS work and then saving as a JPEG, keeping the original TIFF as is.
     
  7. Great post Peter. I have dedicated MANY hours to the art of printing over the last year (much more to learn but I'm pretty far along the curve). I own an Epson 2200, ImagePrint RIP and print almost exclusively on MOAB Entrada Fine Art Paper (100% cotton rag). Using fine art paper and applying a strict discipline to printing really makes a difference in output (much more so than "point and shoot printing" with gloss paper on a Canon 9900).

    Equally important to this process is the digital negative. I can say without hesitation that the D2H files are a wonderful medium for printing. Color, contrast, shadow detail, warmth - it's all there in a unique D2H kind of way. Much like Velvia was a special slide film, the D2H is a special sensor.

    Joe
     
Loading...
Similar Threads Forum Date
Starting to really hate Netflix... General Discussion Feb 1, 2016
Anyone shoot with the D2H(s)? General Discussion Aug 23, 2009
best 1600 and 3200 ISO amongst d2h d2hs d2x d200 General Discussion Sep 27, 2008
D2H actuations question General Discussion Sep 20, 2008
Nikon D2h FPS differences General Discussion Jul 23, 2008