Options
Canon 7D - Customizing a picture style
timberrattle
Registered Users Posts: 40 Big grins
While shooting in the standard picture style, has anyone tried different Settings. (customized)
Seems I usually bump up the saturation and sharpness when I edit my shots. I'm thinking why not just bump up sharpness and saturation within the standard picture style?
Has anyone tried this and how did it work for you? Thanks!
Seems I usually bump up the saturation and sharpness when I edit my shots. I'm thinking why not just bump up sharpness and saturation within the standard picture style?
Has anyone tried this and how did it work for you? Thanks!
0
Comments
Keep in mind that when making settings like the above, one should trust the in-cam histogram less; best to dial in about +2/3 EC for normal shooting conditions. The 255 blinkies in quick review I don't worry about, because with the settings above, it is all good (usually) upon actual review in post. Some photogs just make the style neutral with no + or - changes and then go by the in-cam histogram and make the alterations to contrast, saturation and sharpening on each keeper shot in post. Either way, everybody probably messes with each shot a different way. It is important to find a way that works for you best to fit the situation.
"You miss 100% of the shots you don't take" - Wayne Gretzky
"RAW, of course, is not affected unless I bring them into Canon's DPP" Not sure what this means and what does DPP stand for?
As a novice, would you suggest I shot in RAW or JPEG? Thanks again
RAW shots have more data in them, but you need RAW-aware software to do anything with those shots if you are to edit and save those for later. Canon cameras have, for years, shipped with a DVD that has many types of photo software, including Canon's Digital Photo Professional, which is Canon's own RAW editor I spoke of. It can't do everything, but as a front-end RAW file editor/manager, it does pretty well. From there, many will save a TIFF file and/or port those shots over to Photoshop, or something similar, for fine tuning and for the final JPEG image - ready to share/print anywhere. Original RAW files are kept safe as a form of digital negative. Photoshop has a module called Adobe Camera Raw (ACR for short) that has similar and greater capabilities.
JPEG shots are already "cooked" in the camera, and are processed with the profile settings you have set in the camera. Not to say that one can't alter the pictures later in editing -- you can. The niggle in JPEG's is that there is less color information (in bits) in JPEG's making them generally less desirable if you're going to be editing the heck out of them. Yet many people do just that, though, and with great success. Wedding and sports photographers, as examples, need to get a great number of pictures ready for potential clients in a hurry. Messing with RAW files, even in batches, might not be the best use of their time. To make up for that they have learned to shoot better and more accurately with JPEG's and might use those out-of-camera JPEG's with their custom settings (picture styles, if you will) with little or no post editing.
What I meant by that, and I should have included above, is that the review image you see on the camera's LCD display, is a JPEG representation of a shot. Even if you don't have the camera save JPEG's, it is what a JPEG would look like, because the camera uses the style settings to render an image there in the LCD. The histogram seen in instant review reflects those settings. So if you pump up the contrast beyond "0," you might see the blinky whites and think you have blown out the highlights. This would be true of the saved JPEG shot if your camera was producing them, but the RAW picture (again, if you have your camera save those too), is not affected in a similar way, because a RAW file is just data made by the camera's sensor at time of exposure. You can develop that with a RAW editor to include any style you choose, after the fact. If you totally make a horribly exposed image, though, those can't be saved much in post editing. RAW's have limits - they're just more flexible limits than what a JPEG can accept.
A JPEG image from the camera has what you have set in styles already applied. Some post editing might make them even better. The files are usually greatly compressed, with data loss.
A RAW image contains data only; is not initially a processed shot; is essentially a neutral image that can be messed with more in post; needs special software to make it into another image type; and acts like a digital negative. RAW files are not compressed (with Canon) and have no data loss. The files are huge.
Your camera can make both those types at the same time, or one or the other.
If you are new to this type of camera and editing, I would suggest to shoot JPEG's for a while and learn your way around editing suites, and then add RAW's to your work flow and play with those after you are comfortable with what JPEGS can offer.
"You miss 100% of the shots you don't take" - Wayne Gretzky
Question: I have been shooting in RAW. So if I were to pump up the contrast and sharpness in standard picture style which I shoot in; this will not have any effect on the picture/file because it is a RAW file??
But If I were to shoot in JPEG and pump up the contrast and sharpness I would see an immediate change in the picture/file? And then I could also post edit the file if I desired?
One more thing: I'm on a MAC computer which came with iPhoto. I upload the pictures I take from my camera to iPhoto. I have been shooting exclusively in RAW. I have been editing these pictures/files in iPhoto. So does iPhoto have the capabilities to edit RAW files or did it somehow change these files to JPEG? I think they are still in RAW format but not certain!
Thanks for taking the time to help!
Correct
yes
Up to a point, yes. However, because a lot of information is lost in creating the jpeg, you will have less flexibility in editing it. Sometimes you won't bump up against this, but other times you will.
To each his own, but within weeks of first trying raw, I stopped shooting raw+jpeg and have just shot raw for years. My own personal preference is that I want as much control as possible, and I like being able to make decisions after the fact. Also, shooting raw frees you from the tyranny of white balance settings. you set WB in post, and if you are in tricky lighting, you just have to shoot one shot with a neutral reference card.
Just to emphasize what David and Paddler already said, JPGs are fine if you have good lighting control with moderate scene dynamic range, and if you select proper exposure. If you deal with changing light or broad dynamic range, RAW has much more data included to allow "you" to decide in post-processing how you wish to use the dynamic range.
In uncertain light or difficult white balance conditions, RAW capture is a necessity if you wish to correct for WB in post. Tungsten lighting and florescent lighting are likely to benefit from RAW, as color channels can get clipped highlights and/or squashed blacks.
Whenever you're not sure, shoot to RAW files.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
My SmugMug Galleries
I have gone back and re-edited RAW files shot and edited 5 or 10 years ago, with current Raw engines like Lightroom 4 or 5, and was able to significantly improve images I shot and processed years ago with the older Raw engines.
This is a real advantage, one that cannot be over estimated in my opinion.
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
1. Simplicity: The photos are ready for export if you don't care to edit, or are just cropping.
2. Less storage demand: Smaller files require less memory.
3. Faster upload speeds: If you're shooting on deadline and transmitting live, sometimes this is of value.
I like to edit, memory is cheap, and even shooting live and on deadline I still shoot RAW.
Any of the popular editing applications (Photoshop, Lightroom) will handle RAW files from all major camera brands just fine. And for cases in which you might have used a profile preset in camera to create jpegs (e.g. saturation or sharpening) you can accomplish the same thing by applying a batch edit in your post processing.
Like others said, RAW files give you much more editorial flexibility. And I also emphasize the ability to go back, years later, and make your old shots look even better.
Link to my Smugmug site
Yeah, that's one of the better reasons. I don't shoot enough bursts to do this even in RAW, but understand some people do.
iPhoto certainly will edit RAW files, and can convert them to JPG for you as well (two obvious reasons for that need: to make a print you need a JPG, or to share a photo via email/Facebook/whatever you need a JPG file).
iPhoto will also keep your RAW file "as is", so that you can later re-edit the file in a new way. This is called non-destructive editing. iPhoto, Aperture and Lightroom all support this.
A former sports shooter
Follow me at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bjurasz/
My Etsy store: https://www.etsy.com/shop/mercphoto?ref=hdr_shop_menu
that's true and I read where the Olympic photographers were shooting jpegs but for me shooting RAW offers so many advantages in processing
For sports shooters on a very tight deadline and transmitting wirelessly to the photo desk, it is true that many shooters shoot jpegs. All of the pro sports shooters I know--including many who were at Sochi--regularly shoot RAW in almost all other cases. (OK, I know one exception but I wouldn't say that person's photography is very well edited.)
There is some price to be paid in download speeds. And for transmitting wirelessly to the desk for an editor to work on them, there is some advantage to jpegs. For most other serious photographers, RAW is the way to go for a whole host of reasons. I only once shot an event with jpeg, but that was because my editorial software couldn't handle the RAW files off my new Canon X body that I just got hours before.
My mind is like a pocket full of dollar bills at a strip club -BLOWN. You all just taught me more about how my little T3 works
hope you have been convinced to shoot RAW (but that requires more processing choices)