Ken Rockwell's 30D Users Guide

[gregory_hopefl]

I've recently dipped my toe into the digital world and have found the

transitional experience from film a bit daunting! Since I already had some

good EF glass, 24-70L, 50 1.4, & 70-200L IS, I chose the EOS 30D. Comments on

Ken's suggested settings for the 30D would be appreciated:

www.kenrockwell.com/canon/30d/users-guide.htm.

 

Background: I'm coming towards digital from a 40+ year fascination and near

obsession with photography. Currently also shooting with an EOS 1V and, em,

Leica M7. Also, I don't like to spend a lot of time behind a computer screen--

though printing my own stuff again is exciting.

[geoffs1]

Ken's an interesting writer. Pretty (openly) opinionated. About the only thing I'd suggest you think about at the start is his fascination with shooting JPEGs at lowish quality. Personally, I prefer the extra flexibility of RAW. Other than that pet, I'd suggest you take everything he says with a grain of salt and experiment to find settings that work for you with the kind of shooting you do. With that said, you could do worse than starting with his suggestions.

 

Cheers,

 

Geoff S.

[bobatkins]

In the days of $400 1GB memory cards using medium quality JPEGs might have made some sense if you couldn't afford much storage.

 

Since today you can get 2GB cards for under $50, saving space by using lower quality image settings makes little sense.

 

By all means switch from "fine" to "normal" JPEGs if you're down to your last 50MB on the card and you need to squeeze in more images than the "fine" setting will give you.

 

If you want to preserve all your option for the future, shoot "RAW + fine JPEG". If you don't want to mess with RAW files, just archive them and work with your JPEGs.

[jim_doty]

This is how I set up the 20D and 5D. Much of this will apply to the 30D.

 

http://jimdoty.com/Digital/20d_menu_settings/20d_menu_settings.html

 

http://jimdoty.com/Digital/5d_menu_settings/5d_menu_settings.html

 

As others have said, use the large fine jpeg setting, or RAW plus large fine jpeg. Don't scrimp on image size.

 

Jim

[joel_hammers]

Well, I read Ken's stuff and find it entertaining. I always keep in mind that he often says strange things. For example, I've seen on hise site that he doesn't see much use for lens shades. That's about the silliest (to be nice) things I've ever heard...based n my own experience.

[steve torelli]

Greg,

Rockwell often leaves me scratching my head also, and IMHO,shooting JPGs with a fine DSLR is like burning regular gas in a Corvette. If you want the most from your camera and lenses you may as well make up your mind to learn something about digital post-processing. A well processed RAW file saved as a TIFF may take up more space on your CF card and hard drive, but will preserve more detail than any JPEG, which throws out information to reduce file size. You have a great camera and some fine lenses,why not use them to the max? Good luck.

[ed_okie]

"...I don't like to spend a lot of time behind a computer screen-- though printing my own stuff again is exciting"

 

Greg - you've squarely facing the major roadblock in your flight path from film to digital. Digital's photo-application far outstrips "the good ol' days" of film. It's not even close.

But there's a Catch-22 in this pot of gold: computer time. There's no way around it. Period! If you're not willing to invest computer time - measured in hours, then by all means stay away from digital.

To wit: In the "good ol' days" for every hour behind the camera one might have spent three hours in the wet darkroom. When moving to digital the camera-to-darkroom ratio grows - by at least - a factor of 10X or more. Ten hours at the computer for every one hour behind the camera. Do-it-yourself printing, oh my... add another 5X to the overall time ratio. 1 hour camera. 15 hours computer.

The choice is fundamental: embrace the computer... or stay away from digital. There is little middle ground. Also, don't overlook the computer hardware/software investment mandated (plus software's notorious learning curve) - it is a cost that can equal camera gear. You're on a very slippery slope if "near obsession, 40+ year fascination and Leica M7" is spoken on the same breath or wave-length.

Would I go back to the glory-days of film? Ya' gotta' be kiddin'!

But I still cuss the computer every day.

[pavel_olavich]

I agree mostly with Ed, but I will not agree that for every hour spent shooting one must spend 10X hours behind the PC. This is often not true, especially if one has reasonable post processing skills. The only reason to spend 10X for most images is if one is completely lost in Photo-Shop, or is a newbie to it, but if one has reasonable skills one shouldn't often spend more then 2-3 minutes per image. Of course there are exceptions.

 

I would say that most of the time that for every hour spent shooting, one will spend 1/2 hour behind the PC...this is in very general terms.

 

The exceptions are if one needs to spend 10X more time at the PC for special post processing work BEYOND LAYERLESS Levels, Curves, Saturation, and sharpening.

 

To the point Gregory....like most old timers, you might be intimidated by the PC....get over it, embrace it, and soon you too will feel at ease post processing your images. Digital is better then film...NO not different, better! It far surpasses film especially at high ISO, and it is more convenient, and faster even if it's dynamic range is a tad narrower...some say it is the same as negative film, but the jury is still out with me.

 

If you want to extract the highest level of quality from digital you must shoot RAW and you must learn how to post-process. Post processing should not be seen as drudgery...it is actually fun (most of the time) and can really get your artistic juices flowing without mixing chemicals, commodeering the bathroom, having to clean up the trays, worry about light contamination, etc.

 

Greg, bite the bullet and learn post processing digitally...you will not be sorry, and the quality of your images will be MUCH better then ANYTHING you have ever done in film...this is no exaggeration.

 

I've taken my EOS-3 film body along with my 5D on many trips this year, and in every single instance, the images from the 5D were MUCH cleaner, sharper, and I dare say more film like then anything I could get out of the EOS-3.

 

Surrender to it Greg....

[pavel_olavich]

One more thing Greg....stay away...far away from anything Ken Rockwell writes....otherwise it's the blind leading the blind.

[jon_austin]

Do a quick search on Ken Rockwell on this site, and you'll get lots of threads with many posts both positive and negative about his photographic "wisdom." Like any other source, it's up to you to determine the verity, validity and value of his viewpoints. (Gee, I love alliteration.)

 

I read a column way back in 1999 (when I bought my first digital P&S), and it said "always shoot at the highest quality possible." And this was back when a 64MB CF card cost about $150!

[ted_marcus1]

<i>A well processed RAW file saved as a TIFF may take up more space on your CF card and hard drive, but will preserve more detail than any JPEG, which throws out information to reduce file size.</i>

 

<p>I just have to correct this common misconception. Set your DSLR on "RAW+JPEG" (using the finest quality JPEG, if you've got a choice) and take a few shots. Then convert the raw file and compare it to the JPEG. Even at pixel-peeping magnification, I think you'll be hard-pressed to tell the difference or to identify the "detail" that's missing from the JPEG. "Preserving detail" isn't the reason to shoot raw.

 

<p>You're absolutely correct, however, in stating that JPEG "throws out information." If your JPEGs are consistently exposed and white-balanced perfectly so they don't need post-processing beyond cropping, you won't miss what JPEG throws out. But if you can't persuade the camera to get the exposure and color perfect, the extra information in the raw file will be <i>extremely</i> useful when you fire up Photoshop to correct the imperfection. You'll avoid problems like distorted color and visible banding that can result from making significant color changes to JPEG files with their missing information.

 

<p>The choice of raw or JPEG really comes down to what you're shooting and how much post-processing you plan to do. For pictures of children's soccer games or family vacations, JPEG may indeed be a better choice. It's also the right choice if you want to make prints directly from the camera without post-processing. But when you want the best possible image quality, or you're dealing with mixed or iffy light, raw will preserve the information you need for post-processing corrections.

 

<p>I think Rockwell is very simplistic in insisting that raw is unnecessary. If he's happy with the results he gets from JPEG, good for him. But it's just as simplistic to insist on shooting everything in raw (which is exactly what I do, but I don't shoot soccer games or family vacation snaps). What is important is to understand the tradeoffs and advantages of each, and to choose the appropriate format for the situation.

[dmanthree]

Sorry, based on his advice, my advice is to ignore Rockwell. Anyone who can't see the benefit of Shooting RAW simply has no clue, and is not qualified to offer anyone advice. Shoot RAW, learn how to post process, and you'll never miss film. However, get used to some PC time; it's unavoidable and what you'll do in place of darkroom time. Just fewer chemicals...

 

:-)

[fourfa]

rockwell's recommendation is based on his statements elsewhere on his site (all over his site really) that 35mm and digital are just for soccer games and hobby grab shots. For "serious work," "serious photographers" use medium and large format. Thus getting ultimate quality from 35mm and digital is relatively unimportant.

 

I don't agree, just pointing out the context.

[hash]

Ken's advice is pretty good for a beginner in photography. If you know better, his site is not for you. But if you are fresh to photography, his advice can be of good practical value. For instance his article about how a better camera won't necessarily make you a better photographer. (http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/notcamera.htm) As for RAW versus JPG - I shoot both RAW and JPG and 90% of my RAW files go straight to the archives. For some people RAW is just not worth the fuss.

[dmanthree]

Hashim,

 

Based on Rockwell's first statement on that "not the camera" page, I cannot help but caution anyone against reading anything on that site, beginner or advanced. Nobody has equaled Adam's work from a technical perspective? How could he make that statement? Hasn't he ever seen works from any of the current large format photographers? Hasn't he seen the prints from their work? The technical quality of today's large format work, done properly, is simply unmatched, and Rockwell is incredibly uninformed, once again.

 

And if it isn't the camera, why did Adams use the best gear he could get? Why didn't Adams just shoot with some cheapo cam? Why did he use nice LF gear, and Hasselblad? Avoid Rockewll's site...

[desmond_kidman]

I'm fascinated that anyone would consider giving advice to shoot medium jpegs. There are many, many examples of questional advice on Rockwell's site. His need to talk and to be heard far exceeds the quality level of his advice.

 

The loss of dynamic range, shadow detail, highlight detail, tonality, and resolution in shooting even large jpegs vs: raw is amazing. I would say the difference easily exceeds the difference between medium forat and 35mm in film cameras. It certainly far exceeds the differences between your Leica lenses and any reasonable SLR lens. I certainly would not be shooting digital if the large jpeg from my 1Ds2 represented the best digital quality I could get. But I'm thrilled with the quality of digital from the raw files.

 

When I first experimented with digital I bought the 1Ds2 and I only shot RAW files for months. I was scratching my head when I would read comments about the blown out highlights and poor shadow detail of digital compared to film. Then I tried the largest jpeg as I was running out of card space. When I saw the results, even after photoshop work, I was shocked. I told someone looking at the files with me "Maybe this is what those digital critics are talking about, maybe they have only used jpeg files".

 

Experiments with settings yourself. From the level of your equipment and your statement about a 40+ year fascination and near obsession with photography I would guess you care about image quality. Compare raw and jpeg files yourself, and experiment with other settings to form your own conclusion.

 

My starting point: shoot all images raw, use no in-camera sharpening (sharpen with only unsharp mask in post processing), then experiment with other settings as your time and interest permit.

[hash]

Hi David,

 

Like I said, if you know better, the site is not for you.

 

We all have our opinions. I personally think it is good to discourage a beginner from getting a 1Ds or a D2X and many would agree. About the work of Ansel Adams being unsurpassed, I think he meant artistic merit. But then again, artisitic merit too is subjective.

 

The point you seem to be missing is, it's not that a better camera cannot make a better picture at least technically. Rather it's that most of the time the quality of the camera is not the limiting factor for most people, especially beginners. It is the skill of the person behind it. A photographer like Adams would be justified in choosing the best equipment, but a newbie may not be able to produce better quality images because he got a Hasselblad.

[todd_masters]

This discussion is so entertaining because most everyone's opinions are based in theory. Has anyone in the "RAW Only" camp ever taken their best 8x10 RAW and compared it to a Large JPEG or even the Medium that Ken uses on a physical print. I have and you will need to look very close to tell a difference. Something to consider is that when you shoot RAW and post process in your PC and add some sharpening, bump up sat and touch on the exposure...well that is all your camera does when selecting the JPEG settings, only your camera does it instantly about 1000 times faster. So Ken's points for your standard pics and most everyday use and even some commercial use, JPEG will meet your needs. However with that being said, for gigs that I am paid to shoot I shoot RAW because the digital workflow for me is not cumbersome and I like full control (however most times I batch to JPEGS and don't do much beyond that - same thing the camera would have done for me had I let it).

[fourfa]

"Has anyone in the "RAW Only" camp ever taken their best 8x10 RAW and compared it to a Large JPEG or even the Medium that Ken uses on a physical print. I have and you will need to look very close to tell a difference."

<p>

I'm sure that's true:

<p>

IF you nailed the white balance in camera<p>

IF you nailed the exposure<p>

IF you don't mind making adjustments one by one instead of cutting and pasting edits to big blocks of photos all at once<p>

IF you don't mind creating tons of layers to keep your edits semi-reversable<p>

 

like you say yourself, it's about workflow, not necessarily ultimate detail or image quality.