Is In-Camera Processing For Absolute Beginners... And Other Questions!

68lbs

68lbs

Messages
5,450
Name
April 2008
Edit My Images
No
Is in-camera processing for alsolute beginners... or is there something to gain from using them either professionally, or as an amateur?

I always shoot raw only (never raw + jpeg), and the only time I change the picture style is if I know I will be processing the shots as B&W, and I then choose the mono picture style. I know it doesn't affect the raw, but it does affect the jpeg preview for the raw file and gives me an idea of how the shot will look in mono.

I've never actually bothered with any of the other picture styles, and there are also other features of my camera that I don't know how to use. I haven't a clue how the 'P' mode works... and I ain't the foggiest what the camera does if I stick it on the green rectangle.

I'm wondering (well, I was prompted by a comment someone made to me) whether I should be taking time to learn about all these other things? Would they enable me to develop further as a photographer? Should I understand EVERYTHING that my camera has to offer?
 
If I remember correctly the green square is full auto and the "p" stands for program shift. Program shift is the next step up I guess from full auto, as you turn the dial on your camera it alters the aperture and shutter speed correspondingly so it keeps the right exposure,but allows you certain control of shutter speed/depth of field.
As to wether you should be using these modes is another story,but I guess they are beginner modes really so probably not much point.
For me aperture priority mode all the way!!
 
I almost entirely shoot in jpeg.
Dont see any reason not to.
 
lol in camera processing is handy for when you HAVE to shoot jpeg, raw is always better but for streaming to projectors or quick slideshows I have used jpeg in clubs before
 
You could argue that picture styles are more for experienced and confident photographers than beginners, as they know what they're doing and don't need the safety net of being able to rescue mistakes from the Raw file. Many pro photographers shoot JPEGs, if only because they haven't got the time (or inclination) to mess about with post processing the Raw iamges.

Picture styles are simply processing your Raw files in-camera, rather than you having to do it in post processing. They allow you to pre-select the main processing parameters so that the picture comes out just the way you like it straight out of the box, without having to do any post processing.

They allow you to do all the important stuff and with a range of settings in each parameter, there is a lot of choice and a wide variety of permutations. Unless you have unusual requirements, or need to make changes after the exposure (maybe to white balance, or to exposure, or whatever) then there is no difference to the effect or quality of output so you might as well let the camera do it for you.

The best of both worlds option is to shoot Raw and JPEG. The JPEG takes up very little extra memory compared to the much bigger Raw file, so you might as well. If you have carefully selected the right picture style for you (or created a custom one) then you've saved a lot of time and can go straight to output, but if on occasion you are not quite happy and want to do a bit more tweaking, then revert to the Raw. It has cost you nothing.

The various exposure setting and metering modes are just different ways of doing the same thing. You use spot or evaluative/matrix or centre-weighted metering according to the subject and your preferred method of working. Use which ever option gets you the right result most quickly and easily - there is only one optimum exposure setting and it makes no difference you meter that, or which mode you use to set it, so long as you get it right in the end.

Av, Tv, P or whatever are just different ways of setting the right combination of shutter speed and lens aperture that you need for the result you're after. For example, if depth of field is a priority, use Av, if subject movement needs careful control, use Tv, if it really doesn't matter, use P or the green square, all according to taste. 1/250sec at f/5.6 is the same whichever way you do it.

I can't help thinking that if you don't understand what the various modes, options and settings do, then you cannot be getting the most from your camera. Or, at the very least, you are not working efficiently and letting the camera do the work for you, when it's appropriate.
 
I thought people shot in RAW because they didn,t know how to set up their cameras properly. :D
 
Be advised most of the other modes won't usually let you use the raw option, on Canon any of the modes like portrait etc (called basic mode) only have jpeg options.
 
I too am somewhat confused by the reason to shoot RAW files. I've been using photoshop for years in my business and I'm pretty good with adjusting levels, exposure and colour balance as well as retouching. BUT I've only ever used jpg files from the camera as a starting point, am I missing something important here?

Using a Canon 40D in reply to the post below
 
It depends on which camera you are using, I think. I.e shoot Jpegs on a Nikon D5000 and they're pretty sharp, however shoot on a 450D and they will be a bit soft, primarily because Canon tend to use a lot of noise reduction. Raw is the best if you have the time, but I wouldn't think twice about shooting Jpeg on a Nikon.
 
Jayst84 said:
The only thing I'd add, is that if you shoot JPEG, you pictures will look like JPEGs from a 5D. If you shoot raw, your pictures will look like your pictures.
Click to expand...

Given that you cannot actually see a Raw file, because it's only a collection of invisible data in digital form, and that the final output is always a JPEG anyway (inlcluding the image on the LCD) that's a strange statement.

The fundamental difference between shooting Raw and JPEG is that with JPEGs you make the image processing decisions before you take the picture. With Raw, you do it after in post processing.

Jayst84 said:
Depends how much post work you're doing. Try doing some serious adjustments to a JPEG, and then to a raw file.. see which result you prefer.
Click to expand...

If you know how to set correct exposure and white balance properly, you shouldn't need to make any serious adjustments to a JPEG.

The only reason to shoot Raw is to make changes to the image that are not available in the basic in-camera options, or to rescue a major mistake where Raws tend to have a bit more scope for disaster recovery, but not that much more TBH.
 
HoppyUK said:
The only reason to shoot Raw is to make changes to the image that are not available in the basic in-camera options, or to rescue a major mistake where Raws tend to have a bit more scope for disaster recovery, but not that much more TBH.
Click to expand...

But I would have thought you can rescue pretty much anything using Photoshop (if you know what you are doing)?
 
Just thought I'd add to this to give my take on the whole jpg / raw discussion. BTW I use a Canon 40D.

Day to day pics and anything where I'm not overly concerned about extremes of exposure then I'll happily shoot jpg's, with a view that the image straight out of the camera with a few basic photoshop tweaks such as levels, crop, white balance, etc is gonna be the image I'm after.

However, if I'm looking at a shot where the criticality of the detail is key then it is jpg and raw. With RAW it captures just a little extra detail in the shadows and the highlights, where otherwise in the jpg they would just be black shadows or blown highlights. Working on the TIFF file in photoshop it gives you a better chance of dragging these details back in before converting it to a jpg.

If you get time take a shot where there are bright and dark areas then open up the resultant TIFF and the JPG next to each other and look at the shadows and highlights. You should be able to see extra detail in the TIFF file.

Does that help?
 
kickstart said:
But I would have thought you can rescue pretty much anything using Photoshop (if you know what you are doing)?
Click to expand...

Main difference with a Raw seems to me that you've usually got about a stop more headroom on the highlights. Good for rescuing blown skies etc.

That's the main thing. But unless you want to do some extreme things beyond the scope of the in-camera pre-sets, then I don't really see the point.

I think a lot of people enjoy post processing, using their skill to get things just right. That's sounds good to me, but there are also folks that I think believe there is something fundamentally better when you move the sliders in Photoshop, as opposed to setting the levels in-camera; there isn't. They both deliver a JPEG with exactly the same adjustments.

Marcus Geezer said:
Just thought I'd add to this to give my take on the whole jpg / raw discussion. BTW I use a Canon 40D.

Day to day pics and anything where I'm not overly concerned about extremes of exposure then I'll happily shoot jpg's, with a view that the image straight out of the camera with a few basic photoshop tweaks such as levels, crop, white balance, etc is gonna be the image I'm after.

However, if I'm looking at a shot where the criticality of the detail is key then it is jpg and raw. With RAW it captures just a little extra detail in the shadows and the highlights, where otherwise in the jpg they would just be black shadows or blown highlights. Working on the TIFF file in photoshop it gives you a better chance of dragging these details back in before converting it to a jpg.

If you get time take a shot where there are bright and dark areas then open up the resultant TIFF and the JPG next to each other and look at the shadows and highlights. You should be able to see extra detail in the TIFF file.

Does that help?
Click to expand...

That's how I work. Well put :thumbs:
 
Just to elaborate on Marcus excellent point.

JPEG stands for Joint Photographic Experts Group and this was a group set up by the major players in imaging at the start of what we now call "Digital" :)

Now the JPEG format employs compression, that's one reason you can choose the size of file you want, it's asking you just how much information you want to throw away. BUT ALL Jpeg's throw information away, it's how they work!

RAW's don't and neither do TIFF's. It's called a lossless file format.

That the reason you can have the same file with different sizes depending on what format you have saved it in. And why the blooming TIFF's (Converted from RAW) taken on my 1DsII are 70MB!!

So if you are shooting with a very wide dynamic range you are safer shooting RAW because at least you are saving every bit of information you can. Shoot Jpeg and you can lose detail as the compression squishes pixels together and says "I'm close enough to you to be counted as the same, let's only record that one bit of info" The smaller the Jpeg the more you are allowing it do do that.
 
AliB said:
Just to elaborate on Marcus excellent point.

JPEG stands for Joint Photographic Experts Group and this was a group set up by the major players in imaging at the start of what we now call "Digital" :)

Now the JPEG format employs compression, that's one reason you can choose the size of file you want, it's asking you just how much information you want to throw away. BUT ALL Jpeg's throw information away, it's how they work!

RAW's don't and neither do TIFF's. It's called a lossless file format.

That the reason you can have the same file with different sizes depending on what format you have saved it in. And why the blooming TIFF's (Converted from RAW) taken on my 1DsII are 70MB!!

So if you are shooting with a very wide dynamic range you are safer shooting RAW because at least you are saving every bit of information you can. Shoot Jpeg and you can lose detail as the compression squishes pixels together and says "I'm close enough to you to be counted as the same, let's only record that one bit of info" The smaller the Jpeg the more you are allowing it do do that.
Click to expand...


Great information there and exactly correct, think Marcus' point is also very good as well, I have noticed quite a difference when comparing a jpeg to a RAW picture
 
AliB said:
Just to elaborate on Marcus excellent point.

JPEG stands for Joint Photographic Experts Group and this was a group set up by the major players in imaging at the start of what we now call "Digital" :)

Now the JPEG format employs compression, that's one reason you can choose the size of file you want, it's asking you just how much information you want to throw away. BUT ALL Jpeg's throw information away, it's how they work!

RAW's don't and neither do TIFF's. It's called a lossless file format.

That the reason you can have the same file with different sizes depending on what format you have saved it in. And why the blooming TIFF's (Converted from RAW) taken on my 1DsII are 70MB!!

So if you are shooting with a very wide dynamic range you are safer shooting RAW because at least you are saving every bit of information you can. Shoot Jpeg and you can lose detail as the compression squishes pixels together and says "I'm close enough to you to be counted as the same, let's only record that one bit of info" The smaller the Jpeg the more you are allowing it do do that.
Click to expand...

But Ali, you always output the image as a JPEG to view it, on screen, on the web, as a print or whatever, so you have to 'throw away' stuff sooner or later as you put it. If you are shooting normal stuff and are confident of what you are doing, and what the camera is doing, then there will be no difference between the JPEG produced instantly in the camera, or after running the file through Photoshop or whatever. The end result is a JPEG ;)

I also don't accept that file compression means a loss of quality per se, just because the file size is reduced. That doesn't necessarily mean any data has been lost or discarded, rather that the image code has been made more efficient. For example, if you have a pocket full of 1p pieces, you can either say that you have 1p and repeat that a hundred times, or just say £1. No money has been lost. However, and this is the big difference as I see it, if you want to go back into your pocket and pull out 10 x 10p, or 20 x 5p, or put 50p here and 5 x 10p there, once the image is JPEGed, you cannot.

That's fundamentally what JPEGing does. If there was any noticeable loss of quality inherant to the JPEG process, nobody would ever use it.

If you know what each of the camera's JPEG parameters does, and have experimented to get the kind of result you want, then take a careful exposure reading checking it against the histogram for optimum level, and do a custom white balance if necessary, there will be no difference between the JPEG delivered instantly by the camera and the one that you spend time and trouble fiddling about with in Photoshop. They will both be equally good.
 
Quick correction: we've had lossless JPEG compression since 1993.
 
Editing a jpeg though will give noticably different results though compared to editing the RAW file and then saving that to Jpeg.

There will be a loss of quality as you are removing some detail but its whether how noticable this is.

Its the exact same with the MP3 file format, you are discarding some data to allow the smaller file size, its due to this that you can notice the difference between a song encoded at 64kbps or 256kbps - its what you find as the happy medium and gives good results
 
mart77 said:
I almost entirely shoot in jpeg.
Dont see any reason not to.
Click to expand...

me neither...its going to end up jpeg anyway and i can take more on a card

i use P initially and then switch to the A/S/M selector for those variables when i feel i need to control them

M mainly to set readings where the lighting may vary but i want consistent dark areas
 
:D

HoppyUK said:
Given that you cannot actually see a Raw file, because it's only a collection of invisible data in digital form, and that the final output is always a JPEG anyway (inlcluding the image on the LCD) that's a strange statement.
Click to expand...

I said your pictures, ie the final output.

HoppyUK said:
The fundamental difference between shooting Raw and JPEG is that with JPEGs you make the image processing decisions before you take the picture. With Raw, you do it after in post processing.
Click to expand...

There's a heck of a lot more you can do on a computer afterwards, which you are well aware of. Even with the basics you have much more control.


HoppyUK said:
If you know how to set correct exposure and white balance properly, you shouldn't need to make any serious adjustments to a JPEG.

The only reason to shoot Raw is to make changes to the image that are not available in the basic in-camera options, or to rescue a major mistake where Raws tend to have a bit more scope for disaster recovery, but not that much more TBH.
Click to expand...

My white balance and exposure control are fine, but I still find in camera JPEGs look like, well, in camera JPEGs. I prefer my shots to have a more personal touch. :thumbs:
 
Totally off-topic this but I didn't want to seem like a complete numpty in a new thread! I'll just give it a good go here ha! Anyway, when my camera flashes (Canon EOS 450D) it does a premature flash. Is this to test the light? I'm still learning what goes on in this piece of equipment, so please don't be too harsh on me! It's a tad different to a compact!
 
Carlm90 said:
Totally off-topic this but I didn't want to seem like a complete numpty in a new thread! I'll just give it a good go here ha! Anyway, when my camera flashes (Canon EOS 450D) it does a premature flash. Is this to test the light? I'm still learning what goes on in this piece of equipment, so please don't be too harsh on me! It's a tad different to a compact!
Click to expand...

Some cameras preflash to measure light or focus, most preflash as a red eye reduction, the flash closes the eyes iris, reducing red eye.
 
I shoot RAW and JPEG. I don't edit all that much really and I like to flick through the images when I put them on the PC. I do keep the RAW files though, that way I can go back to them and edit later. I'm always going back and looking at stuff I shot a while ago and thinking "ahh Natts, you can do better than that!" when at the time I thought it was better. So my theory is if I keep the RAWs things are easier to salvage...if there's anything worth salvaging at all!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top