Will anyone use picture styles on the 40D?

Shoot Raw then, in Adobe Camera Raw, save it as a ProPhoto RGB file.
Then make all the adjustments I can in 16 bit,
then convert to 8 bit and make more changes or print.
Seth Resnick recommended this routine...

MaDProFF wrote in post #3854511
I only shoot raw

I also shoot RAW with my cameras, but I still use picture styles. Frankly, I like 'em.

Note - I don't have a 40D.

tdodd wrote in post #3856978
For raw shooters, which includes me, be aware that the choice of picture style affects the embedded jpeg from which the histogram is generated. If you use Standard, for example, you will see highlight clipping indicated where in fact there may be none in the raw image. This may lead you to back off on the exposure and shoot a bit less to the right than you would like. If you use Neutral picture style then the histogram will more accurately reflect what you truly captured in the raw file. Thus I use Neutral picture style so that I get a better indication of what the sensor saw, rather than the overcooked jpeg that results from pumping up saturation, sharpening and contrast.

*If* I were to shoot jpeg then I would use Standard picture style in the hope that I would not need to pass the file through a further edit session and thus diminish quality further. I don't like the colours generated by Portrait or Faithful (who has lighting at exactly 5200K for Faithful in any case?) and I can't imagine why anyone would want to commit a photo to monochrome in camera rather than tinker with it afterwards. As for Landscape, if it suits your need so be it but I'd generally aim for colour and tonal accuracy rather than boost certain colours.

Interesting information - thanks.

arrgeebee wrote in post #3854506
If not, what will you shoot with as default? Nuetral or faithful? Not really sure how this works yet, was just wondering if anyone would use this.

i am assuming the picture styles only apply to jpegs?

re_guderian wrote in post #3858236
Wow. It's amazing you can find a shirt with a hole big enough to fit your head through...

I think that's a little harsh. While the point was not made in the best way, it is still valid in some respects.

I am still learning and I believe that the preset modes are no aid to someone learning or a competent photographer. One could argue that they cause laziness because, rather than trying to grasp exactly how the settings are working on the camera, it allows someone to take snapshots which, in my opinion, stifle learning.

I have no doubt that the results are often excellent, but I feel that someone looking for this type of solution is unlikely to spend 800.00 GBP on a camera. Curiosity and natural interest for experimentation would hopefully creep in.

Again, just my opinion of course.

TDCat.

c71clark wrote in post #3855908
Does ANYONE who considers themselves a hobbiest or more ever use them? I never have, and I can't see why I ever would. I have read an article or two that sorta praise their function. It does seem weird that Canon would even put something that seems to be for amateurs on a very expensive piece of equipment used almost exclusively by those who *know* how to take pictures.

I think some people shoot mostly or exclusively in jpeg. For them the settings might be useful. I'm guessing that with the relatively low price of the 40D, it might be the entry level camera for some first time DSLR users, and jpeg might be the format of choice for these people.

For me, RAW only.

For me, depends on what I'm shooting. If its kids sports, family snaps, or anything where I really won't be spending much time on PP I'll just use jpg. If someone is paying me, or I want to take my time I'll do RAW+jpg. I've played with the picture styles, but only so I know how. I guess I need to take a few comparison shots of different settings to see what I like.

TDCat wrote in post #3913032
I think that's a little harsh. While the point was not made in the best way, it is still valid in some respects.

I am still learning and I believe that the preset modes are no aid to someone learning or a competent photographer. One could argue that they cause laziness because, rather than trying to grasp exactly how the settings are working on the camera, it allows someone to take snapshots which, in my opinion, stifle learning.

I have no doubt that the results are often excellent, but I feel that someone looking for this type of solution is unlikely to spend 800.00 GBP on a camera. Curiosity and natural interest for experimentation would hopefully creep in.

Again, just my opinion of course.

TDCat.

The same could be said of in-camera metering, Av, Tv, and P modes, Autofocus, histograms, exposure compensation, etc. etc. i.e. any of the tools offered on newer cameras. I find it bemusing that people arrogantly hold a particular tool in disdain, but espouse doing similar work in Photoshop (or it's equivalent) to be "OK". All of these "tools" are just that, tools. Use them, or don't. How come all these "purists" aren't out shooting with a pinhole camera then? It's all about how the photo looks at the end. Not how you got there...

Oh, and if you think 800 GBP gets you above of the "snapshot" crowd, you need to talk to Canon and Nikon marketing folks...

Lord_Malone wrote in post #3858546
Hence, the reason I always shoot RAW+Nuetral.

Thanks for the breakdown and most excellent explanation most of us were to lazy to post.

Damn! I learn something new everyday that I am on this Forum!

I just did a test with RAW (Neutral) and RAW (Standard) picture styles. It has a tremendous impact on your histogram when shooting! Keep your picture style to Neutral and you see what the camera saw.....its so simple and brilliant - I feel stupid! ahaha

Thanks for this

Raw + Neutral.

Rob Galbraith described it as followed in the initial 1DMk3 test, and I tend to agree:

"Canon's decision to stay the course on colour also means that the other Picture Style settings range from being marginally useful to just plain bad. Having a range of colour looks to choose from is a great idea, but Standard, Portrait, Landscape and Faithful all need to be refined or replaced before we'd choose them for anything other than special shooting situations. Neutral is a very, very good choice"

re_guderian wrote in post #3948522
I find it bemusing that people arrogantly hold a particular tool in disdain.

I don't believe it's necessarily done with arrogance but you make a fair point. I happily use the tools in Lightroom to make photos more interesting etc but I have no idea how they work or do what they do. But I do know what they do.

The point I was making is that someone who relies entirely on preset modes may then not know how to achieve a particular look when it's really needed because the basic understanding is missing.

As you say, however, if the results are there, it's less important how they got there.

René Damkot wrote in post #3948754
Raw + Neutral.

Rob Galbraith described it as followed in the initial 1DMk3 test, and I tend to agree:

"Canon's decision to stay the course on colour also means that the other Picture Style settings range from being marginally useful to just plain bad. Having a range of colour looks to choose from is a great idea, but Standard, Portrait, Landscape and Faithful all need to be refined or replaced before we'd choose them for anything other than special shooting situations. Neutral is a very, very good choice"

Isn't this why Canon came up with the new PictureStyle Editor? I asked in a separate thread, which didn't get any replies, if anyone (and this would so far be limited to 40D owners as they are the only ones with the software) has yet made a new PictureStyle that did fit their needs.

Well, I find it useful.

Taken with 40D, circular polariser, and landscape setting, jpegs, no PP (click for larger):

IMAGE LINK: http://farm3.static.fl​ickr.com …63550984_3d1d92​e2d2_o.jpg

IMAGE LINK: http://farm3.static.fl​ickr.com …63555096_6af7d2​dc07_o.jpg

IMAGE LINK: http://farm3.static.fl​ickr.com …63562854_5e6403​aa41_o.jpg

IMAGE LINK: http://farm3.static.fl​ickr.com …62691795_b1f277​ef08_o.jpg

IMAGE LINK: http://farm3.static.fl​ickr.com …62693569_358d7c​4047_o.jpg

IMAGE LINK: http://farm3.static.fl​ickr.com …63579412_680d3f​007c_o.jpg

IMAGE LINK: http://farm3.static.fl​ickr.com …62703117_b6459b​bdb7_o.jpg

IMAGE LINK: http://farm3.static.fl​ickr.com …63587014_1d0aa0​b1b3_o.jpg

if you shoot raw, you can always apply a picture style later, in DPP or zoombrowser

roetevs wrote in post #3855320
I always shoot RAW and use neutral and Adobe RGB color space.

-Roel

same here....