Camera Settings

[William W]

Some Master Cabinet Makers used to send their finely crafted Woodwork to the Master French Polisher: that was in my Grandfather's day . . . he was a Master Cabinet Maker of Fine Furniture and that's what he did.

Maybe the modern Master Cabinet Makers now do the French Polishing themself: I don't know.

But I do know when I make a Photograph with my digital cameras, that I no longer send my negatives to the Photo Lab for the Master Darkroom Technician to create the prints under my instruction . . .

WW

[AB26]

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.

Hi Donald,
I am not going down the road of Post Processing opposed to getting it right, in camera, again, in this thread. If you read the thread I posted, asking the question “Why so much PP?” you will understand why I say most disagree with me (read the comments on my advice to Christina).
This thread is Christina’s and she wants to know if she should rather use the camera with basic settings and then do PP to get the desired effect. Or should she strive to achieve a level of competence with the camera to achieve the result she desires without, or with as little as possible Post Processing. My personal opinion is that it is always beter to master the camera settings first before resorting to any other form of additional aid. I will always recommend mastering the most important tool in photography, the camera, first. ( Shooting with a Nikon, as Christina does, if you cannot fix it in Nikon View NX2, RESHOOT).

Some members of CiC with good DSLR cameras do not even know , for example, how to use manual white balance or preset white balance on their cameras, why not? Is it possible to attempt laying a good solid foundation to build on, in CiC?

[AB26]

Hi Allan,
I appreciate your comment. The edit you did does not however depict what the day looked like and what I saw. You see Allan the scene was flat, a flat, grey, dreary, dull, cold atmosphere. The only sense of depth in the picture is in the road leading to the oncoming car with lights on. If I wanted the scene to look like your edit it would have been possible to achieve that result in camera by turning up the exposure compensation by one stop. The colour rendition is very accurate on my LG screen.
Ten minutes later the sun was shining and the snow melting. To see a scene like that in JHB is rare as I mentioned, we enjoy 340+ sunshine days per year. If we do not see the sun for two days, Johannesburgers start getting suicidal. (Rain or snow, the sun will shine, I suppose like in Mexico.)
Yes we learn form our mistakes, that is why I keep on doing adjustments, shoot, download, evaluate, delete and start again. The day I no longer need to do this, I will call myself a Photographer. In the meantime I am just another camera owner dedicated to his passion.
I would like Christina to master the camera settings to achieve the result she is looking for, not to shoot blindly hoping she can improve the result in PP.

[Brownbear]

Thank you everyone... Tons of great information here in this post to learn..

Andre, I appreciate your passion for getting it right in the camera and I promise that I will learn every aspect of my cameras functions... I too, don't wish to spend a lot of time on the computer editing photos or creating works of art, which I think is an entirely different aspect, and a reality of today's world in photography. It is also one that I appreciate and I think these works of art created are beautiful... And I also truly appreciate the art of unedited photography and getting it right in the camera as you say, as my focus is on nature photography.

I'm new to editing and the learning process is actually helping me to improve my photography... For example, I can see if I always need to increase exposure that I need to tweak these camera settings next time around.. Also, I really love shooting birds in flight and with my camera it does not seem possible to get a shot without chromatic aberration or purple fringing which lightroom has a fix for... and I think using l layers in Adobe elements will also provide a fix for this, once I learn how to do it.

If I ever manage a perfect shot of a flock of green parrotlets in flight, that needs some editing to show their beauty to the world, and help protect this endangered species I think that it is wonderful, so I can share the beauty of these birds with the world.

Also it seems that if I expose properly for the bird in flight, or for a landscape with a blue sky, the blue sky is almost always overexposed... Is it possible to get that right in the camera... or with some kind of filter? And does a filter detract from the quality of the photo? (as I read somewhere)

In the days of the darkroom, did photographers not adjust for shadows, highlights, exposure, contrast, etc?

The one question that I still have that has been missed somehow is if you set your camera to enhance sharpening, contrast, vividness, etc... does this add noise to the photo? If no noise is added to the photo as it is with editing, that for me would be a real plus.

Thank you everyone for sharing your thoughts....

[Polar01]

Christina: the main cause of noise is a high ISO setting, if you set for a ISO of 100 what noise, starting getting over an ISO of 400 you can start oto pick it up, goto an ISO of 6,400 lots. Most noise will be found in dark areas as no or little data is recorded by the camera, newer camera do a better job today of dealling with noise than those of even 2 years ago, so setting you camera to enhance will not does not affect or increase noise (under exposed and a high ISO will). So take that camera set it to enhanced and shoot away and post your results, will be watching.

Cheers:

Allan

[Brownbear]

Thank you Allan.. Great to know... I'm heading to Canada for a couple of weeks, and when I return I hope to have some nice photos to share, likely cows and landscapes as I don't think they have any pelicans there. Cheers!

[Dave Humphries]

Hi Christina,

A while back, you asked;

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?

If you are going to shoot RAW, for potentially (much) better quality than possible with jpg, then the answer has to be YES in my opinion.

I fail to see any point in using whatever coarse steps might be provided in camera to set contrast, saturation and sharpness for the jpg, when a much better job can be done in PP (probably much quicker!) Sure, these may, if you use the correct software (ViewNX2 or CaptureNX2), also affect the RAW, but honestly, there is no point. For one thing, you are not using the Nikon software, so if shooting RAW and using LR and/or Elements, you just wasted your time.

Just above, you also asked;

if you set your camera to enhance sharpening, contrast, vividness, etc... does this add noise to the photo? If no noise is added to the photo as it is with editing, that for me would be a real plus.

However, if you are shooting jpg and you shoot at a higher iso and crop significantly, then yes, doing these things in camera will 'freeze' the noise in to the jpg. So again, I recommend having these set very conservatively (as I do on my own jpg only shooting camera), so you can apply targeted PP where it is needed, in the precise amounts needed, not blanket adjustments that are irreversible.

Nor would I recommend avoiding high iso for the sake of noise; shooting everything at 100 iso may result in a lot of images blurred due to too slow a shutter speed. The D80 is not that new, but even so, I would imagine that 800 iso will be OK if you don't crop too much and don't under expose.


I have no particular argument against trying to get, say; the WB right in camera, but again, it can be set more accurately, much quicker in PP if you are shooting RAW, than mess 'on site' with custom white balances, or using a prest that is likely to be hundreds of Kelvin incorrect.

There is a limit to what can be 'got right in camera' and getting a perfect shot will depend on a lot of luck of the scene and lighting.

Cheers,

[Brownbear]

Thank you Dave. Very helpful and good to know, and even more for me to learn... I will try both

I shoot raw and jpeg, so I will try both and figure out which works best eventually... With respect to noise, I also work with stock photos (and this is new, too) and recently I've tried shooting my birds in flight at iso 400 and 800, with no cropping I have had photos rejected for noise, (with very little or no editing) so this is a true challenge for me yes. And the shots don't seem to have very good clarity and the sky ends up being overexposed.

Here is a pelican shot, shot at 1S0 320 ss (priority) 1250 F6... original photo rejected for noise which you can see the noise his belly... I was asked to fix the noise and resubmit.. Also, I read from someone else on this forum that they never reduce for noise because it effects the clarity and sharpness..?



Here is one shot at manual iso 800 ss 1250 F 7 Exp. +.7... also the original and not cropped and at full size you can see the noise.. I'm saving it for later so when I learn to edit properly I can fix these things... Plus the focus is not sharp enough, which means I have to use a higher shutter speed or increase the iso?



How can I fix the exposure to lessen the noise with birds in flight?

Here is another Manual iso 800, F7 SS 1250

Here is one iso 100 SS 640 A 7 (no noise and the clarity is good, but the lighting conditions were better)



So what am I doing wrong with my birds in flight?

[Mike Buckley]

Christina,

One way to accidentally produce noise is to underexpose the image and compensate for that during postprocessing. So, try to get your exposure as close as possible to what you want in the camera (notice that I didn't mention to get it "accurate"). To do that, review your histogram after every shot and reshoot again if that's necessary and practical. Alternatively, bracket your exposures.

Getting the ideal white balance will also help achieve getting the ideal exposure; changing the white balance results in a slightly different exposure as becomes evident when you review two histograms with all settings the same other than white balance.. So, try to get the white balance right in the camera but don't sweat it if you have to make minor adjustments during postprocessing.

Photographing birds in flight is a very special type of photography that requires certain capture and postprocessing skills. I recommend that you obtain literature pertaining to the topic and seek a successful mentor who specializes in that type of photography.

[Brownbear]

Thanks Mike... All of the above are original photos, no editing and they still have noise... Thank you for the tip on white balance.

Does the correct exposure mean that the histogram is center weighted or more toward the right hand side (lighter side)...?


I will buy a book in Canada, as there are no mentors readily available where I live...

Anyway...one day!

[Mike Buckley]

Does the correct exposure mean that the histogram is center weighted or more toward the right hand side (lighter side)...?

Most digital shooters expose to the right side. My guess is that that is imperative when shooting birds in flight due to the predominance of the sky. But that's only a guess.

Take a look at CiC's commentary about histograms: https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tu...istograms1.htm

[Brownbear]

thank you...

[AB26]

Hi Christina,
Maybe a little help from a pro will help. A link to follow:
http://mikeatkinson.net/Tutorial-4-Camera-Settings.htm

Hope this will help you.

[Brownbear]

Thank you. Yes, the link is very informative

[Dave Humphries]

Hi Christina,

Unfortunately I'm not convinced you are nailing either focus or exposure on these and if you are submitting to a stock library at full size there will be problems.

Consider also that you will be judged against the standard of the people shooting images with state of the art kit - no, it's not fair - and one reason I don't do this kind of thing, but I am fortunate to have a good job, so I don't need to, although you might (for all I know).

#1 is at least 1/2 stop under exposed (be careful not to blow the white neck though)
#2 is a full stop under exposed, given where the sky is on the histogram
#3 is good; sharp and well exposed, but the subject is a bit small and since you haven't cropped to improve composition, it is centrally placed, as dictated by the centre focus point
#1 and #2 are also missing bits of bird (wing tips and a foot) and I wonder if this isn't helping either.

I cannot see noise on the belly of the above image, it is too small here and has been averaged out, I'd have to see a crop at 100% (not downsized at all) to form an opinion.

If you are allowed to fix things like noise with this agency and resubmit, I would suggest trying Neat Image, there is a free trial available. When using it; don't "sample" on the belly though, use the sky.

Another method I use, but bear in mind it may not be appropriate (remember I have no stock submission experience), is downsizing by a factor of two before submission, this will, if you sharpen after downsizing, have two benefits;
reduce noise - because it will be 'average' out
improve sharpness/DoF - because it will potentially bring larger, softer image edge detail within the sharpening radius applied after the downsize, this is better than applying double the radius sharpening before downsize. (because that sharpens the noise and risks visible halos)
It does of course have the considerable disadvantage of making the image smaller, possibly below their criteria, given what you are starting from, or at least limiting its sales opportunities to smaller page use to maintain an acceptable ppi

I can get away with it here and my work looks good (I hope), because to fill a 1920 x 1080 monitor screen only takes a 2MP image and that means it allows downsize (for web use) by a factor of 2 or 3, even after a bit of a crop, which is fundamental to making my stuff look good However, that may not be possible for stock images.

You just need to continue to practice; shoot, post process and also learning the fundamentals will help you make informed choices in the field, which in time will become second nature.

You set yourself a hard target (and I don't just mean the bids), but I'm sure you'll get there because you have a real determination to improve, which is to be applauded.

Cheers,

[Brownbear]

Thank you Dave... i appreciate the specific critique as it helps me to know what I need to work on specifically... (and also thank you to everyone who sent me private messages with advice specific to bird in flight photography) That said I have tons of new knowledge to put into practice...

These are just practice photos (the first two I was testing using a high iso and I posted full size so I don't know why the noise is not visible)... How I wish the 1st photo was workable (:... (i love the position, and it's so cute)

Downsizing is not an option for me because my camera is at the limit of the smallest size acceptable... yes, I was advised to get a noise reduction program so I will try this one out... I'm leaving for vacation shortly, and when I return I hope to post some bird in flight photos, with clear focus and proper exposure..

Thank you everyone....It's like an on-line photography school!

[Dave Humphries]

Well have a good time and by the time you get back I may have posted some images of a black bellied whistling duck I shot with you in mind

They weren't flying though!

[Mike Buckley]

I posted full size so I don't know why the noise is not visible)...Downsizing is not an option for me because my camera is at the limit of the smallest size acceptable

Christina: The length and width of those image files are only about one-fourth the size that is created by your D80. The same is true about the file size expressed in megabytes. Either you posted relatively small images that are typical for viewing on the Internet or the CiC software automatically downsized them. Considering that the Lightbox is provided to view images at the size that is posted, my guess is that you posted small images rather than full-size images.

That leads me to wonder if perhaps you're confused about the requirements of your agency, the size of the electronic file produced by your D80, or both.

The one thing I'm very certain about is that you'll get all of this stuff worked out. It can be daunting in the beginning, but you seem to have the persistence to deal with it very effectively.

[Polar01]

Christina: to move away from the discussion for a moment, you say that you are coming up to Canada, if I my where are you planning to go and when. As there are a number of Canadian here on the forum we might be able to in a way "tell you where to go" so to speak. Just thinking

Cheers:

Allan

[Mike Buckley]

we might be able to in a way "tell you where to go"

The last time my wife told me where to go, it would not be repeatable here.

(Actually, my wife is a very nice person and would never tell me that even when I deserve it.)