Setting of Parameters in Picture Style for 400D

[siongsing]

Hi all experts,

Just want to check out if anyone set the parameters of the picture style in 400D. Is there any parameters which you have set which makes your pic turns out nice? 

Pardon me for my noobie qns. 

Regards
SS

[Michael]

the word nice meaning?

more natural portraits of people? (portrait)
more greenish landscapes of the reservoir? (landscape)
more punchy colours of a fruit stall in little india? (standard)
more accurate look of a product? (faithful)
or perhaps just melancholic mood of a scene? (neutral)

[siongsing]

Hi Michael,

Thx for your advice but do you tweak the parameters inside?? Is there any special settings which you guys do in your camera... my pics does not look saturated enuff... hmm...or is it my skill haha...

[victor]

Try tp PS after you take the pics.Or just set saturation to the max.

[evershine]

No special settings.. not that I know of.. The basic settings such as saturation, you could increase it to the max.

Don't be shy.. post some of your pics , that way it is easier for us to visualise or comment.

I am using 350D, if i shoot in RAW i can decide later which picture style to use when i use DPP to process my photos.

My own experience is that unless you are really good, most of the time you need to use software to do some touch up to make the color more saturated or make it more contrasty.

There are lots of books in the library that show you how to achieve it. Or attend one of those classes.

[siongsing]

Is the colour alright?? Please advice.

[Michael]

truth be told, no. i just shoot in faithful settings, fine jpeg.

you might want to +2 for your contrast and saturation but i doubt even the best in-camera settings could compete with photoshop.

i dont see any problems with your image, the colour is somewhat like that for the most basic of shots.

you might want to try out several image editing programs and not just rely on the provided pictures.

alternatively, you might want to look for some L (luxury) lenses as they often give the best colour saturation and contrast.

were u using kit lens?

[victor]

The pics looks a bit over exposed a bit, and the DOF is too shallow.

[siongsing]

truth be told, no. i just shoot in faithful settings, fine jpeg.

you might want to +2 for your contrast and saturation but i doubt even the best in-camera settings could compete with photoshop.

i dont see any problems with your image, the colour is somewhat like that for the most basic of shots.

you might want to try out several image editing programs and not just rely on the provided pictures.

alternatively, you might want to look for some L (luxury) lenses as they often give the best colour saturation and contrast.

were u using kit lens?

ooppss this pic must be bad...i use a macro 100mm lens...think i give the lense a bad name... haha this is my 1st attempt on macro...okie thx for the advice let me try it out and see if i can have better saturation and contrast...will post another 1 for comments to see if I have improved or not...

The pics looks a bit over exposed a bit, and the DOF is too shallow.

okie point noted... thx guys..

[hwchoy]

the EF 100mm ƒ/2.8 Macro USM? this lens has a somewhat neutral colour response, and if I might say, also a rather neutral bokeh. Considering that it is a macro lens, this might not be surprising after all, as they tend to be designed to be technically accurate.

When I compare my 100/2.8M against the 80-200/2.8L, the L lens have a much more pleasing photographic rendering in terms of colour saturation, but I have to say the 100/2.8M is the more technically accurate.

[rapier84]

Most of the time I'd just bump up the sharpness by 2 to 3 as the 400D seems to be rather conservative in sharpening on default (strong AA filter?) and use PS to settle the rest. Saturation and other stuff I tend not to touch on until processing since very often stuff like skin tone one must thread a very fine line, and I don't want to end up with something out of the camera that I cannot 'save' in PS

[Nick]

Most of the time I'd just bump up the sharpness by 2 to 3 as the 400D seems to be rather conservative in sharpening on default (strong AA filter?) and use PS to settle the rest. Saturation and other stuff I tend not to touch on until processing since very often stuff like skin tone one must thread a very fine line, and I don't want to end up with something out of the camera that I cannot 'save' in PS

Are you shooting in RAW or JPEG? If it's the former, parameters do not affect output at all.

[Michael]

i actually think they do. try a simple method.

shoot RAW but change parameters from Faithful to Landscape, from sharpness -2 to +2, from auto WB to custom K at 2000 and 8000. you'll see the initial settings will screw it up badly. it's like saying, RAW can adjust exposure in photoshop -2EV and +2EV but you still have to get the shot correct, right?

[rapier84]

Are you shooting in RAW or JPEG? If it's the former, parameters do not affect output at all.

Mainly for JPEG really, for RAW I'd shoot with a little less sharpness. I haven't tried messing with the settings whilst shooting in RAW actually, so I'm not sure what sort of difference they'd make. Generally I'd try to get as close as possible to the exposure level I want so that there's less stuff to do in processing later

[Nick]

i actually think they do. try a simple method.

shoot RAW but change parameters from Faithful to Landscape, from sharpness -2 to +2, from auto WB to custom K at 2000 and 8000. you'll see the initial settings will screw it up badly. it's like saying, RAW can adjust exposure in photoshop -2EV and +2EV but you still have to get the shot correct, right?

Picture Styles do not affect RAW. RTM