Nikon D80: Colors too intense?

[thrifty05]

While researching cameras I've looked at many sample images. While doing this, I've noticed that the D80's photos appear to exaggerate colors and contrast just a little so that they're slightly more intense than they naturally occur. Does anyone else see this? And if so, do you have an explanation? I haven't heard much about it on the internet, but it seems consistent in a lot of photos. Your input is appreciated...

Nathan

[djwixx]

Having just switched from a D70s to a D80 I would agree that the colours are a lot warmer than the D70s. With the D70s I adjusted the colour balance for each mode to -3, but 0+ is more likely to be in a similar range on the D80. If you set the while balance yourself (PRE) it does reign it in to normal levels. Auto doesn't do badly and I found only a several hundred K difference to what PRE was doing, and in some cases it was the same. I found the cloud/shade/tungsten/fluorescent options unusable so far. If you love rich yellow and blue go for it

[jestev]

You can also change color tones in post-processing to better suit your style.

[emandavi]

I've noticed the same thing with all of Nikons latest consumer D-SLR's. I owned the D50, and ended up doing so much post processing, because the colors were too "orange" or "red". I sold that and tried the Nikon D40, and it was the same thing. It took a long time to sell these cameras and Craigslist, too. Nikon just doesn't seem to sell as well as the other brands. I don't know why Nikon exaggerates the colors, or makes them so overly saturated.

[jestev]

I've noticed the same thing with all of Nikons latest consumer D-SLR's. I owned the D50, and ended up doing so much post processing, because the colors were too "orange" or "red". I sold that and tried the Nikon D40, and it was the same thing. It took a long time to sell these cameras and Craigslist, too. Nikon just doesn't seem to sell as well as the other brands. I don't know why Nikon exaggerates the colors, or makes them so overly saturated.

Nikon sells just as well, if not better, than other brands. Those models took a while to sell because they are the lowest models and new ones could have been purchased for (most likely) not much more than the used version did.

[thrifty05]

Glad to hear you see this too. I guess it's just the Sony sensor inside. I'd rather have the issue fixed before post processing, and I'm skeptical that the white balance would fix this problem. Overly vibrant colors are annoying because they remind me of my cheaper point and shoot. Thanks.

[djwixx]

Glad to hear you see this too. I guess it's just the Sony sensor inside. I'd rather have the issue fixed before post processing, and I'm skeptical that the white balance would fix this problem. Overly vibrant colors are annoying because they remind me of my cheaper point and shoot. Thanks.

As I said, setting the white balance manually does make a huge difference and does resolve the issue, and auto is close. You also have a +/- 300K on each setting. The shade/cloud and indoor lighting options just aren't to my liking. Ultimately a grey card would resolve the issue, but unless you're a pro I doubt the slight offset in colour is too much of an issue.

[thrifty05]

OK, I believe you. I just had to hear it from a second source to confirm what you said. It just seems weird that the "Normal" setting would be inaccurate and that I'd have to adjust it myself. Apparently most everyone keeps it on normal.

"We used the default Normal preset for our Results and Gallery pages and like earlier Nikon DSLRs, found it produced consumer-friendly vibrant JPEGs out of the camera, which are ideally suited to first-time DSLR owners and those upgrading from a compact. If you find them too sharp or vibrant, you can easily choose alternative presets or adjust your own from the custom mode."

(http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/NikonD40/page3c.shtml)

Thanks!

[djwixx]

OK, I believe you. I just had to hear it from a second source to confirm what you said. It just seems weird that the "Normal" setting would be inaccurate and that I'd have to adjust it myself. Apparently most everyone keeps it on normal.

"We used the default Normal preset for our Results and Gallery pages and like earlier Nikon DSLRs, found it produced consumer-friendly vibrant JPEGs out of the camera, which are ideally suited to first-time DSLR owners and those upgrading from a compact. If you find them too sharp or vibrant, you can easily choose alternative presets or adjust your own from the custom mode."

(http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/NikonD40/page3c.shtml)

Thanks!

I use RAW so I have full control over the white balance post processing.

[jestev]

OK, I believe you. I just had to hear it from a second source to confirm what you said. It just seems weird that the "Normal" setting would be inaccurate and that I'd have to adjust it myself. Apparently most everyone keeps it on normal.

"We used the default Normal preset for our Results and Gallery pages and like earlier Nikon DSLRs, found it produced consumer-friendly vibrant JPEGs out of the camera, which are ideally suited to first-time DSLR owners and those upgrading from a compact. If you find them too sharp or vibrant, you can easily choose alternative presets or adjust your own from the custom mode."

(http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/NikonD40/page3c.shtml)

Thanks!

I use RAW so I have full control over the white balance post processing.

Same.

You can also change white balance on JPEGs in Photoshop in post-processing by applying photo filters like you would in front of your lens while shooting.

[thrifty05]

I agree that post editing works in photoshop whether in raw or in jpeg. However, it seems like it would be a huge pain in the butt. Not just because of the extra time, but also because of the extra decision making that would be involved in how much color to take out. Besides, I believe that one should start with a good base image as opposed to tweaking the original to get a good base. It just makes sense to me. Does this result in better image quality? ...I'm not sure. I have heard that pre-processing lowers the quality of the original and that you can only pre-process when in jpeg mode. Has anyone seen evidence of this decrease in quality, or did I just hear a personal opinion? I guess if I had to knock down the color intensity in all my images then I'd consider going with another camera system. Perhaps if I loved Nikon enough then it wouldn't be an issue, but for now I own nothing (and haven't actually held the different cameras in my hand yet).

[djwixx]

I agree that post editing works in photoshop whether in raw or in jpeg. However, it seems like it would be a huge pain in the butt. Not just because of the extra time, but also because of the extra decision making that would be involved in how much color to take out. Besides, I believe that one should start with a good base image as opposed to tweaking the original to get a good base. It just makes sense to me. Does this result in better image quality? ...I'm not sure. I have heard that pre-processing lowers the quality of the original and that you can only pre-process when in jpeg mode. Has anyone seen evidence of this decrease in quality, or did I just hear a personal opinion? I guess if I had to knock down the color intensity in all my images then I'd consider going with another camera system. Perhaps if I loved Nikon enough then it wouldn't be an issue, but for now I own nothing (and haven't actually held the different cameras in my hand yet).

I assume you mean post process rather than pre-process. Getting everything in camera is the way to go. If I'm using JPG (I have a Canon point and shoot) I always keep the original and Save As. With JPG being lossy, each time you save an image you lose detail. Assume you are saving a JPG at 90%, then each time you SAVE it (does not happen with viewing) you'll be losing 10% of what you have and so on.

Addition: By getting everything in camera I meant white balance. I personally avoid any other options as I can do those after the fact.

[jestev]

No, he's right. He's talking about in-camera editing where the camera's processors will sharpen images or make them more contrasty etc. This is only done on JPEGs. RAW is unedited in camera. The problem with in-camera is that once it's done, it's done -- you can't go back. RAW, or even JPEGs without in-camera processing, is better because you can do it on a big monitor and tune it to your liking, and if you screw up you can just go back to the original.