«

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 <(E-Mail Removed)> 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?


<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Jack <(E-Mail Removed)> 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 <(E-Mail Removed)> 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?




> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> Jack <(E-Mail Removed)> 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


<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Jack <(E-Mail Removed)> 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?
>
>
>
>
> > <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> > news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> >> Jack <(E-Mail Removed)> 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 <(E-Mail Removed)> 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.

> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> Jack <(E-Mail Removed)> 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.



<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Jack <(E-Mail Removed)> 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.
>
> > <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> > news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> >> Jack <(E-Mail Removed)> 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 <(E-Mail Removed)> 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.


> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> Jack <(E-Mail Removed)> 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.
>>
>> > <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> > news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> >> Jack <(E-Mail Removed)> 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.


<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Jack <(E-Mail Removed)> 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.
>
>
> > <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> > news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> >> Jack <(E-Mail Removed)> 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.
> >>
> >> > <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> >> > news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> >> >> Jack <(E-Mail Removed)> 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.
>
>