Trouble Adjusting to 40D

trapper501 said:
ok, I'll try raw + jpeg. for a bit. I only have 4 Gb cards, but I'm not going anywhere exciting until April so it will give me time to practice and if necessary get some 8 Gb cards.
Click to expand...

That's what I do, shoot Raw and JPEG, partly because I hate post processing, and also because for most things it should not be unnecessary.

There is a lot of adjustment you can do in-camera if you take care with the pre-sets in Picture Styles and so on. Then be careful with exposure and white balance when you shoot and there should be no reason to do anything more in post processing. Unless you want to do something beyond what the camera can do, or you mess up. Even then, there is still some scope to adjust the JPEG image and some things can be done in post that don't make any odds whether it's Raw or JPEG - a bit of retouching maybe, or correcting converging verticals, that sort of thing.

And by shooting Raw as well, you can always go back to that file at any time, for whatever reason.

Edit: File sizes: Raw from a 40D is 12.4MB (10.08mp); Large/Fine is 3.5MB (10.08mp); Large/Normal is 1.8MB (10.08mp). So roughly speaking, if you save a Large/Fine JPEG alongside the Raw, you are only using about one quarter more memory, and a Large/Normal is half that size again. Both these JPEG formats retain full sensor resolution, they are just different levels of compression. FWIW I always use Large/Fine, plus Raw when I think I might need it - just in case ;)

The23rdman said:
Excellent advice as always, Richard, thank you.

I can't find ALO anywhere. Which menu is it on?
Click to expand...

ALO is a 50D feature, not on the 40D.

mikeyb said:
that's true, you can also download a lot of these picture style presets from the canon website.
Click to expand...

I don't understand why you would want to download anything. You can't download anything to a 40D that isn't already on the camera.
 
HoppyUK said:
That's what I do, shoot Raw and JPEG, partly because I hate post processing, and also because for most things it should not be unnecessary.

There is a lot of adjustment you can do in-camera if you take care with the pre-sets in Picture Styles and so on. Then be careful with exposure and white balance when you shoot and there should be no reason to do anything more in post processing. Unless you want to do something beyond what the camera can do, or you mess up. Even then, there is still some scope to adjust the JPEG image and some things can be done in post that don't make any odds whether it's Raw or JPEG - a bit of retouching maybe, or correcting converging verticals, that sort of thing.

And by shooting Raw as well, you can always go back to that file at any time, for whatever reason.

Whilst I agree with this in principle I guess I'm just one of those geeky sorts who likes to play around in PP. Saying that I'll be working more on web development this year so will have less fiddling time.

ALO is a 50D feature, not on the 40D.

That'll explain that then. ;)

I don't understand why you would want to download anything. It's all on the camera. You can't upload anything to a 40D that's avialble on a 50D or other camera.
Click to expand...
 
For me shooting RAW, the picture styles mean nothing really.
 
mikeyb said:
Hi,

Ahem.......Picture Styles for Canon Bodies including 40D ;)

You use them to add to the presets within the camera, ie: user defined as opposed to Standard, Faithful etc :thumbs:

Mike.
Click to expand...

Right, I'm with you ;) Is there anything you can do by downloading those Picture Styles that you cannot do by adjusting the various settings yourself? I think there are 5,832 permutations available for sharpness, contrast, saturation and colour tone.

Not a trick question, just interested in what extra things you can do with those settings, or are they just convenience?

EOS_JD said:
For me shooting RAW, the picture styles mean nothing really.
Click to expand...

What I would say is, if you get your Picture Styles right before shooting, and take care with exposure, white balance, noise adjustment etc, you get a perfect image straight out of the camera without any need to go near Raw processing :D
 
HoppyUK said:
What I would say is, if you get your Picture Styles right before shooting, and take care with exposure, white balance, noise adjustment etc, you get a perfect image straight out of the camera without any need to go near Raw processing :D
Click to expand...

Whilst I hear what you say, I would always use Lr to edit. Batching in Lr takes no time at all and the process for Raw/Jpg is pretty much the same except the time to upload and the space saved.

I really don't plan to shoot jpg any more.
 
tdodd said:
@ The23rdMan - Maybe this will help understand the need for sharpening raw files....

Here is a picture of my nephew. It was taken with my 40D and nifty fifty at f/2.0. The DOF is very thin, but with a little sharpening in DPP it looks pretty sharp to me....

20080813_105254_6714_DPP_full5.JPG



If we look closely at the unsharpened raw file it doesn't look too great....

20080813_105254_6714_DPP_sharp0.JPG


If I increase sharpening from 0 to 3 in DPP, here's how it looks....

20080813_105254_6714_DPP_sharp3.JPG


The DOF is so thin at this level of magnification that really only the eyelashes are sharp.

If I increase sharpening further, to 6, then this is how the file looks at 100%....

20080813_105254_6714_DPP_sharp6.JPG


This is a fraction overdone, but I hope it illustrates the point that sharpening is expected and beneficial.


Here's the same file but processed in Lightroom. I did throw in a couple of other adjustments, so it won't look identical, but the sharpness is there....

20080813_105254_6714_LR.jpg



Canon has an online tutorial about sharpening within Photoshop, but the important thing is not the software you use, it's the fact that you need to apply some sharpening to raw files. Here's the tutorial - http://www.usa.canon.com/dlc/controller?act=GetArticleAct&articleID=287&fromTips=1

More on the topic here - http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=466333

If you'd care to post one of your troublesome images, unedited and with EXIF intact, perhaps someone can provide better insight into the cause of your difficulties. If you can make a raw file available that would be even better.
Click to expand...

Tim, I'm fully aware of the need to sharpen RAW files as I've shot in RAW for months now. The problem was the chimp screen. Also the different depth to the photos from the 40D has taken some adjusting too. Seeing others pictures with the same camera has shown me it's capabilities. :)
 
HoppyUK said:
Right, I'm with you ;) Is there anything you can do by downloading those Picture Styles that you cannot do by adjusting the various settings yourself? I think there are 5,832 permutations available for sharpness, contrast, saturation and colour tone.

Not a trick question, just interested in what extra things you can do with those settings, or are they just convenience?
Click to expand...
Hi,

yeah definitely for convenience I suppose much the same way as you can download presets for Lightroom, Photoshop etc, it saves time and effort in trying to get it right on your own. Much the same way as people would use someone else's settings on their LCD TV or Plasma to get the best image for movies and TV.

I don't use them as I shot in RAW all the time and do all my PP work in DPP, I didn't find lightroom was all that great at sharpening and Noise reduction with my 50D.

A very valid point that someone mentioned about the rear lcd on the 40D, the 1D Mark II had exactly the same problem you just couldn't rely on it for judging the final image, the 40D is no doubt better than the Mark II but the 50D is exactly the opposite, it's far too good as it is very difficult to get the final image to look like the one on the lcd, although I suppose with that showing the jpeg with all the settings embedded then maybe I should shoot jpeg, oh no, you know when something that has bugged you for months...... the light comes on...... then ......:eek:

Mike.
 
The23rdman said:
Tim, I'm fully aware of the need to sharpen RAW files as I've shot in RAW for months now. The problem was the chimp screen. Also the different depth to the photos from the 40D has taken some adjusting too. Seeing others pictures with the same camera has shown me it's capabilities. :)
Click to expand...
Fair enough. Sorry to teach you to suck eggs.

FWIW I have found it to be a waste of time to try to judge image sharpness on the back of my 40D. Ditto my 1D3. The problem is the pathetic embedded preview image. Plus, if you shoot with Neutral picture style and no sharpening, to improve your histogram accuracy, the preview will look even worse.

Cameras from the 50D and later do not have the problem of lousy preview IQ - although if you shoot with Neutral picture style and no sharpening the preview will be flat and soft, albeit detailed.

I've never used an xxxD camera. I'm surprised that the preview from that camera is sharper than from the 40D, if that is indeed what you are saying.
 
tdodd said:
Fair enough. Sorry to teach you to suck eggs.

FWIW I have found it to be a waste of time to try to judge image sharpness on the back of my 40D. Ditto my 1D3. The problem is the pathetic embedded preview image. Plus, if you shoot with Neutral picture style and no sharpening, to improve your histogram accuracy, the preview will look even worse.

Cameras from the 50D and later do not have the problem of lousy preview IQ - although if you shoot with Neutral picture style and no sharpening the preview will be flat and soft, albeit detailed.

I've never used an xxxD camera. I'm surprised that the preview from that camera is sharper than from the 40D, if that is indeed what you are saying.
Click to expand...

No problem, Tim, I appreciate your input, mate, as it's always intelligent and worth reading.

Yes, it surprised me as well re the 350D's screen image. I'll get used to the 40D though.
 
Hi,

I have also noticed that slightly overexposing is a lot better than under, and this is something I've noticed with my dad's 40D as a lot of his images appear darker than I would expect.

Mike.
 
whatdoesthisbutt said:
Its been an interesting post, and I've learned from it.

Thanks all.....
Click to expand...

I have to agree and have a question to ask :D

On my D40 I have my "Optimise Image" in my camera set to "More Vivid". When looking at images on the camera's display they look full rich and full of colour but when I load them into Lightroom I've became disappointed with how dull and lifeless the pictures look. So if I'm correct, the "More Vivid" option will only be applied if shooting in JPEG and now RAW?
 
Steven001 said:
I have to agree and have a question to ask :D

On my D40 I have my "Optimise Image" in my camera set to "More Vivid". When looking at images on the camera's display they look full rich and full of colour but when I load them into Lightroom I've became disappointed with how dull and lifeless the pictures look. So if I'm correct, the "More Vivid" option will only be applied if shooting in JPEG and now RAW?
Click to expand...

It depends on your Raw processor. If you use DPP for example (and some other programmes I believe) it picks up on the JPEG presets that have been automatically tagged to the image, and so when you first open the file it will therefore display the Raw image with those applied. If your monitor is correctly calibrated and set to a similar brightness level, it will look exactly like the LCD image on the camera.

The point of this is that DPP assumes that you have the camera set up roughly to how you want it, so this saves you processing the Raw file from scratch.

Of course, the camera's pre-sets are not embedded in the image in any way so you can modify them or delete them or do what you like to them. It's just a convenience feature, but if you like the way your LCD screen looks then all the Raw processing work has already been done for you. Which I have to say does really beg the question of why you bothered to shoot Raw in the first place... :thinking: But I guess it's always there in case you messed up in shooting.
 
HoppyUK said:
It depends on your Raw processor. If you use DPP for example (and some other programmes I believe) it picks up on the JPEG presets that have been automatically tagged to the image, and so when you first open the file it will therefore display the Raw image with those applied. If your monitor is correctly calibrated and set to a similar brightness level, it will look exactly like the LCD image on the camera.

The point of this is that DPP assumes that you have the camera set up roughly to how you want it, so this saves you processing the Raw file from scratch.

Of course, the camera's pre-sets are not embedded in the image in any way so you can modify them or delete them or do what you like to them. It's just a convenience feature, but if you like the way your LCD screen looks then all the Raw processing work has already been done for you. Which I have to say does really beg the question of why you bothered to shoot Raw in the first place... :thinking: But I guess it's always there in case you messed up in shooting.
Click to expand...

I process my RAW files in Lightroom so I'm not too sure what happens there.

Just because the camera is set to "More Vivid" doesn't mean I'm happy with the finial image, which is why I shoot in RAW. There's a lot of reasons for me shooting in RAW like sorting the white balance, exposure, sharpness and all the rest of it. All the "More Vivid" option does is 'pop' the colours a little, nothing else.

Thanks for the info :)
 
The23rdman said:
I'm not sure, TBH. I always shot in RAW with the 350D too, but that could easily be it. It's when I chimp and see soft images it puts me off.
Click to expand...

I have a 40D and ditto all the comments above re soft preview images on the camera, one of the few things I really dislike about the camera. You will after a while get used to it and be able to make a good guess as to weather the image is sharp but it's not good.

Also if you are using DPP to convert your RAW images look out for the software automatically applying Luminance noise reduction as this softens the images noticeably you can set it to default to zero in the preferences menu.

I've had this camera almost 2 years now and it still surprises me with the image quality - going to buy a 70-200L soon too :D

HTH

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