60d Producing Soft Images

[GooniesNeverSayDie11]

Your radius should typically stay below 1.0. Also, as KMH was saying. picture styles have no relevance on how your RAW file looks. Its simply for LCD viewing so yOu get a rough idea of a processed file. RAW files are always softer, and flatter.

 

[GooniesNeverSayDie11]

Also, the 60D will appear noisier at 100% than the xsi due to the Sensor and increased resolution. Same issue when I went from T1i to the 7D ( which the 60D is closely related to.) And I was only going from 15mp to 18mp. I am sure someone else can explain the scientific reasoning for this, but lets just say its a bit misleading when pixel peeping.

 

[dandaluzphotography]

I called Canon and what they told me about the picture styles is that it will apply to jpegs and be locked in. It will also be applied to RAW files as a tag for a baseline for processing. They told me I should use their Digital Professional Software and I will see it. I just tried to open a RAW file with a custom picture style applied and it looks awesome. I don't know what the hell Lightroom (Camera RAW also) is doing, but it's making the pictures look like sh1t.

What do you guys think?

Danny

 

[analog.universe]

The Canon software is just creating a jpg on your computer the same way as it would be done in camera. If you use lightroom, all those settings are your responsibility. It's a lot more work, but if you put the time in you'll be able to get better results in a lot of situations. It's certainly not as straightforward as just accepting a Canon preset however.

 

[Derrel]

Well, yeah, the Factory Default settings on some RAW image processing software are going to create very bland, dull images. If Lightroom is making the images look crappy, it's definitely due to the settings. Normally, when starting with a new RAW image processor, the user needs to "dial it in", and establish his/her own preferences in how the images are going to be "interpreted". Part of this is due to the fact that no two people want the same, exact type of file interpretation, and there are also multiple different ideas of what makes for the best interpretation of a RAW file.

There are some very,very advanced workers who believe that a RAW file ought to be developed as a rather flat image. One that preserves detail in the highlights and the shadows, but which has a very gentle tone curve. Some of these workers are people with extremely advanced technical backgrounds, and one of them is even the author of a kind of niche RAW development software application (his name is Iliah Borg). Other people want to "develop" the image quite fully, at the RAW converter stage, increasing sharpness, acutance,contrast, color saturation,etc.

So...different RAW converters will give different "looks" at their baseline settings. Some RAW converters offer a series of pre-determined "looks", usually with descriptive names. Camera makers often have a name like Picture Styles, which communicates the desired changes to the RAW data that the RAW conversion style will apply when making a JPEG or TIFF image from the RAW image data.

 

[analog.universe]

Also... read in depth about how sharpening works and the various ways to accomplish it. There are no magic settings that always get the job done. I've heard about keeping your radius well below 1.0, that's like saying keep your aperture above f/5.6.... maybe sometimes, there are no rules like that in photography though. The radius and sharpening amount needed depend on how sharp the raw was, how large the image is that you're working on, how noisy, how much of it is in focus, which sharpening tool you're using (there are dozens), etc...

If I've got a full size raw, sooc, sometimes I'll use "unsharp mask" with a radius of 3 or 4. If I've got something I've worked on already, and now I'm making a web sized version, maybe just using "sharpen" with a radius of .3 is fine. There are no rules in photography, just variables. You'll only be happy with your results when you understand what all the variables do.

 

[dandaluzphotography]

Well, yeah, the Factory Default settings on some RAW image processing software are going to create very bland, dull images. If Lightroom is making the images look crappy, it's definitely due to the settings. Normally, when starting with a new RAW image processor, the user needs to "dial it in", and establish his/her own preferences in how the images are going to be "interpreted". Part of this is due to the fact that no two people want the same, exact type of file interpretation, and there are also multiple different ideas of what makes for the best interpretation of a RAW file.

There are some very,very advanced workers who believe that a RAW file ought to be developed as a rather flat image. One that preserves detail in the highlights and the shadows, but which has a very gentle tone curve. Some of these workers are people with extremely advanced technical backgrounds, and one of them is even the author of a kind of niche RAW development software application (his name is Iliah Borg). Other people want to "develop" the image quite fully, at the RAW converter stage, increasing sharpness, acutance,contrast, color saturation,etc.

So...different RAW converters will give different "looks" at their baseline settings. Some RAW converters offer a series of pre-determined "looks", usually with descriptive names. Camera makers often have a name like Picture Styles, which communicates the desired changes to the RAW data that the RAW conversion style will apply when making a JPEG or TIFF image from the RAW image data.

I guess I have a lot to learn about post (I knew that before this thread )...

Thanks for all the feedback.

Danny

 

[Big Mike]

Also, one of the first things you should do in Lightroom, is to go down to the bottom and choose the 'calibration' that you want. It's essentially like the picture styles...I'm not sure, but you may even be able to use camera specific styles or settings.

 

[GooniesNeverSayDie11]

Also... read in depth about how sharpening works and the various ways to accomplish it. There are no magic settings that always get the job done. I've heard about keeping your radius well below 1.0, that's like saying keep your aperture above f/5.6.... maybe sometimes, there are no rules like that in photography though. The radius and sharpening amount needed depend on how sharp the raw was, how large the image is that you're working on, how noisy, how much of it is in focus, which sharpening tool you're using (there are dozens), etc...If I've got a full size raw, sooc, sometimes I'll use "unsharp mask" with a radius of 3 or 4. If I've got something I've worked on already, and now I'm making a web sized version, maybe just using "sharpen" with a radius of .3 is fine. There are no rules in photography, just variables. You'll only be happy with your results when you understand what all the variables do.

I agree with you, but the OP should use the 1.0 as a good rule of thumb because in MOST cases going too far beyond that will begin to have adverse effects on the image (halos). If your images are extremely soft, the problem should be addressed in your hardware as well as your technique. However, in a generalized fashion, you are spot on about rules, and regardless, the OP should investigate and learn more.

As for the OP, it is my understanding that Canon's conversion software/algorithms are proprietary and Adobe has to attempt to come close with their own. So Lightroom and ACR do not convert exactly like DPP does. You can use many of the auto settings which many times will work, but the best thing to do is learn how to adjust things yourself so that you can control them better. If you learn these settings, 99.9% of the time you will turn the RAW file into a much better finished product than what any camera or auto setting can do.

 

[Edsport]

With my canon i can choose picture styles but also i can set saturation, contrast and brightness etc but if you shot this in raw than those settings is not applied to the photo and a raw file is naturally soft and needs sharpening because no sharpening is applied to a raw file in camera. I sharpened it and it seems fine...

Those settings are applied to the JPEG Basic that is embedded in the Raw file. That edited JPEG Basic is what is dislayed on the camera LCD.

A Raw file has to be converted outside the camera to be seen as an image. Each conversion application uses slightly different algorithms to convert the Raw file, so a Raw file converted using DPP will look different than a Raw file converted using ACR, which will look different from a Raw file converted using Aperture.

Another factor that relates to the sharpness one sees when pixel peeping is differences in the low-pass filter (anti-alias filter) that is in front of each camera models image sensor.

So there is little doubt the sharpeness would look somewhat different when comparing images made with a XSi to images made with a 60D.

I'll stick to my guns that the settings is not applied to a raw file...

 

[GooniesNeverSayDie11]

With my canon i can choose picture styles but also i can set saturation, contrast and brightness etc but if you shot this in raw than those settings is not applied to the photo and a raw file is naturally soft and needs sharpening because no sharpening is applied to a raw file in camera. I sharpened it and it seems fine...

Those settings are applied to the JPEG Basic that is embedded in the Raw file. That edited JPEG Basic is what is dislayed on the camera LCD.A Raw file has to be converted outside the camera to be seen as an image. Each conversion application uses slightly different algorithms to convert the Raw file, so a Raw file converted using DPP will look different than a Raw file converted using ACR, which will look different from a Raw file converted using Aperture.Another factor that relates to the sharpness one sees when pixel peeping is differences in the low-pass filter (anti-alias filter) that is in front of each camera models image sensor.So there is little doubt the sharpeness would look somewhat different when comparing images made with a XSi to images made with a 60D.

I'll stick to my guns that the settings is not applied to a raw file...

He didn't contradict that argument. He said its embedded in the file so that certain software can use it ( much in the same way that the camera uses it to display the processed file on the LCD.)

 

[RacePhoto]

Only quoted and answered because that's the first thing that came to mind. It's not the camera or lens, it's that the camera is capturing 25% more and now he can see the flaws that were not showing in the XSi images.

Same as people who get 5Ds and discover their lenses are soft or they see dust spots that the camera gets blamed for, when it's the sensor size and larger image size, displaying things, which were there but harder to see before.

I'd guess that the whole front/back focusing problem even when manual and the perception that the 60D is not as sharp as the Xsi are because the 60D is actually bigger and better.

Not sure what's going on, but earlier this AM, edsport's reworked image was MUCH larger, and I looked at it and thought the sharpness was satisfactorily high. Honestly, I am thinking that what the OP is seeing is just softer output from the 60D than he's used to with the Rebel body...maybe a difference in the realtive strengths of the anti-aliasing filters between the two bodies, and/or a pretty substantial difference between sharpening that's been or being applied somewhere within the Rebel's imaging chain.

I think it's absolutely normal to need to apply something along the lines of 300 to 500 percent sharpening at a very small radius, like somewhere between .20 and .35 pixel radius, on EVERY image coming off of a d-slr sensor, to counteract the blurring of the anti-aliasing filter; it is true, MANY d-slr cameras do output "soft images", in order to prevent aliasing. And many entry-level bodies often produce crisper, more-sharpened images than the more advanced or pro-level bodies. I think this might be the case here.

 

[Edsport]

He said "Those settings ARE applied..." stressing the word are which means to me he is contradicting what i said...

 

[Drake]

They are applied to the preview inside the RAW file you see on your camera's LCD or as a thumbnail in Windows once you install the RAW codecs, not the actual photo you develop with your RAW software - that remains untouched regardless of your incamera settings..

 

[dandaluzphotography]

They are applied to the preview inside the RAW file you see on your camera's LCD or as a thumbnail in Windows once you install the RAW codecs, not the actual photo you develop with your RAW software - that remains untouched regardless of your incamera settings..

I played around a bit with Canon's Digital Photo Professional and the picture style you use in camera is applied to the RAW file as a baseline for editing. You can remove it completely or change it any way you like. This is what I was told by Canon and what I saw when I used it.

Danny