ESFotoClix Blog

I’ve been doing some thinking about whether to render out of focus backgrounds in darker tones. The best answer I can posit is "it depends." For me, it comes down to what I purpose for the shot, what I wish the subject to be, and whether the background lends context to the subject or distracts from it. In general, I find it difficult to argue that a severely OOF background lends context since so little in it is discernible, but again, it depends. Also in play is the issue of whether one wants to enhance contrast through chiaroscuro to really make the subject pop out.

Enough jabbering. Let’s look an example. Here’s one of my favorite subjects, which has just bloomed in the last couple of days, this time captured with my D700 and AIS 55mm micro @f/2.8. Here’s the original version, as captured image, using the D2XMODE3 Picture Control (the only edit I made in ViewNX), with resizing and global sharpening for Web display.

One could say the green background complements the flower nicely, but I see a couple of bright distracting elements (the bright blob up top and the stem), and overall the image is a tad bland. So I try a little contrast with a mild S-curve, and get the following.

Not satisfied with this result, I decide to give this the full treatment. First, I have to decide what I want to emphasize — what’s important to me. I pretty much sealed that when I composed the original shot: I chose to focus on the "come hither" petal in the foreground, so my PP must follow through with that idea. I select/mask that area, so that at the end, I can apply selective sharpening there only.

But before I get there, I use the local contrast curve and layer multiplication technique I described here. This has the effect of differentiating adjacent tonal ranges and also of darkening dark-to-mid tones. The latter can also be achieved with Levels, BTW. The result may not please everyone, but I think achieves my purpose nicely. The contrast between a dark background and white petals is striking, and the "come hither" petal stands out nicely thanks to the last step of selective sharpening.

For me, an additional verifier is how this image works in B&W. Again, for my personal taste, I find that the dark background and the contrast theme I have chosen works very well. The image becomes a nice study of shapes (form), texture, and tonal contrasts, while preserving my original purpose.

I realize that in the end it is the photographer’s vision and purpose that matters, and that each of us may approach each subject differently. But that’s what makes this art form so fun.

A few months ago I conjectured about the likelihood of a D90s coming out in 2010. As time has passed both my excitement for that possibility and my belief it will materialize have taken a nose dive. But as PMA approaches next month, rumors of new full frame (FX) Nikon offerings are swirling about.

Will the D700 receive a D700s refresh with the D3S? Maybe, but seeing that the D3s hasn’t been out long and few have had a chance to get it due to low availability, it would seem wise for Nikon to wait until fall 2010 for a D700 update. Will a D700 successor (a D900?) featuring either the D3X 24 megapixel sensor or an in-between 18 megapixel, hitherto unreleased sensor? This sounds more plausible, though either option presents Nikon with some self-made threats against its higher end models.

Whether a D700s or a D900 is about to hit the market, there is another rumor that truly excites me. A full frame (FX) sensor trapped in a D90’s body. For now let’s call it the D7000. Whether this is what Nikon is up to or not, making such a move would be a game changer. Even if this sensor were a mere 12 megapixels, say the same sensor the D3 and D700 feature today, the move would be genius. Yes, Canon can push up the megapixels and 1080p movie features, and Nikon would still be releasing a revolutionary, first-time-ever FX sensor in a small body model that regardless of megapixel count, would rock the competition. Why? Because many of us have been for some time surmising that except for few applications, we’d rather have clean, noise-free images than highly detailed ones. We’ve been realizing that even for the normal to large (up to 16×20) prints we make, the overhead and image quality compromises of higher megapixel images are practically useless to us.

The trick for Nikon with a D7000 offering would be pricing. Price it too low, and the top-end of the DX line (D300s) is in jeopardy. Price it too high, and sales potential would not justify yet another model, not to mention the danger to the D700 itself if its smaller cousin is too closely priced. A price somewhere between $1,900-2,000USD might do the trick, but differentiation would still be tenuous. Nikon would likely solve this by de-featuring the D7000: 11-point AF, now standard for the D3000, D5000 and D90 would be one easy way to protect the D300s and the D700. Lack of other pro features such as weather sealing, and going with the outer ergonomics of a D90 rather than the one-button-for-anything-you-want approach of the D300 and D700 might provide two useful differentiators.

There would be one other challenge for Nikon: lens availability for the FX format, as in affordable, practical lens availability. Most of us have the impression that FX means heavy and expensive lenses, and that would certainly defeat the advantage of a small, light FX body. Nikon could point out the few affordable FX lenses it offers, such as the 24-85 f/2.8-4 and 70-300 VR, but a better move would be to announce a couple of relatively low cost FX AFS lenses, including an affordable super wide and a kit lens that matches the long-in-the-tooth 24-85 f/2.8-4. Can Nikon manage to pull out a small FX body plus a couple of lenses out of its magical hat? I think so.

Does this sound exciting to you? It does to me. Whether Nikon does make such a move will reveal whether they are truly driven to produce cameras that turn out great images, or whether they will allow themselves to be pushed along by marketing’s megapixel quest.