Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
marinefocus

Picture Styles (Canon EOS)

Recommended Posts

Has anyone bothered to try and create a custom underwater Picture Style with Canon EOS cameras. I have found that Canon themselves have developed I few more styles beyond the default options found here http://web.canon.jp/imaging/picturestyle/file/download.html but nothing specific to the underwater environment (I know this changes drastically and is probably why).

 

If anyone would like to share their experiments with picture styles I would be very interested. Any additional comments on colour space recommendations would also be helpful.

 

Thanks

 

Pete

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Pete,

I've found that shooting stills I'm much happier shooting RAW and applying the the processing in post. Picture styles assume your getting a jpg from the camera. You can do the same thing by creating a preset to apply in your raw processing program. The processing you apply will depend to some degree on the camera your shooting. I finally learned to create a preset when I kept moving the sliders to the same place over and over for the same conditions.

 

I shoot in the Adobe RGB color space. I believe the general consensus is to use the sRGB in camera only if your images are only intended for the web. If you plan to do prints someday the wider Adobe RGB provides more information with deeper colors and can handle post processing better.

 

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Pete,

I've found that shooting stills I'm much happier shooting RAW and applying the the processing in post. Picture styles assume your getting a jpg from the camera. You can do the same thing by creating a preset to apply in your raw processing program. The processing you apply will depend to some degree on the camera your shooting. I finally learned to create a preset when I kept moving the sliders to the same place over and over for the same conditions.

 

I shoot in the Adobe RGB color space. I believe the general consensus is to use the sRGB in camera only if your images are only intended for the web. If you plan to do prints someday the wider Adobe RGB provides more information with deeper colors and can handle post processing better.

 

Steve

 

 

Thanks just the info I was after will forget about picture styles and use presets in Capture One as I only shoot in RAW.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I tend to use Faithful so Im seeing it before Im going to be doing any fiddling, ie contrast not added in much, sharpening low, saturation fairly normal etc etc. That way you know what you've got to start with. White balance is the one I sometimes get tempted to fiddle with a bit rather than going with AWB, but in practise I just wait till editting.

 

Otara

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I shoot in the Adobe RGB color space. I believe the general consensus is to use the sRGB in camera only if your images are only intended for the web. If you plan to do prints someday the wider Adobe RGB provides more information with deeper colors and can handle post processing better.

 

Steve

 

Hi Steve

 

I was a bit surprised to see that you shoot in Adobe RGB. I have always understood that sRGB is generally preferred for the vast majority of applications. Sure for printing I process the RAW files to Adobe RGB in Photoshop but otherwise the files stay in sRGB colour space. Here is one of the articles I saved way back: http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/adobe-rgb.htm. Or as stated elsewhere " if you shoot in Adobe RGB and then convert files to sRGB you get the disadvantages of both and the advantages of neither!"

 

But perhaps I am behind the times? Just wondering what other people do nowdays?

 

Andre

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But perhaps I am behind the times? Just wondering what other people do nowdays?

 

Andre

 

 

I'm along way from an expert Andre. I'll read the article and see if I'm missing something. I'm not sure that if you're shooting RAW it makes any difference which you pick. I'm thinking only the JPEG would be affected. Hopefully one of the pros will set us straight.

 

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Andre, Read the article you referenced and some that is just Ken Rockwell being Ken. It goes back to 2006 too. I think a better read is here http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorial...photo-rgb.shtml and describes the Prophoto RGB colorspace I use in Lightroom when processing raw files.

 

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While it's true that the Picture Styles do not affect the RAW file (I shoot RAW exclusively) the Picture Style does affect the histogram as it appears on our LCD screens. The histogram is generated based on your camera's JPG processing settings. Check out this link from Luminous Landscape.. Histogram Link as it explains it much better than I could...and would rather not have to retype it all here.

 

Oh, IMHO following photographic advice from Ken Rockwell is akin to taking medical advice from someone who watches House on TV :beer:

 

Stu

Edited by scubastu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh, IMHO following photographic advice from Ken Rockwell is akin to taking medical advice from someone who watches House on TV :beer:

 

Lol. I just about fell on the floor reading that.

 

I wish there was a permanent, global google option to always ignore Ken's site in searches.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I like how he can review a camera by just looking at specs and by his gut instinct know already what kind of image it'll produce. My apologies to the creators of House....maybe Ken's closer to Grey's Anatomy.

 

:beer::D

 

Stu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I tend to use Faithful so Im seeing it before Im going to be doing any fiddling, ie contrast not added in much, sharpening low, saturation fairly normal etc etc. That way you know what you've got to start with. White balance is the one I sometimes get tempted to fiddle with a bit rather than going with AWB, but in practise I just wait till editting.

 

Otara

 

same with me here Otara. I agree with you.

_____________________

Minneapolis photographer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, I like how he can review a camera by just looking at specs and by his gut instinct know already what kind of image it'll produce. My apologies to the creators of House....maybe Ken's closer to Grey's Anatomy.

 

:beer::D

 

Stu

 

Jees, wish I didn't mention that :D Could have mentioned several hundred others!

 

But Stu I still want to know what setting you use for you camera - sRGB or Aobe RGB? I am still sticking with sRGB for now but stand to be corrected. Here is my thinking:

 

We all shoot RAW and process the image in a RAW converter to the colour space we need to work in such as Adobe RGB or ProPhoto RGB for our prints. I doesnt matter if your camera was set for sRGB or Adobe RGB because the RAW file doesnt have a colour space. So if that is all we ever do then it is a moot point. However if you shoot a RAW file plus a JPG which I find is a common practice, you would be better of to have your camera set to sRGB. In that way your JPG, which is probably intended for web use, or so that you can see your image in a storage device that cant read your RAW file, or for any other computer image viewer that doesn't read RAW files, will be in the right colour space and will display propperly. If you have started with your camera in Adobe RGB your JPG is not going to look right unless you convert it and tag it as a sRGB image.

 

It thus seems to make sense to me that you get the best of both worlds if your camera setting is sRGB. Particularly if far more of your images are going to end being viewed on a computer screen rather than being printed.

 

OK, now hammer me please :dance:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Andre

 

No hammer needed. :beer:

 

I've always set mine to Adobe RGB. I also question why one would bother shooting RAW + JPG. Why?

 

1) You end up with less space on your CF Card, lower buffer too

2) No matter what, the RAW file will have more "headroom" for exposure or file adjustment, so why shoot JPG

3) As much as I'd like to get it "right in camera" one of our biggest issues is WB underwater...so...why JPG if WB adjustments are better in RAW than JPG.

4) Since I adjust the camera's contrast setting to a much lower value, then the in camera generated JPG is rendered pretty flat too...back to the Raw file to fix it.

5) Now, my output device is the HP Z3100 and it does have a gamut that is slightly larger than sRGB given the right media, while I cannot properly see the results on screen, the print does stand out. :D

6) Oh, my storage device does show CR2 files, it's the Hyperdrive Colourspace. My 5dmk2, 7D and G10 raws are viewable.

7) Since I never show the RAW file to my clients, I always just process the images in Bridge then CS4 (soon 5) I don't use Lightroom so can't comment on that. Photoshop/Bridge will display the correct colour space.

 

Also ACR does support the picturestyle presets so if you were really pressed for time, just click on them when processing the CR2 file.

 

Nuff said me thinks.

 

Stu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Andre

 

No hammer needed. :D

 

I've always set mine to Adobe RGB. I also question why one would bother shooting RAW + JPG. Why?

 

1) You end up with less space on your CF Card, lower buffer too

2) No matter what, the RAW file will have more "headroom" for exposure or file adjustment, so why shoot JPG

3) As much as I'd like to get it "right in camera" one of our biggest issues is WB underwater...so...why JPG if WB adjustments are better in RAW than JPG.

4) Since I adjust the camera's contrast setting to a much lower value, then the in camera generated JPG is rendered pretty flat too...back to the Raw file to fix it.

5) Now, my output device is the HP Z3100 and it does have a gamut that is slightly larger than sRGB given the right media, while I cannot properly see the results on screen, the print does stand out. :dance:

6) Oh, my storage device does show CR2 files, it's the Hyperdrive Colourspace. My 5dmk2, 7D and G10 raws are viewable.

7) Since I never show the RAW file to my clients, I always just process the images in Bridge then CS4 (soon 5) I don't use Lightroom so can't comment on that. Photoshop/Bridge will display the correct colour space.

 

Also ACR does support the picturestyle presets so if you were really pressed for time, just click on them when processing the CR2 file.

 

Nuff said me thinks.

 

Stu

Thanks Stu. Yes I can see that you have little or no use for JPGs with your setup. But you might as well have your camera's colour space set to the defaul sRGB right? It would make absolutely no difference as you are only using RAW files which have no colour space. Just for the hell of it I tested that out today and took two identical RAW images - one in sRGB and the other in Adobe RGB. The resulting RAW files were of course identical.

I do find the RAW plus medium JPG option handy for a few reasons and find the the extra storage space is rather inconsequential with the huge cards we have. I use an older Epson storage device that doesn't read the newer RAW formats so that just makes it easier for me to use.

Anyway, really not that important. I just wanted to make sure that I wasn't doing anything wrong by using sRGB camera settings. :beer:

Thanks for the input.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just tried to do ProPhoto and some prints and they looked just awful. Yes I made sure about the application supporting it, changing the printer, turning off printer auto correction settings and gamut checking etc. Might hav missed something but pretty sure I didnt.

 

My printer (HP 8450) seems to be optimising for sRGB and assumes that as a default for whats going to be delivered , I had to change quite a few settings to even get it to change colour space all along the chain. To get it to look right on the printer Id have to make it look awfully odd onscreen, making judgement quite difficult as well. Maybe with one of the 98% screens it would be a bit easier, but I have your average screen, which seems to work OK for sRGB for predicting output, but sure doesnt seem to for Pro.

 

Id say unless you know a lot about colour spaces and have a very high quality printer and screen or are getting professional prints, I think for most people its probably safer sticking with sRGB as your final colourspace, as so many things are assuming it as a default now, and its so easy to miss something in the chain. But doesnt hurt to experiment I guess, just make sure you write down everything you started with before you start changing things.

 

Otara

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which program are you printing from partner?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Andre

 

I guess it doesn't matter in my workflow so it'll just stay in Adobe RGB, you never know if someone requests a quick download and just wants a JPG.

 

@ Otara

 

I'm curious at your settings, working from a colour managed workflow, using a calibrated monitor and proper paper profile, I took a ProPhoto RGB image and printed on my HP Photosmart B8850 printer. Settings to the driver were "Application Managed Colors" and on the PS side, I use "Photoshop Manages Color", select the proper paper profile, Rendering was "Relative Colormetric" and "Black Point Compression" is checked. Comparison to the same image done in sRGB was indistinguishable with this printer, I didn't have photo paper loaded on my big printer so didn't test it but there would have been more subtle detail with a larger gamut machine.

 

Regards

 

Stu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Printing can be an art form all in itself. I have the best luck like Stu when I have Lightroom or PS3 (don't have 4) manage the colors and I use the ICC profile for the paper. If I have the printer control the colors I get the same ugly colors you describe. Blues are really ugly.

 

For the gory details you can checkout this Adobe article. You've probably seen it but just in case here's a video of the printing setup in CS4

http://www.adobe.com/designcenter/video_workshop/?id=vid0015

 

Cheers,

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Steve

 

Yeah, I agree. Never ever let the printer control the colors, you don't know what palette it's pulling the look up tables from. A closed loop printing workflow is ideal. Letting the printer select colours will nullify all your calibration settings, from screen to paper.

 

Stu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
@Andre

 

I guess it doesn't matter in my workflow so it'll just stay in Adobe RGB, you never know if someone requests a quick download and just wants a JPG.

 

@ Otara

 

I'm curious at your settings, working from a colour managed workflow, using a calibrated monitor and proper paper profile, I took a ProPhoto RGB image and printed on my HP Photosmart B8850 printer. Settings to the driver were "Application Managed Colors" and on the PS side, I use "Photoshop Manages Color", select the proper paper profile, Rendering was "Relative Colormetric" and "Black Point Compression" is checked. Comparison to the same image done in sRGB was indistinguishable with this printer, I didn't have photo paper loaded on my big printer so didn't test it but there would have been more subtle detail with a larger gamut machine.

 

Regards

 

Stu

 

Hi Stu,

 

thanks for that.

 

Did all of those other than the paper profile which shouldn't result in the differences I saw, as there wasnt one for either. I do have a calibrated monitor, as I said it works fine when Im using sRGB for predicting output.

 

I sure its possible if not probable I did miss something Stu, buts your answer really supports my point - as you've said yourself if the end result is visually the same once you finally get it right, why are you doing it? Changing colour spaces can take a bit bug hunting, and the benefits can really be pretty meaningless on lower end gear, if not result in worse output given gamut checking etc. For many people advising this is going to cause more headaches than benefits.

 

As I said if people want to fiddle for the sake of learning thats one thing, but I think for your average (ie A4 or lower end A3 printers) person this could cause more trouble than it helps because so many printers are assuming sRGB as the workflow now. On the other hand anyone trying this is going for that little extra I guess, so as I said go for it, but make sure you know what your original settings were before doing it.

 

Otara

 

Edit: As a followup, Ive been tryiing all sorts of things and I can reliably get sRGB and AdobeRGB to work (as in match what see on the monitor closely), nothing else, by letting the printer control the output and be set to those profiles. Using CS4 and application control just results in very dark or faded output no matter what I do.

 

Given the driver for Vista is a more generic one and it was originally an XP focussed printer, Im starting to think this is probably more a printer/driver/OS issue than a colour management thing as such. It just doesnt seem to handle things well when you try to give control to the application for printing.

 

For now Im sticking with what works and Ill mess with things again when I get a new printer.

Edited by Otara

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Otara

 

Paper profiles make a big difference in my experience. Depending on the printer drivers, I've had a photo turn yellow when I used the wrong profile, became OK after I picked the right one.

 

 

I did the Pro Photo RGB just as an experiment based on your post. Again, I used my lower quality printer. My main machine has near Adobe RGB capability so that's why I retain that colour space. Most printer drivers automatically recognize the the colour space and convert to their working space. BTW, all Printers are actually CMYK machines, not RGB so you are already doing a conversion to that colour space, however, it's not recommended that you work in a CMYK colour space unless you've got the specialized equipment as used by big printing houses. There is a reason why many top photographers out there recommend using at least the Adobe RGB colour space

 

But, as you said, if you're happy with your workflow, then that's what works for you.

 

Regards

 

Stu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well my printer was supposed to be pretty good for colour, and blowed if I can see any difference between even sRGB and Adobe RGB, so Im highly dubious ProPhoto would be an improvement, even if I could get it working. But maybe its a bit old and I would see it with a newer one. Or maybe its fibbing and doing sRGB for everything even when it says its doing Adobe RGB, hardware manufacturers can do so very naughty things at times.

 

Paper profiles would mean they'd all be stuffed, it works fine when the printer is converting, and the paper profiles are only in one place.

 

I realise CMYK is the end product, but dont really see the relevance, given the problem is obviously somewhere in the conversion process between the app and the printer. One pathway works, the other doesnt, and ProPhoto is only available on the one that doesnt. Maybe the paper profiling is only working on one pathway? Its a possibility but cant see how Id know either way, and HP is a real pain about making ICC profiles available for their paper, leaving only the printer profile options for Vista. FWIW HP recommends 'perceptual' when doing printing by application.

 

I think we're talking past each other at this point, thanks for trying to help though. My point was that things can get pretty complicated once you leave what the printer is set up for in defaults, and Id say this process has supported that.

 

Otara

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

Sponsors

Advertisements



×
×
  • Create New...