Canon DSLR shooters, need help.

[NewHampshire]

Ok, as mentioned in a previous thread I was thinking of going DSLR....well I did, I have a Canon 400D (XTi) sitting in front of me. Now I have been thumbing through the instruction manual and have a couple of questions about a few settings and such (please excuse me if they are dumb...remember this is my first forray into Digital SLR shooting ).

Ok, first off, I know enough that the "standard" is shooting in RAW (I have Photoshop Elements for processing.) What I did not realize was all the options one gets to choose from. For instance:

White Balance......I assume the "norm" is to shoot in "Auto" white balance? Or do you choose the appropriate setting (daylight, flash, incandecent, etc.) to match the situation?

Next, while thumbing through the "selecting a picture style" section I see from the various options that 2 mention their settings are appropriate for shooters using photo processing software, and those are "Faithful" and "Neutral". Is any one better than the other?

I have two options for setting the color space, sRGB or Adobe RGB. I am guessing from the manual I want to keep it set for sRGB?

And lastly, when field reviewing the histogram I believe the "Brightness" histogram will be of more use than "RGB" histogram?

Thats all I can think of right now, so thanks in advance.

Brian

 

[w7xman]

Oh boy, a new camera...and all the joy and confusion that comes with it.

You have some big questions, ones which I don't know all the answers too...but here's a start.

1)First off, with RAW, I'd leave the white balance on AUTO. The nice thing about RAW is that you can completely set the white balance afterwards. So while most of the time AUTO white balance will do a good job, it's not a big deal when it messes up.

2)I know nothing of 'picture styles'

3) I would keep it sRGB. It's not a very wide color space, and few professionals use it, but it's what you use for web, it's what prints, and its very convenient. When you get to the level that you readily would benifit from AdobeRGB, I'm told you will know. I don't yet know myself, and others may have other opinions.

4) The B&W histogram is the most important to you checking you exposure in the field. And what do you check...make sure you don't clip the whites (AKA all the bars bunched against the right) and make sure you expose for the maximum information (keep the bulk of the information right of center)

Hope that helps, and I'm sure others will have other ideas as well!

 

[NewHampshire]

Oh boy, a new camera...and all the joy and confusion that comes with it.

Let confusion reign!!!

1)First off, with RAW, I'd leave the white balance on AUTO. The nice thing about RAW is that you can completely set the white balance afterwards. So while most of the time AUTO white balance will do a good job, it's not a big deal when it messes up.

Gotcha. Sounds good to me.

2)I know nothing of 'picture styles'

Yeah, this one is the more perplexing of things. Not much is really said about it other than to describe basically what each setting does (which seems mostly to in camera alter image contrast, saturation, etc.) I am not sure if a setting HAS to be used, or if I just do nothing and everything magically works itself out .

3) I would keep it sRGB. It's not a very wide color space, and few professionals use it, but it's what you use for web, it's what prints, and its very convenient. When you get to the level that you readily would benifit from AdobeRGB, I'm told you will know. I don't yet know myself, and others may have other opinions.

You used the word proffestional with AdobeRGB.....yup, I'll stick with sRGB too .

4) The B&W histogram is the most important to you checking you exposure in the field. And what do you check...make sure you don't clip the whites (AKA all the bars bunched against the right) and make sure you expose for the maximum information (keep the bulk of the information right of center)

Thanks. I have read a couple landscape photography books which have shown what an "acceptable" exposure histogram looks like, so its at least something to go on!

Hope that helps, and I'm sure others will have other ideas as well!

It did, thanks Jim.

Brian

 

[DougPaul]

My verson:

Ok, as mentioned in a previous thread I was thinking of going DSLR....well I did, I have a Canon 400D (XTi) sitting in front of me. Now I have been thumbing through the instruction manual and have a couple of questions about a few settings and such (please excuse me if they are dumb...remember this is my first forray into Digital SLR shooting ).

A new toy...

Ok, first off, I know enough that the "standard" is shooting in RAW (I have Photoshop Elements for processing.) What I did not realize was all the options one gets to choose from. For instance:

No RAW is not the standard. It is a choice. If you read http://www.kenrockwell.com/, he advocates using JPEG almost all the time and getting the picture "right" in the camera and only occasionally doing post-processing.

If you shoot only raw, you can expect to spend a significant amount of time post-processing. The XTi can save both RAW and JPEG, so you can try both--JPEG generally does a pretty good job.

White Balance......I assume the "norm" is to shoot in "Auto" white balance? Or do you choose the appropriate setting (daylight, flash, incandecent, etc.) to match the situation?

Most cameras do a pretty good job most of the time choosing the white balance. You should only need to manually set the white balance in unusual situations.

Next, while thumbing through the "selecting a picture style" section I see from the various options that 2 mention their settings are appropriate for shooters using photo processing software, and those are "Faithful" and "Neutral". Is any one better than the other?

Different styles do different things. No one is inherently better than the others, but one may be more appropriate in a particular situation. I personally don't use them--most of my stuff is shot in P. A beginner might be best off in Auto.

I have two options for setting the color space, sRGB or Adobe RGB. I am guessing from the manual I want to keep it set for sRGB?

Adobe is for commercial printing. You most likely want to stick to sRGB. Computer display standards are sRGB.

And lastly, when field reviewing the histogram I believe the "Brightness" histogram will be of more use than "RGB" histogram?

RGB is better because you can see if any individual color is over exposed. Most "brightness" histograms are actually just the green channel.

There are a lot of details in a modern DSLR. It is easy to get hung up and/or confused by them and it is probably best to stick to the defaults until you understand what they do. But remember, the camera is just a tool whose purpose is to record and possibly modify an image. Then there is also the whole issue of artistry...

Before asking questions about each feature of the camera, you might find it worth your while to read some more comprehensive sources covering a full range of the issues. I'm sure there are books, but the following are pretty good: http://www.kenrockwell.com/, http://www.luminous-landscape.com/, and http://ronbigelow.com/index.html. All have nice tutorial sections and I'm sure there are other good websites.

Doug

 

[w7xman]

Doug,
My 20D doesn't have an RGB histogram, and your thoughts on it have me thinking more and more towards upgrade...

NewHampshire...I second Doug's advice on shooting Raw/jpg. It's how I shoot. If the JPG is good, I use it. If I want to tweek anythingm you have the Raw.

 

[NewHampshire]

NewHampshire...I second Doug's advice on shooting Raw/jpg. It's how I shoot. If the JPG is good, I use it. If I want to tweek anythingm you have the Raw.

Will do.......I guess its a good thing I sprung for the better quality 2gb card!

Brian

 

[DougPaul]

I second Doug's advice on shooting Raw/jpg. It's how I shoot. If the JPG is good, I use it. If I want to tweek anythingm you have the Raw.

The only problem with shooting raw+JPEG is that it is 20MB per shot (~15MB raw + ~5MB highest quality JPEG).

You can also do some after-the-fact tweaking of a JPEG, if necessary.

Doug

 

[bikehikeskifish]

I got a San Disk 2Gb at Staples last week for $24.99... pretty good price. It was listed for $44.99 minus $8 on sale and they had a $12 coupon on staples.com.

Tim

 

[NewHampshire]

The only problem with shooting raw+JPEG is that it is 20MB per shot (~15MB raw + ~5MB highest quality JPEG).

You can also do some after-the-fact tweaking of a JPEG, if necessary.

Doug

The good news is that my camera shows with an empty card the JPEG+Raw gives me 110 shots. That should suffice for my needs

Brian

P.S. Tim, odds are they are completely different types of cards. I paid $59 at B+H photo for my San Disk Extreme IV 2.0 GB (40 mb/sec) card....and B+H tends to be fair in their pricing.

 

[David Metsky]

P.S. Tim, odds are they are completely different types of cards. I paid $59 at B+H photo for my San Disk Extreme IV 2.0 GB (40 mb/sec) card....and B+H tends to be fair in their pricing.

Except your camera can't write out that fast. It doesn't hurt you, but it's not going to make your camera take pictures faster.

 

[Mark Schaefer]

Thanks for starting the timely thread, and for the good responses. I started using my XTi (400D) one week ago.

White Balance......I assume the "norm" is to shoot in "Auto" white balance? Or do you choose the appropriate setting (daylight, flash, incandecent, etc.) to match the situation?

Most cameras do a pretty good job most of the time choosing the white balance. You should only need to manually set the white balance in unusual situations.

With the XTi's Auto WB I have noticed a very slight blue cast in open shade, but a significant blue cast in heavy overcast while in a deep forest. So in those situations I have found the "shade" and "overcast" settings for WB to be very satisfactory corrections. I am still shooting mostly JPEGs and only very occasionally RAW. No doubt I will shoot more RAW later. Those white balance corrections also appeared good with RAW photos, so it would save that admittedly easy post process. Many of my heavy overcast photos are of waterfalls. The "overcast WB" on the whitewater was spot on white, and it yielded very pleasant (rather than bluish) foliage tones also. I see from the XTi manual there are even further fine adjustments that could be made to the balance, but those might be more difficult to evaluate in the field and better left to post process.

It is fun seeing and being able to correct things in the field. It is just like (OK better than) shooting a test Polaroid, and then getting it right in the real camera. I think of the last 600 images I have shot less than 10 were with camera's auto exposure setting. In my work unusual situations are often the norm.

 

[NewHampshire]

I found this blurb on the fotoconnection website about the "picture styles":

"Picture Style" settings
With Picture Style technology and the EOS Digital Rebel XTi, photographers can recreate characteristics of their favorite films. Color, saturation, sharpness and contrast settings create noticeable variation in the saved image. In addition to six preset Picture Styles (Standard, Portrait, Landscape, Neutral, Faithful and Monochrome), users can create three additional settings for their particular photographic style. "

I guess I will have to experiment a bit with the different settings (though I assume I will wind up using the Neutral or Natural).

Brian

 

[MichaelJ]

If you shoot in RAW, then the color space, white balance, and picture style do not apply. RAW simply writes the actual bits read off the sensor, and all the processing happens on the computer after the fact. Canon provides a half-decent tool for doing that, but to really work with RAW files you'll want a tool like Aperture on the Mac, or Photoshop with a RAW reader plug-in.

RAW means a lot more card space used, as well as more waiting between shots as you fill the shot buffer. However, the tradeoff is the ability to fine-tune the image way beyond what you can do with a JPEG. For starters, the RAW file for the Rebel (not sure about the XTi) contains 12-bit data, whereas a JPEG only uses 8 bits to represent each of red, green, and blue. This wider gamut allows for a lot more correction without distortion, particularly exposure and especially when selecting a white balance. Shooting in RAW makes it very easy to correct images taken in the trees that look bluish/pinkish into a more natural-looking green. Shooting RAW pays the penalty of a lot more time spent at the computer afterward.

JPEG is a lot faster for the camera and easier for you. As long as there are enough different colors in the image, the auto white balance will do a very good job. If you're in more limited conditions, being good about setting "shade" or "clouds" will make a huge difference. Since JPEG is so much smaller and thus faster to write to the card, you can turn on exposure bracketing, combined with multi-shot mode, so that you press and hold and it takes 3 shots, one underexposed, one overexposed, and one hopefully correct. You choose the range of how far. You can do the same thing for white balance bracketing, and get 9 shots when you hold the button down, and then really just go through and pick the best. That uses a lot of card, though. To be honest I've never used WB bracketing, and only use exposure bracketing on limited occasions when I know it's going to be tricky.

Wxman is dead on about the value histogram. Put the camera on auto-review with info so that you see it the moment you take it. Look for good exposure and retake immediately if it looks bad. The camera should also blink any completely blown-out (100% white) regions in the image preview.

* The white balance and color space that you picked are saved in the RAW file, and you can then have your RAW processor read them as "defaults" to decide what to do, but still, these concepts only apply to processed images. A RAW file is just a data file; it does not "have" a white balance or color space.

 

[Grandaddy]

I only shoot RAW. It all about the white balance.

First off, as far as having to edit photos on my computer, I enjoy looking at my photos after shooting. I usually do a quick review to choose the "winners." Then I will process all of the chosen shots, sometimes only with only minor adjustments (i.e. shadows and highlights,) but often to make WB corrections. Batch editing can be done with Photoshop Lightroom, as well as other programs, which allows the user to perform white balance corrections on one photo and then apply the settings to multiple photos. This works well with multiple photos taken under similar lighting conditions.

I shoot with a rebel XT which is always set to auto white balance. It usually does a good job, but often I like to manipulate the colors a bit to reflect what I saw when taking the photo.

 

[DougPaul]

However, the tradeoff is the ability to fine-tune the image way beyond what you can do with a JPEG. For starters, the RAW file for the Rebel (not sure about the XTi) contains 12-bit data, whereas a JPEG only uses 8 bits to represent each of red, green, and blue. This wider gamut allows for a lot more correction without distortion, particularly exposure and especially when selecting a white balance.

I believe the XTi also has a 12 bit A/D converter.

I read somewhere that JPEG uses a nonlinear encoding of its 8 bits, so the 8-bit JPEG intensities contain more useful information that simply dropping 4 bits from the 12-bit (linear) raw data. I haven't actually checked the JPEG spec. (BTW, your telephone also uses a nonlinear encoding to fit 12-bits of linear data into 8-bits of non-linearly encoded data.)

Note that one can postprocess a JPEG image, just as one can postprocess a raw image. It is just that some information has been lost in creating the JPEG that cannot be recovered. RAW is more versatile, but JPEG is not cast in concrete.

Wxman is dead on about the value histogram. Put the camera on auto-review with info so that you see it the moment you take it. Look for good exposure and retake immediately if it looks bad. The camera should also blink any completely blown-out (100% white) regions in the image preview.

The XTi presents an RGB histogram and blinks if any color is blown out. If any color is blown out, the overall color of the pixel becomes whiter. As the exposure increases, the whiteness increases until all 3 colors are blown out and the pixel becomes 100% white. This is why an RGB histogram is more useful than an intensity histogram (which in many cameras is just a green histogram...).

Doug

 

[NewHampshire]

Well, since PS Elements does not load RAW files I guess the decision has been made for me . So until I get my hands on a plugin its going to have to be JPEG.

Brian

 

[DougPaul]

Well, since PS Elements does not load RAW files I guess the decision has been made for me . So until I get my hands on a plugin its going to have to be JPEG.

Take a look at http://www.cybercom.net/~dcoffin/dcraw/ (a free raw file decoder supporting a wide range of formats). There is an extensive list of links--might be something there. Or you could use it to create a TIFF file to be used by PS.

Doug

 

[NewHampshire]

Thank you Doug!

Brian

 

[Edelweiss]

Thanks for starting this thread, NewHampshire. I too am a new Canon XTi owner. I have limited myself to jpeg files, auto white balance and have been working in Landscape Picture Style when hiking. The manual says that landscape style creates "...vivid blues and greens and very sharp and crisp images." I have also customized landscape picture style by slightly tweaking saturation, sharpness, and color tone. Depending on the light, I'm getting color results which are sometimes right on and other times too bold and unnatural. But this is another topic and thread.... I have been experimenting with aperture priority mode + tripod to improve depth of field and took shots of waterfalls yesterday in shutter priority (with tripod) to try for those feathery effects. After getting over the initial "kid in a candy shop" syndrome, I'm trying to tackle one project at a time - that is, what artistic effect am I looking for and how do I achieve it using the XTi's technology. Still overwhelming but I'm trying to approach things more deliberately.

 

[darren]

P.S. Tim, odds are they are completely different types of cards. I paid $59 at B+H photo for my San Disk Extreme IV 2.0 GB (40 mb/sec) card....and B+H tends to be fair in their pricing.

Except your camera can't write out that fast. It doesn't hurt you, but it's not going to make your camera take pictures faster.

Dave is correct. I just picked up another 2GB SanDisk Ultra II at CompUSA for $29 (good price for Hawaii). The Ultra II works as fast as my 20D does. no need for the Ultra IV....unless you have a new 1D III and are shooting at 10 fps RAW.

- darren