Following on from a post I put up earlier in the hope of getting a better all round photo I was wondering what kind of settings people have with their Picture Styles - or even if anyone pays any attention to it?
It's where you select the preset ones already on the camera such as Standard/Portrait/Landscape/Neutral/Faithful etc.
Do any of you guys out there use your own?
My settings are as follows:
Sharpness: 3 of 7
Contrast: -3
Saturation: 0
Color Tone: 0
I am wondering if this really matters so much if I shoot RAW?
Thank you in advance for your help if you get time to answer.
Steve
Sorry Steve, I don't think I have these settings? I have an old 350D, digital Rebel XT. It might be in there somewhere, deeeeeeep in the menus. But I shoot mostly raw as well, so, no it doesn't affect my photos.
I think those are the presets that would apply to JPEG conversion. With RAW you do that yourself in post process (contrast, saturation, sharpness, tone... etc). I use LR5.
I never use the styles. I shoot 99% in "M" as it gives me control of what my cameras does. Selecting any other shooting mode you give up some or all control of what the image looks like. Another setting that should not be overlooked is WB. In mixed lighting I will use "auto WB" and outdoors I use cloudy WB. I also suggest you learn about the histogram to know what the light is for the image. It also suggested that you shoot the same scene form the same spot using all the settings to see the difference. As with anything it is worth the time and effort. Photography is all about light, learn about light also.
@adambralston@funkster So I know that the RAW file is the very flat image that is uncompressed and you sort it in post etc...but...am I wrong to think that the EOS Picture Styles affect the RAW in any way, or is it just JPEG's that the settings are applied to?
@chapjohn John...I might try shooting the same scene with the different settings as you say. I confess to not using the histogram, I find that if I am looking at the histogram with the picture on the LCD only in small form next to the other information, that I then don't look at the picture to see if I need to re-compose etc. I guess I could hit the INFO button and then view the shot large on the LCD... :)
@stevecameras First, I wish I hadn't responded on the other thread until I saw your photos. They're really awesome, and I shouldn't be giving any type of input.
That said, I'm not really sure the histogram is that helpful most of the time. I use my light meter, and I know the look I want. I think that the LCD is more helpful and burn areas... etc... but, sometimes, the histogram lies? Especially when it doesn't know what I am trying to do. That's just my take.
I mean, I look at it, and I understand when I have completely clipped some highlights etc.. but what if I am shooting a scene with the sun directly in it? The histogram is going to hate that! But, eh, whatever...
Plus, even if it is a bellshaped curve perfectly centered, what the heck does that mean????
A snow scene with a black tree in the middle will have like two spikes.
A three color image hi-key on a white background might have three big spikes right in the middle. Anyway, histograms are covered in that Understanding Exposure book.
But, I don't think that any of the EOS settings matter at all if you are shooting RAW. There will be no processing applied to the RAW file at all until you do it -- either in camera I think in some models, or in the software. Somebody please tell me if I am just totally wrong about that....
Picture Styles will only affect raw files if you process them in Canon's DPP software. (And in that case, all it's doing is taking the picture settings configured on the camera and applying it to the raw file as it opens it -- you can still adjust the picture style or choose a completely different one in DPP).
If you use Lightroom, ACR, or another raw processor that's not Canon's, the picture styles have absolutely no effect on the raw file. You can test this by choosing a picture style with the saturation all the way down (which will create a black and white image) and opening the raw in your preferred software (which will show a colour photo).
Picture styles will, however, affect the previews shown on the camera display, and the histogram. So if you are using a non-neutral picture style you can't rely on the histogram to accurately show underexposure and overexposure issues.
@abirkill
Thank you for getting in touch Alexis - another pro giving advice is invaluable :)
So would I be better off choosing the Neutral style to get an even reading of the Histogram?
Going through the 7D manual PDF on my laptop a little earlier, I noticed that it said for users who "process photos using a computer" choose Neutral or Faithful styles.
Is this what you do?
I must confess to not really using the DPP software properly, but I have always got the impression - perhaps incorrectly - that this software is a little clunky, and non user-friendly, and that sticking to Lightroom or ACR and Photoshop etc is better.
@adambralston
Adam, don't apologise, and please I am always up for advice. I love talking about it like this, because I do feel like I have loads to learn.
I think it comes from knowing what a good photo is, seeing and very much appreciating really good photos, but not being in a position (yet :) to actually take those photos. So, I am always trying to learn more on my way to being as good as I can be.
And thank you for your comments about my photos, it's kind of you to say. Yours too are great. I Followed you so I can see more.
As for Histograms, I have the same thoughts as you. If I want high-key then the histo will suggest I am over-exposed. But that's the point right? I know for high-key as one example, you might not want to lose all the detail in the highlights in-camera, and should perhaps try and expose the shot so that you can push it a little later on in post, but sometimes, with the sun or a window, or a flame etc, the histogram will be showing me what I think I already know.
I think that's why I have never relied on it. But I will revisit. I know a lot of people, pros and amateurs do use it.
And given what Alexis above says, you are indeed right that there is zero adjustment to the RAW file with these settings. I do know about how RAW works but, I did think the Styles had some affect. I think shooting Neutral or Faithful, after some testing at home is the way forward.
Matters naught if you shoot raw. The raw processor's defaults will determine what your starting image will look like. Perhaps if you use your camera manufacturer's raw converter the "style" will be the starting point. With Nikon that's the way it works with the style (control) imported even if custom.
@stevecameras I use neutral because I rely on the histogram for exposure on most of my landscape work, so I want the histogram I see on the camera screen to match the histogram of the raw file as accurately as possible.
However, if you don't use the histogram, there's no reason why you shouldn't use a different picture style if you want. Some people like to see a more 'processed' version of the photo on the back of the camera, with boosts to contrast and saturation, and if you shoot in raw you still have all of the original data to play with when you get the file back to the computer.
I'm not advocating using DPP -- while many people do and it has some nice functionality, I personally much prefer using ACR or Lightroom for raw file processing. However, DPP is the only software that will read the 'flag' in the raw file saying what picture style was set on the camera, and apply it when it processes the raw file. (So if you set a monochrome picture style on your camera, non-Canon processing software will display the raw file in colour, whereas DPP will read that and apply a monochrome conversion automatically, although it can be removed to get the original data).
@abirkill Thank you Alexis. I might try shooting in Neutral and using the histogram for a while to see how I get on. I want to improve and I know that relying on an LCD preview of a RAW that won't look the same on my computer is not the best way to go about it. :)
@abirkill Alexis, I guess if you are going to process the RAW file with software afterwards anyway, why not just use Lightroom or ACR right? I guess I shoot RAW because I want all the information of the file that my camera can capture, but because I also want to have total control over the exposure, etc. in post.
Isn't shooting with any preset that will automatically alter the RAW file kind of like shooting JPEG -lite? What I mean is that if you are going to trust the camera to make the alterations, why shoot RAW?
I guess that this is just a Canon improvement. Something between RAW and some other conversion file. But, it's pointless if you know what you can do in Lightroom already to show you what a pre-processed shot will look like on a small LCD vs your computer, or film, or large TV or whatever... anyway...
I have never really thought the packaged Canon products were great. Ever use PhotoStitch or ZoomBrowser EX?
And, @abirkill Are there other specific times when you rely on Histogram more than others, other than landscape photos? I look at it, I use it, but I just take it as one more bit of information to use in the moment... "Histo is blown out pretty for right, Exposure compensation -1/2 or adjust shutter speed if it doesn't matter for this shot .... etc....
"
@adambralston I try to keep an open mind -- picture styles are not something that benefit me at all when I shoot raw (and indeed, when the mess with the histogram, they make things worse for me), but that's not to say they don't have any use.
For example, I know some photographers who like using a black and white picture style when they are specifically taking a shot they plan to convert to black and white. By setting the picture style, they can see a rough black and white conversion on the camera display, and get a better feel for what the final result will be, while still having the full colour raw file to do an advanced black and white conversion when they get the file back onto the computer. Many of them take far better black and white photos than I do, so who am I to judge!
Again, I don't personally see any value for me in having a picture style automatically applied to a raw file, even if it can be removed, but you can do very similar things in Lightroom and ACR, which allow you to set default settings or entire presets which will be applied to all raw files you load. Some people find that speeds up their workflow. My advice is to make (informed) decisions based on what works for you. Whatever you, your camera, or your software, does to a raw file can always be undone, so it really comes down to convenience.
I very rarely use any of Canon's software tools. DPP has a neat feature called Digital Lens Optimiser which contains algorithms to mathematically reverse distortion and diffraction, based on the exact lens and aperture in use. That's pretty much the only function I'll use in DPP, and even then only in unusual circumstances, before exporting to 16-bit TIFF to continue processing in ACR. (By 'unusual circumstances', I mean that I doubt I've used it in the last 6 months). The Canon stitching software is far too basic for the very advanced stitching work I do, but perfectly adequate if you're just starting to learn about stitching panoramas.
I rely on the histogram for pretty much every photo I take, as well as the 'blinking highlights' function which is driven from the histogram data. Overexposure is unrecoverable so I always try and avoid it. Underexposure results in shadow noise when you fix it in post-processing, so I always try and avoid that too. Generally I will tweak all of my exposures down to 1/3rd of a stop (just to the point before overexposure of anything but point light sources starts to occur, roughly-speaking). If I underexpose by a stop then all my shadow details end up noisier than they should be. If I overexpose by a stop then beautiful golden sunsets turn into glare.
In-camera, the histogram tells me when my exposure is correct, but also tells me when I need to add a graduated filter to control the dynamic range (when the highlights are controlled but the shadows are too deep), when I need to resort to HDR, when HDR is entirely pointless (I see so many photographers doing HDR bracketing on low-contrast scenes where the histogram for a single shot reaches nowhere near either the left or right sides), and so on.
In post-processing, the histogram gives me information on how to set all of the primary sliders (exposure, contrast, whites, highlights, shadows, blacks), guides me on white balance and tint selections, makes sure I'm producing images with a full range of tones (you'll frequently see beginners at post-processing try and correct overexposure by sliding the whites and/or highlights sliders all the way to the left, resulting in a weird effect where there's still no data in the highlights, but there's also no whites in the image, resulting in weird 'grey' highlights), and so on. The histogram is but one tool in the arsenal, but for landscape work where you're working with available light, I find it one of the most valuable, both before and after I release the shutter.
@abirkill Thank you Alexis.
I found this very useful. I will look next time I am taking some shots where I have more time to look at the exposure and make some decisions about it - unlike tonight where I fired off a snap or two just to grab a shot for the day.
I feel like I do know the processes and reasons for the things you say. I put the posts today up about settings, profiles etc because I want to know if there is more to think about regarding the camera, but also because I am just curious as to how other people work.
But I also know that there are times, where unlike you who I would feel sure shoot in a very controlled way, I do have times where I shoot and I am not really thinking as much as I can at that very moment, about exposure in the way I should be. Hence why my 365 looks like a varied amateur-ish range of shots where just occasionally I make a nice one. I think I just want to get a better and more consistent hit rate when I shoot.
I have gone RAW in year two, and it has made such a great difference, but I can say that I use the mono setting on my Canon Rebel when I intend to work in black and white, even though the import of the file will be in color. But the initial feedback on my camera screen is very beneficial, and I almost exclusively shoot in manual now. I'm still learning, but it was nice to know I could use the settings for that initial feedback. It also gives me a heads up in what I might want to process or need to do as soon as I import it into LR5. I know I'm no help. I just wanted to get in on the discussion ! ;)
@darylo All good thank you Daryl...!
Welcome to the discussion! :)
I'm going to try just shooting as I do, but in Neutral and using the Histogram a lot more to see if I can get more out of my exposures...!
Write a Reply
Sign up for a free account or Sign in to post a comment.
Tweets ahoy!
Join the Group
Pin With Me
I think those are the presets that would apply to JPEG conversion. With RAW you do that yourself in post process (contrast, saturation, sharpness, tone... etc). I use LR5.
That said, I'm not really sure the histogram is that helpful most of the time. I use my light meter, and I know the look I want. I think that the LCD is more helpful and burn areas... etc... but, sometimes, the histogram lies? Especially when it doesn't know what I am trying to do. That's just my take.
I mean, I look at it, and I understand when I have completely clipped some highlights etc.. but what if I am shooting a scene with the sun directly in it? The histogram is going to hate that! But, eh, whatever...
Plus, even if it is a bellshaped curve perfectly centered, what the heck does that mean????
A snow scene with a black tree in the middle will have like two spikes.
A three color image hi-key on a white background might have three big spikes right in the middle. Anyway, histograms are covered in that Understanding Exposure book.
But, I don't think that any of the EOS settings matter at all if you are shooting RAW. There will be no processing applied to the RAW file at all until you do it -- either in camera I think in some models, or in the software. Somebody please tell me if I am just totally wrong about that....
If you use Lightroom, ACR, or another raw processor that's not Canon's, the picture styles have absolutely no effect on the raw file. You can test this by choosing a picture style with the saturation all the way down (which will create a black and white image) and opening the raw in your preferred software (which will show a colour photo).
Picture styles will, however, affect the previews shown on the camera display, and the histogram. So if you are using a non-neutral picture style you can't rely on the histogram to accurately show underexposure and overexposure issues.
Thank you for getting in touch Alexis - another pro giving advice is invaluable :)
So would I be better off choosing the Neutral style to get an even reading of the Histogram?
Going through the 7D manual PDF on my laptop a little earlier, I noticed that it said for users who "process photos using a computer" choose Neutral or Faithful styles.
Is this what you do?
I must confess to not really using the DPP software properly, but I have always got the impression - perhaps incorrectly - that this software is a little clunky, and non user-friendly, and that sticking to Lightroom or ACR and Photoshop etc is better.
Adam, don't apologise, and please I am always up for advice. I love talking about it like this, because I do feel like I have loads to learn.
I think it comes from knowing what a good photo is, seeing and very much appreciating really good photos, but not being in a position (yet :) to actually take those photos. So, I am always trying to learn more on my way to being as good as I can be.
And thank you for your comments about my photos, it's kind of you to say. Yours too are great. I Followed you so I can see more.
As for Histograms, I have the same thoughts as you. If I want high-key then the histo will suggest I am over-exposed. But that's the point right? I know for high-key as one example, you might not want to lose all the detail in the highlights in-camera, and should perhaps try and expose the shot so that you can push it a little later on in post, but sometimes, with the sun or a window, or a flame etc, the histogram will be showing me what I think I already know.
I think that's why I have never relied on it. But I will revisit. I know a lot of people, pros and amateurs do use it.
And given what Alexis above says, you are indeed right that there is zero adjustment to the RAW file with these settings. I do know about how RAW works but, I did think the Styles had some affect. I think shooting Neutral or Faithful, after some testing at home is the way forward.
However, if you don't use the histogram, there's no reason why you shouldn't use a different picture style if you want. Some people like to see a more 'processed' version of the photo on the back of the camera, with boosts to contrast and saturation, and if you shoot in raw you still have all of the original data to play with when you get the file back to the computer.
I'm not advocating using DPP -- while many people do and it has some nice functionality, I personally much prefer using ACR or Lightroom for raw file processing. However, DPP is the only software that will read the 'flag' in the raw file saying what picture style was set on the camera, and apply it when it processes the raw file. (So if you set a monochrome picture style on your camera, non-Canon processing software will display the raw file in colour, whereas DPP will read that and apply a monochrome conversion automatically, although it can be removed to get the original data).
Isn't shooting with any preset that will automatically alter the RAW file kind of like shooting JPEG -lite? What I mean is that if you are going to trust the camera to make the alterations, why shoot RAW?
I guess that this is just a Canon improvement. Something between RAW and some other conversion file. But, it's pointless if you know what you can do in Lightroom already to show you what a pre-processed shot will look like on a small LCD vs your computer, or film, or large TV or whatever... anyway...
I have never really thought the packaged Canon products were great. Ever use PhotoStitch or ZoomBrowser EX?
And, @abirkill Are there other specific times when you rely on Histogram more than others, other than landscape photos? I look at it, I use it, but I just take it as one more bit of information to use in the moment... "Histo is blown out pretty for right, Exposure compensation -1/2 or adjust shutter speed if it doesn't matter for this shot .... etc....
"
For example, I know some photographers who like using a black and white picture style when they are specifically taking a shot they plan to convert to black and white. By setting the picture style, they can see a rough black and white conversion on the camera display, and get a better feel for what the final result will be, while still having the full colour raw file to do an advanced black and white conversion when they get the file back onto the computer. Many of them take far better black and white photos than I do, so who am I to judge!
Again, I don't personally see any value for me in having a picture style automatically applied to a raw file, even if it can be removed, but you can do very similar things in Lightroom and ACR, which allow you to set default settings or entire presets which will be applied to all raw files you load. Some people find that speeds up their workflow. My advice is to make (informed) decisions based on what works for you. Whatever you, your camera, or your software, does to a raw file can always be undone, so it really comes down to convenience.
I very rarely use any of Canon's software tools. DPP has a neat feature called Digital Lens Optimiser which contains algorithms to mathematically reverse distortion and diffraction, based on the exact lens and aperture in use. That's pretty much the only function I'll use in DPP, and even then only in unusual circumstances, before exporting to 16-bit TIFF to continue processing in ACR. (By 'unusual circumstances', I mean that I doubt I've used it in the last 6 months). The Canon stitching software is far too basic for the very advanced stitching work I do, but perfectly adequate if you're just starting to learn about stitching panoramas.
I rely on the histogram for pretty much every photo I take, as well as the 'blinking highlights' function which is driven from the histogram data. Overexposure is unrecoverable so I always try and avoid it. Underexposure results in shadow noise when you fix it in post-processing, so I always try and avoid that too. Generally I will tweak all of my exposures down to 1/3rd of a stop (just to the point before overexposure of anything but point light sources starts to occur, roughly-speaking). If I underexpose by a stop then all my shadow details end up noisier than they should be. If I overexpose by a stop then beautiful golden sunsets turn into glare.
In-camera, the histogram tells me when my exposure is correct, but also tells me when I need to add a graduated filter to control the dynamic range (when the highlights are controlled but the shadows are too deep), when I need to resort to HDR, when HDR is entirely pointless (I see so many photographers doing HDR bracketing on low-contrast scenes where the histogram for a single shot reaches nowhere near either the left or right sides), and so on.
In post-processing, the histogram gives me information on how to set all of the primary sliders (exposure, contrast, whites, highlights, shadows, blacks), guides me on white balance and tint selections, makes sure I'm producing images with a full range of tones (you'll frequently see beginners at post-processing try and correct overexposure by sliding the whites and/or highlights sliders all the way to the left, resulting in a weird effect where there's still no data in the highlights, but there's also no whites in the image, resulting in weird 'grey' highlights), and so on. The histogram is but one tool in the arsenal, but for landscape work where you're working with available light, I find it one of the most valuable, both before and after I release the shutter.
I found this very useful. I will look next time I am taking some shots where I have more time to look at the exposure and make some decisions about it - unlike tonight where I fired off a snap or two just to grab a shot for the day.
I feel like I do know the processes and reasons for the things you say. I put the posts today up about settings, profiles etc because I want to know if there is more to think about regarding the camera, but also because I am just curious as to how other people work.
But I also know that there are times, where unlike you who I would feel sure shoot in a very controlled way, I do have times where I shoot and I am not really thinking as much as I can at that very moment, about exposure in the way I should be. Hence why my 365 looks like a varied amateur-ish range of shots where just occasionally I make a nice one. I think I just want to get a better and more consistent hit rate when I shoot.
Thanks for all your help.
Welcome to the discussion! :)
I'm going to try just shooting as I do, but in Neutral and using the Histogram a lot more to see if I can get more out of my exposures...!