Picture Style

I shoot jpeg. I would be interested to know which Picture Style others use for weddings. I was taught to use Faithful but I find it produces bluish tones and it means additional work to process, in addition to which I tend not to do a very good job of it in PS

I shoot raw, so i just use neutral and do my tweaking in LR4.

Shooting RAW i just use standard or what ever it is and tweak accordingly.

I used to use DPP for all my raw conversion and used neutral with +1 contrast, +1 saturation and sharpening on full as I prefered judging my results on the rear screen this way. But as it was raw I could change it after in processing. I wouldn't shoot jpegs for weddings now but thats just me.

I would never consider shoot JPG at a wedding.

We apply our presets in post processing for the most part.

I shoot weddings and have always used RAW. Picture style is irrelevant to me in terms of post-processing (I do choose Adobe standard in LR, I think). That said, I have custom settings on my camera that put the contrast in the middle, saturation in the middle so the processed version showing up my camera's screen doesn't exaggerate clipping in the histogram.

As others, RAW I'm afraid - why would you want to shoot JPEG? The picture styles shouldn't produce a cast in any direction.

Is your monitor calibrated? Is it on screen or print that you get the blue? How are you assessing your WB? Bear in mind if you're shooting JPEG your WB should be close to perfect at capture, so custom is the way to go.

markimage wrote in post #14268257
I shoot jpeg. I would be interested to know which Picture Style others use for weddings. I was taught to use Faithful but I find it produces bluish tones and it means additional work to process, in addition to which I tend not to do a very good job of it in PS

...the problem is less likely to be your picture styles and more likely to be your white balance. In JPEG you need to get your white balance as close as possible because fixing it in post, as you are finding, is very hard. If you choose to continue shooting JPEG make sure you learn everything you can about getting your white balance correct. Otherwise, as suggested by others, shoot in RAW and you will have an easier time correcting your images if you get things wrong while you are out and about.

Raw is the way to go...but if your going to shoot jpeg your going to have to do your home work first. Go to all the areas your going to be shooting in and set yourself up with some custom wb settings you can use for each area but again raw would be alot easier. As far as picture styles go thats usually personal preference...but I did see a thread on here awhile ago where picture style effected sharpness but that again you would have to test that out yourself and see which you like better...shoot raw and save yourself alot of time!

Shoot RAW and natural style.

So, is RAW better than jpeg?

Wow, he wants help shooting jpegs and there are like 10 people talking about RAW.

banquetbear gave the only really useful tidbit of info. Yes, your white balance is critical for jpeg shooting. That is essential. For generic shooting, I personally use a custom Picture Style based off the Neutral style. Go to User Def picture style and select Neutral as your base. From there, I set my sharpness to 5, Contrast to +2, Saturation to +2, and leave color tone alone. This does a good job of giving nice colours that aren't oversaturated, with enough contrast for a final grade, deliverable image.

If you want to get serious into jpeg shooting, then go for it. Jpeg shooting is VERY powerful, and 99.999% of people who spout off saying RAW is the only way to go has never actually tried the FULL POWER of jpeg shooting.

One of the keys to great jpeg shooting is to get the canon Picture Style editor.
http://web.canon.jp …restyle/editor/​index.html

This is a very powerful program which lets you define and upload your own picture styles (via the EOS utility) to your camera. It gives you a degree of control far beyond what the in-camera menus let you. You can create all kinds of custom picture styles to stylize your photos in-camera. I mean, you can create cross process styles, or even give photos a faded vintage kind of look, or anything else. It's like loading your Lightroom Presets right into your camera. You can modify specific color channels to achieve all kinds of effects. Combine that with the power of K and SHIFT white balance, you can achieve just about any look you want, all in-camera. It's very powerful. There is a reason why Canon puts a dedicated Picture Style selector button on their cameras.

Don't be fooled. Jpeg shooting is just as valid of a method as RAW shooting. If this is the direction you want to go, then go for it!

I'm constantly practicing to be a jpeg-only shooter, so I can finally ditch these damn RAW files for good.

There are exactly zero cases in which shooting a .jpg will result in a better final image than had you shot it in RAW. There are plenty of cases in which shooting a RAW will result in a better final image than had you shot in .jpg only. Wedding photography is one of the highest stakes area of photography. And as good as we can get judging changes in color balance as we move through a room or adjusting ambient:flash ration simply by going from f/5 to f/2, as good as we are at judging the proper exposure of objects that are in motion, we will never be perfect at this. Shooting in RAW is insurance--and low cost insurance at that.

Christopher Steven b wrote in post #14298873
There are exactly zero cases in which shooting a .jpg will result in a better final image than had you shot it in RAW. There are plenty of cases in which shooting a RAW will result in a better final image than had you shot in .jpg only. Wedding photography is one of the highest stakes area of photography. And as good as we can get judging changes in color balance as we move through a room or adjusting ambient:flash ration simply by going from f/5 to f/2, as good as we are at judging the proper exposure of objects that are in motion, we will never be perfect at this. Shooting in RAW is insurance--and low cost insurance at that.

You're thinking about this like a pixel peeper. I NEVER said jpeg will give you a higher quality final image. That was never implied. If you can master jpeg shooting, you've just eliminated a GIGANTIC part of your workflow. So the benefit potential is very significant. Jpeg shooting is just as valid as a method as RAW. There are always varying levels of image quality, but they're always for a tradeoff somewhere. For RAW shooting, you HAVE to post process. That's the tradeoff.

The goal of wedding shooting isn't to provide amazing pixel-by-pixel image quality. That's more in the realm of commercial shooting. I don't think any of my clients would have complained or even noticed if I had shot jpeg only. The difference in final-grade image quality between a good jpeg shooter and a good raw shooting is splitting hairs in the eyes of a client. They just don't give a rats ass for such minute differences.

If you become really good at shooting, you can dial in your settings pretty darn close. It's not like exposure and white balance CAN'T be done on jpegs... Lightoom works very well with jpegs. So for the few photos where you might be off a little, it's just as easy to fix it as a jpeg as a raw. Now if you are botching up exposures and white balance by a lot, and not putting in an effort to master it, then you're just not a good cadidate to shoot jpeg. Most people shoot AWB and don't even attempt to learn!

Jpeg shooting takes more care, precision, and skill, but that shouldn't invalidate it as a good method of shooting weddings.