R-D1 film settings

ampguy

ampguy

Mentor
Local time
4:36 AM
Joined
May 15, 2006
Messages
6,947
I shoot JPG only, and am wondering what some favorite settings are? Anyone have film type settings that are close to the saturated color look of Portra400?
 
I only shoot RAW, or hi res JPG when I'm doing an assignment (when I need more photos and have less time to change cards).

From the word go I set all the settings to 0 or neutral. I do all adjustments in PhotoRAW. I find that that works better for me, as I change the settings depending on the photo at hand.
 
I haven't done a systematic study, but I have found that I like some low-level processing. The settings I have come to are E=M+, S=M+, T=M, C=M+, N=M. I don't think this emulates any particular film. It would be cool to see some rigrous comparison.
 
Though I would recommend RAW shooting, I do sometimes shoot JPEGs for quick turn around.

My first recommendation is to customize the film settings to your needs and forget about the included presets. For me, the key setting control is Contrast. R-D1 JPEGs can be overly contrasty and harsh to my eyes. I usually lower the Contrast setting one level in environments with a full range of tones from light to dark. If the scene contrast is extremely high with dominating dark shadows, I lower the contrast setting two levels to the lowest setting.

If you are going to sharpen the photo in Photoshop or an equivalent program, the Edge Enhance setting needs to be reduced to its lowest level. This allows cleaner sharpening in Photoshop.

When shooting JPEGs, you also need to be very aware of the Color Space and White Balance settings. These settings are adjustable in a RAW converter but critical to JPEGs.

The sRGB color space is the most usable if the photos are receiving no post-processing. Adobe RGB possesses a wider range of colors and is best for scenes with saturated colors, though the JPEGs require a post-processing color space conversion before viewing on a computer (outside of Photoshop) or sent for printing to a standard photo lab.

The R-D1's Auto White Balance setting is not a paradigm of reliability; it is easily fooled by colorful scenes. Seriously consider using the white balance presets for more consistent color. In Tungsten lighting, the Tungsten preset is always more accurate than Auto White Balance.
 
Thanks all, I will give these settings and suggestions a try and let you know what I find. I agree that the white balance on auto isn't reliable (but seldom is with any digital camera).

Indoors is where I'll chimp on the first couple of frames to ensure that tricky or mixed lighting gets handled OK.

Outdoors on auto, I've had good success and see little difference with the different settings of daylight (shade, etc.)
 
Honestly, I gave up shooting jpegs because it's so much easier to adjust things with raw files. I use Lightroom for 99% of my editing - it does a great job for an ordinary joe like me, and you can really do a *lot* with the raw images. FWIW...
 
ted, that's a tall assignment, emulating the portra films. NC has unparalled skin tones, while VC is sumptuous without being over the top, imho. there are some very skilled post-process wizards out there on boards like fredmiranda.com who know how to deal with the subtleties of tone curves and color management - i think many of them would struggle to emulate portra closely.

if your goal is to maximize use of the camera's jpg engine and minimize postprocessing, i'd set out a structured method to vary the WB and film settings on one subject during one shoot, examine the results on a decent monitor, and see what you like. that would yield a reasonable base for further tuning.
 
Good settings

Good settings

I've tried these with N=L, and today am trying the same, with N=L, and T=M (tint = med.).

I like the E, S, and C at medium for JPGs and always having the option to put the card into a drugstore kiosk and get decent prints.

foto_fool said:
I haven't done a systematic study, but I have found that I like some low-level processing. The settings I have come to are E=M+, S=M+, T=M, C=M+, N=M. I don't think this emulates any particular film. It would be cool to see some rigrous comparison.
Click to expand...
 
Hi Mike

Hi Mike

I think you're right. I'm definitely going to keep some film cameras around for Velvia like images. Digital has a long way to match these.

MCTuomey said:
ted, that's a tall assignment, emulating the portra films. NC has unparalled skin tones, while VC is sumptuous without being over the top, imho. there are some very skilled post-process wizards out there on boards like fredmiranda.com who know how to deal with the subtleties of tone curves and color management - i think many of them would struggle to emulate portra closely.

if your goal is to maximize use of the camera's jpg engine and minimize postprocessing, i'd set out a structured method to vary the WB and film settings on one subject during one shoot, examine the results on a decent monitor, and see what you like. that would yield a reasonable base for further tuning.
Click to expand...
 
ted, i just took a quick look at them - will try back when i have more time.

i think you've got a nice balance b/w shadow and highlights, meaning nothing blown on the high end nor blocked up on the low. (was the light as contrasty as it appears in some of the pics?) since i shoot raw that's about what i'd want ex camera. i'd say these are excellent digi "negatives."
 
Thanks Mike

Thanks Mike

The contrast in these was upped in Picasa, and since uploading them, several of them benefit from further processing, especially sharpening.

The + 1/3 or so EV gives a nice balanced histogram, and the weather was mostly cloudy with some breaks of sunlight.

To me, these JPG's are a bit flat, even with the contrast upped, so I am going to slowly up the Edge enhancement, and contrast settings for my next outing, as well as try to figure out what "Standard" film is supposed to be.

Perhaps I should be shooting a brick wall with varying shades of light to try to understand the film types in monochrome.

MCTuomey said:
ted, i just took a quick look at them - will try back when i have more time.

i think you've got a nice balance b/w shadow and highlights, meaning nothing blown on the high end nor blocked up on the low. (was the light as contrasty as it appears in some of the pics?) since i shoot raw that's about what i'd want ex camera. i'd say these are excellent digi "negatives."
Click to expand...
 
No I haven't experimented with them, but thanks to this post I checked my settings and discovered that I had accidentally left the "film" setting on "film 1" when I was fooling around. I set it back to "standard" and am much happier with my jpegs now, especially at iso 1600. I use Picasa for almost all post processing and it is just so easy to adjust the output that I have never felt a big motivation to play around with the R-D1's film type settings. It would be very nice if you could summarize your findings by giving us a film setting and an example photo of each. I am very interested in your results, although I don't have much time to play around with it myself. :eek:

/T
 
ampguy said:
To me, these JPG's are a bit flat, even with the contrast upped, so I am going to slowly up the Edge enhancement, and contrast settings for my next outing, as well as try to figure out what "Standard" film is supposed to be.
Click to expand...

Good plan except I'd stay away from upping edge enhancement - unless you prefer not to sharpen during post-processing. Me, I can do streets better in PS (and I'm far from skilled) than the in-camera jpg engines I've experience with.
 
I don't know what "standard" actually means, but I did find that the camera processed the files much faster with the standard setting. I used to occasionally run out of buffer space when set on "Film 1". Never seems to happen on Standard.

/T
 
R-D1 film settings

Although I'm sure this has been discussed on RFF, I can't seem to locate a thread dedicated to it, and google doesn't help either, so here it is.

This morning I have finally got my hands on a used R-D1 (that after a long time trying, numerous failed deals and one painful but luckily resolved scam). Shall I start a "Got my R-D1!" thread? :) Anyway, I'm about to hit the streets to shoot with this baby, but was wondering what might be nice "Film Settings" to use. I'm planning to shoot color mostly, leaving B&W work to film. But B&W setting suggestions would also not hurt.

I'd appreciate if you could share your settings and what film type they correspond to. Also, probably a stupid question, but I assume that shooting RAW will negate the film settings.

Thanks for your hints and I'll share the results later.
 
I mostly shoot RAW + B&W Jpeg, using either standard setting, or Film 1 (which is medium for everything and noise reduction to none), and change the settings according to the lens used (got only leica lenses but there is quite a difference between a Summarit and a modern Summicron in how they treat light and colours).
As a general rule, having the most neutral response suits me better, there's always enough time later to tweak things using raw files.
 
I'm also interested in what settings others find useful as I've admired some of the work here and while I don't want to particularly copy anyone else, I'd like to know why they use or tweak the settings they do.
I liked the shots I used to get from my Nikon D80 and this was set to give slightly more saturation and contrast and I was pleased with that. When I got the RD1 I set the saturation and contrast up one notch too. While these are the settings I've been using I'm starting to notice I'm not always pleased with the outcome of some of the shots.
I see some great colour work from other RD1 users and the quality of their shots reminds me of slide film, excellent colours and sharpness. Is it all done in PP afterwards?
 
I pretty much use film setting 2. I don't think the film settings are made to emulate branded films, but each has a different value for sharpness, contrast, saturation, etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top