Shooting RAW - how do you have your camera set up?

harryduns

harryduns

Messages
273
Name
Harry
Edit My Images
No
I have shot exclusively in RAW for the past 2 years, taking full advantage of the options opened up for post-shoot tweaking. I love it and would never go back!

I have always just left my camera set up for how I would have it if I was shooting JPEG, e.g. all the colour, sharpening options etc and set up to give good results off the bat. As I tend to convert in LR and shoot a Nikon, all that information is discarded at the conversion stage, so I've never really worried about it.

However, I suddenly had a thought that setting the camera up differently might yield some useful features in the field - e.g. using Standard instead of Vivid will have no bearing on the final image once it's in LR, but it will have a bearing on the histograms displayed by the camera as they're representative of the processed thumbnail generated in-camera. It got me to wondering about how other people set their in-camera options when shooting RAW. Just thought I'd ask and see what people had to say :)
 
Although I shoot Canon I turn off all image enhancements and use a neutral/flat picture style so that (a) my camera is not wasting its efforts performing needless work massaging my files, such as applying NR to the preview image; (b) my histogram is a more reliable gauge of when I hit clipping point.
 
I've always kept mine on standard, was never sure what was best but after reading Tim's tips it looks like I'll stay with standard. Makes sense if you are PPing anyway
 
I also shoot raw, and to be honest, hadn't thought about this until I just read your post.

I do keep mine set to neutral also, not by any clever stretch of the imagination, just by default.

Be interesting to see some more theories on this.
 
As above, I just leave everything flat so that what i see on the histogram on my camera is what I see on the histogram in Lightroom.
 
I have the in camera setting to roughly what I'd do as a quick tweek in post processing so that what I see on the camera screen is roughly what I'd end up with on the computer. I have some sharpening done and boost the contrast and I think the saturation my be up a notch too.

I don't see the point of seeing a flat and lifeless image on the back of your camera if that's not the end result you are aiming for. :shrug:
 
-Rob- said:
I have the in camera setting to roughly what I'd do as a quick tweek in post processing so that what I see on the camera screen is roughly what I'd end up with on the computer. I have some sharpening done and boost the contrast and I think the saturation my be up a notch too.

I don't see the point of seeing a flat and lifeless image on the back of your camera if that's not the end result you are aiming for. :shrug:
Click to expand...
That's my approach as well.
 
-Rob- said:
I have the in camera setting to roughly what I'd do as a quick tweek in post processing so that what I see on the camera screen is roughly what I'd end up with on the computer. I have some sharpening done and boost the contrast and I think the saturation my be up a notch too.

I don't see the point of seeing a flat and lifeless image on the back of your camera if that's not the end result you are aiming for. :shrug:
Click to expand...

To be honist.
if your subject is shot right nothing would ever look flat/lifeless... anyway.

post processing is always needed to look at your image in full, your back of your screen can always misslead you into thinking its good.

open it full screen on a callibrated monitor and you'll notice the difference.
but I guess it depends what your shooting and your turnaround.
 
In my opinion, shooting raw is about capturing data. It is not about capturing the finished image. You want the camera set up to enable you to capture the most data of the highest quality that you can. The preview image shows you whether your framing was good. It may give an indication of sharpness, but when it comes to judging exposure it's the histogram and blinkies that should be your guide. Not the appearance of the image on the uncalibrated LCD display which you are viewing in completely random and uncontrolled ambient lighting.

That's why I have my camera set to show a histogram that is not distorted by overzealous in camera processing. If you shoot to JPEG and want images ready to use straight from camera then sure, go to town jazzing up the settings if you like. If you shoot to raw, which is the topic of this thread, then why on earth would you want to set the camera up like that?

Furthermore, the whole approach to setting exposure differs, or at least it would to me if I was ever to shoot to JPEG. In raw I can ETTR and maximise dynamic range, pushing boundaries harder than I could with JPEG. So it's not just the basic camera settings that would differ, but my whole approach to metering and setting exposure.

If I was to shoot to JPEG then I'd revamp many settings within the camera. Since I never do shoot to JPEG I have all my cameras set up to optimise my raw data captures. I don't care if the image looks flat and lifeless on the back of the camera. I do care that the camera does not undermine my efforts to capture as much raw data as possible.
 
I shoot RAW and apply the in camera VIVID style as my starting point. By using Capture NX - it retains all those juicy vivid settings in the RAW file, and I then further process until I am happy.

Best of both worlds :)

G.
 
tdodd said:
In my opinion, shooting raw is about capturing data. It is not about capturing the finished image. You want the camera set up to enable you to capture the most data of the highest quality that you can. The preview image shows you whether your framing was good. It may give an indication of sharpness, but when it comes to judging exposure it's the histogram and blinkies that should be your guide. Not the appearance of the image on the uncalibrated LCD display which you are viewing in completely random and uncontrolled ambient lighting.

That's why I have my camera set to show a histogram that is not distorted by overzealous in camera processing. If you shoot to JPEG and want images ready to use straight from camera then sure, go to town jazzing up the settings if you like. If you shoot to raw, which is the topic of this thread, then why on earth would you want to set the camera up like that?

Furthermore, the whole approach to setting exposure differs, or at least it would to me if I was ever to shoot to JPEG. In raw I can ETTR and maximise dynamic range, pushing boundaries harder than I could with JPEG. So it's not just the basic camera settings that would differ, but my whole approach to metering and setting exposure.

If I was to shoot to JPEG then I'd revamp many settings within the camera. Since I never do shoot to JPEG I have all my cameras set up to optimise my raw data captures. I don't care if the image looks flat and lifeless on the back of the camera. I do care that the camera does not undermine my efforts to capture as much raw data as possible.
Click to expand...
I found that 90% of the time I was making the same initial adjustments in DPP, so it saves time to have those settings already set up in camera, and gives me the starting point I want for the remaining PP tasks quicker. In the 10% of cases where I want a different starting point the actual data is unchanged so it works fine in those situations too. Also its worth saying the settings aren't exactly extreme - something like +1 saturation, +1 sharpness from the standard settings.

I take your point about ETTR but I found that hard to use for the type of shooting I do. Probably lack of practice as much as anything though.
 
In DPP it takes but a moment to select a whole bunch of images (CTL-A will select them all in a nanosecond) and make global changes to them all at once. You could even have a recipe set up and apply it in a couple of seconds.

That said, I guess my approach is in itself a bit extreme (maybe even anal), although not uncommon, but as I use Lightroom for my processing all the in camera parameters are pointless in any case. They will be ignored. That's why I don't care what the image looks like on the back of the camera. The camera doesn't contain Lightroom. :)
 
EdinburghGary said:
I shoot RAW and apply the in camera VIVID style as my starting point. By using Capture NX - it retains all those juicy vivid settings in the RAW file, and I then further process until I am happy.

Best of both worlds :)

G.
Click to expand...


Interesting way of doing that. Might have a play with that approach when I get chance.

Have you ever shot nuetral and vivid and examined the differences?
 
tdodd said:
In my opinion, shooting raw is about capturing data. It is not about capturing the finished image. You want the camera set up to enable you to capture the most data of the highest quality that you can. The preview image shows you whether your framing was good. It may give an indication of sharpness, but when it comes to judging exposure it's the histogram and blinkies that should be your guide. Not the appearance of the image on the uncalibrated LCD display which you are viewing in completely random and uncontrolled ambient lighting.

That's why I have my camera set to show a histogram that is not distorted by overzealous in camera processing. If you shoot to JPEG and want images ready to use straight from camera then sure, go to town jazzing up the settings if you like. If you shoot to raw, which is the topic of this thread, then why on earth would you want to set the camera up like that?

Furthermore, the whole approach to setting exposure differs, or at least it would to me if I was ever to shoot to JPEG. In raw I can ETTR and maximise dynamic range, pushing boundaries harder than I could with JPEG. So it's not just the basic camera settings that would differ, but my whole approach to metering and setting exposure.

If I was to shoot to JPEG then I'd revamp many settings within the camera. Since I never do shoot to JPEG I have all my cameras set up to optimise my raw data captures. I don't care if the image looks flat and lifeless on the back of the camera. I do care that the camera does not undermine my efforts to capture as much raw data as possible.
Click to expand...

Agree with most/all of what you said. Of course, whether to ETTR and such is a whole other debate, but I'm definitely with you on the principle of RAW shooting being about capturing as much data as possible and as a RAW shooter you need to have the creative vision to already know what you're going to do in post at the point you're taking the shot.

A lot of beginners rely too much on the camera's LCD to tell them if a photo is good - as you say, it's pretty unrepresentative even on good DSLRs and whilst histograms aren't perfect, they do give a much better idea of good/bad exposure.
 
EdinburghGary said:
Huge difference. Contrast, Saturation take a massive dive when Vivid is turned off.

G.
Click to expand...


I guess if you really know Vivid is the only setting you'll ever use then it's fair enough to just shoot in Vivid, but for me Vivid isn't perfect for all scenarios, especially as it really seems to hype reds. and you lose al ot of texture and detail from things like a red jacket, for instance.

For me, the point of shooting RAW is the flexibility to alter settings to your heart's content after the fact - it only takes one click in Capture to batch convert all your shots to Vivid as you import them, if you should so wish! Meanwhile for users of ACR, LR etc - they don't even pick up on Nikon's profiles as you import your pics so in-camera setting have no bearing unless you're using Capture.

Whilst some of my custom banks do apply more contrasty and colourful schemes currently, this thread has definitely confirmed what I'd been thinking and I'm definitely leaning towards making my in-camera settings as unmolested as possible for more accurate histogram readings. Thanks for all your thoughts!
 
harryduns said:
I guess if you really know Vivid is the only setting you'll ever use then it's fair enough to just shoot in Vivid, but for me Vivid isn't perfect for all scenarios, especially as it really seems to hype reds. and you lose al ot of texture and detail from things like a red jacket, for instance.

For me, the point of shooting RAW is the flexibility to alter settings to your heart's content after the fact - it only takes one click in Capture to batch convert all your shots to Vivid as you import them, if you should so wish! Meanwhile for users of ACR, LR etc - they don't even pick up on Nikon's profiles as you import your pics so in-camera setting have no bearing unless you're using Capture.

Whilst some of my custom banks do apply more contrasty and colourful schemes currently, this thread has definitely confirmed what I'd been thinking and I'm definitely leaning towards making my in-camera settings as unmolested as possible for more accurate histogram readings. Thanks for all your thoughts!
Click to expand...

You can load up camera profiles into ACR (and hence LR). They do a decent approximation of the camera settings, and I thin have the same names (they do for the D3100 at least). Not perfect, but good enough.
 
If you use Lightroom 3 you have the option on the develop screen to apply Nikon jpeg treatments to your RAW files, like Vivid and Portrait etc.

It's under the Develop section in Camera Calibration then change the Profile from Adobe Standard to the one you want.

Only just found this out so not sure how accurate it is to the Nikon actual settings.
 
Colour - Neutral; Sharpening - Off; WB - Auto or Flash depending on whether I'm in a studio or not.

I tried using Vivid for studio portraiture, but it looked awful.

I have other pre-sets that I use when shooting JPEG-Fine at Events that calibrate the cameras to my Bowens lights and printers...
 
it doesnt really matter, those extremely small processing things wont make enough of a difference to worry about. just turn them all off anyway if it makes you feel better, i did!
 
I use neutral - don't want the camera to apply any processing as I'd prefer to see an unprocessed histogram. Also I use lightroom so there's no point anyway. Also have high ISO and long exposure noise reduction off

Comfy said:
I've always kept mine on standard, was never sure what was best but after reading Tim's tips it looks like I'll stay with standard. Makes sense if you are PPing anyway
Click to expand...

Actually the Standard picture style applies a high level of sharpening and saturation. If you don't want the camera to do any processing you will need to use either Neutral or Faithful.

See this for more info
 
Last edited:
J.D. said:
I use neutral - don't want the camera to apply any processing as I'd prefer to see an unprocessed histogram. Also I use lightroom so there's no point anyway. Also have high ISO and long exposure noise reduction off



Actually the Standard picture style applies a high level of sharpening and saturation. If you don't want the camera to do any processing you will need to use either Neutral or Faithful.

See this for more info
Click to expand...

Ah interesting info! I'm out this afternoon with the camera so will be trying some landscape shots on different settings and comparing once home.
 
I shoot jpeg+RAW as sometimes I cant be bothered to PP photos or they look right as is.

As a result, I've got my camera set up with all my own custom settings and that gives me jpegs how I (usually) like them, and the RAWs are there for if I mess up the shot or its not quite right.

Nick.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top