In my review of the Nikon D300, I promised to look into its Active D-Lighting feature. Besides pure intellectual curiousity, and the deep desire to be helpful to my readers, I needed to know how to manage this camera setting. As I noted in an earlier post, Active D-Lighting is written up as a kind of in-camera extension of dynamic range. In fact, I assume that the "D" in D-Lighting is short for "dynamic."
The manual for the D300 puts it like this: "Active D-Lighting preserves details in highlights and shadows, creating photos with natural contrast. Use for high contrast scenes, for example when photographing brightly lit outdoor scenery through a door or window or taking pictures of shaded subjects on a sunny day."
As described in the manual, Active D-Lighting is potentially a very compelling feature because digital technology can be used in real time to record a great range of lights and darks in a photo.
Settings and Caveats
To set Active D-Lighting, you use the D300's shooting menu. You scroll down to the Active D-Lighting item until it is highlighted, press the right arrow key, and select from four possible Active D-Lighting settings: Off, Low, Normal, and High. The manual gives no information about the relative impact of these settings, hence my need to find out empirically (and this blog story).
The caveats you'll find in the manual regarding Active D-Lighting are that photos with Active D-Lighting engaged take longer to process (this is presumably because more information is being written to memory) and that the lgiht meter must be set to matrix metering (okay, since this is probably how you'd have it set anyhow).
The manual also notes that "Active D-Lighting" is not the same thing as "D-Lighting", the latter being a post hoc fix to dynamic range available in the camera's retouch menu after a photo has already been shot and saved to memory.
As far as I can tell, although this isn't noted in the D300 documentation, Active D-Lighting also does not work when the camera is set to fully manual mode (more on this later).
Methodology
Active D-Lighting is designed for situations with high contrast from light to dark. This is what the manual states, and it is also common sense. If Actibe D-Lighting workes right, these high contrast situations result in images that demonstrate a High Dynamic Range, HDR for short. Therefore, I tested Active D-Lighting with a series of exposures in high dynamic conditions.
I shot the photo immediately below in the surgeon's quarters in old Fort Point under the Golden Gate as part of one of these series. The photo shows a fairly extreme dynamic range between the bright sunlight coming in through the opening in the stairwell and the dark shadow of the closet on the left. It's the best of the series (described below) that I shot.
View this image larger.
The photo far below is of the staircase in our house, also with a high dynamic range. Like the Fort Point photo, it's the best result of experimenting with Active D-Lighting settings.
For each series, I shot a series of photos at all four Active D-Lighting settings. For each Active D-Lighting setting, I made an exposure using Programmed automatic, Aperture-preferred, and Manual metering. Obviously, this resulted in a 4X3 grid of exposures in each series.
Conclusion
The D300 manual is correct when it suggests that turning on Active D-Lighting reduces the overall exposure (with the degree of this effect determined by the setting, High reducing the exposure to a greater degree than Normal, and Normal having more impact than Low. At the same time, the Active D-Lighting effect does preserve some details in areas that might otherwise go black, for example the floor in the photo of Fort Point above. Active D-Lighting was most impressive in reducing blow-out in the bright parts of the image while not losing detail in shadow areas.
Still, overall I was disappointed in the impact of Active D-Lighting when I made A to B comparisons. First of all, the setting seemed to do nothing when I used manual exposure settings. This is unfortunate for me, because the bulk of my exposures are manual.
Secondly, the impact of Active D-Lighting overall was just not huge. It tames photos with great dynamic range slightly, but not enough to salvage images with extreme dynamic range. There is no quick fix, at least yet. My opinion is that automated HDR post-processing solutions tend to look artificial and vulgar, so one still needs to multiprocess RAW files by hand (possibly using extreme bracketing).
View this image larger.
And where will I set Active D-Lighting as I prowl the world looking for great photos? My conclusion based on my test series is that it really doesn't matter much, so I'll probably leave the setting at the default, which is Normal.
Categories
Photography
Read More Entries by Harold Davis.
Become an O'Reilly Member
Visit the Digital Media Forums
Subscribe to the Digital Media Blog Feed
Subscribe to the Digital Media Newsletter
Harold, let me first of al express my respect and appreciation for the effort you put in communicating your questions and experience with the Nikonians out there.
You quote the Nikon Manual which explicitly prescribes matrix metering when D-Lighting is intended. In your conclusions however you complain about D-Lighting being ineffective for you since you use manual metering most of the time. This raises two questions/remarks:
- Why challenge the D-lighting into processing of files which were created with an (for the purpose) inadequate type of metering?
- Manual metering (I am talking about the Spot metering) gives you full control over your exposure provided you have in depth know how of the Zone System and the characteristics of the sensor (which doen NOT behave like film). Why would you go for this fine art of metering and subsequently let the D-lighting do processing on wich you have no control at all?
If you go for manual metering, you better opt for full controll in a decent image processing package. Or let the camera do the work, starting with matix metering.
Regards,
Walter Jansen
"Puntlicht" Photography
Kind regards,
Walter Jansen
Harold, let me first of al express my respect and appreciation for the effort you put in communicating your questions and experience with the Nikonians out there.
You quote the Nikon Manual which explicitly prescribes matrix metering when D-Lighting is intended. In your conclusions however you complain about D-Lighting being ineffective for you since you use manual metering most of the time. This raises two questions/remarks:
- Why challenge the D-lighting into processing of files which were created with an (for the purpose) inadequate type of metering?
- Manual metering (I am talking about the Spot metering) gives you full control over your exposure provided you have in depth know how of the Zone System and the characteristics of the sensor (which doen NOT behave like film). Why would you go for this fine art of metering and subsequently let the D-lighting do processing on wich you have no control at all?
If you go for manual metering, you better opt for full controll in a decent image processing package. Or let the camera do the work, starting with matix metering.
Regards,
Walter Jansen
"Puntlicht" Photography
Kind regards,
Walter Jansen
Harold, let me first of al express my respect and appreciation for the effort you put in communicating your questions and experience with the Nikonians out there.
You quote the Nikon Manual which explicitly prescribes matrix metering when D-Lighting is intended. In your conclusions however you complain about D-Lighting being ineffective for you since you use manual metering most of the time. This raises two questions/remarks:
- Why challenge the D-lighting into processing of files which were created with an (for the purpose) inadequate type of metering?
- Manual metering (I am talking about the Spot metering) gives you full control over your exposure provided you have in depth know how of the Zone System and the characteristics of the sensor (which doen NOT behave like film). Why would you go for this fine art of metering and subsequently let the D-lighting do processing on wich you have no control at all?
If you go for manual metering, you better opt for full controll in a decent image processing package. Or let the camera do the work, starting with matix metering.
Regards,
Walter Jansen
"Puntlicht" Photography
Kind regards,
Walter Jansen
Active D-Lilghting may or may not be as visible in manual mode, but it's doing something. The D60 is very modal about where it lets you set and adjust each option, and it allows you to turn on and off Active D-Lighting in all modes, including manual.
The reason why you may want it in manual is that to the extent that it works by compressing the dynamic range of the image, that's not something that you can control by changing the shutter speed and the aperture, nor by changing the ISO. In traditional photography the only way to have any effect on the the dynamic range of film was by push- or pull-processing, a la Adams' zone system.
I use a D60 which only has on or off options for Active D-lighting. I have been disappointed by the results, and in fact the pictures (especially mid-tones) are overall darker compared to normal and the highlights appear just as washed out, although the shadows are better exposed.
I have a Coolpix L2 and find the D-Lighting on this camera is a huge asset. Unfortunately on this camera, it has to be performed after each shot, but what a difference in the dark. I like this feature.
At least I have an idea about how this Active D-Lighting works. As written above, in the book is nothing about the results from the various settings. I think perhaps this was a feature added to sell the camera. After using a D-70 for years the D-300 is taking me a while to get used to.
Dude, Full Manual is the best thing ever! I shoot fashion/portraits/architectural/interiors and I could not use automatic modes....
now if your shooting sports...thats something entirely different, I could see the need for automatic settings, but bagging on Manual settings shows just how little you really know about photography!
psshh!
I have to disagree with the post blogger.
Active D-Lighting is better than you've stated. I've seen and done some amazing things with it. Is it the panacea....no...but better than what you state.
HDR post processing is only "artificial and vulgar" if the person processing it over does it. I've personally done a few HDRs and they have come out natural looking. You might want to revisit HDR processing some more before you make a blanket statement as such.
As far as Active D-Lighting in manual mode goes....why would you want that? If you are shooting in manual mode, the camera assumes you want total control.
I personally think that full manual mode is a waste of time, especially if speed is important(which it is with a lot of the clients I shoot for). Shutter priority or aperture priority make more sense for me.