Newbie needs help with new 10D

[bill_koerner]

After years using a Pentax K1000, I upgrade a year ago to a Canon Elan IIE....

like it so much I've just this weekend acquired a second hand 10D. A bit

baffled, and more so after reading the post "Please help Old Newbie that wants

to give up". Need some basic questions answered if ya'll would be so kind!

 

1. I don't want to try "RAW" just yet, what adjustments to the "default"

settings should I make to give me the best possible pics right out of the

camera?

2. With my digital P&S (A75 and G3) I upload (download?) to my computer using

a SanDisk card reader rather than using the Canon software. Is that a

problem?

3. Adobe Photo Shop Elements 2.0 came with the camera. What are the basic

steps needed to sharpen (?) and color correct my photos? Can this be done as

a batch, or must each photo be opened, corrected, etc.

 

I am throwing myself (and the 10D) at your mercy. Without your help, the 10D

goes on Ebay, and I'll be looking for a back-up IIE!

 

Bill

[Stock-Photos]

I've made about 17,000 images with my 10D since I bought it in June of 03. I can't understand why you'd want to sell yours.

 

Loading the images to your computer, without using the Canon software, might prevent the portrait oriented shots from displaying top-at-top. In other words some images might display sideways, unless you use the Canon software to offload images.

 

Color and sharpness should be acceptable right out of the camera, but for printing and other means of display, sharpness and color correction should be done on an individual, "as needed" basis. Use the help files on your software for info.

[PuppyDigs]

<P>I suppose the easiest "quick fix" might be:</P>

<ul><li>1. Install Digital Professional 3 (free on Canonusa.com but you must have an older Canon app on your HD for install to work</li></ul>

<ul><li>2. Upload images to computer.</li></ul>

<ul><li>3. Open DPP and tool palette</li></ul>

<ul><li>4. Select JPEG and display full screen the image you wish to process</li></ul>

<ul><li>5. RGB on tool palette</li></ul>

<ul><li>6. Click on "Tone Assist" (auto curves)</li></ul>

<ul><li>7. Add saturation and sharpening if needed.</li></ul>

<ul><li>8. Save</li></ul>

 

<P>Can't get much easier than that.</P>

[PuppyDigs]

Sorry, it should read "install Digital Photo Professional 3 (DPP 3)..."

[geoff_foale]

Hello Bill. The 10D is a good solid piece of kit and ideal as a starting point to serious photography. I purchased a secondhand one last year and have never regretted it. You don't say what lenses, but it doesn't matter now.

 

I would agree with you that you don't initially need RAW. There are some advantages for difficult situations but that can come later. Set your camera to large fine JPEG.Under Menu select Quality, press the Set button (middle of the big wheel) turn the wheel until you have selected Large with a smooth edged icon (should be on top of the list) and press Set again. It may already be on this setting.

 

Not familar with your Card Reader but any CF reader should work. If not the Canon download software is easy to use.

 

Personally, I've never been able to make much sense of Elements 2 but, if you can find it, the best way to sharpen photos is to use the Unsharp Mask. You really need to look for some tutorials or search the archives here for detailed information. However, as a starting point, try radius (the number of pixels affected) at around 1 or 2 and use somewhere between 50 and 200 (absolute maximum) as the amount. Like a lot of things, moderation is required.

 

For basic correction of colour and brightness you really need Curves, which, if my memory serves me correct, isn't available on Elements 2. Levels is an alternative. Basically you click and drag the Histogram to suit. Shadows are affected by the left hand section. Highlights on the right and midtones in the middle. Once again, you really need to do some homework but once you have grasped the basics there is nothing like experimentation for real learning.

 

Every photo is different so each one will need a slightly different bit of tweaking. Above all, once again, moderation is called for. So many photos are ruined by over enthusiastic 'improvement'.

 

Above all - KEEP YOUR 10D - Keep reading and learning. The basics aren't really that difficult. You will soon find yourself on the next level where things can start to get a bit tricky!

 

For starter tutorials, after Photo Net, I would recommend luminous-landscape.com or imaging-resource.com also try cambridgeincolour.com but there are many others including your software Help files and camera instruction booklet.

 

Above all else - don't give up.

 

Geoff.

[ben_goren]

Bill,

 

First, keep in mind that, with digital, you're your own darkroom operator / processor / etc.

If you were happy paying people to do that with film, you probably would be happy to pay

the same people to do that with digital. Pick the images you like best and take them to

your local pro lab to be ``developed'' and / or printed. Talk with them to explain what

kind of a look you like -- sharp / soft, high / low saturation, contrast, etc. Set the

camera's options (RAW, sharpening, color balance, etc.) however *they* want you to.

 

If you want to do all that yourself -- and, really, if you have the time you should because

it's a lot of fun and means you're the only one responsible for things that go worng --

then take advantage of that most wonderful property of digital: the ability to endlessly

experiment at no additional cost (other than time). Practice, practice, practice, as they say.

 

To answer your specific questions:

 

1) ``It depends.'' Do you like ketchup or mayonnaise on your fries? Try everything out and

see what works best for you. Keep in mind that many scenes will work better with different

combinations of settings; if there was a true ``one size fits all'' solution, there wouldn't be

any knobs to turn.

 

2) Pretty much everybody who's serious about digital photography uses a card reader. It's

much faster and more convenient. I'm sure there're exceptions, and valid reasons for those

exceptions, but what you're doing is just fine.

 

3) If you're shooting JPEGs -- as I would recommend until you're ready to do more than

minor adjustments in post-processing -- then you shouldn't need to sharpen and color

correct the images in Photoshop. You'd set everything in the camera and use the screen on

the back the same way you'd use a Polaroid back with a film camera. If you're happy with

the images there, they should print at home with at least the same kind of quality as you'd

get from a decent mini-lab and film.

 

Now, obviously, a decent mini-lab isn't going to be doing a lot of color correcting of film

that you take to be processed and printed. And they're certainly not going to be any kind

of enhancing. If you're used to that level of service from film, then, as I wrote at the top,

take your (selected) digital files to the same people you take your film; if they're still in

business in 2007, then they're well equipped to do this with digital instead of film, and

you already know that you like their tastes in processing.

 

And if you used to do all this stuff, yourself, with film...well, then, be prepared to put

comparable effort and money into doing it digitally as you did with film. You'll need maybe

as much as $1500 - $2000 worth of computer equipment, software, printer, etc., though

you've probably already invested in most of what you need. Photoshop Elements, for

example can do a fair amount, but its limitations can be especially frustrating to those

accustomed to the full version...which ain't cheap. And I doubt you have anything to

calibrate your monitor; that's essential for critical color work and will cost you $300 or so.

For your printer, if it's good enough, you'll either have to stick with the manufacturer's

paper and ink -- which costs more than gold leaf and Dom Perignon -- or get ICC profiles

for your favorite third-party ink and printer combinations...at $50 - $100 each. Or you

could spend $800 - $<ludicrous> on profiling hardware and do that yourself, too.

 

I'm not trying to dissuade you from this, or even suggest that it's required. I *am* trying to

put things in perspective, by showing you the whole spectrum of options. If you liked

drugstore prints from a P&S film camera before you went to digital, then you should be

thrilled with a P&S digital and an inexpensive inkjet (that guzzles overpriced ink, but that's

another story). If a 35mm film SLR and a good local pro lab was your game before the

10D, then you'd be silly to give up the pro lab now that you've gone digital, for the same

reasons you wouldn't have put a darkroom in your basement.

 

But, if you used to do everything yourself, or if you've always wanted to and now's the

time...well, wonderful! Welcome to the club! But there *is* a reason you've been paying so

much money to the pros to do the job for you all along. If you want to produce the same

results, yourself, you'll have to step up to their level. It's well within the reach of amateur

photographers -- at least as much as it ever was with film, if not more so -- but it's still

gonna take you a fair amount of time, effort, and money.

 

Cheers,

 

b&

 

P.S. I really hope you join us nutjobs.... b&

[keith_lubow]

The best possible file out of the camera is the one that allows you the most control in editing. You will not get the best possible final products out of any camera; film or digital, point and shoot or manual, 110 or 8x10. An ideal negative, slide, or digital file is not a final product, but contains all the info you need to make it into one in teh darkroom or on your computer. This means that it is set completely flat with saturation and sharpness, contrast is brought down as low as possible in the camera, and you expose in such a way that you get the highest values possible without blowing anything out. If you want out-of-the camera pictures, I don't even know what the advantage of an SLR is. The G7 might be your best bet in that case.

 

Keith

[JDMvW]

Digital is a little like the Polaroid film of the 60s. Shooting jpg is like shooting with just Polaroid positive. What you see is what you get. At least use large jpg, though. However, RAW is like using the Polaroid P/N (positive/negative) film. RAW is like a negative. By 'printing' it yourself you gain creative control of what the final 'print' will look like. This can mean as much as two stops in exposure latitude, etc. etc. In any case, the 10D is very much capable of high quality work, it's no longer at the cutting edge on resolution, but there are some very expensive digital cameras that don't have any higher pixel count. To make the best of the pixel count, you should consider shooting RAW for anything that you will want to hang on to in future years, since later on you will learn to exploit the additional information present in the RAW file.

[bill_koerner]

Thanks for all the wise counsel and encouragement. It is appreciated!

 

Bill

[keith_lubow]

JDM..."of the '60s"? I have stacks of it in my fridge right now.

 

JDM paints a bleak and inaccurate picture of JPEGs. They are not "what you see is what you get". They are just 8-bit image files, as opposed to raw information that can be used to construct an image file; like RAWs. TIFFs and JPEGs both have the same edits performed on them to prepare them for presentation. If anything, you can do more with a JPEG because having an 8-bit image opens up a lot more edits in Photoshop. The press shoots JPEG exclusively. Do you think they could get away with that if JPEGs were like Polaroids? RAWs are for people who want the greatest bit depth possible, who are not working against deadlines, and have time to piddle about with large files, such as fine artists, commercial photographers, etc. They are also used as a safety net for those who are unsure about the technical issues of their shoot, which is the main reason people on the Internet suggest using them. If anything, shooting a JPEG is like shooting a slide, while shooting a RAW is like shooting a neg.

 

Keith

[keith_lubow]

As far as JPEG workflow; it doesn't get much easier. This is what I do. (I HATE working on photos on a computer.)

 

1. If you have Bridge, or something like it, use its progressive check marks and check-mark filters to narrow it down to the shots you like.

 

2. Select all, save copies in a folder titled "selections", and then open them in Photoshop.

 

3. Prepare your images. Do levels, color correction if needed (by any one of a plethora of methods...I do it with curve or levels adjustments of each channel), possibly a saturation adjustment, possibly an overall tone curve adjustment, if levels didn't provide fine enough adjustment on a difficult file.

 

4. Save this master edited full resolution file.

 

5. Size the file and save as.

 

6. Create a mild sharpening mask to counteract the effects of the filter in front of the sensor, and save.

 

The first step is the most tedious and difficult. The best way to make it easier is to take mostly bad pictures.

 

Keith

[lheusinkveld]

It is not a solution that would work for me, but a good friend who is an excellent and experienced photographer has no computer... She shoots JPG and takes her cards down to W*mart and has her prints made by them. What is more, she does this with both a 20D and a 5D, and she gets a great many "keepers". Never assume that shooting RAW and doing your own post-processing is the only option, any more than doing your own darkroom work was with film. Doing it yourself does give you a great more flexibility and control, but at the end, if you don't have access or dislike computers, you can still obtain great satisfaction from a DSLR. It has the other wonderful advantage that you don't need to spend the money and print everything on the card...just the keepers!

[walang_pangalan]

"W*mart" makes inexpensive prints, but for that lack of money you get:

 

0. An abominable user-interface. Anyone who hates fiddling with images on their computer will not find it any easier or pleasant interacting with those kiosks.

 

1. Lack of flexibility. You can ask for 4x6's or 8x10's. No 8x12 (or at least I can't find one that does it). And if you start asking for crops, see item (0), above.

 

2. Even after careful de-dusting prior to showing up at the kiosk, a fair fraction of your prints will come with dust spots at random locations and sizes anyways. Murphy's Law dictates where the dust will end up.

 

More than likely, after about the 10th print you'll start looking at the printer selections from Epson or Canon (those kiosks are in fact no more than a Windoze computer with a lower-end printer attached). And then maybe even come to the conclusion I have: I vastly prefer looking at the images on a display. Make a 1920x1080 crop and a good many images look fantastic on a Sony Bravia in the living room. Not my living room though, nor my Bravia ;-(

[walang_pangalan]

J. Harrington wrote, referring to a Canon 10D: <i>I can't understand why you'd want to sell yours.</i>

 

<p>There are many reasons to want a better camera than a 10D. The biggest one is that the 10D is <i>extremely slooowwww</i> compared to even the 20D. Night and day.

[JDMvW]

Keith misses my point if he thinks that in saying jpg is like Polaroid positive film, I am saying jpg is a 'bleak' alternative. For a long period in the 60s and into the 70s I used Polaroid Type 52, and I am convinced (just as Ansel Adams was) that " I have had some extraordinary results with the various Polaroid Land films; some have matched in image quality many of be best prints from conventional negatives. Type 52 prints have a certain image quality other materials cannot attain,..." (_Examples_ 1983:160-1). Although few of them did it, the press could and does, do a lot worse than shooting Polaroid. I was not denegrating jpg, just indicating the simple fact that it limits what you can do with your picture more than RAW does, and of course, when you manipulate your RAW image, you pull if off into whatever format (jpg, tiff, pict,..) that you need. For many occasions I may shoot only jpg myself, but when I'm going to someplace where it's a one-time occasion, I like having the additional information in RAW. Among th reasons NOT to shoot RAW are 1) the need to make many images as quickly as possible, and 2) the need for lots of storage capacity for RAW images. Given the increasing speed of the cameras, the speed of the media, and the size of the media, it's hard to know why the person who cares about their results wouldn't shoot RAW+large jpg whenever possible.