Picture Styles for everyday photography

[ben_s2]

<p>I just wanted to get some opinions on your preferred Picture Style settings for times when you have no intention of doing serious post processing with ACR/LR. Just shots that you're sending straight to JPEG with only minimal adjustments to curves and levels in PS. I've been shooting in Faithful but I'm wondering if the onboard processing is anything worth using.</p>

<p>I'm shooting an EOS 30, if that makes a difference. I'm attaching an image shot with a 50mm prime at f/2.8. Would it benefit from an adjustment in Picture Styles?</p><div></div>

[Stock-Photos]

<p>Ben, I often keep my picture style set to landscape since I shoot lots of landscapes. In your sample shot there are lots of sections which should be black but have a green cast, like the tire.</p>

[jody_stowitts]

<p>Opinion only: I find the 'plain Jane' STANDARD pretty hard to beat. And for some heavily detailed landscapes, the LANDSCAPE setting. Canon is pretty sharp about their easy to use preset settings. All this coming from a non-pro.</p>

[vrankin]

<p>I find that I usually need to add a little saturation and sharpness to jpegs out of camera. I've made these custom settings under "User 1" and they work well for me in most situations. In Landscape style I found the greens a little too strong, and just a slight green cast.</p>

[nathangardner]

<p>I never shoot straight Jpeg. You never know when you may take a shot that you want full control over. I also always keep my camera set to RAW b/c if the "moment" presents itself it may not last long enough for me to be messing with camera settings.</p>

[daniel flather]

<p>Shoot RAW, you can convert later and —delete the RAW. Your sample photo is very soft too.</p>

[hjoseph7]

"your preferred Picture Style settings for times when you have no intention of doing serious post processing"

 

 

Default value.

I rarely change the picture styles, because I forget to reset them after a shoot. Uusually the factory set values work out pretty well for me. I might increase the saturation levels during cloudy days, increase the sharpness during hazy days, or when I'm shooting landscapes. Tone down the sharpness when I'm shooting portraits, or try anything to boost a weak lens, but I rarely go above or below the factory settings (unless I want to do some weird creative stuff). With good lenses you shouldn 't have too.

[dan_south]

<p>I like Standard and Landscape, sometimes modified slightly depending on what I'm shooting. If people are involved, it's almost always Standard.</p>

[peter_j2]

<blockquote>

<p><strong>Just shots that you're sending straight to JPEG with only minimal adjustments to curves and levels in PS.</strong></p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I never shoot JPG. RAW is the way to go for me. The amount of time to make the adjustments in Canon's DPP would be equivalent to a curves and levels adjustment if shot in JPG.<strong><br /></strong></p>

[allardk]

<p>I use standard with a relative adjustment of -1 in contrast and +1 in saturation. I usually shoot Raw+Jpeg and edit whatever I feel needs extra editing. There's hardly any picture that is not improved by shooting Raw and customizing the PP but if the light is right most of them are 'good enough' straight out of camera.<br /> You can use DPP and/or the picture style editor (both supplied by Canon for free) to see the effect of different picture styles on your images or make new ones. Pick the one you like or make one if the standards don't suit you.<br>

Your attached picture looks too green to me as well. It would benefit more from Raw editing (white balance adjustment) than from a picture style. You could make a custom picture style that has a red shift but it would not be very useful for general photography.</p>

[matthijs]

<p>Faithfull, +2 saturation, sharpness 4.</p>

<p>Monochrome, +2 contrast, sharpness 5.</p>

<p>Mostly I use RAW but I always shoot the JPEG as well.<br>

For family / teambuilding events I just mail them the JPEG's.</p>

<p>For "art" I use my default settings as starting point for the post processing in Canon DPP.</p>

 

[tudorciobanu]

<p>Same as Matthijs</p>

[jim_krupnik]

<p>Faithful is actually a very flat and boring Picture Style that pretty much assumes PP as a given. I don't think it was really intended for using as a finished jpg product. Rather, I think it is there for some people who shoot RAW, and want to judge their images on the camera LCD in such a flat rendition as they shoot. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure that some people have a really good reason for using it for jpg shots without PP, but it never appealed to me at all. The style name is "Faithful", and that has a very desirable sound to it, but the name has nothing to do with the reality of your final images.</p>

<p>As a rule, I only shoot in RAW mode, as I don't care to toss away my negative as I press the shutter button, and settle for copies of a Polaroid print for the rest of time. That said, I prefer to view my camera LCD rendition of what I captured in Standard style, as it is most representative of what a normal finished jpg would look like. Shooting in RAW, it doesn't matter in the end, as I can choose any Picture Style, or custom style for the final jpg rendition without ever degrading the captured RAW image at all.</p>

<p>I am curious as to why you would use PS to do your direct RAW to jpg conversions at all if you are doing "only minimal adjustments to curves and levels in PS". PS is fine (I use it when I really need it's features), but for direct RAW conversion of Canon files to jpg, even with minimal adjustments to curves and levels, the free DPP software from Canon blows PS into the weeds (in my opinion). You can shoot RAW in your camera, download your work, and run it through DPP after looking at the way the shot appears in every possible Picture Style, or with an ever expanding degree of available tweaks for free! You can do single images, batches of images, auto lens corrections, and so on that deliver outstanding results for exactly what you are wishing to achieve. DPP is constantly being improved, and is worth the trouble to master.</p>

<p>Make the RAW file of the pic you posted available, and I'll run it through the latest DPP, Bibble 5, and DXO 6 in basic conversion modes for you to see what one button conversion can offer over several products. You can compare that to what PS can do in converting to jpg with minimal tweaking, and then you can peep pixels of your own image to compare the bunch. For what you want, I think the current DPP is a match made in heaven....</p>

[matthijs]

<p>Jim, what's wrong with these colors?<br>

(faithful, +2 saturation, sharpness 3, auto white balance)</p><div></div>