Author Topic: How are these things different?  (Read 2102 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline zekewhipper

  • Regular Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 195
  • Gender: Male
    • Zekewhipper
    • My Flickr Photostream
How are these things different?
« on: November 02, 2009, 06:04:19 PM »
Hi folks,

I'm trying to get a handle on getting my Alpha 7D set up to give me the best results it can based on what I like photograph-wise. However, I'm left with some confusion that I'm hoping you can help me out on.

1) How is changing the color space from sRGB to sRGB+ (Natural to Vivid on Sony Alphas) different than simply making a positive adjustment to color saturation?

2) How is changing image quality from fine to extra fine (Standard to Fine on Sony Alphas) different than simply making a positive adjustment to contrast?

3) If you're a person like me who prefers "cooler" images more than "warmer" ones, which approach would you use to add more blue to all your images irregardless of photographic setting? Would you set the color hue negatively to add blue, or would you adjust each pre-set white balance option individually, or both?
DSLR's
Pentax K-5
Olympus E-520
Sony A100

SLR's
Minolta: Maxxum 600si
Zeiss Ikon: Contaflex Super BC

P&S's
Nikon: P7100

lenses: various AF zooms and M42 primes

Offline Stef.

  • Past Moderator
  • Friend of DynaxDigital
  • *****
  • Posts: 11520
    • Stef's photographs
Re: How are these things different?
« Reply #1 on: November 02, 2009, 06:42:41 PM »
Hi there- welcome to the club should I have not said so yet!
Re your question- to the best of my knowledge:
1) no difference but some people don't want to have to work with computers. Also be careful...it is easier to increase the saturation afterwards than trying to decrease too much red in somebody's face afterwards. For what it's worth I would never ever set it to mroe colour saturation. You can really get in trouble when shooting portraits.
2) Image quality and contrast??? Didn't know they had an influence on each other??? I would always set my Jpegs to the highest quality setting possible as this will compress it less and gives you more to work on later. The quality is just better. Finer details...
3) I would set my colour space to neutral as this will take all the warmth out of your image.

As a last word- but that's my very personal opinion: the best colour space to use is Adobe 1998 as this will give you the widest garmut of colours. If you shoot Jpegs than choose the highest quality possible. As said I would use Adobe 1998; contrast +1 and sharpness +1 when shooting Jpegs. For critical work shoot RAWs.

Hope this helps?
Stef.
Stef.'s photographs

[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/15931938@N05/]flickr


"Dream as if you'll live forever- live as if you'll die today"

Offline zekewhipper

  • Regular Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 195
  • Gender: Male
    • Zekewhipper
    • My Flickr Photostream
Re: How are these things different?
« Reply #2 on: November 03, 2009, 05:35:58 PM »
Thanks Stef for the information. 

1) The only observation one other person said they had was that changing to sRGB+ did NOT apply increased saturation to all colors as opposed to simply increasing the color saturation setting.  That though was just their opinion and they had nothing to really support it.  I don't mind some increase in color saturation for places or things, but when it comes to people I prefer more muted colors.

2) I was aware that the file sizes and amounts of info. between fine and extra fine were different.  It just seemed to me that quality-wise (at 100% on a computer screen) that extra fine photos simply appear to be a little more contrasty.  Is that the case, or am I just seeing things?

3) I find the default/neutral settings on the camera still a tad too warm for my liking, so that is why I asked.  I don't work in RAW, and I'm one of those folks that like to get the images as best I can "in camera" so that I don't have to spend much time on the computer processing.
DSLR's
Pentax K-5
Olympus E-520
Sony A100

SLR's
Minolta: Maxxum 600si
Zeiss Ikon: Contaflex Super BC

P&S's
Nikon: P7100

lenses: various AF zooms and M42 primes

Offline pointblank

  • Friend of DynaxDigital
  • *****
  • Posts: 1171
    • loveanda35
    • Love and a 35
Re: How are these things different?
« Reply #3 on: November 04, 2009, 02:17:19 PM »
I think a lot of us here try to get their in camera result as good as they can get it. However, it will always go wrong somewhere and your LCD is not the best source to trust. In the end, while coming home from a shooting coming to the conclusion you royally screwed up, you only wished you set it to RAW as it will save the day.

I personally believe that once you get the hang of your camera and the way it response to the different situations you are in, a shot in RAW will take you no more than a few clicks of the mouse. Once the processing becomes consistent as well, software likes photoshop allows you to create actions which can be linked to a batch, process a series of shots within a minute.

I agree, at first it's a battle uphill. Once on the top, sit back and relax.

--

Colorwise, AdobeRGB has the widest color gamut as mentioned here above. In combination with RAW the manipulation is endless and provides the optimal result. Furthermore RAW allows you to control the color temperature very accurately, with a simple move of the slider. Give it a try, good luck!



Offline Stef.

  • Past Moderator
  • Friend of DynaxDigital
  • *****
  • Posts: 11520
    • Stef's photographs
Re: How are these things different?
« Reply #4 on: November 05, 2009, 07:09:40 PM »
zekewhipper,
Quote
I was aware that the file sizes and amounts of info. between fine and extra fine were different.
This means in a nutshell that there is more information in that file than in the other and you always want to work with the greatest information possible. A) this gives you the chance to enlarge the image B) it is better for image manipulation should you want to post-process the image

I would not increase the saturation in camera as said before as this messes up skin colours.

I fully agree with pointblank! If you set your camera to AdobeRGB and they are too warm don't make the mistake and judge the images by the back fo your screen! You might get a bad surprise once they are printed. You can judge them by the histogram on the back of your camera but than you would need to know how to read it correctly AND you need to shoot something neutral to begin with.

Why don't you just set it to AdobeRGB- shoot some images, look at them on a callibrated monitor or get them printed and then make up your mind? I would definitely set sharpness to +1; contrast to +1 and perhaps dro to adv +2 if you want to use Jpegs only. Just as a starting point.
Good luck!
Stef.
Stef.'s photographs

[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/15931938@N05/]flickr


"Dream as if you'll live forever- live as if you'll die today"