Picture Styles, whats your favorite user def. settings?

[enrique_bocanegra]

<p>Hi, I am just playing around with my picture style settings and was wondering what your favorite settings are? I like how it looks with: (6,-4,-3,3). Natural looking for me. I also like (6,2,3,-1). Share your favorite.</p>

[Charles_Webster]

<p>If you shoot RAW, picture styles have no effect on your photos. You can adjust all the parameters that picture styles control, after the fact in your RAW converter.</p>

<p><Chas><br /></p>

[enrique_bocanegra]

<blockquote>

<p>If you shoot RAW, picture styles have no effect on your photos</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You are wrong here buddy. I shoot RAW and just right now I started to download images, and comparing same shot from a .cr2 file, one standard and the other user def. <strong>There is an effect</strong> on the original file. I think what you are trying to say is that with RAW you can modify after, right? Of course, just asking whats your favorite user def. settings, if you use any in camera(no matter if raw, jpeg, or raw+jpeg) or in DPP?</p>

[henrik_lauridsen]

<p>Enrique, that very much depends on your raw converter. What you say is correct for DPP, but if you use e.g. Lightroom, the picture styles have no effect on your shots.</p>

[kenroy_rodricks]

<p>I mostly leave it on standard picture style but lately started playing with the custom user styles.</p>

[jack_nordine]

<p>In camera, I try and leave it on the setting that affects the picture least. For me, that would be faithfull. I think faithfull affects the picture less than standard. The only other setting that I leave on is sharpness... at 2 or 3. Later in DPP, I sometimes use a picture style. Most of my post work is done in CS3.</p>

[matthijs]

<p>You might want to do a search on photo.net...</p>

<p>Anyway.</p>

<p>Using picturestyles can speed up postprocessing enormously if you use Canon's DPP.<br>

If used smartly you won't need to PP most of your pictures. Which means you have time to do more fun stuff.</p>

<p>Styles I like: faithfull, +2 saturation, sharpness 5 ... monochrome, +2 contrast, sharpness 6.</p>

<p>Have fun! </p>

<p>Matthijs.</p>

[edrodgers]

<p>Setting "picture styles" in post prosessing RAW is just as fast as setting them in camera. I see no point. Using the camera to set default values for an image does not directly show you the effect, is inprecise, and still needs to be run through a RAW converter anyway.</p>

<p>If you shoot jpegs, I can see the point. For RAW I think it's a waste of time.</p>

[matthijs]

<p>Using DPP your picture style used when shooting is inherited by the RAW conversion tool.</p>

<p>Please do not comment if you don't understand what is said.</p>

[oscar_van_der_velde]

<p>It depends a lot on the monitor calibration and the contrast range and nature of the subject. If you tune the monitor settings only visually based on gamma and contrast charts, different results can arise every time and it influences the preference. I currently like Standard, contrast -1 to -3, saturation +1 for general shooting, but I shoot RAW and process in DPP so I can change it to anything else.<br>

I preferred Landscape and Faithful over Standard, with DPP 2 when the colors where rendered somewhat differently.</p>

[keith reeder]

<blockquote>

<p><strong>There is an effect</strong> on the original file</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No there <em>is not</em> : only in-camera settings that have a direct effect on the amount of light hitting the sensor (HTP for example) affect the RAW file.</p>

<p>Camera Styles are "sidecar" metadata that DPP can read. They are not "part" of the RAW file and therefore have no effect whatsoever on the original file.</p>

<p>None.</p>

<p>This is not speculation, it's fact.</p>

<p>Buddy.</p>

[edrodgers]

<blockquote>

 

<p>Using DPP your picture style used when shooting is inherited by the RAW conversion tool.<br>

Please do not comment if you don't understand what is said."</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I understand perfectly. The point is that you can also set a picture style in DPP and batch apply it. It is nothing but metadata. Why do it in camera unless you are shooting jpegs? It's faster to set it on the computer, and you can see exactly what you get in very fine increments.</p>

<p>Do it however you like. But you aren't doing it the most precise, or even efficient way when you set picture styles in camera for RAW images.</p>

[William Michael]

<p>I believe I understand the question perfectly too. BTW, I agree with Keith on the point of fact and I agree with Ed on the point of ease of processing . . . :)</p>

<p>But those comments aside and to the question <strong><em>"just asking whats your favorite user def. settings, if you use any in camera":</em></strong></p>

<p>I have several, none is a favourite, and all are specific tools.<br>

I always shoot RAW + JPEG (L) and use CS3 for Post Production.<br>

Except for Weddings and Portraits, (if I use digital for Portraits), I mostly use the JPEG (L) file with only some Sharpening (pretty much a preset now) and Cropping to 5x7 in post production - usually 5x7 matt prints and / or web use images.</p>

<p>I spent a long time tailoring the in-camera JPEG parameters to suit various shooting conditions I regularly encounter. There is a long thread on it somewhere . . . search through my previous if you wish: but the essence is, many controlled tests under typical, different lighting conditions = a "set of parameters"</p>

<p>The other point of note is, the parameters are “different” for my 5D and my 20D: what I mean is (as one example), for a particular Indoor Swimming Pool one increment change of "contrast" on the 20D is equivalent two increments change of "contrast" on the 5D.</p>

<p>WW</p>

[enrique_bocanegra]

<p>dont call me buddy, friend ;). And THANK YOU William. Exactly.</p>

[matthijs]

<blockquote>

<p>I understand perfectly.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>O.K. I stand (sort of) corrected.</p>

<p>Does the "easy batch proces" also count for custom styles with user defined saturation/sharpness settings?</p>

<p>Note: I tend to use my personal "faithfull/saturated", "monochrome/high contrast" and one other setting mixed when I shoot so my previews on the camera show me what to expect. When I'm happy with the preview I'm pretty sure that in postprocessing I only need to tweak whitebalance and exposure by tiny amounts.</p>

<p>That probably shows that I'm no visionary that can imagine what a certain effect looks like before I shoot. But hey, I'm a part time photographer and use the rest of my life to sharpen other skills...</p>

<p>It also shows that postprocessing workprocesses are personal.</p>

<p>Have fun, Matthijs.</p>

[edrodgers]

<blockquote>

<p>Does the "easy batch proces" also count for custom styles with user defined saturation/sharpness settings?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The four adjustments you have in camera are among the dozens of other adjustments in DPP, Lightroom, or whatever you use. Every setting can be batch processed, and not just the coarse versions of contrast, saturation, sharpness, and "color tone" that you get in-camera. They can be set as presets, defaults, or whatever, and be applied automatically as you wish.</p>

<p>Personally, I do not use presets at all in my software. Each image gets it's own treatment. I do not consider a few seconds of tweaks per image to be a waste of time. Post processing can take as little or as much time as you like, but quality results take time. Compared to a traditional darkroom, or even a lab, it can't get much easier or faster to get what you want out of an image. I can blast through a wedding shot by two photographers with a couple thousand images in an afternoon, and most of that time is sorting the keepers from the duds. When I'm done, I may have a thousand images for the client, each one tweaked as necessary, complete with an alternate monochrome version with a custom color curve.</p>

<p>15 years ago it would have taken me a week to do that in my lab, and there would be less than 300 images. And then the dreaded print order comes in.. Oh, the masking tape crops, squinting at negatives, printing, tweaking, re-printing, touching up dust.. All exchanged for a few seconds of mouse movements and a print that is exactly what I wanted on the first try.</p>

<p>After all that, and processing wedding after wedding, week after week, I think I understand the benefits of batch processing, but I would rather keep it to a minimum because the results are better when I give just a little attention to each image.</p>

[dxphoto]

<p>I downloaded somewhat 18 different picture styles from the web. among them, there are ones mimic film effects (such as RDP, RVP and so on)... what i am looking for is the kodachrome, but I have nto found any.<br>

With my limited knowledge, I think picture style is more than just (X, X, X,X)... Canon has a picture style editor, and you can create your own picture styles. </p>

[William Michael]

<p><strong><em>"I think picture style is more than just (X, X, X,X)... Canon has a picture style editor, and you can create your own picture styles." </em></strong><br>

<br>

For clarity of my previous, yes, my 5D has "Picture Styles", but 20D has "Processing Parameters" . . . as I run a dual camera kit, and often just use the JPEGS out of each box, the in camera functions of the 5D are close enough to match the “Parameters” of the 20D for all my purposes.<br>

<br>

I don't think many people actually do use these functions?<br>

<br>

WW</p>

<p > </p>

 

[angel_bocanegra]

<p>I do</p>