The 'big 4' photographers all use the 8400 and the pictures are all of the same quality. Do any of you adjust or tweak your photo's on your P.C., or are they as origionally taken?
I dont seem to be able to get the same colour definition with my camera. I have tried adjusting them a little, but still not the same.
Lighting can have an effect, but we are all using cannons, except for Miles!

I do a fair bit of post-processing in Photoshop, but I keep original copies as well. I'll send you a before and after if you like...

---

Ah that would be great, thank yoo! 😉

The only way I tweak mine is lighten them slightly to compensate for under-exposure. I find that this is a constant problem, the screen on the 8400 does not give a very accurate impression of what the final result is going to be. It will lookk great in the mine, but once back on the computer, I find the majority of my pics under-exposed.
I think trying to "sharpen" a pic or enhance the colour in any way will only degrade the pic.
As for different result.... well, Simon & I have taken exactly the same scene, with exactly the same equipment and the results are still different !! Explain that one, I cant.... 😞

---

Simon & I have taken exactly the same scene, with exactly the same equipment and the results are still different !! Explain that one, I cant.... 😞

In this same situation, i have noted that Simons camera set on 100 absorbs light quicker than mine set on 200. Apeture settings are also totally different results. 😮
There does not seem to be the same consistency as with a 'proper' 35mm. slr.
And of course, the P.C. screen that the photo's are viewed on makes a huge difference.

What camera do you use Barney ??

(By the way, I notice that I am now over 200 posts, I cant remember whether that rates a mars bar or a pack of rolos.. ?)

---

I have an Olympus 500uz. Used it for just over a year having switched from a 35mm slr.
Its not too bad, i keep trying different settings and they are marginally better each time. I think my next move will be to set to 100 asa, as opposed to 200. Just a case of lengthening exposure times!

A low ISO and a high exposure time is infinatley better than larger Iso & shoret exposure. I nearly always take my pics on ISO50, only going to 100 for bigger areas and only rarely to 200 for huge slate type chambers.. 😉

---

If you find something clogging your inbox Barney it's a before/after example 🙂

---

Nice one!
There is quite a difference, especially the colours. Thats given me the 'bottle' to start fiddling! i have completley reset my camera to 80 and 100 in its memory, and now im off testing in a local tunnel!......... 😉

Thanks chaps!

[img]http://www.aditnow.co.uk/showimage?f=/community/Cwmorthin-Slate-Mine-User-Album-Image-004/[/img]

[img]http://www.aditnow.co.uk/showimage?f=/community/Personal-Album-4-Image-005/[/img]

Slightly exagerated, but i think the 2nd pic looks ok after playing around. Thanks for your help both 😉

Just for anybody else interested, here's the before and after Photoshop post-processing...

Before:

[img]http://www.aditnow.co.uk/showimage?f=/community/Personal-Album-1-Image-007/[/img]

After:

[img]http://www.aditnow.co.uk/showimage?f=/community/Personal-Album-1-Image-008/[/img]

Now if I took them right in the first place I wouldn't need to do this 😮

Although looking at the here (small) the effect is much more pronounced when you see the larger versions...

---

Although looking at the here (small) the effect is much more pronounced when you see the larger versions...

There is a much bigger difference in the original sized pics (the ones e mailed as examples)Having said that, they are only gentle tweaks so your not far off the mark!
I have reset my memory to 80 and 100 and added a touch of sharpness to the 'my mode' settings. I tested at a disused graveyard late last night and there is a much better difference to my old settings. Now to try it out underground-The road to my local tunnel was closed! :curse:

As for ISO - thats dependant on the mine.

If the rock is of an extremely light sort (i.e - dry caves, limestone mines, etc) - I would tend to use ISO 80. Whereas in a Cumbrian slate mine, where the walls are dark, wet and sinister - Id tend to use ISO 200. And sometimes - if the chambers are extremely big - I have gone up to 800 - though this basically makes the photos rubbish, but at the same time internesting (?). In the past I often used a 1,000,000 candle power torch for large chambers (not LED) on an ISO of 80, but this made "yellow" results. I seriously need to get some kind of big LED lamp right?

---

I've never gone over ISO 200 on the Nikon 8400, the photos are noticeably grainy at 200 or above. My EOS goes up to ISO 1,600 without any discernable noise, but for a variety of reasons I much prefer the 8400 underground.

Taking the Colonel's advice, ISO 50 in tunnels and areas of very light rock, and ISO 100 just about everywhere else unless you absolutely have to go higher, or have a really good camera :)

Nearly all my shots these days are lit just with the Fenix*. An example taken yesterday (and OK it's not the most enormous chamber, but it's fairly big and slate which seems to absorb a lot of light) this was lit just with one Fenix P3D on ISO 100:

🔗Croesor-Rhosydd-Through-Trip-16-02-2008-Image-007[linkphoto]Croesor-Rhosydd-Through-Trip-16-02-2008-Image-007[/linkphoto][/link]

* Yes, ok, it's not going to cope with Oakeley Ch15, but that's why we invested Heb and his uber-torch :lol:

---

A nice photo there; how long an exposure was this shot on?


regards

---

About 30 seconds I think. Camera is always on bulb, but the actual exposure time and level of torch waving is a very imprecise science :lol:

---

About 30 seconds I think. Camera is always on bulb, but the actual exposure time and level of torch waving is a very imprecise science :lol:

I might get one of these "Fenix P3Ds" - but whether it will be any good on a max exp of 15 secs Im not sure.. pardon me for being a bit thick here - but what is "bulb-setting"?
:confused: :lol:

---