u/meisjemeisje_1421

I recently did a tethered photoshoot for the first time with my Nikon Z9 connected by USB-C to Capture One Mobile on my iPad Pro.

Setup:

• Nikon Z9
• Capture One Mobile on iPad
• USB connection priority on the Z9: Shooting
• Tether connection shown in Capture One: PTP
• Card 1: NEF
• Card 2: JPEG
• Image quality: RAW + JPEG

During the shoot, Capture One Mobile received the images normally. I ended up with several hundred RAW + JPG files on the iPad.

Afterwards, I checked both camera cards on my computer. Both cards show the same gap:

• RAW card: D79_3892.NEF at 13:02, then next file D79_3893.NEF at 13:37
• JPEG card: D79_3892.JPG at 13:02, then next file D79_3893.JPG at 13:37

So for about 35 minutes, images continued arriving in Capture One Mobile on the iPad, but neither camera card recorded the captures. After 13:37, writing to both cards resumed normally.

Capture One Mobile renamed the tethered files, but I matched them to the Z9 card files by timestamp and file size, so this is a real gap in local card recording and not just a filename issue.

Has anyone experienced this with a Nikon Z9, or another camera, tethered to Capture One Mobile over PTP?

I’m especially wondering:

1. Can local card recording temporarily stop during a tethered session while Capture One Mobile keeps receiving files?
2. Could this happen after a reconnect, cable issue, or other change?
3. Is there a Nikon or Capture One Mobile setting that could cause this?
4. Is there a reliable way to verify during a shoot that every tethered image is being saved to the camera cards?

Any experience or troubleshooting ideas would be appreciated.

This was a location shoot with three hired models, so discovering afterwards that both camera cards had a 35-minute recording gap was quite stressful. Thankfully, the missing images were still available on the iPad, but I would really like to understand what happened so I can prevent it on future shoots, ... and don't die young of a heart attack. ;)

I want to check if my current setup makes sense, especially from people who do both stills and video/color grading.

Monitor setup

• ASUS ProArt PA32UCDM OLED
• Calibrated with ColourSpace LTE
• i1D3 colorimeter
• Separate hardware LUTs uploaded directly into the monitor:
  • sRGB, gamma 2.2, D65, 100 nits
  • Rec.709, gamma 2.4, D65, 100 nits
• NVIDIA driver: RGB, Full range, 10 bpc, Reference Mode enabled
• Windows automatic color management for apps: Off

For DaVinci Resolve Studio

For grading, I switch the monitor to the Rec.709 hardware LUT. I do not rely on Windows ICC color management for Resolve monitoring. The idea is:

Resolve viewer/output → neutral GPU output → calibrated Rec.709 monitor LUT

Disclaimer: I know a DeckLink/UltraStudio output would be better, but for now I’m using the normal GPU output.

Does this seem like a clean/correct setup for Resolve, or should I handle the Windows ICC profile differently?

For Lightroom/Photoshop

For photo editing, I switch the monitor to the sRGB hardware LUT and set the Windows display profile to sRGB IEC61966-2.1. Lightroom/Photoshop are then editing RAW files in their usual wide ProPhoto RGB) working spaces, but displaying through the sRGB monitor profile.

My understanding is:

Monitor 1D + 3D LUT = corrects the display to the chosen target
Windows ICC profile = tells Lightroom/Photoshop what the display currently is
DVR = not ICC profile aware.

Does this seem technically correct?

More specifically:

1. Should the Windows ICC profile always match the active monitor LUT/preset, for example sRGB profile when the monitor is in sRGB mode, Rec.709 profile when in Rec.709 mode, etc.?
2. For professional photo editing, is it better to use a hardware-calibrated sRGB mode with the standard sRGB ICC profile, or to use the monitor’s native wide gamut with a custom ICC profile?
3. If using native gamut, what ICC profile should be used in Windows: a custom ICC profile made after calibration with e.g. Light Illusion SpaceMan?

I want to check if my current setup makes sense.

My monitor setup:

• ASUS ProArt PA32UCDM OLED
• Calibrated with ColourSpace LTE
• i1D3 colorimeter
• -> sRGB, 100 nits --> 1D + 3D LUT uploaded directly into the monitor
• NVIDIA output: RGB, Full range, 10 bpc, Reference Mode enabled

For Windows:

• Windows automatic color management for apps: Off
• Windows display profile: sRGB IEC61966-2.1 set as the current SDR profile
• Editing RAW files in Lightroom/Photoshop, with default ProPhoto RGB working spaces

My understanding is that the monitor 1D + 3D LUT corrects the display to sRGB, while the Windows ICC profile tells Lightroom/Photoshop that the calibrated display should be treated as sRGB.

1. Does this seem like a clean and technically correct setup for Lightroom/Photoshop?
2. For Lightroom and Photoshop, the Windows ICC profile need to match the active monitor LUT/preset every time I switch the display between sRGB, Rec.709, Adobe RGB, or native gamut?
3. For Lightroom/Photoshop specifically, is it better to use my current sRGB hardware-calibrated mode with the standard sRGB IEC61966-2.1 profile, or would a native-gamut calibration with a custom ICC profile be preferable for professional photo editing?

How do you deal with client expectations shaped by computational photography?

I recently photographed an event where the lighting was challenging. There was a wide dynamic range, mixed and uneven light, and not many moments where the scene looked effortlessly polished. I brought along both my Nikon Z9 and Zf, but most of the shots ended up being taken with the Z9.

I was still able to deliver a set of technically solid, well-lit photos. I edited them with selective masking and local adjustments, but I kept the overall look fairly realistic and true to the actual conditions.

When I shared the gallery, I got the impression that the organizer was hoping for something a bit more “spectacular.” I noticed that some attendees had taken smartphone photos, and it seemed like she reacted more positively to those. The phone images had that appealing look: faces were evenly lit, with controlled, punchy contrast, giving off a sort of instant ‘cinematic’ feel, and the lighting appeared flawless

I found that surprisingly difficult to deal with. Maybe part of it is my own skill level, and I’m open to that. But I also feel that computational photography has changed what non-photographers expect from images, especially in difficult lighting. Phones often produce an immediately pleasing version of reality, while professional cameras give us a more honest file that still requires judgement and restraint.

For those of you shooting events professionally: do you feel pressure to match the “perfect” computational look of smartphone photos? How do you handle clients who seem to prefer that kind of processing?

EDIT: I’m not looking for critique on my images, but I’m curious whether others recognise this and how they deal with it.