D2H problem

Hi
I have a serious color problem with my Nikon D2H camera.
Apperantly this problem also exsists in the D70.

Shooting black artificial shiny silk generates aubergine colors instead of
black.
Tried it with the D100, colors are black with the faintest touch of
aubergine. But the D2H is imposable, lovely black silk with a strong
red/magenta flavour.
Apperantly the old Nikon D1 digital cameras have no problem with this.

Any solutions, or is this the way all new Nikon cameras work?

Thanks

This got discussed a few posts back. Just search for D2H and you should find
the other thread. BTW, you need to load the right curves or use post
processing. A D2H is not a D100, there are subtle differences. - I have not
found this issue with my D70.

Gregor

"Jack" wrote in message
...
Hi
I have a serious color problem with my Nikon D2H camera.
Apperantly this problem also exsists in the D70.

Shooting black artificial shiny silk generates aubergine colors instead of
black.
Tried it with the D100, colors are black with the faintest touch of
aubergine. But the D2H is imposable, lovely black silk with a strong
red/magenta flavour.
Apperantly the old Nikon D1 digital cameras have no problem with this.

Any solutions, or is this the way all new Nikon cameras work?

Thanks

Jack wrote:
Hi
I have a serious color problem with my Nikon D2H camera.
Apperantly this problem also exsists in the D70.

Shooting black artificial shiny silk generates aubergine colors instead of
black.
Tried it with the D100, colors are black with the faintest touch of
aubergine. But the D2H is imposable, lovely black silk with a strong
red/magenta flavour.
Apperantly the old Nikon D1 digital cameras have no problem with this.

Any solutions, or is this the way all new Nikon cameras work?

The camer has a fairly strong near IR response. This is a good thing
in many cases because it helps to reduce noise, but you need a hot
mirror filter. See
http://www.tiffen.com/Filter_&_Lens_...FILT_18_19.htm.

Andrew.

But Canon and Fuji seem to cope with noise without having to start importing
Infrared light.

How come?


wrote in message
...
Jack wrote:
Hi
I have a serious color problem with my Nikon D2H camera.
Apperantly this problem also exsists in the D70.

Shooting black artificial shiny silk generates aubergine colors instead
of
black.
Tried it with the D100, colors are black with the faintest touch of
aubergine. But the D2H is imposable, lovely black silk with a strong
red/magenta flavour.
Apperantly the old Nikon D1 digital cameras have no problem with this.

Any solutions, or is this the way all new Nikon cameras work?

The camer has a fairly strong near IR response. This is a good thing
in many cases because it helps to reduce noise, but you need a hot
mirror filter. See
http://www.tiffen.com/Filter_&_Lens_...FILT_18_19.htm.

Andrew.

Jack wrote:
But Canon and Fuji seem to cope with noise without having to start importing
Infrared light.

All digital cameras have some response in the near IR.

There's an article at
http://www.betterlight.com/pdf/white...rate_photo.pdf
that explains the issue.

Andrew.


How come?




wrote in message
...
Jack wrote:
Hi
I have a serious color problem with my Nikon D2H camera.
Apperantly this problem also exsists in the D70.

Shooting black artificial shiny silk generates aubergine colors instead
of
black.
Tried it with the D100, colors are black with the faintest touch of
aubergine. But the D2H is imposable, lovely black silk with a strong
red/magenta flavour.
Apperantly the old Nikon D1 digital cameras have no problem with this.

Any solutions, or is this the way all new Nikon cameras work?

The camer has a fairly strong near IR response. This is a good thing
in many cases because it helps to reduce noise, but you need a hot
mirror filter. See
http://www.tiffen.com/Filter_&_Lens_...FILT_18_19.htm.

Andrew.

I have noticed that when I desaturate my "bad" colors to make them true
black, as they should be, I get even more noise.


Mind you all the details from the article you refer to, should go into the
camera processor chip.
After all, they managed to get the Film technology right.

One shouldn't have to buy a filter for a $2000+ camera, to enable it to
"see" colors the human eye can see.

J


wrote in message
...
Jack wrote:
But Canon and Fuji seem to cope with noise without having to start
importing
Infrared light.

All digital cameras have some response in the near IR.

There's an article at
http://www.betterlight.com/pdf/white...rate_photo.pdf
that explains the issue.

Andrew.


How come?




wrote in message
...
Jack wrote:
Hi
I have a serious color problem with my Nikon D2H camera.
Apperantly this problem also exsists in the D70.

Shooting black artificial shiny silk generates aubergine colors
instead
of
black.
Tried it with the D100, colors are black with the faintest touch of
aubergine. But the D2H is imposable, lovely black silk with a strong
red/magenta flavour.
Apperantly the old Nikon D1 digital cameras have no problem with
this.

Any solutions, or is this the way all new Nikon cameras work?

The camer has a fairly strong near IR response. This is a good thing
in many cases because it helps to reduce noise, but you need a hot
mirror filter. See
http://www.tiffen.com/Filter_&_Lens_...FILT_18_19.htm.

Andrew.

Jack wrote:
I have noticed that when I desaturate my "bad" colors to make them true
black, as they should be, I get even more noise.

Mind you all the details from the article you refer to, should go into the
camera processor chip.

How should the details "go into" the camera processor chip? If you
think the problem as described in the article can be simply fixed,
then you haven't read the article carefully enough.

After all, they managed to get the Film technology right.

Colour film is not photometrically accurate either.

One shouldn't have to buy a filter for a $2000+ camera, to enable it to
"see" colors the human eye can see.

I don't understand your point.

Are you saying that digital cameras should be photometrically
accurate? Even if that significantly reduces sensitivity or worsens
colour noise?

And even if that is a penalty you personally are prepared to pay, do
you believe others should also pay it?

Andrew.

wrote in message
...
Jack wrote:
But Canon and Fuji seem to cope with noise without having to start
importing
Infrared light.

All digital cameras have some response in the near IR.

There's an article at
http://www.betterlight.com/pdf/white...rate_photo.pdf
that explains the issue.

Well, I'm saying that ALL cameras that are designed for people photography,
as against specialist photography, should record colors the way the eye sees
it. Canon and Fuji have managed it. Digital users should be nor worse off
then film users.



wrote in message
...
Jack wrote:
I have noticed that when I desaturate my "bad" colors to make them true
black, as they should be, I get even more noise.

Mind you all the details from the article you refer to, should go into
the
camera processor chip.

How should the details "go into" the camera processor chip? If you
think the problem as described in the article can be simply fixed,
then you haven't read the article carefully enough.

After all, they managed to get the Film technology right.

Colour film is not photometrically accurate either.

One shouldn't have to buy a filter for a $2000+ camera, to enable it to
"see" colors the human eye can see.

I don't understand your point.

Are you saying that digital cameras should be photometrically
accurate? Even if that significantly reduces sensitivity or worsens
colour noise?

And even if that is a penalty you personally are prepared to pay, do
you believe others should also pay it?

Andrew.

wrote in message
...
Jack wrote:
But Canon and Fuji seem to cope with noise without having to start
importing
Infrared light.

All digital cameras have some response in the near IR.

There's an article at
http://www.betterlight.com/pdf/white...rate_photo.pdf
that explains the issue.

Jack wrote:

Well, I'm saying that ALL cameras that are designed for people
photography, as against specialist photography, should record colors
the way the eye sees it.

Well, no-one has ever done so, mostly because performance would be
worse in other ways.

Canon and Fuji have managed it.

No they haven't. They *all* have substantial deviations from the
colour response of the eye.

Digital users should be nor worse off then film users.

It's pretty well known that the D2h sensor is still oversensitive to
near IR light, making the use of an optical filter a must when
shooting under IR-heavy illumination. But photogrphers have been
using filters for UV for many years because of anaomalous UV response
in film. It's no different.

Andrew.


wrote in message
...
Jack wrote:
I have noticed that when I desaturate my "bad" colors to make them true
black, as they should be, I get even more noise.

Mind you all the details from the article you refer to, should go into
the
camera processor chip.

How should the details "go into" the camera processor chip? If you
think the problem as described in the article can be simply fixed,
then you haven't read the article carefully enough.

After all, they managed to get the Film technology right.

Colour film is not photometrically accurate either.

One shouldn't have to buy a filter for a $2000+ camera, to enable it to
"see" colors the human eye can see.

I don't understand your point.

Are you saying that digital cameras should be photometrically
accurate? Even if that significantly reduces sensitivity or worsens
colour noise?

And even if that is a penalty you personally are prepared to pay, do
you believe others should also pay it?

Andrew.

wrote in message
...
Jack wrote:
But Canon and Fuji seem to cope with noise without having to start
importing
Infrared light.

All digital cameras have some response in the near IR.

There's an article at
http://www.betterlight.com/pdf/white...rate_photo.pdf
that explains the issue.

Thank god the camera store have refunded my money.
I'm using the D100 which still has "good" colors.


wrote in message
...
Jack wrote:

Well, I'm saying that ALL cameras that are designed for people
photography, as against specialist photography, should record colors
the way the eye sees it.

Well, no-one has ever done so, mostly because performance would be
worse in other ways.

Canon and Fuji have managed it.

No they haven't. They *all* have substantial deviations from the
colour response of the eye.

Digital users should be nor worse off then film users.

It's pretty well known that the D2h sensor is still oversensitive to
near IR light, making the use of an optical filter a must when
shooting under IR-heavy illumination. But photogrphers have been
using filters for UV for many years because of anaomalous UV response
in film. It's no different.

Andrew.


wrote in message
...
Jack wrote:
I have noticed that when I desaturate my "bad" colors to make them
true
black, as they should be, I get even more noise.

Mind you all the details from the article you refer to, should go
into
the
camera processor chip.

How should the details "go into" the camera processor chip? If you
think the problem as described in the article can be simply fixed,
then you haven't read the article carefully enough.

After all, they managed to get the Film technology right.

Colour film is not photometrically accurate either.

One shouldn't have to buy a filter for a $2000+ camera, to enable it
to
"see" colors the human eye can see.

I don't understand your point.

Are you saying that digital cameras should be photometrically
accurate? Even if that significantly reduces sensitivity or worsens
colour noise?

And even if that is a penalty you personally are prepared to pay, do
you believe others should also pay it?

Andrew.

wrote in message
...
Jack wrote:
But Canon and Fuji seem to cope with noise without having to start
importing
Infrared light.

All digital cameras have some response in the near IR.

There's an article at

http://www.betterlight.com/pdf/white...rate_photo.pdf
that explains the issue.