Nikon, if you are listening (and I KNOW you are) please give us a D80
firmware upgrade that fixes the crappy expsoure problem.
But on this subject, I have also heard that the D80 actaully exposes
correctly and that the fault lies in the tone curve. I was told that
if used "nikon software" I could create my own. I currently have
Capture NX for my Nikon software. I am wondering - are there any D80
users out there who have successfully overcome this exposure problem
using custom tone curves? Is there are a tutorial on how to create
them? Thanks much for any help. And also, if anyone has any custom
curves they can send, it would be helpful.
And Nikon - please listen to your users. Canon is so far ahead of
you, you can't afford to alienate little people like me - so fix the
"Boskey" <whok...@whocares.com> wrote in message
Did you check the DejaNews archive? Although it has been purchased by Google
and their web interface to Usenet stinks I have to admit that Google does
still maintain the archive and archive searches do work reasonably well.
"Jürgen Exner" <jurg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
Additional information can be found:
In my ignorance I have 2 Nikon D80's and, in nearly every case, my
are "spot on". My histograms are about as good as I might want.
Aperture priority shoots bang on..
You are probably judging exposure correctly though!
That, of course, helps greatly...
Using a histogram or the blink on over exposure to
determine "correct" exposure, and then shooting RAW and
manipulating each image (particularly exposure, gamma
value and linearity) during conversion from RAW to an
image format makes the discussion of "tone curves" a bit
But for those who do not want to spend time post
processing images on an individual basis, finding a
"tone curve" that most closely matches their needs is a
very useful objective. The problem is that it is often
described a an "exposure" problem, and in reality it is
not. It's a gamma curve problem that is part of post
processing (whether done in the camera or manually
Whatever, I've recently seen several different people in
a variety of forums bring this up in regard to the Nikon
D80. One of the more interesting discussions was on the
UFRAW discussion group on sourceforge.net, where
maintainer Udi Fuchs discussed it with a couple of
fairly well informed users. One result was someone
posted a very interesting URL:
In particular, this article:
I did get a good laugh out of something on page two, where
it discusses a list of "misconceptions". The number 9 item
discussion starts like this:
Misconception 9: I don't need custom tone curves
becaue I like to post-process every image.
Response: You are a sado-masochistic, self-flagellant
individual with highly developed computer skills.
Heh heh, what can we say... ;-)
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) fl...@apaflo.com
After seeing your response, I went ahead and purchased this program. I will
give it a run and see how it compares to Nikon Camera Control Pro.
this is separate from the tone curve question, but I do see the merits
of your comments.
Believe it or not, I have been a photographer for over 40 years. My
first camera was a 4X5. I KNOW how to judge exposure. As to looking
at blinks and histograms, you can use an ancient non-auto Nikkor and
fumble around until you get the right exposure. I never had to deal
with Nikon Matrix Metering overexposure on any other Nikon DLSRs to
the degree I've had to do on the D80. My point is, I should be able
to get a REASONABLE approximation of
the exposure from using the "on' Matrix Metered setting. with the D80
If I am shooting the same subject and they move a little, the exposure
can fluctuate wildly. this is not right, because it forces you to
look at the blink, perhaps missing an important shot. that's my beef
and I am sticking to it!!
I will attempt to start shooting RAW more, as I have been working
strictly with jpegs and don't like the hassle and time constraints of
If your experience is with film, you'll almost certainly
get it wrong at first with digital. Different beast!
But if you shoot JPEG, you'll most likely be sticking
with the same concepts used with film, and some of the
distinctions can be annoying.
>As to looking
>at blinks and histograms, you can use an ancient non-auto Nikkor and
>fumble around until you get the right exposure. I never had to deal
>with Nikon Matrix Metering overexposure on any other Nikon DLSRs to
>the degree I've had to do on the D80. My point is, I should be able
>to get a REASONABLE approximation of
>the exposure from using the "on' Matrix Metered setting. with the D80
>If I am shooting the same subject and they move a little, the exposure
>can fluctuate wildly. this is not right, because it forces you to
>look at the blink, perhaps missing an important shot. that's my beef
>and I am sticking to it!!
I wouldn't say you are wrong! I'm certainly seeing more
people complaining about it with the D80 than with other
Nikon models. And, near as I can tell, all of those
complaining are in much the same boat you are. They
shoot JPEG, and simply want a metering system the gives
them the desired result without having to shoot RAW.
>I will attempt to start shooting RAW more, as I have been working
>strictly with jpegs and don't like the hassle and time constraints of
I'm sort of on the other end of the stick. I shoot RAW
all the time, and don't particularly trust *any*
metering system. I typically shoot in Manual Exposure
mode, and determine the settings by looking at the blink
on exposure LCD display. It is then my responsibility,
not the camera's, to notice if/when the lighting changes
from one shot to the next.
The problem that I have with metering systems is that
they change too much when the *subject* changes, as
opposed to when the lighting changes. That is inherent
in a reflected light metering system, but of course
matrix metering is intended to put a little "judgement"
into what the meter says. It just isn't enough...