depscribe's photos

She's a clothing designer and nurse. This picture was the cover of a small local magazine.

Shopping in the one big grocery store in Athens, Ohio, I saw this scene and made a quick picture. Because changes at the store cause a lot of local conversation, I put it up for possible use in the newspaper, and it was used. I was a little concerned that people would be horrified by the dirt that had accumulated under the row of shelves, but no: the head of the local convention and visitors agency wrote a poison-pen email to the boss of the company that owns the paper, saying that people would be kept from visiting our area because of the workman's backside showing a little and that I should be got rid of. A week later, the boss of the company decided that the paper couldn't afford photographs and that the reporters would henceforth illustrate the paper via their telephones. And I was gone.

As I mentioned, these are all jpegs straight from the camera. I'd fiddle with the highlights a little and I'm not sure what else. The blue light from the left was there because . . . hell, I have no idea; it was the designer's vision or lack thereof. But my overall conclusion is that the D500 is good for publication purposes at least up to ISO 51,200.

I confess that it wasn't until after I'd edited my pictures and shipped them to the newspaper that I realized the camera had taken it this far. I set 51,200 as my upward limit, though the camera goes much higher. Based on tests I've seen from others, 51,200 is the point after which image quality degrades more rapidly. This picture, I think, is as good as a 6400 from the D7100. (I've not shot a D7200; when it came out there was something about it I didn't much like, though I don't remember what -- probably that it wasn't a D500.)

It's also with the lens zoomed back to 32mm, which is evidence of my suspicion that focal length is overwhelmingly important in the camera's decision as to ISO. It was shot at 1/60, f4.

The high ISO is due, I think, to Nikon's very conservative treatment of long focal lengths -- in this case 230mm. I'd like at this point to say that while the 18-300 is good, a 16-260 would be better, a 16-260 f4 would be better still, and a 16-260 f2.8-4 would be so good I'd glue it to the camera.

Note that the lighting was not especially well designed, in my estimation -- the guy's forehead was not red and the camera didn't make it so. It's not long ago that a picture this sharp shot at 7200 would have been laughably impossible.

This is better than I imagined it would be, though I'd bring the highlights down a bit in post. The D500 does seem eager to push the ISO for steadiness when the lens is zoomed in tight. All these pictures were made with the Nikkor 18-300mm f3.5-6.3 zoom, an under-appreciated lens in my view.

To my eye, it looks better than 6400 from the D7100, though it also seems a little hot to me. With processing, highlights could be brought down a bit.