Camera Settings

[Polar01]

Is this true if the raw converter used is Adobe Raw, instead of Capture NX2? I tried the Nikon converter as I use a D7000, didn't really like it as I have been using the Adobe program for sometime now, know others who use the Nikon program all the time and really like it. If it is save in both then today has not been wasted as I have learned something new that I did not know before.

Cheers:

Allan

[Mike Buckley]

I would be surprised to learn that Adobe Camera RAW doesn't save the embedded JPEG but I don't use it and don't know for sure. As for the issue of whether your D7000 stores a full-size embedded JPEG, it does. I seem to remember that the D50 is the last Nikon camera that stores a lower resolution embedded JPEG, but I could be wrong about that. I hope you enjoy your D7000 as much as I enjoy mine!

[rpcrowe]

Early in my digital career (using an Olympus C5050Z P&S) I began shooting in JPEG because I was, honestly, afraid of RAW. However, soon afterwards (when I bought my first DSLR camera; a Canon 10D), I started shooting in RAW & JPEG Large. Not too long after that, I relaized that I was never using the JPEG image and all it did was load up my CF card sooner. So I began to rely in RAW captures and have not regretted that decision once.

IMO, shooting in RAW is actually easier than shooting in JPEG. I never have to worry about color balance, contrast settings or any other parameters necessary when you are shooting in JPEG.

Opening the image in either Lightroom 3 or Photoshop Elements 10; Camera RAW gives me a great deal of control over the final result. I also never have to worry about destroying the original image because Camera RAW is non-destructive.

I most often shoot in aperture priority (although sometimes I shoot in programmed) exposure. I select my ISO before shooting and will monitor my exposure during shooting. This allows me to shoot with the lowest ISO that will provide the shutter speed and f/stop I want. I don't want my camera to decide which ISO I should use!

I really like the top LCD of the x0D and 7D 1.6x Canon cameras because I will often glance down at that window to ensure that the camera parameters are set the way I desire. I had a 350D Rebel DSLR for a short while and detested the lack of top LCD as well as the heavy reliance on menues to modify my camera parameters.

BTW: Both my 40D and my 7D cameras have three "User Selected Modes" which allow me to choose and register my shooting parameters ahead of the actual shooting and to switch to the chosen and registered parameters with a single turn of the Mode Dial, rather than modifying each parameter individually. I take advantage of pre-registering the three User Selected Modes before I am out in the sometimes frenzied shooting and when I am relaxed. I would be hard pressed to shoot without the three User Selected Modes. Unfortunately, Canon has reduced the user selected modes on the 50D to 2; and further reduced the user selected modes on the 60D to a single mode. Thank goodness, the Canon Gods had enough sense to retain three user selected modes on my 7D.

An example of some pre-registered parameters: I have Mode 1 set up for action shooting and I have mode 2 set up for HDR capture. Mode 3 will be setup for what ever type shooting I expect. Along with my standard selection of parameters (other than the User Selected Modes) I actually have four different setups available. With the very many focusing styles of the 7D, the User Selected Modes are a great help.

[jcuknz]

To the thread subject I used to have everything set to 'low' so I could adjust everything in editing [Paint Shop Pro] but these days I am finding normal seems to suit my needs.... there is little point to spending heaps of money to purchase the sum of the geeks's experience and to not let their skill assist me.

If you get to read this Christina, or anybody , my system, despite the fact that I always shoot jpg these days, is that the first thing I do is to make a copy of the file to an 'archive' folder using the camera number. This in my case is on a second hard drive. Then I move the file to an appropriate folder on my main 'working' HD.* This means that I always have the opportunity to start afresh , which I normally do on the basis that over time my skill in editing has improved. There is also the point that only on rare occasions do I 'save' what I have worked on but ALWAYS 'save as' which prompts me for both a title and system for the save. So normally I have two copies of the original file available to me. After some time I delete the un-worked up files from my working HD.
*This empties the camera card except for a small amount of junk** and removes the need to format another maverick stand on my part ... I rarely have a need to format my cards. Though my CF cards do seem to build up more junk than my SD's
** less than one photo file so as a non-professional rarely fully using a card I ignore its presence.

[Mike Buckley]

I use Canon DSLR’s...The picture styles affect the JPEG and can be thought of a an 'in-camera Post Processing’ but they do not affect the raw file – I believe this is the same on the Nikon.

I think you've probably got an accurate understanding of what's happening, Bill, but I'd like to clarify the point I think you are making so others reading the thread who are new to this stuff aren't accidentally misled. The in-camera postprocessing that you refer to (I like your term) does not permanently change the RAW file as it does a JPEG. However, it does affect the RAW file because that is what you would want to happen. The affect is that the information configured in your camera settings is stored in the RAW file. When you convert the RAW file the first time using postprocessing software, that software attempts to at least replicate the information stored by the camera.

I use the word, "replicate," because Nikon cameras as one example store proprietary information in the RAW file that only Nikon software can read. Other postprocessing software attempts to replicate that information as well as possible. The most recent version of Adobe Camera RAW has a widespread reputation for doing a really good job of replicating that information, whereas that was not always the case in the past.

[Brownbear]

Yes, I'm still reading... Great stuff which I'm saving for future reference, as right now all of the info is a bit much for me to absorb, but I will...

[MrB]

I hope that no-one minds me adding an extra question to this thread, as it seems appropriate here. I have Adobe Photoshop Elements 10 (which includes Adobe Camera Raw), but I notice that many members appear to have also Adobe LightRoom. With regard to image processing (not cataloging), is it a good idea or even necessary to have both PSE and LR? Does LR do some sorts of processing that is just not possible with PSE + ACR?

Philip

[Manfred M]

I am a firm believer in shooting both RAW and jpeg. I have heard the arguments both ways (RAW vs jpg); both here in CiC and elsewhere from professional photographers and advanced amateurs, and while I understand their positions, they do not reflect either my needs or my workflow. I have variable needs. Some of the shots I love, and the RAW files get a lot of TLC and full-blown PP in Photoshop. Other shots are "good enough" to be posted on a non-photo website; for instance a travel site, as is with resizing the only PP work I will do..

For normal shots, the default settings in my camera are a bit boring, especially for landscapes, so I use the "landscape" preset and the final result right out the camera is good enough to post:

As an example, we took a short break to Quebec's Eastern Townships (Cantons de l'Est) last weekend and I did a short writeup on what we did and saw on a travel website where I am a member. The following is an out of the camera RAW shot converted to jpeg. Not a great work of art, but it nicely shows part of the village where we stayed.



Using my D800's "landscape" setting, the image has a bit more "pop" right out of the camera, and it took virtually no effort on my part to post it.



The important thing is to understand how you camera works by trying different things and what figuring out what does and does not meet your photographic needs.

[Mike Buckley]

I've consistently read that the latest version of all Adobe products use the same version of Adobe Camera RAW. I have never used Lightroom, so I'll leave the rest of the answer to others.

EDIT: See Dave's explanation below that ACR in Elements is not as robust as in Adobe's other products. Perhaps the engine that converts the information in a RAW file so you can display the image is the same across all latest versions of Adobe products, even though the other capabilties that allow you to tweak the image after displaying it are less robust in Elements.

[Manfred M]

I hope that no-one minds me adding an extra question to this thread, as it seems appropriate here. I have Adobe Photoshop Elements 10 (which includes Adobe Camera Raw), but I notice that many members appear to have also Adobe LightRoom. With regard to image processing (not cataloging), is it a good idea or even necessary to have both PSE and LR? Does LR do some sorts of processing that is just not possible with PSE + ACR?

Philip

The tool(s) that you use are really dependent on your own personal needs, knowledge and workflow. I own both Lightroom 4 and Photoshop CS6

Adobe really has three photo editing products:

1. Elements - entry level for basic photo editing. It is quite powerful for what it does.

2. Lightroom - it's powers are cataloguing and mass production. I only start using it if have have taken over several hundred images to identify the outstanding ones, the keepers and the ones I delete. It also has some great automation functions that are useful for wedding or event photographers if you what to make the same adjustment to a number of images shot under similar conditions. It also has some fairly good editing tools that can be used quickly and easily.

3. Photoshop - the all singing and all dancing piece of software that lets you do just about anything you can think of to an image. Downside, it has an extremely long learning curve and is quite expensive.

Both Photoshop and Lightroom use the same engine for RAW conversion. There are differeing opinions out there as to whether it or the camera manufacturer's converter should be used.

[Dave Humphries]

I hope that no-one minds me adding an extra question to this thread, as it seems appropriate here. I have Adobe Photoshop Elements 10 (which includes Adobe Camera Raw), but I notice that many members appear to have also Adobe LightRoom. With regard to image processing (not cataloging), is it a good idea or even necessary to have both PSE and LR? Does LR do some sorts of processing that is just not possible with PSE + ACR?

Hi Philip,

The "ACR" you get with PS Elements is a 'cut down' version of what ships with full Photoshop CS5 and CS6, the missing features are mostly/all (I believe) available in LR, which is cheaper than CS5/6.

Many find LR easier to use thn ACR.

Since I have CS5, I probably won't go for LR as I am now used to ACR.
I do use 2 or 3 of the extra tabs (in CS5 ACR) regularly now.

Cheers,

[William W]

I think you've probably got an accurate understanding of what's happening . . .etc

Thank you for spreading that out and making that detail very clear.

WW



Aside:
FYI and by way of explaining:
(Yes, I did know) - My choice of the word 'affect' was to mean ‘alter’ (as it does to the JPEG), “affect” having a sense of permanency about it. If I had spread the explanation out - and I didn’t do that because I was keeping my comments simple - I might have written:

“The in-camera postprocessing affects the JPEG.. . and it does have an effect upon the RAW file because that is what you would want to happen.. . ”

. . . and that probably would have been less clear than what you wrote!

[Brownbear]

Hi Philip,
I just recently purchased Lightroom 4.1. The reason I bought the program was because when I shoot birds in flight my birds have chromatic aberration and purple fringing which was not fixable in Photoshop Elements... I'm still learning lightroom (and elements) so I can't advise in any great detail, but do like the simple presentation of lightroom (as opposed to elements) in particular the small increments which with one can see the effect of increasing exposure, lighting etc... (wee steps at a time)

[MrB]

Thank you to all who replied here regarding PSE and LR. I have also just spotted the other thread that I missed during last week on this same topic.

Philip

[AB26]

I'm thinking that I should have all these set to normal, so that after uploading, if I see that the photo needs needs some work (sharpening etc) I can do the editing, rather than leave it in the hands of the camera... Is this correct?

Thank you.

Hi Christina,
You ask the very question I have asked so many times. Why so many settings and tweaks in camera?

I am a staunched believer in getting things right the first time. For many years I have been a cabinet maker/fitter. I developed my skill into an art and was acknowledged as being one of the best in my field. I still have ten full vingers, never had any bitten off by a circular saw, spindle or router. The only reason I developed my skill into an art was due to the fact that I mastered the tools of my trade.

Photography is also a trade with tools being used. If you wish to turn your trade into an art you need to develop skills with the tools of your trade. All those settings have a specific outcome. If you turn on “vivid”, colors will be more vibrant, etc. Set the white balance to manual, adjust the colour temperature and see the outcome.
How do you master the tools of your trade? Spend as much time as needed to find out how settings changes the outcome. Once you have grown accustomed to the in camera settings you will enjoy your photography even more. Getting the result you wish to achieve in camera gives a feeling of satisfaction you cannot get from doing it on a computer. Like a professional photographer vriend of mine says, “ I’d rather be shooting than wasting my shooting time in front of a computer.”

Find an instruction manual for your D80 (on the net) and read it over and over again while playing with the settings. Those settings were built into the camera to make you achieve the result you wish for, spending as little time as possible doing Post Processing.

The attached photograph was shot on a very rare day in Johannesburg, we very seldom see snow. What I wanted to capture here was the dull grey in the sky with the feeling of the cold atmosphere. I did some cropping and that is all I have done in PP.

Shot with an ancient Nikon D200 set to Aperture Priority at F8, 1/250 sec, ISO160 White balance Auto. JPeg Fine, Colour space Adobe RGB, Matrix Metering, Contrast Normal, Saturation Normal, Sharpness Normal. You can shoot RAW or JPEG as you prefer depending on the space you have on your card.

The less time I have to spend “fixing shooting errors” the happier I am. Most CiC members disagree with me. Most believe spending more time doing PP and less time developing skills with the camera is the way forward.

Gold has never been won by those following but rather by those practicing as much as needed to be a winner.




Not the best of shots but I keep practising.

[Brownbear]

Hi Andrea,
Thank you so much for your reply and inspiring words of advice... I'm studying and working very hard to get it right in my camera, but finding that my birds in flight shots need some editing for things beyond my camera capability (or perhaps my shooting capability), such as overexposed skies, chromatic aberrations, fringing... So I hope to learn both arts..

Does anyone know if the in camera settings add noise to the photo?

PS I think it is a lovely shot.

[Polar01]

Andre: It is difficult to take an image when you have a very flat sky as you have, as you are a person who likes to get it right in camera. I would make the following suggestions, because the sky is flat,and snow on the ground, the camera sensor reads that there is more light than there is, so it would be best to be about 2/3 of a stop slower. Another thing, there is little contrast in the sky, going to a landscape mode would be good as it will sharpen up the edge of items in the image against the sky, also if you were to adjust the contrast and saturation under the landscape mode were increased just a little one or two bumps it would help. This would still give you that feeling you wanted, as that is reflected both in the sky and the black of the pavement. I am attaching a reworked image, as I could not do these adjustment in camera, I used photoshop, however I only adjusted to what could have been gotten out of the camera if it had been tweeted such.

It is not from great images that we took that we learn, but from the failures that we took.

Cheers:

Allan

[MrB]

Most CiC members disagree with me. Most believe spending more time doing PP and less time developing skills with the camera is the way forward.

Andre, what is irritating to me is that you quite deliberately misinterpret what other members write, because of your prejudice against computer work. From my experience of CiC, I believe that most of the members here would agree with you that practice, practice, and more practice with the camera is essential to develop the skills of capturing the best possible images. But, I would also suggest that the majority of members would regard practice, practice and more practice of post-processing skills as also being essential, in order to develop those captured images into the best possible photographs.

Philip

[Donald]

Most (CiC members) believe spending more time doing PP and less time developing skills with the camera is the way forward.

I tend to stay out of these debates that generate more hot air than light, but cannot let the above pass without comment.

That statement is abject nonsense. If you believe that to be true then you obviously haven't taken the time to read and understand what other members have written.

[kris]

Most CiC members disagree with me. Most believe spending more time doing PP and less time developing skills with the camera is the way forward.

Dear Andre,

The negative is comparable to the composer's score and the print to its performance. Each performance differs in subtle ways.
Ansel Adams

Do we have to say anything more?

If you negate PP you are missing the essence of photography as a medium of expression offering a variety of perception, interpretation and execution.

Andrea