Canon 20D dull images

Hi, I'm making enquiries regarding a problem I've discovered with my new Canon 20D camera. I've had the camera since December 04 and suspected my images of being slightly dull but this was proved in a test I carried out yesterday with my old 300D using the same lens tripod, Manual setting of 250th at f8. The 2 images taken were compared and I just couldn't belive the difference. The JPEG images were much more satureated on the 300D and the 20D images were quite dull. I've got the levels from photoshop to show the differenc in histograms. Any one herd of a similar problem and can this be fixed?

i assume same lens used on both and same colour profile selected - both shot in raw?

I think he shot in jpeg...

Gwyndows, try shooting RAW and equalize white balance in RAW converter. The cameras have differend jpeg processing parameters.

oh yea - re-read the post again - agree redo and shot raw

I shot in JPEG Large which is what we use in our weddings. The lens is a 24-70 f2.8 L series. The white balance was set on auto. the 300D images were just so much better in terms of colour and depth. This can't be right as 20D was 2 x more expensive and you'd expect the images to be at least as good if not better!

For JPEGs, you can set the contrast, saturation, sharpness and color tone via parameter sets. The default set on the 20D is parameter 2 which is flatter than parameter 1 (the 300D default I believe). You can select parameter 1 from the menu on the 20D, or set up your own sets (Set 1, 2 & 3) and adjust the levels to suit your needs.

Now I think your on to something here, I didn't know about the default parameter differences betwwen the 300D and 20D, would the differenc be that noticable? Unfortunalty, I had a bit of a panic about the whole thing and with another wedding comming up on October I sent the unit off to Canon to get checked out yesterday. With a bit of luck, they'll tell me the same thing. I should have spoken with you guys earlier

Someone posted a thread here once comparing all the different combinations, but I can't find it now.

This Canon chart says it all, but it's kind of hard to read the small text. Basically, Parameter 2 is geared for post processing, and Parameter 1 is geared toward getting the final image out of the camera. I usually shoot RAW, but when I shoot JPEG it's usually Parameter 2 so I can post process more effectively. If you have a lot of shots to do and don't want to spend time post processing them all, Parameter 1 might be a better choice.

gwyndows wrote:
Now I think your on to something here, I didn't know about the default parameter differences betwwen the 300D and 20D, would the differenc be that noticable? Unfortunalty, I had a bit of a panic about the whole thing and with another wedding comming up on October I sent the unit off to Canon to get checked out yesterday. With a bit of luck, they'll tell me the same thing. I should have spoken with you guys earlier

I can't believe a wedding photographer shooting JPG instead of RAW! Ugh.

JPEG should be able to produce a good picture, and on my camera it does. You don't need to use RAW. I suggest turning up your sharpness, saturation, and contrast, and see if that helps you.

I know some professional wedding photographers who shoot 100% JPEG and do a fantastic job. We all know the advantages of RAW, but the advantage of JPG is in the workflow, you don't realise how big an advantage that is until you get into high volume shooting. Personally I shoot 100% RAW, my aim is within 12 months I want to be shooting at least 50% JPEG and getting everything right in-camera, it'll make my workflow a LOT faster. I'll still use RAW for tricky stuff.

Shoot both, whats the problem? And yes you need to change youre settings and that should help.

Speed and storage space. Doing either properly is enough.

Theres nothing wrong with that, it just means he gets the shot right and doesn't need raw to save his work.

The only advantage in workflow of shooting JPEG over RAW is about 2 seconds of my time even for 1,000 pictures. I know I've said it before, but when I have a huge batch of RAWs I need to process, I have CS do a batch conversion. It produces far better JPEGs than the camera can with it's quick and dirty algorithms, and I still have the option to go back to certain RAWs and work on them further for the important shots. RAWs are like negatives, while JPEGs are more like polaroids. Sorry, but using JPEG is not a measure of skill and one's ability to get it right in the camera.

The only advantage I see at all of shooting JPEG anymore is when I need a larger buffer on my 20D, because at 5 fps in RAW I can't even shoot for 2 seconds. I'm not even going to say memory and storage because both are so cheap now it's not even a consideration.

When I have photos in RAW I tend to mess with them more, and adjust each image or group of images individually. That's maybe one reason why my workflow can be slower with RAW. Add to that batch conversion time, even on a fast PC that's not trivial when you shoot 500 photos in a session.

I shoot RAW and always will shoot at least some RAW, but I will transition to JPG for non-critical photos. Each to his or her own!