Picture Style

[baddness]

I shoot with a Canon and there are different picture styles:
Standard
Landscape
Portrait
Faithful
Monochrome
Canon also has on their download page other picture styles: Emerald, Twilight, Nostalgia, Clear, Studio Portrait, Snapshot Portrait.

I had been shooting in standard, found that the images weren't as sharp as they could be so I started shooting in faithful. I had read somewhere that most photographers with Canons shoot in standard but boost the contrast and saturation which default is set to zero.

I'm not sure if other cameras have picture styles. But, if they do, what one do you use?

[Ben H]

Are you shooting RAW or JPG?

[Ben H]

I ask because picture styles are only applied in camera to JPG's.

If you are shooting RAW, it does not really matter which style you use, as the RAW data is the same in each case. The camera just adds some meta-data that says "picture style XX was used for this shot".

The only software that can read this is the DPP software that comes with the Canon cameras - programs such as Lightroom or Photoshop/Camera RAW just ignore it, and display the RAW data as is - hence it might look flatter than what the camera showed on the screen.

I shoot RAW and post-process afterwards, so I do not use, or even care about the picture styles. Having said that, when someone replicates the picture style settings into Lightroom presets, I'd certainly have them on hand for some quick options when reviewing my images.

If you shoot in JPG, and thus have the picture styles irrevocably burned into your pics, then the best advice I can give is to try different settings on test shots, and get a feel for what they do, and which work best for particular shots according to your preferences. In many cameras, you can edit the picture styles, and create custom ones as well, so you can tailor them to your tastes.

If you don't do any post processing at all, then you'll want to bump up some of the default settings to have images that stand out from the raw data (which can leave images rather flat without post-processing).

Just find what works for you best.

[Travis]

^^--this is solid information


Ben H. answered this perfectly WHILST I was busy doing something else....lol..

[PaulaLynn]

^^--this is solid information


Ben H. answered this perfectly WHILST I was busy doing something else....lol..

and I was oot to lunch ;)

[baddness]

Lol That's pretty stupid of me isn't it. I didn't know that if you shoot in raw, picture style doesn't matter. I just read somewhere that you can boost the settings in the different picture styles and it saves some time in post processing. Me being lazy and not that knowledgeable with photoshop, thought, what a great idea. Shows that I'm a dummie lol

[Ben H]

You're not being a dummy at all - it's not clearly explained in the manual. I had the exact same experience.

When I came across this (haven't had my dSLR for very long, and also haven't been using RAW for very long), I naively assumed, as you did, the picture styles you set would be applied to your pictures. It's a reasonable (although incorrect) assumption for new users, I think.

It was only when I noticed something not being quite right, that I did some testing (and some research) to discover what the exact behaviour is.

The short answer - if you use DPP, it can act *as though* the picture styles were applied to the RAW data, because DPP performs processing on the RAW data for display in the same way the camera would when applying the selected picture style for in camera JPGs.

But if you're using other software, picture styles are ignored and you just see the plain ol' RAW data, and can process it however you wish.

One additional thing - if you use Lightroom, Abode released some camera profiles that act very similarly to the picture styles (Standard, portrait, landscape, neutral, fairthful etc). This can give much the same effect as the picture styles, although I haven't teste/compared them.

One good tip if you want to test this stuff - set your camera to RAW+JPEG mode. The RAW ones stay RAW, but the JPG's have the picture style applied. This gives you an easy way to see the effects of various picture styles in non-DPP software, and work out your own preferred settings for your images.

[baddness]

Yep I'm a dummie. I had my dlsr for almost a year now. I shoot in RAW and jpeg and when going through my photos I notice somewhat of a difference between the two. The jpeg ones look better and try to create the same image with the RAW version. I use photoshop to process. I downloaded the free trial of Lightroom but didn't take the time to learn it.

[AcadieLibre]

Just for your info, Lightroom or Aperture should be your first tool for post processing IMHO. The learning curve is far less than Photoshop and if you shoot in RAW it in an invaluable program. I cannot recall the last time I needed Photoshop, rarely use it anymore. It also does not alter the original image, catalogues your images easily and just a great over all program for any photographer.

[mindforge]

I rarely dispute anything that any of the senior members here say and all of you are very helpful but Lightroom/Aperture compared to Photoshop are similar in comparing MS Word to Indesign. While one can do the job and take care of simple tasks it really depends on what you want to do.

Photoshop is essential for professional photographers, IMHO. Lightroom and Aperture are great for quick editing but as far as printing and color management go for professional use, you cannot do without Photoshop.

The only reason I jumped in to disagree is because I think everyone that takes pictures should take the time to learn Photoshop. For minor tweaks, Aperture and Lightroom are fine, but if you ever want to be a pro - you gotta learn it. Photoshop, once learned, can be used just as quickly.

Aperture is fun, don't get me wrong... I actually love Light Table. Until the newest Aperture (2.0) it had little support and still lacks the support of Photoshop. I do like Aperture and if you just had it for now it will do.

I like Lightroom much more though.... if I could only have Lightroom and Photoshop I would never need anything else... umm... actually. I don't. :)

So, learn Lightroom and move into Photoshop... get yourself a membership at Lynda.com and learn the basics of Photoshop and you will be amazed at how fast you can still do simple edits... I use Photoshop for even minor tweaks, I have no reason not to... the others just have a more organic and faster 'feeling' interface.

Learn Photoshop.

[tekguy22]

Lol That's pretty stupid of me isn't it. I didn't know that if you shoot in raw, picture style doesn't matter. I just read somewhere that you can boost the settings in the different picture styles and it saves some time in post processing. Me being lazy and not that knowledgeable with photoshop, thought, what a great idea. Shows that I'm a dummie lol

I have a Canon too...and this is also news to me...awesome info!!

[AcadieLibre]

I rarely dispute anything that any of the senior members here say and all of you are very helpful but Lightroom/Aperture compared to Photoshop are similar in comparing MS Word to Indesign. While one can do the job and take care of simple tasks it really depends on what you want to do.

Photoshop is essential for professional photographers, IMHO. Lightroom and Aperture are great for quick editing but as far as printing and color management go for professional use, you cannot do without Photoshop.

The only reason I jumped in to disagree is because I think everyone that takes pictures should take the time to learn Photoshop. For minor tweaks, Aperture and Lightroom are fine, but if you ever want to be a pro - you gotta learn it. Photoshop, once learned, can be used just as quickly.

Aperture is fun, don't get me wrong... I actually love Light Table. Until the newest Aperture (2.0) it had little support and still lacks the support of Photoshop. I do like Aperture and if you just had it for now it will do.

I like Lightroom much more though.... if I could only have Lightroom and Photoshop I would never need anything else... umm... actually. I don't. :)

So, learn Lightroom and move into Photoshop... get yourself a membership at Lynda.com and learn the basics of Photoshop and you will be amazed at how fast you can still do simple edits... I use Photoshop for even minor tweaks, I have no reason not to... the others just have a more organic and faster 'feeling' interface.

Learn Photoshop.

I think you need to learn Photoshop, I just think Lightroom/Aperture are better to learn first, less learning curve. I know Photoshop and every photographer should know it, you are right but the learning curve is far larger and it takes a long time to become proficient at it. One should learn to try and get as close as you can in your original shot that Lightroom/Aperture can easily fix minor issues. Overtime as your proficiency grows with PS you can start to use it more and get the full use of it. PS is a must, it just the time it takes to learn it should be the second program you learn or in tandem with the one of the other two. Just too many people get into photography and think PS will fix the poor photos, learn to take good photos then learn to manipulate and correct the image.

[Ben H]

Lightroom is *brilliant* for workflow - organising and managing hundreds/thousands of images, doing basic adjustments like exposure and whit balance, and being able to quickly update thousands of files with those kinds of adjustments.

Now with Lightroom 2, the adjustment brush and other features mean that you can do localised editing (gradients, dodging/burning and so on). While I love the feature, and use it a lot, I do find the performance bogs down heavily whn using the adjustment brushes in anger - and I'm on a MacBook Pro so it's not exactly a slow machine in general.

Photoshop is killer for working on *single images*, especially when you need to do more complex things, like retouching, comping and manipulating pixels.

The two apps have different focuses, and which will be useful to you will depend on what it is you want to do.

If you want to do photo management, RAW tweaking, basic adjustments with the odd more sophisticated tweaks, and want to print, slideshow or create web galleries, then Lightroom is probably you're best bet.

if you want to do extensive image editing and creative stuff, and don't really have workflow management issues, then Photoshop is a better bet.

[baddness]

I started off using photoshop. Still lots of learning with it. I downloaded a trial version of Lightroom 2. Couldn't wrap my mind around that one although I heard that it was easier and faster. I just downloaded Gimp but it won't open up my raw files. I don't have the time to spend editing photos so I thought that if I could learn how to shoot better I won't have to do a whole lot to it after. Lazy I know :) That's why I asked the question about picture style.