Picture styles

[Hayaku]

Been curious on this but what do people picture style do people here use for general walk around photography? Unmodified Standard/Landscape/etc or something custom?

[ricktas]

Picture styles are basically a hangover from point and shoot cameras. They tend to appear on the entry level DSLR only. What do I think? I think if some invests in a DSLR then they are interested in learning a bit more of how photos happen and eventually they will progress beyond what picture styles offer and take control of the camera and get the photos they want. However, picture styles can be useful (and fun) and there is no reason to not use them, other than you are letting the software designer somewhere in the world decide how your photos will look. I think you would be hard pressed to find more than a handful of intermediate or advanced member of Ausphotography that use them. Something to consider!

Certainly have a go with them, work out what they do, which is basically choosing certain shutter speeds and apertures, and in some cases applying a filter. Cause if you start to understand why a portrait picture style uses fill-flash (if needed), and the aperture it chooses to give nice blurry backgrounds, then you are on the way to understanding how to do that manually and take control of the camera in your hands.

[Hayaku]

Just to be clear I'm not talking about the auto shoot modes of portrait/macro/landscape/etc. I was talking about this http://www.canon.co.jp/imaging/picturestyle/style/index.html.

It's in the camera where you can set sharpness, contrast and something else. With reference pic below. just hope its readable.
100613

[ricktas]

ahhh. Depends!

If you shoot jpg then they can all affect the results of your photo. If you shoot raw, they do not apply to a RAW file. Now why do I say it depends, cause it depends on your editing skills on your computer. Your computer is a much more powerful processing machine than the processing chip in your camera, and thus it is generally considered better to do all the sharpening etc on your computer. But if your editing skills are lacking at this time, whilst you learn, adding some sharpening, saturation etc via the camera menu is not a bad thing. Ultimately your goal should be to do it all on the computer though.

[Mark L]

OK, you made me check the manual!
Agree with Rick that the computer will do a better job than the camera, though it's not as quick.:)
Canons DPP gives you the ability to adjust the picture style. So if you want the camera to do it, maybe open a photo you've previously taken and play with picture style in DPP. Decide what you like and dial that into the camera.
Just a thought.

[Hayaku]

Good suggestion Mark. I would still prefer to use it over pp though because I don't have the time to learn or experience right now. Having it immediately as jpeg also helps when I want to share pics immediately.

[Tannin]

Actually, picture styles do apply to your raw file just as they do to a JPG, and the better raw converters honour the processing hints contained in the picture style. Nor is there any reason at all to regard picture styles as something only for unskilled photographers. All raw image/raw converter combinations have at least one picture style implied or explicit - a picture style, after all, is nothing more and nothing less than a collection of default settings for a raw converter to use. All raw conversions require starting settings: picture styles simply provide you with a choice of several different sets of starting settings instead of always having a single factory-set one. (Note that even the in-camera JPG is made by a raw converter with starting settings, albeit a raw converter built into your camera.)

There is no penalty for using picture styles, absolutely none. In fact, every digital photographer uses a picture style: it's just that some cameras only have one style and some don't let you change it (though I shouldn't think there would be too many still made like that). To use picture styles, simply select the style you like (or make a new one if you wish) and, as if by magic, your picture will come up that way when you open it in the raw converter. From that starting point, you can adjust any and every raw conversion setting, just as you always can with any image. (The in-camera JPG is the same, but of course you can't change that one afterwards. You can do what you like with raw.)

Take-home message: use picture styles freely, and in any way you wish. They are just one more tool you can reach for when you want it.

My styles? I frequently look at different picture styles, try them out, and almost always wind up back where I started: Standard. (I mostly have it slightly set less sharpened but otherwise exactly as stock.) When you come down to it, I just don't think you can beat the Canon Standard picture style for vivid and clear but very honest and accurate rendition. But then my favourite ice cream is vanilla. You may like different styles. That is fine. In fact, it is exactly what picture styles were invented for.

Oh, and one more thing: if you use multiple cameras, picture styles are mega-handy: the Portrait style on a hired 5D III is the same as the Portrait style on your old 60D; you know exactly what to expect - change one setting and you are good to go.

[William W]

Been curious on this but what do people picture style do people here use for general walk around photography? Unmodified Standard/Landscape/etc or something custom?

You appear to be using a CANON DSLR:

The Canon nomenclature for this function in later model EOS DSLRs is: “Picture Style”

Picture Style affect the JPEG FILE - AND - the file's preview and data, this is first seen in the camera's LCD.

This second fact is important if one places decision making emphasis on the Histogram, Blinkies or LCD preview.

So, even IF one is ONLY shooting raw, the choice of Picture Style may indeed affect one’s photography.

Each Picture Style can be CUSTOMIZED by the user: i.e. the user can change ‘Sharpness’; ‘Contrast’; ‘Color Saturation’ and ‘Color Tone’.

However “Faithful” does have one FUNCTION which as I understand CANNOT be changed in CUSTOMIZATION, by the user. This non-changeable function is related the colour temperature of the scene and the subsequent JPEG as produced by the camera.

This NON-CHANGEABLE functionality of "Faithful" might be useful / important if one makes use of and/or places credence in the Image Preview Function, (Image and Histogram), even if one is only shooting raw.

*

What do I use and why?

I use Canon DSLRs and capture ‘raw + JPEG(L)’.

Because sometimes I use the JPEG image with minimal Post Production, I set the Picture Style to suit the JPEG output that I require. I have made several (arduous) tests and I now have a set of general lighting scenarios which will then determine what Picture Style I will choose to use.

*

Picture Style should not just be dismissed as a function for the beginner only and I would caution about moving on without understanding what they actually do and how they might affect your Photography.

Especially understanding Picture Style is important, if you use the Camera's previews functions to assist you to make technical appraisals and choices: as one example - using the Blinkies or the Histogram information, to subsequently Chimp.

WW

[ricktas]

Actually, picture styles do apply to your raw file just as they do to a JPG, and the better raw converters honour the processing hints contained in the picture style

it could be easily argued that just cause a raw processor can read and apply/use the picture styles does not necessarily make it a better raw processor. Yes it could be a worthwhile addition, but it does not implicitly make that raw processor a better one.

There are some damn good ones that don't.

[Tannin]

Cheers Rick. I suggest the contrary. Picture styles are a built-in feature of the camera. (Depending on which camera you own, of course. At a rough guess, something like half of all the DSLRs in service today offer the picture styles feature.) Obviously, a raw processor which honours the camera feature is better (t least in that respect) than one which disables the feature by ignoring it. But as you say, there may be other features of non-picture style capable raw processors which trump this fairly minor one.

But in any case, the point is probably moot: there can't be all that many raw processors out there which don't honour picture styles these days: Canon DPP has done for years of course; Adobe's Camera Raw (Photoshop, Lightroom, and Photoshop Elements) has since (from memory) CS5 was released some years ago. What's left after those four? I believe Bibble is now defunct; the Nik one only worked on Nikon cameras last time I checked so the feature wasn't relevant (bit of a shame that, I remember wanting to buy it a while back 'cause I liked their other products and though it might be just as nice to use); then there is ... er ... my memory isn't what it used to be, the one made by the people with that silly "sensor measurement" program that produces ridiculous results, it's supposed to be rather good; and .... I'm out of touch. What else is around? Pentax and Olympus and Sony must have something to give away with their cameras, be that in-house or rebadged. I can't think of any others. Too much photography lately and not enough time reading about it on the web - which can't be a bad thing! :)

[vk2gwk]

Cheers Rick. I suggest the contrary. Picture styles are a built-in feature of the camera. (Depending on which camera you own, of course. At a rough guess, something like half of all the DSLRs in service today offer the picture styles feature.) Obviously, a raw processor which honours the camera feature is better (t least in that respect) than one which disables the feature by ignoring it. But as you say, there may be other features of non-picture style capable raw processors which trump this fairly minor one.

But in any case, the point is probably moot: there can't be all that many raw processors out there which don't honour picture styles these days: Canon DPP has done for years of course; Adobe's Camera Raw (Photoshop, Lightroom, and Photoshop Elements) has since (from memory) CS5 was released some years ago. What's left after those four? I believe Bibble is now defunct; the Nik one only worked on Nikon cameras last time I checked so the feature wasn't relevant (bit of a shame that, I remember wanting to buy it a while back 'cause I liked their other products and though it might be just as nice to use); then there is ... er ... my memory isn't what it used to be, the one made by the people with that silly "sensor measurement" program that produces ridiculous results, it's supposed to be rather good; and .... I'm out of touch. What else is around? Pentax and Olympus and Sony must have something to give away with their cameras, be that in-house or rebadged. I can't think of any others. Too much photography lately and not enough time reading about it on the web - which can't be a bad thing! :)

I am not aware that Adobe Camera Raw "honours" the picture style set in camera. When I shoot RAW in style "Monochrome" and load the RAW file in ACR it comes up as a full colour image. The RAW file may contain the style information but that is not recognised by ACR - it is however by Bridge that shows the image in monochrome. As far as I know a RAW file is a RAW file irrespective of the picture style although the style info is stored in the file. It works in Picture Style Manager and DPP - both of which I find less user friendly and versatile than my ACR and Photoshop (or the Lightroom equivalent).

[Mark L]

If you're prepared to play in DPP then convert to say TIFF to work in other programmes then have a look at this ...... http://web.canon.jp/imaging/picturestyle/file/index.html

[Arg]

I am not aware that Adobe Camera Raw "honours" the picture style set in camera. When I shoot RAW in style "Monochrome" and load the RAW file in ACR it comes up as a full colour image. The RAW file may contain the style information but that is not recognised by ACR - it is however by Bridge that shows the image in monochrome. As far as I know a RAW file is a RAW file irrespective of the picture style although the style info is stored in the file. It works in Picture Style Manager and DPP - both of which I find less user friendly and versatile than my ACR and Photoshop (or the Lightroom equivalent).

Yes, RAW is unaffected at core, but how is it displayed?

DPP will display RAW files the same as a jpeg with the chosen Picture Style.

Lightroom uses the term Profile (under the Camera Calibration tab) instead of Picture Style, and defaults to the Adobe Standard profile. However it allows the selection of most or all of the camera's Picture Styles as alternative profiles, and names them Camera Standard, Camera Landscape, Camera Portrait, etc. They are meant to be Adobe emulations of (assuming Canon) the Picture Styles settings in camera. Although I don't find them to be terribly close to Canon's DPP settings, which give a look just like the jpeg.

I thought ACR would be like Lightroom? Although I haven't used it in years.

[vk2gwk]

Yes, RAW is unaffected at core, but how is it displayed?
<snip>
I thought ACR would be like Lightroom? Although I haven't used it in years.

It is displayed as a full colour image in ACR.

The RAW engine in Lightroom 4 and Photoshop/ACR is the same but the interface is slightly different.