What mode do you shoot in most often?

[DVC Jen]

I think I read here that most photographers and wanna-bes like me have one mode that they prefer more than any others and shoot primarily in that mode.

For me it is landscape (even for portraits) because I think the colors are more vivid and I personally like that better.

So what is the picture mode you shoot in most often and why?

 

[YEKCIM]

I don't use the preset modes; I use Aperture Preferred about 75% of the time, and Program the remaining 25%. I like to control the aperture, so AP works for me, and I still have the ability to change the other image parameters that are typically locked by the use of the preset modes.

~YEKCIM

 

[DVC Jen]

I don't use the preset modes; I use Aperture Preferred about 75% of the time, and Program the remaining 25%. I like to control the aperture, so AP works for me, and I still have the ability to change the other image parameters that are typically locked by the use of the preset modes.

~YEKCIM

Maybe I didn't make myself clear enough. I didn't mean what auto settings, but rather what picture style?

The ones I have listed on my 30D are
-Standard
-Portrait
-Landscape
-Neutral
-Faithful
-Monochrome
-User Def. 1
-User Def. 2

 

[boBQuincy]

I shoot in RAW which doesn't have picture styles but I also add a small/fine JPG and use Neutral or Faithful for that (there is a difference but it's slight).

 

[handicap18]

I was going to give the same answer as YEKCIM.

So your not referring to Scene Modes. Looks like your referring to Image Optimization (Nikon's Term) or Picture Style (Canon's Term) not sure about Pentax. Couldn't find something similar in a quick look on dpreview.com.

I played around with these settings for months. Starte out with Normal. I tried custom settings for a while, adjusted here and there. Had it on Sharper for a short time and I finally settled on Vivid (the options on Nikon are: Normal, Vivid, Sharper, Softer, Direct Print, Portrait, Landscape and Custom).

I think this is one of the options that takes a while to figure out what you like. A lot might depend on what kind of film you used back in the day.

 

[GrumpyOne]

And here I thought it was scenes she was talking about. At least, that's the only place I find settings called Portrait or Landscape.

Without knowing what each is doing, I don't use any of them unless I know that the picture is way beyond me or it's a once-in-a-lifetime shot. So my answer is Standard / Aperture Priority or Standard / Manual.

 

[DVC Jen]

And here I thought it was scenes she was talking about. At least, that's the only place I find settings called Portrait or Landscape.

Without knowing what each is doing, I don't use any of them unless I know that the picture is way beyond me or it's a once-in-a-lifetime shot. So my answer is Standard / Aperture Priority or Standard / Manual.

Guess ya gotta be a Canonite to get it.

 

[Furgus]

I shoot in RAW like Bob, and add Jpeg Fine(which I may set to Med) and that setting is Vivid, Sharpness +1, and something else but not sure off the top of my head.

 

[tinksdad]

Manual, RAW + normal

 

[fitzperry]

I shoot primarily in RAW now too. When I was shooting JPEGs, I played with a few of the choices and, like Kyle, settled on "vivid."

 

[deletedpenguin]

Manual/Raw, but if I'm shooting JPG, it's Standard and I do alot of PPing.

 

[0bli0]

my camera doesn't have any options like that. i did load the sports illustrated custom settings, but they are more about the control behaviour, not the images.

i shoot raw most of the time and hardly do any post processing.

 

[Crystal_27]

I shoot Manual and in RAW.

 

[YEKCIM]

Now that I have a better understanding of the question, let me say that I am now where Kyle *was* in his learning curve. With my Fuji S5200, I shot exclusively in "chrome" color mode, and was very happy with the results, and found that this setting did not adversely affect skin tones, which surprised me (I love Fuji Velvia film, but it really fouls up skin tones).

I'm still very much a learner and experimenter with my D50's, and hope to have things sorted out before we go back to The World in July. I'm toying with just shooting RAW and doing the PP (which I hate) afterward. My assumption, and maybe someone more experienced can confirm this or set me straight, is this:

All digital cameras shoot essentially a RAW image; that is, just the digital data produced by the sensor. A camera that can *record* that data as a RAW file will do so, if that option is selected, while a camera that has no RAW option will process the data using the camera's internal electronics, based on the parameters set in the camera's menu, and record it as the final JPEG file. By the same token, a dSLR or any digital camera that can shoot RAW, can also be set to record the image as a JPEG. That in-camera processing is done based on the parameters set in the menu (saturation, sharpness, contrast, etc). By contrast, RAW images have no such in-camera processing applied to them, and can be manipulated as desired, "after the fact" once they are downloaded to a computer. So, even if you had "vivid", "hard sharpness", "high saturation" or whatever set in the camera's menu, a RAW image would be unaffected, as it is not "processed" in the camera.

Is my understanding correct?

~YEKCIM

 

[DVC Jen]

my camera doesn't have any options like that. i did load the sports illustrated custom settings, but they are more about the control behaviour, not the images.

i shoot raw most of the time and hardly do any post processing.

That is so not fair! I am teasing. You are just that good!

I also shoot in raw - so I CAN fix the multitute of mistakes I make. Thank goodness for digital and the ability to fix those mistakes to some degree.

Like I said before - I shoot in raw - mostly aperature priority and my picture setting is 99% of the time landscape with the sharpness +1 or +2.

 

[boBQuincy]

By contrast, RAW images have no such in-camera processing applied to them, and can be manipulated as desired, "after the fact" once they are downloaded to a computer. So, even if you had "vivid", "hard sharpness", "high saturation" or whatever set in the camera's menu, a RAW image would be unaffected, as it is not "processed" in the camera.

Is my understanding correct?

~YEKCIM

Afaik, that is correct. Some RAW converters pick up on the settings and use them as a baseline for the conversion, but of course all that is adjustable in processing.

 

[LPZ_Stitch!]

All digital cameras shoot essentially a RAW image; that is, just the digital data produced by the sensor. A camera that can *record* that data as a RAW file will do so, if that option is selected, while a camera that has no RAW option will process the data using the camera's internal electronics, based on the parameters set in the camera's menu, and record it as the final JPEG file. <snip> Is my understanding correct?

So far, as I've been playing around with RAW images from my S3, I've learned this: my camera is better at processing than I am!

I'm fairly sure it's a matter of experience with PP tools, but I've yet to generate an image from the RAW data that looks better than the JPG that also gets produced by the DIGICII chip.

 

[Crystal_27]

Is my understanding correct?

~YEKCIM

Almost. What you also have to take into consideration is that JPEGs compress the data so as to create smaller files, whereas RAW maintains all of the pixel information, so you have more accurate color rendering. For example, if you have 5 similarly colored pixels in an area, a JPEG will compress those pixels into one color point, whereas RAW files do no compressing. You wouldn't think it would be that big of a difference, but it really is.

 

[jann1033]

Now that I have a better understanding of the question, let me say that I am now where Kyle *was* in his learning curve. With my Fuji S5200, I shot exclusively in "chrome" color mode, and was very happy with the results, and found that this setting did not adversely affect skin tones, which surprised me (I love Fuji Velvia film, but it really fouls up skin tones).

I'm still very much a learner and experimenter with my D50's, and hope to have things sorted out before we go back to The World in July. I'm toying with just shooting RAW and doing the PP (which I hate) afterward. My assumption, and maybe someone more experienced can confirm this or set me straight, is this:

All digital cameras shoot essentially a RAW image; that is, just the digital data produced by the sensor. A camera that can *record* that data as a RAW file will do so, if that option is selected, while a camera that has no RAW option will process the data using the camera's internal electronics, based on the parameters set in the camera's menu, and record it as the final JPEG file. By the same token, a dSLR or any digital camera that can shoot RAW, can also be set to record the image as a JPEG. That in-camera processing is done based on the parameters set in the menu (saturation, sharpness, contrast, etc). By contrast, RAW images have no such in-camera processing applied to them, and can be manipulated as desired, "after the fact" once they are downloaded to a computer. So, even if you had "vivid", "hard sharpness", "high saturation" or whatever set in the camera's menu, a RAW image would be unaffected, as it is not "processed" in the camera.

Is my understanding correct?

~YEKCIM

i'd like to know this as well...don't have the landscape etc settings in camera yet but how i am thinking about that...please explain why i am wrong if i am...why bother to shoot in raw and then have the camera heavily process in camera anyway? i am assuming these settings are similar to custom parameters on the rebel( ie sharpness, saturation, contrast type settings, and the digital pro processing settings by the same name in the canon raw software which occasionally i use ( landscape or portrait maybe 2% of the time, don't really seen much difference with the neutral or faithful so why use them , course never having read the help section of the software i probably am missing some great tool) i do have my exposure permanently adjusted but just wondering why you chose to use some setting like that especially if you shoot raw..or is if different than in camera processing somehow?
thanks

edited as sorry once again i forgot there was a page 2 so some has been answered already....
so in other words if i understand bob right, if you set landscape in camera and then do landscape again in the pp, it would kind of double the effect but you could also do landscape in camera and portrait in pp and erase the landscape effect , leaving only the portrait effect?

 

[0bli0]

That is so not fair! I am teasing. You are just that good!

oops i didn't mean to make it sound the way it sounded but thank you very much.

i mean i take far less than one percent of my digital shots into CS2. i take all of my scanned film, to adjust for my crappy scanner and to hide dust.

my raw conversions are done in aperture. i batch adjust white balance, apply mild edge sharpen, and keyword. on some images, i convert to mono. i shoot in adobeRGB colourspace. when i export for web, the images are converted to sRGB.