I have a Nikon D2X. The accuracy (in both the back of the camera and in print) of reds and blues is poor. They are either much too intense or the intensity is too little. Also most purple is appears as blue in the back of the camera and in print!!

It has been back to the professional dealer and Nikon 4 times, but it is still not correct. I also tried a D200 and while blues and reds were ok, purple often appeared as blue.

Has anyone else found the same?

Dominic

You should never judge color on your camera's LCD! The image that you see is a low quality jpeg, and is somewhat constrained by what your settings are set to. What white balance do you have it set to? Also, are you using a color managed system on your computer? What softwear are you using to process your images? I shoot a lot of images that have purple in them and for the most part they are blue on the camera lcd. But properly processed in the softwear, the purples come out correctly. Just remember, you have a low quality jpeg being veiwed on a low quality lcd.

Do you have a fully color managed workflow? Are you setting proper white balances for in-camera JPEGs? Have you processed any raw files out of the camera, and do they exhibit the same issues?

The D2X that I had showed beautiful colors straight out of the camera, but every copy is different, and requires different tweaks in software to get it right (ie, calibration).

when I took the film out of my Nikon N90s....and pulled it out of the cannister in bright daylight....all my images wwere black...I didn't see any reds or greens!!!

COME ON!!! If photography was that easy everone could do it.....you got to wake up and understand that professional camera's capture an image which you have to color correct on your computer before you show it to the world.

Believe me it sucks explaining to clients that "this is about what it is going to look like....but after retouching and color correcting the image is going to look great...believe me!!!"

Even a digital tech can't show the exact end-result...if they tell you they can..they are full of it...they don't have your eye!! You have our eye and got to make the image yours..and a large part of this process in the digital world is spending hours staring at your monitor and realizing that the sjy is the limit and you can make the image look however you want it to look like (colorwise!)

So don't blame the camera.... I am not even a Nikon shooter but a Canon Ds1MkII and Leaf 65 shooter.....

Don't jpgs, unless you have no other choice (memory storage wise) ...shoot RAW and you can bring your reds etc back easily

Keith - one question on your reply - when you say 'properly processed in the software' what eactly do you mean? I do not expect to have to alter colours in the software - I expect to use photshop for general optimisation only and cropping etc. Altering colours would also be impossible - if there was purple and I had to change blue to purple it would be impossible to gauge excatly waht shade of purple.

I realise I am a novice on this. I would appreciate if you could clarify what actions you are taking to get your blues to come out purple after processing.

Nicola - I understand that all digital images need optimisation in software, BUT you should not have to alter colours back to their original! Anyway, how would I know what the original purple or red was - exactly what shade - when I come to process the images a day later?! It would be impossible to get a true record of the original colour.

The D2X is an expensive camera so I expect to get colours recorded accurately without manipulation being needed in software. Correct me if I have mis-understood what you are saying.

So, this answers my question of whether you have a color calibrated workflow, and also whether you understand how such a thing works. If shooting JPEGs, are you setting custom white balances of your scenes, or just shooting and letting the camera guess? Are you including something neutral (truly neutral) in a shot of the scene to adjust to when converting in a RAW workflow?

The short answer is - you're expecting too much. If you're not aware of the above, or not doing it, you're not aware of the skills it requires to use a professional grade device to get the results you expect.

Further - provide definitions for "accurate" color, and "original" color?? What you see with your eyes is not what the camera (or film, if you remember that stuff) sees.



Then you need to learn the skills you require to do so. Otherwise, you might as well sell the thing, as its never going to match your expectations....

Read up on color managed workflows, white balance, RAW conversion, the JPEG processing parameters on your camera, etc - when you've fully mastered all of those topics, if you still can't achieve the results you want, then maybe start thinking the camera has a problem.

Dominic,

Since you state that you are a novice, I have to agree with those that recommend that you read up on color management, and digital photography in general. Until you know what that entails you will always be hit or miss as to what you want. You have to understand that without color management you have no way to get predictable results. Your camera's processor will inturpet colors one way, your monitor another way and your printer will inturpet those same colors different from either of those. Color management is a process that will enable everything to "talk" the same language. Just because you have a pro level camera, does not mean you don't have to think. Because of the variables that high end cameras have, you have more choices to make. In addition to exposure you also have to have an understanding of white balance(color temperature), and formats like RAW or Jpeg, color spaces, rendering intents, color gamuts and profiles when printing. That should get you to start thinking that it's not as easy as you might think. My first suggestion is that you sit down with your camera's manual and read it. When you come to terms or phrases that you are unsure of, write them down and look into what they mean and how they relate to what you want. Get a good book on digital photography. There are many good ones out by Scott Kelby and Martin Evening. Bruce Fraser and Andrew Rodney have written excellent books on color management. And I have only scratched the surface. You want the quality that your camera is capable of, then you have to put the time to learn what it takes to get it.

When a person's first post is to criticize a well respected camera, this is suggestive that the poster is a troll. If you want to be taken seriously, why don't you show us any data or at least some test shots illustrating the problem?

Here is a report on the D2X from the Imaging Resource

I remember a recurring theme when people 'upgraded' from a D70 to a D200. The rallying cry was, soft images and poor color. The expectation was that better specs = better performance. Often in life this is true but in digital photography I don't believe this is the case.

Pro and semipro backs are capable of better performance when employed correctly and with sufficient knowledge and understanding of key components like the auto-focus system. If time is not invested in this and in your post processing workflow I'm actually convinced a pro body will give you inferior results when compared to a consumer DSLR with scene modes like a D40 or D80.

I find it very refreshing in these times of constant change and desire for the latest and greatest that someone like Thom Hogan is quite happy to work with a D40 because it's the right tool for a particual job.

I wouldn't doubt that you are wrong... I noticed the same thing with film cameras, actually. If I handed someone else my EOS-3, even w/ it set up to be as "user friendly" as possible, the results were rarely all that great. Yet, I was able to take some very nice shots with it. Same goes for my current crop of cameras - and when my MkIII arrives, I predict I'll see the same phenomenon there, too... You have to learn how to use the tools....