# Women will hate D800 *full size image*



## poias (Mar 27, 2012)

Look at her lower lips area at 100%  :'( This camera is not meant for taking portraits of women. :-X

http://www.bezergheanu.com/Other/Test-Nikon-D800/i-BN6QTnD/0/O/LAN1776.jpg


----------



## wickidwombat (Mar 27, 2012)

poias said:


> Look at her lower lips area at 100%  :'( This camera is not meant for taking portraits of women. :-X
> 
> http://www.bezergheanu.com/Other/Test-Nikon-D800/i-BN6QTnD/0/O/LAN1776.jpg



ROFL that is sharp!


----------



## briansquibb (Mar 27, 2012)

Seems to me to have been over sharpened


----------



## poias (Mar 27, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> Seems to me to have been over sharpened



That, or the detail is simply overpowering. Probably a combination of both rendering a disgusting photo of a beautiful woman.


----------



## briansquibb (Mar 27, 2012)

poias said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > Seems to me to have been over sharpened
> ...



A few more pictures like that showing the D800 capabilities and the 5DIII will be the best seller


----------



## mjbehnke (Mar 27, 2012)

I don't think it's been over-sharpened. Looks like a bad light set-up, or she needs to shave her lower lip next time. It looks really bad, as a portrait. 

That's MHO


----------



## poias (Mar 27, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> poias said:
> 
> 
> > briansquibb said:
> ...



May be that will be 5D3's marketing line: we render soft images, so your models' faces will appear silky smooth!


----------



## V8Beast (Mar 27, 2012)

poias said:


> Look at her lower lips area at 100%  :'( This camera is not meant for taking portraits of women. :-X
> 
> http://www.bezergheanu.com/Other/Test-Nikon-D800/i-BN6QTnD/0/O/LAN1776.jpg



I suppose I'm the only one who finds women with facial hair rather sexy  Distracting facial hair aside, this is one of the better sample image, IQ wise, from the D800 I've seen thus far.


----------



## poias (Mar 27, 2012)

mjbehnke said:


> I don't think it's been over-sharpened. Looks like a bad light set-up, or she needs to shave her lower lip next time. It looks really bad, as a portrait.
> 
> That's MHO



I agree. Given the already intense detail, narrow aperture, and 85mm right on the face, the lighting illuminating the hairs are not going to help either.


----------



## poias (Mar 27, 2012)

V8Beast said:


> poias said:
> 
> 
> > Look at her lower lips area at 100%  :'( This camera is not meant for taking portraits of women. :-X
> ...



I agree IQ wise, D800 is in another league. But the subject here is really not being portrayed in the most flattering manner.


----------



## iMagic (Mar 27, 2012)

To me her eyes look out of focus. Not enough lip hair touch ups lol. 

UPDATE. Sorry I looked at it on my ipad and it didnt look too sharp. On my real monitor though..... in the words of George Takei "ohhh myyy". Looks like a good camera for landscape and a lots of post work camera for studio. Other shots on that website are similar detail.


----------



## wickidwombat (Mar 27, 2012)

poias said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > poias said:
> ...



yeah i think mine came with portrait professional built in...  :'(


----------



## briansquibb (Mar 27, 2012)

V8Beast said:


> poias said:
> 
> 
> > Look at her lower lips area at 100%  :'( This camera is not meant for taking portraits of women. :-X
> ...



I have 130 lady goats - would you like to come to a speed dating session    

My family portrait


----------



## jrista (Mar 27, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> V8Beast said:
> 
> 
> > poias said:
> ...



;D ;D : ;D ???


----------



## ScottyP (Mar 27, 2012)

Maybe this sort of ugly reality can stop the mindless megapixel war.


----------



## Stephen Melvin (Mar 27, 2012)

There are definite sharpening halos in that shot.


----------



## Arkarch (Mar 27, 2012)

Kinda furry above the lips too.

No worries. Its just a new Twilight look.


----------



## Aglet (Mar 27, 2012)

V8Beast said:


> I suppose I'm the only one who finds women with facial hair rather sexy  Distracting facial hair aside, this is one of the better sample image, IQ wise, from the D800 I've seen thus far.



WOW! a peach-fuzz model was ideal to see the detail capability of that system. This is gonna send models and their makeup artists out to buy microscopes to work on them before a shoot! ;D (try a Mantis Elite for that, actually)

And you can really see just how shallow a DoF 85mm at f/8 really has, tip of her nose is quite OoF.

I'm really itchin' to place an order for one of these things just so I can see all the discarded cigarette butts littering a landscape shot.

Now, i would like to see a landscape shot, with full sun and some clouds in the scene and shadow detail in the woods or under a deeply shaded area using a 50mm or wider at about f/8 to 11. (yes, a bit past DLA but that'll be a given)


----------



## Bennymiata (Mar 27, 2012)

Man, does she need a shave or what!

Nice looking girl too.

Obviously the lighting just emphasised the hair on her face.
Maybe the photographer should have used a good soft box.


----------



## psolberg (Mar 27, 2012)

poias said:


> Look at her lower lips area at 100%  :'( This camera is not meant for taking portraits of women. :-X
> 
> http://www.bezergheanu.com/Other/Test-Nikon-D800/i-BN6QTnD/0/O/LAN1776.jpg



In the world of fashion, what you get on a cover has been edited at the sub pixel level. That's why they use medium format with 40+mp for shooting women 8)

I agree with what others said that the light is making the facial hair, which all women have, glow and show more than usual. either make the light softer, chang the angle, or hand her a razor ;D

so the D800 is well suited to the task of photographing women so that they can be photoshopped into goddesses.

BTW the resolution of the D800 is FREAKING STUNNING!!!


----------



## Sunnystate (Mar 27, 2012)

Killer resolution! Can be used for some serious forensic or research applications, just think of super macro outcomes... 

Have no idea how you people can still try to minimize this camera comparing it with 5DIII... 
Most dangerous kind of people, blind followers without ability to think clearly, shooting them self in the foot just to proof the point... same people also are going to vote soon again.


----------



## D.Sim (Mar 27, 2012)

Sunnystate said:


> Killer resolution! Can be used for some serious forensic or research applications, just think of super macro outcomes...
> 
> Have no idea how you people can still try to minimize this camera comparing it with 5DIII...
> Most dangerous kind of people, blind followers without ability to think clearly, shooting them self in the foot just to proof the point... same people also are going to vote soon again.



Two different cameras for two different purposes. Stop shooting yourself in the foot by blindly saying MPs are the answer. Thank goodness troll votes count for nothing.


----------



## birdman (Mar 27, 2012)

JEEZ, LUIZE!! I would sue the photographer if I was that lady.

Detail is impressive. I think the 5d3, or even the "old" Mark 2 that I own could deliver similar sharpness with the right lighting and lens. The 100L macro comes to mind. Or the 85/1.2

I think the d800 is an impressive machine, if not slightly (sarcastically) overrated.


----------



## marekjoz (Mar 27, 2012)

Impressive quality. Enlarge on eye and tell what lamp was used


----------



## stve (Mar 27, 2012)

Horribly over-sharpened photo I am amazed at how many seem to think it is the fault of the camera when it is clearly caused in post processing by excessive sharpening.


----------



## Bob Howland (Mar 27, 2012)

2.5 pixels of Gaussian blur (in Photoshop) helps things immensely


----------



## marekjoz (Mar 27, 2012)

stve said:


> Horribly over-sharpened photo I am amazed at how many seem to think it is the fault of the camera when it is clearly caused in post processing by excessive sharpening.



I don't find it sharpened. Rather camera's resolution.


----------



## EYEONE (Mar 27, 2012)

Sunnystate said:


> Killer resolution! Can be used for some serious forensic or research applications, just think of super macro outcomes...
> 
> Have no idea how you people can still try to minimize this camera comparing it with 5DIII...
> Most dangerous kind of people, blind followers without ability to think clearly, shooting them self in the foot just to proof the point... same people also are going to vote soon again.



"Blindly following" and simply not finding 36mp appealing are two different things.


----------



## Pyrenees (Mar 27, 2012)

marekjoz said:


> Impressive quality. Enlarge on eye and tell what lamp was used



A beauty dish, I'd say. Somewhat counter-intuitive to the name, beauty-dish lighting can be relatively harsh/direct (compared to a softbox) and is often used on models with very good skin, or with professionally-applied makeup.

The image has definitely been oversharpened. There are telling artifacts in a few areas.


----------



## psolberg (Mar 27, 2012)

D.Sim said:


> Sunnystate said:
> 
> 
> > Killer resolution! Can be used for some serious forensic or research applications, just think of super macro outcomes...
> ...



I enjoy the troll posts because I can replace D800 with 5DmkII and D700 with 5DmkIII and find the priests of low light swapped places with the megapixel crusaders. It is fun to watch, and yup, goes for all the canon guys that are now the priests of the low light religion! Watch if canon makes a 30+MP camera and how suddenly, 22MP is too little and OMG how did we manage with that 8). 



stve said:


> Horribly over-sharpened photo I am amazed at how many seem to think it is the fault of the camera when it is clearly caused in post processing by excessive sharpening.



This is a classic case of COULD you do it, versus SHOULD you do it. I wouldn't blame anybody with a D800 from pulling as much detail they can since that's what the camera is designed to do, nor would I blame the canon guy that now takes pictures of his closet with the door closed at iso 52 thousand just to admire the detail of his socks. Both are doing the same thing. It is fun to watch.



Bob Howland said:


> 2.5 pixels of Gaussian blur (in Photoshop) helps things immensely


selectively smoothing her skin would be better. shotgun blur is pointless.



ScottyP said:


> Maybe this sort of ugly reality can stop the mindless megapixel war.


let me tell you that it hasn't stopped hundreds of fashin photographers from using medium format bodies with even higher resolutions....so...not happeing. It is what the industry wants for this sort of thing :

For the record, a 7D has a higher pixel density and it is able to capture more detail, at the expense of field of view. So before going out of our way to bash this photo, remember you can get more detail, and thus WORSE hair issues with a 7D. And now that canon is able to do that, it is now ok right


----------



## AnselA (Mar 27, 2012)

Every woman secretly wants a goatee.


----------



## pdirestajr (Mar 27, 2012)

Please look at the bottom edges of the teeth.... Se those white halos? That is a sign of over sharpening.

Also, as mammals, we are ALL covered in small hairs, I don't think she needs to shave LOL. This pic just needs some serious retouching. Humans also aren't as attractive in the digital days. Film on the other-hand, made everyone look beautiful.


----------



## stve (Mar 27, 2012)

marekjoz said:


> stve said:
> 
> 
> > Horribly over-sharpened photo I am amazed at how many seem to think it is the fault of the camera when it is clearly caused in post processing by excessive sharpening.
> ...








http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-_BWjvs0WH1w/T29GRyyXLrI/AAAAAAAAEYM/cCrJ-0Qv1vQ/s1600/_LAN1776.jpg


----------



## clarkia (Mar 27, 2012)

is it me or some of you a bit harsh on the model? i'd like to place a wager that her "flaws" as many of you are pointing out are probably 100X better than half of yours if you were captured with this camera in this light set up. it's an unflattering portrait of a pretty woman. "women" will also hate full size images of most of us too...


----------



## Seanlucky (Mar 27, 2012)

Higher megapixels definitely does play a part. I know a photographer based out of Los Angeles who does a lot of editorial work, in particular for Men's Health. They normally shot with a P45 on Hasselblad H2, finding it was plenty of detail for their uses. However once, when shooting a shirtless man (who had just shaved for the photoshoot), they decided to try the P65 back. The retoucher had a hell of a time smoothing out the razor burn that was suddenly very apperant all over the individual's chest.

Now I'm comparing a 65 megapixel image to a 36 megapixel image. However their workflow (which obviously was always going to include retouching) was used to dealing with the lower megapixel back and the images that came with it. For now, they decided that it was simply more practical to switch back to a 45 megapixel back.

While I can't comment on this particular image, I do know my own personal experiences. For many people, a larger image to have more flexibility in post production and retouching is incredibly useful. However I know for my own uses, I've never had a problem retouching with my current 5D Mark II files. There's simply enough resolution for my uses, and I have no problem getting the results I'd like with them.


----------



## marekjoz (Mar 27, 2012)

clarkia said:


> is it me or some of you a bit harsh on the model? i'd like to place a wager that her "flaws" as many of you are pointing out are probably 100X better than half of yours if you were captured with this camera in this light set up. it's an unflattering portrait of a pretty woman. "women" will also hate full size images of most of us too...



Come, on. She's pretty. Everyone just wants to see more of her. I mean more pictures of her. I mean portraits. You know...


----------



## stve (Mar 27, 2012)

http://www.bezergheanu.com/TestNikon/Test-Nikon-D800/22087378_KqWcB7#!i=1763885715&k=BN6QTnD

select the photo & then original size
the photo shows incredible resolution & has slightly been oversharpened but remember the photo has been sharpened for the web & for viewing at smaller sizes.
When you zoom out in your browser it starts to look horrible.
if you right click on the photo & copy the image address you get 
http://www.bezergheanu.com/TestNikon/Test-Nikon-D800/i-BN6QTnD/0/O/LAN1776.jpg
& it looks horrible because of resizing artifacts.
Its very hard to belive that pois the original poster in this thread was not aware of this ?


----------



## stve (Mar 27, 2012)

Heres a link to the photographers blog translated to English
http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http://intufisuri.blogspot.co.uk/


----------



## eeek (Mar 27, 2012)

She might want to start flossing.


----------



## Cornell (Mar 27, 2012)

What is perceived as over-sharpening is likely a result of the 36 MP: in theory, the higher the MP, the more the resolution, and the more the detail. A camera’s imaging is not gender specific. If it shows an image that is less than optimal for women, it will do the same for men. 

I would suggest looking at Digital Photography (Dpreview) Reviews “First Impressions: Using the Nikon D800”. Please note that the reviewer uses an very old lens, adapted to use with modern DSLRs. 
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/1690347434/first-impressions-using-the-nikon-d800 

One other thing, iMagic stated that her eyes look out of focus. It would be interesting to know what aperture was used. The Dpreview article indicates that the camera is “very unforgiving” for even minor focusing errors when the lens is wide open.


----------



## stve (Mar 27, 2012)

Cornell said:


> What is perceived as over-sharpening is likely a result of the 36 MP: in theory, the higher the MP, the more the resolution, and the more the detail. A camera’s imaging is not gender specific. If it shows an image that is less than optimal for women, it will do the same for men.
> 
> I would suggest looking at Digital Photography (Dpreview) Reviews “First Impressions: Using the Nikon D800”. Please note that the reviewer uses an very old lens, adapted to use with modern DSLRs.
> http://www.dpreview.com/articles/1690347434/first-impressions-using-the-nikon-d800
> ...


iMagik has updated his post


> To me her eyes look out of focus. Not enough lip hair touch ups lol.
> 
> UPDATE. Sorry I looked at it on my ipad and it didnt look too sharp. On my real monitor though..... in the words of George Takei "ohhh myyy". Looks like a good camera for landscape and a lots of post work camera for studio. Other shots on that website are similar detail.
> « Last Edit: March 27, 2012, 10:49:28 PM by iMagic »


Open the photo yourself & view at original size her eyes are tack sharp
http://www.bezergheanu.com/TestNikon/Test-Nikon-D800/22087378_KqWcB7#!i=1762732879&k=5k9zTrt


----------



## CanineCandidsByL (Mar 27, 2012)

ScottyP said:


> Maybe this sort of ugly reality can stop the mindless megapixel war.



Nah. It didn't stop HDTV, makeup artists were taken to task even on the news, and now they are already talking 4k.

Megapixels will go on until we can actually see DNA, which we can then modify to produce pixel perfect people.


----------



## V8Beast (Mar 27, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> I have 130 lady goats - would you like to come to a speed dating session
> 
> My family portrait



I must admit that is a rather tempting offer


----------



## V8Beast (Mar 27, 2012)

psolberg said:


> I enjoy the troll posts because I can replace D800 with 5DmkII and D700 with 5DmkIII and find the priests of low light swapped places with the megapixel crusaders. It is fun to watch, and yup, goes for all the canon guys that are now the priests of the low light religion! Watch if canon makes a 30+MP camera and how suddenly, 22MP is too little and OMG how did we manage with that 8).



I find this humorous as well. The D800 is a fabulous camera, but it's just not the camera for me. It doesn't change the fact that it's the current King of 35mm resolution and DR.

Personally, I was always envious of the D700's balance of speed, high ISO performance, and AF. Consequently, since the specs of the 5DIII are more of what I expected from the D800 (high resolution at the expense of speed), and the specs of the D800 are of what I expected from the 5DIII (less resolution and more FPS), I'm not complaining


----------



## briansquibb (Mar 27, 2012)

I am half looking at a real MF - the D800 would be just a faux MF. Would rather have a 80Mb MF


----------



## poias (Mar 27, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> I am half looking at a real MF - the D800 would be just a faux MF. Would rather have a 80Mb MF



Good luck finding that for $3000. 

D800 is a killer in resolution, DR, and even low light... its resolution and DR compares to MFDBs and its low light performance compares with D4. What more can you ask for?


----------



## briansquibb (Mar 27, 2012)

poias said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > I am half looking at a real MF - the D800 would be just a faux MF. Would rather have a 80Mb MF
> ...



Price is not the issue - I would expect somewhere in the region of $35k which is what you have to pay for the best.

I dont think in my remotist dreams think that a 36mp D800 will compare with a 80mp MF. 

Low light performance? Iso 200 is fine for me with a MF. You dont shoot sports with a MF


----------



## poias (Mar 28, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> poias said:
> 
> 
> > briansquibb said:
> ...



Sorry, but it was YOU who compared D800 to MFDB. Highlighted above in red, you said that you were "half looking at a MF". That is comparing, still.


----------



## Orion (Mar 28, 2012)

please excuse if the link has been posted already, but here is the link to all the images, including the original posted in this thread:

http://www.bezergheanu.com/TestNikon/Test-Nikon-D800/22087378_KqWcB7#!i=1763885715&k=BN6QTnD

hover your mouse over the larger image to see the list and select "original" 

The images DO appear heavily sharpened, due to some artifacts you see on the monitor but not so much when you view from your desktop. . . I just got the 5DmkIII, and this D800 is also a very good camera. I hope you all get to enjoy your camera and not worry too much about these things as Canon is also comming out with a more MP system later in the year.

The 5D mkIII is amazing to ME because I have just swithced from the 30D  I am as happy as can be! Be happy for me and forget all this talk about too sharp v resolution v iso . . . heck if it's too sharp, then you can fix that . . . . if ISO is a problem, realize that it is not , and if you need a greater resolution due to the rare need to print on museum canvas to cover a wall or for advertising on a side of a building or a bus, then by all means get a D800 or wait for Canon's response. . . . or you can realize that the need for such high res is only viable for professional MFesque work where the clients think they need such high MP camera to meet their needs. . . . they need smooth skin tones, with no hair anyway 

P.S. some of you are being VERy mean to this poor girl that may have the heart of a dove. . . .


----------



## briansquibb (Mar 28, 2012)

poias said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > poias said:
> ...



What hogwash you talk. I can only assume you are a Nikon fanboy who is convinced that the D800 is better than a 80Mb MF. Read the other threads in this forum and it will be apparent that it doesn't hold a candle to a good MF. The only valid point you have made is that at $3000 it is cheap for 36Mb


----------



## poias (Mar 28, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> poias said:
> 
> 
> > briansquibb said:
> ...



Sorry, again, but you are the only only one who is constantly talking about "80Mb(sic) MF". I simply think D800 is very detailed, hence this post. Comparing it against larger format systems is what you are doing.

Me thinks you are a little insecure.


----------



## takoman46 (Mar 28, 2012)

I don't think it takes a 36mp image to pick up the amount of fuzz this lady has on her face because you can make it out very clearly at the fitted scale to browser window. Any reasonably good DSLR sensor would probably be able to pick that up lol. I'd say 5DmkII or III for sure and maybe even a 7D or 60D. I think a more challenging example of detail should be presented.


----------



## briansquibb (Mar 28, 2012)

poias said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > poias said:
> ...



'Constantly talkng about the 80Mb MF'. I mentioned it once and you wade in with personal attack and now you wade in with yet another unfounded personal comment. 

You might think the D800 is very detailed but you clearly haven't wandered into the MF world yet you state



> D800 is a killer in resolution, DR, and even low light... its resolution and DR compares to MFDBs and its low light performance compares with D4. What more can you ask for?



Well I have seen the output from a 80Mb MF first hand at the recent UK show - a wall sized print of outstanding detail. Personally I think the initial portrait is ghastly and doesn't show the D800 at its best.

And now I am getting attacked for 'half looking' at a MF. Rather like abusing someone who looks at a Ferrari having seen a Mustang.


----------



## Canon-F1 (Mar 28, 2012)

i don´t know why this forum is called EOS BODIES.. when all the nikon stuff is posted here.

im not interested in reading about nikon when i visit the EOS BODIES forum....

why is no mod moving this thread?


----------



## marekjoz (Mar 28, 2012)

Canon-F1 said:


> i don´t know why this forum is called EOS BODIES.. when all the nikon stuff is posted here.
> 
> im not interested in reading about nikon when i visit the EOS BODIES forum....
> 
> why is no mod moving this thread?



Well... Competition is good, comparing competitive products is good and seing beyond borders of EOS bodies is also good as one can imagine what will achieve after Canon has released competing product in the future. It's as about EOS as about photography in general. Personally I don't see anything inapropriate in this.


----------



## poias (Mar 30, 2012)

Canon-F1 said:


> i don´t know why this forum is called EOS BODIES.. when all the nikon stuff is posted here.
> 
> im not interested in reading about nikon when i visit the EOS BODIES forum....
> 
> why is no mod moving this thread?



I can only speak for myself, but I think D800 is getting noticed is because it THE best camera for fraction of the cost (i.e. value!) with off the charts (literally) performance.

Look at more detail:

http://pcfoto.biz/images/testovi/Nikon_D800E_preview/048_T10p_galerija_n70-200_f2-8gVRII_jpg.jpg


----------



## jrista (Mar 30, 2012)

poias said:


> Canon-F1 said:
> 
> 
> > i don´t know why this forum is called EOS BODIES.. when all the nikon stuff is posted here.
> ...



Personally, I find there to be far too much detail in that image. I like a pretty gal as much as the next guy, but I only really want to see that much up-close detail if I'm up close in person because that pretty gal is my girlfriend or wife. Assuming I purchased the D800 for its ability to print larger with more detail...yikes! I wouldn't want to print photos of ANYONE with THAT much detail and sharpness...its almost a crime. 

I much prefer portraits taken with lenses with a bit of spherical aberration (which is often the case with ultra-fast 50 primes), where a bit of soft focus smooths features and produces amazing boke.


----------



## seekn (Mar 30, 2012)

poias said:


> Canon-F1 said:
> 
> 
> > i don´t know why this forum is called EOS BODIES.. when all the nikon stuff is posted here.
> ...



I agree too much resolution can be unflattering. You are kind of misguided I think in your statement. The "best" camera for what application? You really think it will be the best camera for sports? weddings? travel/journalistic photos? I highly doubt it. You have a case if you say it may be the best camera for its value for "specific" uses - which I think even Nikon would agree with.


----------



## rpt (Mar 30, 2012)

Orion said:


> P.S. some of you are being VERy mean to this poor girl that may have the heart of a dove. . . .



+100!

I think she was very brave to have her photo published. Let us be caring about what we write.


----------



## briansquibb (Mar 30, 2012)

rpt said:


> Orion said:
> 
> 
> > P.S. some of you are being VERy mean to this poor girl that may have the heart of a dove. . . .
> ...



It is the snapper that has the problem ;D ;D


----------



## dunkers (Mar 30, 2012)

This was one of the downfalls that I saw in regards to the D800.

With that high of a megapixel count, you WILL get astonishing details. 

HOWEVER, women will most likely end up not liking/hating the photo. The level of detail is so high that when inspected closely, you can see every single hair, every single wrinkle, every single blemish, any tiny makeup blemishes--all will be visible. Every single "flaw" will be apparent.

So each photo you take of them will have to be heavily processed. The processing is going to take up a LOT of your time. Plus, if you're not careful or an expert, the photos will look over-processed. By this, I mean when people touch up the skin it ends up looking too blemish-free and thus fake.


----------



## poias (Mar 30, 2012)

dunkers said:


> This was one of the downfalls that I saw in regards to the D800.
> 
> With that high of a megapixel count, you WILL get astonishing details.
> 
> ...



I think you are missing the point. With D800, if you don't want details given its processing requirements, you can always use cheap lens or even defocus lens to get the soft look. But its real power is when you DO want details. The detail is there IF you need it. If not, there are many non-pp ways to soften the images, like crappy lenses, cheap uv filters, and even mayonnaise like the olden days of dreamy portraits!


----------



## pwp (Mar 30, 2012)

rpt said:


> Orion said:
> 
> 
> > P.S. some of you are being VERY mean to this poor girl that may have the heart of a dove. . . .
> ...



True, there is no way she would have known this innocent image would cause such a response. Nobody is having a go at HER, there is critical assessment of the technique and post production (much too heavy on the USM) of a simple innocent portrait.

We will all be better off having this discussion based on properly controlled test images shot with a shipping D800 body. I doubt we'll need to wait long for the inevitable very technical D800 vs 5D3 comparos.

Paul Wright


----------



## briansquibb (Mar 30, 2012)

dunkers said:


> This was one of the downfalls that I saw in regards to the D800.
> 
> With that high of a megapixel count, you WILL get astonishing details.
> 
> ...



I think you will find that picture will have to be very large of heavily cropped before the extra detail comes out - the current 21/22 mp cameras show that level of detail too - just print it on 6x4 and you will be safe ;D


----------



## sandymandy (Mar 30, 2012)

I already get complaints like this when i take pics with my 12MP camera  I think its not so bad. So many women got hair on their faces like that. Afterall fashion photos get edited much anyway. I think its the photographer choosing the photo and working on it. I dont think they let themselves get influenced by the models that much.

*edit* 

http://h9.abload.de/img/img_0410fely7.jpg

aperture f/2.x with 50mm 1.8 II (eos 1100D). I think with f/5.6 it would offer way more detail too 

dont remember well  but yeah thats what women hate already when i show them...


----------



## CanineCandidsByL (Apr 3, 2012)

Could the D800 be a conspiracy between Nikon and Adobe to sell more copies of Photoshop?


----------

