Is Canon "Picture Style" gimmicky or really useful?

[Priscilia]

Hi,

Any of you actually found this function useful? If u shoot RAW, everything can be post-processed right, so I'm a bit blur as to why Canon include the options for all the different modes such as Portrait, Landscape, Neutral, etc.

Another thing is, I wonder if Canon's Digital Photo Professional is worth using. So far been using CS2 and I find it's ok. Wonder how they compare?

I also do notice that with Canon 20D and earlier cams, converted RAW images are not as sharp and tend to have lower contrast/saturation (set at Neutral setting). Supposedly to allow us more free play during post-processing. Picture Style is supposed to improve this?

Pls correct me if I'm wrong! Thanks.

[raptor84]

The picture styles are for users who want to shoot jpg and want results that a usable without post work straight out of the cam.

[shinken]

Think of them as pre-loaded custom-curves.

[lsr792000]

Originally Posted by raptor84 The picture styles are for users who want to shoot jpg and want results that a usable without post work straight out of the cam.

Yup agree with Raptor. I will use the picture style for straight-from-camera shots if i want them in jpeg. Normally i will shoot in RAW and leave it in Faithful mode for post processing later.

[Priscilia]

Oh thanks guys.

Hmm, strange... Cos the book I was reading was about Canon RAW and they talked about the Picture Style in conjunction with RAW images also, so I assume the 2 go hand in hand.

Yup, if it's for jpg then it makes more sense I think.

[jdredd]

Originally Posted by Priscilia Hi, Any of you actually found this function useful? If u shoot RAW, everything can be post-processed right, so I'm a bit blur as to why Canon include the options for all the different modes such as Portrait, Landscape, Neutral, etc. Another thing is, I wonder if Canon's Digital Photo Professional is worth using. So far been using CS2 and I find it's ok. Wonder how they compare? I also do notice that with Canon 20D and earlier cams, converted RAW images are not as sharp and tend to have lower contrast/saturation (set at Neutral setting). Supposedly to allow us more free play during post-processing. Picture Style is supposed to improve this? Pls correct me if I'm wrong! Thanks.

I was using DPP, but since i got adobe bridge/ CS2, i find it much easier to use than DPP.
not to say DPP isnt bad, but bridge is just so much more user friendly.

[Deadpoet]

Hey, what did you end up buying 20D/30D/5D?

Is picture style gimicky, probably not if you use it correctly. If you are shooting jpeg, it's bloody important. Unfortunately, with the 5D, personally, I found the neutral and faithful styles the only two that is usable. The rest are junks. However, since I shoot raw 99% of the time, this is not a problem for me.

One slightly OT comment. As we get better in photography, as we can afford to buy better and more expensive equipmentl, 2 things happen. The more expensive and supposingly better equipment is usually packed with features, which makes them even more expensaive, but the better we get, we want more control and we shoot in manual mode, we shoot our onw focusing point, we manually set white balance .... we end up not using most of the features on the camera we paid for. Oh well.

[sriram]

If you shoot raw, try some good raw processing software like capture one LE or raw shooter. From my experience with adobe camera raw, it introduces a lot of blurring during bayer interpolation, and you lose out fine detail. C1-LE costs US$99 and is well worth it, you can clearly see how much more detail it can extract from the same raw file. The same goes for raw shooter.

[solarii]

Originally Posted by Priscilia Oh thanks guys. Hmm, strange... Cos the book I was reading was about Canon RAW and they talked about the Picture Style in conjunction with RAW images also, so I assume the 2 go hand in hand. Yup, if it's for jpg then it makes more sense I think.

For RAW images, picture styles are only supported in canon's DPP. Used the software briefly cos I preferred camera raw.

Think of picture styles as the fast and easy way to achieve different effects without having to fiddle with the settings.

Not everyone is proficient in PS you know, and not everyone who shoots RAW knows how to tweak individual settings to get what they want, so picture styles offers a preset palette of options.

[Priscilia]

Deadpoet, I bought the 20D.

Yah, it's really true, the better we get, the more we don't use the features found in the cameras. For eg, I find the "Pic modes" (the one where they have different symbols for portrait, sports, etc) in the mid level Canon DSLR or film SLRs pretty redundant. Maybe ok if they include them in the lower end DSLR models such as the 300D/350D. But that's me I suppose. MAybe they have to cater to a bigger group of users.

As for RAW conversion, so far I think those who want the best results will not use the softwares that came with the cameras? Based on my informal understanding of people I spoke to and from Internet reading. A pity, cos I believe Canon does also spend $ R&D such stuffs right, and they add up to the final cost of the cam we pay for. Naturally, they can't say Just buy our cam but go use some other softwares for photo-editing or RAW conversion!

Sriram, thanks for the recommendation. I tried C1 b4 but haven't quite noticed/explored the issue you mentioned when compared to Adobe Raw. I like C1 cos it's easy to use and I've done quite a bit of conversion using it. But recently, I've gone back to Adobe RAW cos for tonal adjustments I feel Adobe gives more precise control with the Exposure, Contrast, Shadow etc functions, in addition to Curves. And it has more features to help archiving and sorting the files. I'm still learning. It's more difficult to use and understand than C1.

But it's controversial.. Different people have different preferences on softwares. My bro told me Ian Llyod prefers Adobe RAW to other softwares for a smooth workflow. Just his preference.

Solarii, thanks for the additional comments. Ok, so afterall it's still a "preset" thingy and doesn't give ultimate control over the adjustments. I'm not sure cos honestly, I doubt I will install the Canon DPP software on my comp. Moreover, too many things to learn for now. :P

[ST_sg]

as regards to processing Canon RAW, I found that EOS Viewer perform quite well, in terms of image loading, 100% / thumbnails view, exposure, WB, contrast, sharpness fine tuning, copy/paste last applied settings to batch as well as multiple marking for final convert/ jpg export.

pretty much user friendly and productive. However, I'm not sure is there any lost of detail like what you guys has pointed in early post.

Anyone using EOS Viewer too?

[Deadpoet]

I used to swear by Adobe Camera RAw, but now, C1 Pro is really giving Camera Raw a run for the money. I think I will end up using both, still experimenting.

Btw, to Priscilia, what do you normally like to shoot?

[Klose]

I would say go for Adobe Camera Raw to post process RAW files. Very smooth workflow for me but I am looking forward to the PC version of Adobe Lightroom, seems good for me as Photoshop has lots of extras which I dont require unless I am doing digital art.

[agape01]

Now when I moved over to Nikon, I can't shoot JPEG anymore because I haven't mastered nikon's WB system as fast as when I was using canon. Standard setting for me worked almost 80% of the time for me when I was using 1D2. The main thing is that when you got the WB correct, whatever picture style setting that you have would work efficiently.

But oh well, to each his own in the end.

[Priscilia]

Deadpoet,

I like shooting landscapes, u know, like Singapore city life, scenaries, etc. Dabble a bit in macro too but not quite into it yet.

[drumma]

Originally Posted by Deadpoet I used to swear by Adobe Camera RAw, but now, C1 Pro is really giving Camera Raw a run for the money. I think I will end up using both, still experimenting. Btw, to Priscilia, what do you normally like to shoot?

i like the C1pro. still one of the fastest and easiest to use.