Picture styles - what's your flavour?
- Thread starter Paul870
- Start date
- Messages
- 6,481
- Name
- Tim
- Edit My Images
- No
As I shoot raw I use neutral picture style in camera for a slightly more accurate histogram. When I used to use DPP for processing the first thing I would do is to switch the picture style to Standard, with all the parameters left at defaults to begin with. I never found any need for any of the other picture styles and did not like the results.
Nowadays I shoot raw and process in Lightroom so the camera picture style is irrelevant, other than to leave it at neutral for the better in camera histogram.
If you shoot to JPEG then pesonally I'd recommend setting the camera up as closely as possible to give the desired end result. For me that would be to use Standard picture style with default picture style settings.
If you shoot to raw and use DPP to process your files then you can freely change picture styles and picture style parameters, as well as many other parameters, after you've taken the shot. You can even shoot to raw in monochrome, should you want to, and retrieve the original colour image afterwards.
Nowadays I shoot raw and process in Lightroom so the camera picture style is irrelevant, other than to leave it at neutral for the better in camera histogram.
If you shoot to JPEG then pesonally I'd recommend setting the camera up as closely as possible to give the desired end result. For me that would be to use Standard picture style with default picture style settings.
If you shoot to raw and use DPP to process your files then you can freely change picture styles and picture style parameters, as well as many other parameters, after you've taken the shot. You can even shoot to raw in monochrome, should you want to, and retrieve the original colour image afterwards.
- Messages
- 7,314
- Name
- Alan
- Edit My Images
- No
I guess that would be what Panasonic calls Film Modes. Of which I use Dynamic, but it only applies to JPEGs. In Raw I often use V1 colour in Silkypix, which is I believe an attempt at copying Velvia film, I like it for it's deep almost purple blues, which I find a lot nicer to look at than blues tending towards Cyan.
OP
- Messages
- 139
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Reason I ask is on my 500D it doesn't seem to make much of a difference from what I can tell. I always have to do alot of processing of saturation and sharpness afterwards.
I've just acquired my self a 70-200mm f4 L IS lens, and sharpness is abit of an issue as its not as crisp as I thought it'd be. Picture styles is something I thought I'd have a look at to help improve this.
I've just acquired my self a 70-200mm f4 L IS lens, and sharpness is abit of an issue as its not as crisp as I thought it'd be. Picture styles is something I thought I'd have a look at to help improve this.
- Messages
- 6,481
- Name
- Tim
- Edit My Images
- No
Could be AF (mis)calibration or technique at fault. I've never had a 500D, but my experience of six different EOS bodies tells me that so long as you have sharpness turned up to about 3 (or more) the image should look sharp if it is sharp. However, you may not be able to judge sharpness accurately from the LCD display on the camera itself. Are you shooting raw or JPEG? What software are you using to process? Can you post an unedited file somewhere?
Have you tried checking results when shooting with a tripod and a well lit subject, using mirror lockup and a remote or timer release? Do you have Live View and Live AF? If you do, can you get the image sharper through Live AF or manual focus than with the usual AF?
Have you tried checking results when shooting with a tripod and a well lit subject, using mirror lockup and a remote or timer release? Do you have Live View and Live AF? If you do, can you get the image sharper through Live AF or manual focus than with the usual AF?
Last edited:
OP
- Messages
- 139
- Edit My Images
- Yes
heres a test set on my flickr page:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/paul8700/sets/72157625951716473/
has 3 shots taken of same subject, same settings, not touched or cropped, with 50mm, 18-55 and 70-200 f4 L.
other images are from the 70-200, not sure if its just me, or they are lacking the sharpness i was expecting.
All exif data is attached so please let me know if theres anything noticably wrong.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/paul8700/sets/72157625951716473/
has 3 shots taken of same subject, same settings, not touched or cropped, with 50mm, 18-55 and 70-200 f4 L.
other images are from the 70-200, not sure if its just me, or they are lacking the sharpness i was expecting.
All exif data is attached so please let me know if theres anything noticably wrong.
- Messages
- 6,481
- Name
- Tim
- Edit My Images
- No
Paul, Unfortunately Flickr has messed around with the photos and the original size images are not available and the EXIF, while available in Flickr, is not still embedded within the images themselves. Still, I've had a look, tedious though it is to work with Flickr, and here's what I see....
For the shots of the flowers your shutter speed is in the perfect zone for mirror slap to affect sharpness. I notice you did not use the self timer and you did not use mirror lockup. Did you at least use a remote shutter release or did you actually touch the camera at the moment you took the shot? I'm assuming you used a tripod, but did you? The shot from the 50/1.8 looks dreadful, even at f/4. It may be misfocus. It may be shake. It may be both. The shot from the short zoom looks much better. In fact, even though shooting at 135mm vs 50mm and 37mm (possibly odd choices for a direct comparison) the shot from the long lens looks pretty OK, not like a razor, but decent. However, see my next remarks.
In addition I noticed that you are using neutral picture style with zero sharpening, or at least that's what Flickr says. That will produce soft results. Pictures need to be sharpened somewhere along the line, whether in camera or on a computer. If you shoot with neutral picture style and no sharpening it is expected that you will edit the images later.
Regarding the outdoor scenes, shot with Standard picture style and sharpening at 6 or 3, they look OK, but with Flickr having manhandled the files I wouldn't put much stock in what is there to be seen. In the bird feeder shot I notice you used AI Focus. That's seldom a good choice. I think you may have got away with it this time, but even Canon caution that it may not be the wisest choice.
I think all in all the evidence provided is not that conclusive. On the face of it I suspect your new lens might be quite OK. It's the 50/1.8 you should be looking at, or the approach you took to taking those shots. You also really need to think through your workflow. If you want great shots straight out of camera then you need to set the camera up to accomplish that. Shooting with neutral picture style and sharpening at 0 is not the right way to do that. But it's not just what you do in camera that matters. It's what you do afterwards as well. Having Flickr screw around with image resizing and stripping EXIF out is not my idea of smart workflow. If you're OK with that then that's fine, but if you leave control of image resizing to Flickr then expect the results to reflect the effort you put into the process. i.e. none.
For the shots of the flowers your shutter speed is in the perfect zone for mirror slap to affect sharpness. I notice you did not use the self timer and you did not use mirror lockup. Did you at least use a remote shutter release or did you actually touch the camera at the moment you took the shot? I'm assuming you used a tripod, but did you? The shot from the 50/1.8 looks dreadful, even at f/4. It may be misfocus. It may be shake. It may be both. The shot from the short zoom looks much better. In fact, even though shooting at 135mm vs 50mm and 37mm (possibly odd choices for a direct comparison) the shot from the long lens looks pretty OK, not like a razor, but decent. However, see my next remarks.
In addition I noticed that you are using neutral picture style with zero sharpening, or at least that's what Flickr says. That will produce soft results. Pictures need to be sharpened somewhere along the line, whether in camera or on a computer. If you shoot with neutral picture style and no sharpening it is expected that you will edit the images later.
Regarding the outdoor scenes, shot with Standard picture style and sharpening at 6 or 3, they look OK, but with Flickr having manhandled the files I wouldn't put much stock in what is there to be seen. In the bird feeder shot I notice you used AI Focus. That's seldom a good choice. I think you may have got away with it this time, but even Canon caution that it may not be the wisest choice.
I think all in all the evidence provided is not that conclusive. On the face of it I suspect your new lens might be quite OK. It's the 50/1.8 you should be looking at, or the approach you took to taking those shots. You also really need to think through your workflow. If you want great shots straight out of camera then you need to set the camera up to accomplish that. Shooting with neutral picture style and sharpening at 0 is not the right way to do that. But it's not just what you do in camera that matters. It's what you do afterwards as well. Having Flickr screw around with image resizing and stripping EXIF out is not my idea of smart workflow. If you're OK with that then that's fine, but if you leave control of image resizing to Flickr then expect the results to reflect the effort you put into the process. i.e. none.
OP
- Messages
- 139
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Thanks for the lengthy reply, it is really appreciated!
Normally I use a custom picture style, with sharpening quite high, with added saturation however for this I reverted to neutral, however it seems now this was a mistake.
I'll re shoot this evening, and give a more accurate approach to see how the results vary, then at least I can remove my self from the sharpness equation.
I normally find my self processing quite abit afterwards, however for these I've added none, I'll add some comparison images later too.
I've never been happy with flickr, however I've never seen a better alternative, other than buying my own webspace. What do you use your self to get your work out there?
Thank you for a kick in the right direction however, I've definitely had no work flow regime from what I've been doing, something ill be aiming to work towards.
Normally I use a custom picture style, with sharpening quite high, with added saturation however for this I reverted to neutral, however it seems now this was a mistake.
I'll re shoot this evening, and give a more accurate approach to see how the results vary, then at least I can remove my self from the sharpness equation.
I normally find my self processing quite abit afterwards, however for these I've added none, I'll add some comparison images later too.
I've never been happy with flickr, however I've never seen a better alternative, other than buying my own webspace. What do you use your self to get your work out there?
Thank you for a kick in the right direction however, I've definitely had no work flow regime from what I've been doing, something ill be aiming to work towards.
- Messages
- 6,481
- Name
- Tim
- Edit My Images
- No
I use Picasaweb to host my images. You get 1GB of space free from Google and no bandwidth constraints. I use the free Picasa software to upload the images, but not to process them, and in that way I have the option to upload the original files without molestation by the website.
http://picasa.google.com/
You can't view the full sized images online, but you can download them.
http://picasa.google.com/
You can't view the full sized images online, but you can download them.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 163
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I use a modified "Standard" picture style with contrast and sharpening turned down (-2 and 2 respectively).
OP
- Messages
- 139
- Edit My Images
- Yes
had a proper attempt tonight, still not 100% happy, but better..
comparison shots were not too bad, however id of liked to get more of the subject in the sharpness, any suggestions on this?
Both from the camera, no cropping.
thanks for the heads up on picasa too.. really nice to use!
comparison shots were not too bad, however id of liked to get more of the subject in the sharpness, any suggestions on this?
Both from the camera, no cropping.
thanks for the heads up on picasa too.. really nice to use!
Last edited:
- Messages
- 366
- Edit My Images
- No
Paul870 said:
I usually shoot in raw n my picture style will be either vivid or neutral depending on situations.
- Messages
- 1,171
- Name
- Chris
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I think it may help if you include the exif on the last two. I was convinced I had an issue with my new 550d but was told it was mostly down to me. Initially it was and with practice things improved massivley but I had a niggle something was still not right. I borrowed a mates 550d and took loads of sides by sides which showed the problem up so had my camera swapped out.
I think the softeness here though is down to longish (1/30) shutter speed and being hand held. Get out in the daylight and take some faster shots and start again I would say.
Should add I am a total noob here and dont know much but you seem to be having the same doubts I had with my camera
I think the softeness here though is down to longish (1/30) shutter speed and being hand held. Get out in the daylight and take some faster shots and start again I would say.
Should add I am a total noob here and dont know much but you seem to be having the same doubts I had with my camera
