Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

20d newbie questions

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
December 2, 2004 8:30:41 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

in looking through the options on the 20 d i discovered that i have a
few questions:

1) as i work with my pix in photoshop should i set my space to srgb or
rgb? i use rgb in photoshop
2) which of the 'parameters is better? 1 or 2 and if 2 should any of
the subdivision be changed? (contrast, sharpness etc)
3) any suggestions to change any of the other functions?
4) does anyone have a favorite 'raw' software to import the canon raw
files?

tia ...

steve

More about : 20d newbie questions

Anonymous
December 2, 2004 8:30:42 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
<pshaw@emmet.com> wrote in message
news:ah6tq0tb9muiicciad45l15m18fdm3rsem@4ax.com...
> in looking through the options on the 20 d i discovered that i have a
> few questions:
>
> 1) as i work with my pix in photoshop should i set my space to srgb or
> rgb? i use rgb in photoshop
> 2) which of the 'parameters is better? 1 or 2 and if 2 should any of
> the subdivision be changed? (contrast, sharpness etc)
> 3) any suggestions to change any of the other functions?
> 4) does anyone have a favorite 'raw' software to import the canon raw
> files?
>
> tia ...
>
> steve

Actually, what I've picked up here, and from the owner's manual, is that
sRGB is more workable.
As far as the parameters, you really need to determine that yourself. I
usually use parameter 1 and Set 1 that I've set with higher saturation. And
the B&W set, too.
The same goes for any of the other settings, but most have found that
setting the flash metering for "average" rather than the default
"evaluative" gives better results. And I have mine set to second curtain
synch so that any flash trails look more natural.
I took my camera out for a day in the park, with a notebook. I documented
everything I shot, changed settings endlessly, compared everything when I
got home, looked at all the variables, and decided what settings were the
most useful, for me. And I'm still changing some of them, as I get into
more and more situations.
Of course, your mileage may vary...
Anonymous
December 2, 2004 9:35:32 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Also remember that only Parameter 2 settings are used in the "non
creative zone".


On Thu, 2 Dec 2004 05:28:32 -0800, "Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net>
wrote:

> the variables, and decided what settings were the
>most useful, for me. And I'm still changing some of them, as I get into
>more and more situations.
>Of course, your mileage may vary...
>

--------------------------------
Related resources
Anonymous
December 2, 2004 10:53:18 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

pshaw@emmet.com wrote:
> in looking through the options on the 20 d i discovered that i have a
> few questions:
>
> 1) as i work with my pix in photoshop should i set my space to srgb or
> rgb? i use rgb in photoshop

From what I've picked up here and in a couple magazines, your best
choice is probably Adobe RGB in the camera.

> 2) which of the 'parameters is better? 1 or 2 and if 2 should any of
> the subdivision be changed? (contrast, sharpness etc)

I use the stock parameters with my Digital Rebel. Note that these
settings only take effect when the camera stores images as JPG; they
don't affect RAW files.

> 4) does anyone have a favorite 'raw' software to import the canon raw
> files?

There's a plugin for the latest Photoshop...
Anonymous
December 2, 2004 12:56:45 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Matt Ion" <soundy@moltenimage.com> wrote in message
news:o Rzrd.410828$%k.260618@pd7tw2no...

>> 2) which of the 'parameters is better? 1 or 2 and if 2 should any of
>> the subdivision be changed? (contrast, sharpness etc)
>
> I use the stock parameters with my Digital Rebel. Note that these
> settings only take effect when the camera stores images as JPG; they don't
> affect RAW files.

I disagree. Both the RAW file and the resulting EXIF TIFF show sharpness
+1, saturation +1 in the EXIF data if I use Parameter 1. For scientific
work I'm about to switch to Parameter 2.

Basically, Parameter 1 if you think you're going to be making some prints
direct from the camera; Parameter 2 if you're always going to post-process
your pictures.

>> 4) does anyone have a favorite 'raw' software to import the canon raw
>> files?
>
> There's a plugin for the latest Photoshop...

Where do I get that? Also, the one that comes with the camera (Canon File
Viewer) works well. Photoshop without the Canon plugin can open .CRW files
but doesn't seem to interpret them correctly; they don't look too good.
Anonymous
December 2, 2004 12:58:10 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Leith Cassone" <LCassone@usa.net> wrote in message
news:fv9uq0tefsu6ldfghhfi7jet28guomb2ln@4ax.com...
> Also remember that only Parameter 2 settings are used in the "non
> creative zone".

Parameter 1, you mean? Or are they backwards on the 20D compared to the
300D?
Anonymous
December 2, 2004 1:06:17 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

pshaw@emmet.com wrote in message news:<ah6tq0tb9muiicciad45l15m18fdm3rsem@4ax.com>...
> in looking through the options on the 20 d i discovered that i have a
> few questions:
>
> 1) as i work with my pix in photoshop should i set my space to srgb or
> rgb? i use rgb in photoshop

You choose the RGB space at the point of conversion from RAW to {TIFF/JPG}.
With the bundled 20D software, this is best/easiest done in DPP.

> 2) which of the 'parameters is better? 1 or 2 and if 2 should any of
> the subdivision be changed? (contrast, sharpness etc)

Shoot RAW and then look at each picture and balance individually. Once
you have done 100-200 you get pretty good at getting the color right
very fast so it ends up taking only a couple of seconds/image.

I do all my color corrections at the RAW->{TFFF/JPG} conversion in DPP.
I do all my image manipulation in Photoshop {sharpness, contrast, levels,
punch} just before writing out the image as JPG.

RAW is the digital negative, JPG is the digital positive (print)

> 3) any suggestions to change any of the other functions?
> 4) does anyone have a favorite 'raw' software to import the canon raw
> files?

I use EOS Viewer to import camera->PC (RAW)
I use DPP as my color correction, saturation and white balance processing
I use Photoshop as my image manipulation engine.

Once I got about 500 images under my belt, the whole process takes about
1 minute per descent image but I will still spend up to an hour saving a
disaterous image into a very presentable image.

Mitch
Anonymous
December 2, 2004 1:40:25 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

pshaw@emmet.com wrote:
> in looking through the options on the 20 d i discovered that i have a
> few questions:
>
> 1) as i work with my pix in photoshop should i set my space to srgb or
> rgb? i use rgb in photoshop
> 2) which of the 'parameters is better? 1 or 2 and if 2 should any of
> the subdivision be changed? (contrast, sharpness etc)
> 3) any suggestions to change any of the other functions?
> 4) does anyone have a favorite 'raw' software to import the canon raw
> files?

Steve,

There's a newsgroup dedicated to DSLRs like the 20D at:

rec.photo.digital.slr-systems

Cheers,
David
Anonymous
December 2, 2004 1:40:26 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"David J Taylor" <david-taylor@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:318a0lF38u1q8U1@individual.net...
>
> Steve,
>
> There's a newsgroup dedicated to DSLRs like the 20D at:
>
> rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
>
> Cheers,
> David


Quite a bit of the world still doesn't get that newsgroup. I don't know
what happened to it, but neither of my 2 totally unrelated servers gets it
yet, even though it has existed for a month.
Anonymous
December 2, 2004 2:30:39 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"David J Taylor" <david-taylor@invalid.com> wrote:

>> 1) as i work with my pix in photoshop should i set my space to srgb
or
>> rgb? i use rgb in photoshop
>> 2) which of the 'parameters is better? 1 or 2 and if 2 should any
of
>> the subdivision be changed? (contrast, sharpness etc)
>> 3) any suggestions to change any of the other functions?
>> 4) does anyone have a favorite 'raw' software to import the canon
raw
>> files?
>
> There's a newsgroup dedicated to DSLRs like the 20D at:
>
> rec.photo.digital.slr-systems

Post-processing talk is only allowed in that group if, and only if, it
pertains directly to "dslr photography". Since sRGB (or colour
managemnt in general) is not a direct dSLR issue, question (1) would
be off-topic there.

Questions (2) and (3) may be on-topic, but only if the question was
phrased to be specific to a dSLR. Read your Charter!

(4) would be off-topic, since it also lacks the sufficient dSLR
references, and indeed, even if it had such, probably is not specific
to dSLR cameras (because non-slr systems also have raw image formats).

Have you considered changing The Sacred Charter? It is so narrow that
one wonders just what can be posted there but for glorified "can you
read me my user manual" questions and answers about dSLR camera X.
Anonymous
December 2, 2004 2:41:33 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

pshaw@emmet.com wrote:

> 1) as i work with my pix in photoshop should i set my space to srgb or
> rgb? i use rgb in photoshop

sRGB for images to be viewed on monitors. The Adobe space for prints.
The net difference isn't much to be worried about though:

http://www.brucelindbloom.com

Click on "Info" and then "Working RGB sets".

> 2) which of the 'parameters is better? 1 or 2 and if 2 should any of
> the subdivision be changed? (contrast, sharpness etc)

Which do you like better? Peas or cucumbers?

> 3) any suggestions to change any of the other functions?

Potato or carrot?

> 4) does anyone have a favorite 'raw' software to import the canon raw
> files?

I can't believe that trying stuff and coming to your own conclusion is
out of the question.
Anonymous
December 2, 2004 5:41:38 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

>From: "Skip M" shadowcatcher@cox.net

>Actually, what I've picked up here, and from the owner's manual, is that
>sRGB is more workable.

If you want to throw away a large % of the colors captured by the 20D then sRGB
is for you. Anyone who knows how to use color management and has a profiled
monitor and a good printer can make much better prints using AdobeRGB.

"workable" in the sense that it's the lowest common denominator working space,
meant for web images (that aren't viewed in a color managed environment) and
people with uncalibrated monitors.
Anonymous
December 2, 2004 7:11:14 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Bill Hilton" <bhilton665@aol.comedy> wrote in message
news:20041202094138.08281.00001804@mb-m04.aol.com...
> >From: "Skip M" shadowcatcher@cox.net
>
>>Actually, what I've picked up here, and from the owner's manual, is that
>>sRGB is more workable.
>
> If you want to throw away a large % of the colors captured by the 20D then
> sRGB
> is for you. Anyone who knows how to use color management and has a
> profiled
> monitor and a good printer can make much better prints using AdobeRGB.
>
> "workable" in the sense that it's the lowest common denominator working
> space,
> meant for web images (that aren't viewed in a color managed environment)
> and
> people with uncalibrated monitors.

Yours and the previous post are the first times I've actually come in
contact with someone who recommends AdobeRGB.
The manual recommends sRGB, and my monitor matches my printers output to the
nth degree. I've been reluctant to calibrate it because of that. I'm not
really up on color management, and most of my stuff is printed elsewhere.
My printer is for proofs, only.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
December 2, 2004 11:00:11 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

eawckyegcy@yahoo.com wrote:
> "David J Taylor" <david-taylor@invalid.com> wrote:
[]
>> There's a newsgroup dedicated to DSLRs like the 20D at:
>>
>> rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
[]
> Have you considered changing The Sacred Charter? It is so narrow that
> one wonders just what can be posted there but for glorified "can you
> read me my user manual" questions and answers about dSLR camera X.

You had opportunity to have your input when the charter was discussed,
just like everyone else. I am sure the users of that group would
determine what was or was not in accordance with the charter.

I am sorry you take exception to my pointing out to a newbie that there is
a group where his 20D can be discussed.

David
Anonymous
December 2, 2004 11:00:12 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"David J Taylor" <david-taylor@invalid.com> wrote:

>> Have you considered changing The Sacred Charter? It is so narrow
that
>> one wonders just what can be posted there but for glorified "can
you
>> read me my user manual" questions and answers about dSLR camera X.
>
> You had opportunity to have your input when the charter was discussed,
> just like everyone else.

I also "had opportunity" to supply input to the design of Microsoft
Windows. Am I to be blamed for the resulting atrocity because I
didn't send in the job application form 15 years ago? Or are you just
not making sense here?

> I am sure the users of that group would
> determine what was or was not in accordance with the charter.

Isn't the whole point of a charter to remove this sort of
arbitrariness? If users of the group decide, then what is the point
of a charter? Or at least why isn't this ensconced within the charter
itself? The "we, the users, make it up as we go along" clause.

> I am sorry you take exception to my pointing out to a newbie that there is
> a group where his 20D can be discussed.

You mis-understand: I have no objections to you making any point you
like. I merely point out that it seems some of his questions would be
_off topic_ to that group, and the reason is because
rec.photo.digital.slr-systems has an overly restrictive charter. It
really does read like "if it's not in the user manual for any digital
SLR camera, it's off topic".
Anonymous
December 2, 2004 11:22:40 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

>From: "David J Taylor" david-taylor@invalid.com

>You had opportunity to have your input when the charter was discussed,
>just like everyone else. I am sure the users of that group would
>determine what was or was not in accordance with the charter.

Yeah, both of them.

I'll start posting there when AOL decides to pick it up.
Anonymous
December 3, 2004 11:04:08 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"David J Taylor" <david-taylor@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:319ailF38gguiU1@individual.net...
> eawckyegcy@yahoo.com wrote:
> > "David J Taylor" <david-taylor@invalid.com> wrote:
> []
> >> There's a newsgroup dedicated to DSLRs like the 20D at:
> >>
> >> rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
> []
> > Have you considered changing The Sacred Charter? It is so narrow that
> > one wonders just what can be posted there but for glorified "can you
> > read me my user manual" questions and answers about dSLR camera X.
>
> You had opportunity to have your input when the charter was discussed,
> just like everyone else. I am sure the users of that group would
> determine what was or was not in accordance with the charter.
>
> I am sorry you take exception to my pointing out to a newbie that there is
> a group where his 20D can be discussed.
>
> David
>
Just take a look at Alan Browne's reaction to a Digicam question and pretty
soon you'll realize that rec.photo.digital.slr-systems looks like it's
going to be a group for a selected few people hell bent on ensuring no one
posts anything remotely off topic. Probably the same group which dominate
rec.photo.equipment.35mm and is most likely the people responsible for all
the troll activity in that group from their off-topic activities.

Sanctimonious is a word which probably fits. Sort of like a bottom end
anti-elitist group, 180 degree opposite from The Photographic Society! The
sacred charter is indeed a worthy description. Who will be the first to
complain to someone's ISP for off-topic posts? From my reading of the
charter, even posting about studio flash or speedlights is off-topic. Narrow
minded is another description I'd consider for whoever though up that
charter.

Doug
Anonymous
December 3, 2004 11:04:09 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ryadia wrote:
[]
> Just take a look at Alan Browne's reaction to a Digicam question and
> pretty soon you'll realize that ..........

Doug, let's concentrate on helping people instead!
Anonymous
December 3, 2004 11:05:39 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

<eawckyegcy@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:D 3c57e81.0412021141.2bbe91a5@posting.google.com...
> pshaw@emmet.com wrote:
>
>
> I can't believe that trying stuff and coming to your own conclusion is
> out of the question.
-----------
Doesn't that require a logical mind and a dedicated thought process?
Anonymous
December 3, 2004 11:45:33 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

eawckyegcy@yahoo.com wrote:
> "David J Taylor" <david-taylor@invalid.com> wrote:
[]
>> I am sure the users of that group would
>> determine what was or was not in accordance with the charter.
>
> Isn't the whole point of a charter to remove this sort of
> arbitrariness? If users of the group decide, then what is the point
> of a charter? Or at least why isn't this ensconced within the charter
> itself? The "we, the users, make it up as we go along" clause.

Don't forget that charter contains recommendations and suggestions, as
well as what is strictly prohibited. I would expect the group members to
decide amongst themselves how strictly the non-mandatory parts of the
charter were enforced, in an intelligent and common-sense fashion.

Cheers,
David
Anonymous
December 4, 2004 12:06:54 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Apparently eawckyegcy@yahoo.com wrote:

>I also "had opportunity" to supply input to the design of Microsoft
>Windows.

You were a developer at Xerox?


--
Ken Tough
Anonymous
December 4, 2004 10:53:54 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

pshaw@emmet.com wrote:
> in looking through the options on the 20 d i discovered that i have a
> few questions:
>
> 1) as i work with my pix in photoshop should i set my space to srgb or
> rgb? i use rgb in photoshop

If you're using Photoshop 7 or CS, I recommend you set your Color
Setting to "U.S. Prepress. Defaults." The setting is for RGB.

> 2) which of the 'parameters is better? 1 or 2 and if 2 should any of
> the subdivision be changed? (contrast, sharpness etc)

I'm using a 1DMkII and have just acquired a 20D. In both cameras, I do
not use Contrast or any of the "add controls" because I prefer to take
my pictures RAW and process them later in one of my computers. Both my
cameras are set to RGB.


> 3) any suggestions to change any of the other functions?

I havn't any suggestions for making a change. So far, the defaults work
for me.

> 4) does anyone have a favorite 'raw' software to import the canon raw
> files?

If you're working with Photoshop 7, it's too late to get a RAW file
downloaded from Adobe. Adobe took the file off their web site when they
released Photoshop CS. Photoshop CS and Elements 3 has RAW picture
processing included in the program.


>
> tia ...
>
> steve
Anonymous
December 4, 2004 1:17:39 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Michael A. Covington wrote:
> "David J Taylor" <david-taylor@invalid.com> wrote in message
> news:318a0lF38u1q8U1@individual.net...
>>
>> Steve,
>>
>> There's a newsgroup dedicated to DSLRs like the 20D at:
>>
>> rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
>>
>> Cheers,
>> David
>
>
> Quite a bit of the world still doesn't get that newsgroup. I don't
> know what happened to it, but neither of my 2 totally unrelated
> servers gets it yet, even though it has existed for a month.

That's partially why I mentioned it - to remind people to chase their
service providers to get access to the new groups....

Cheers,
David
December 7, 2004 11:44:13 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Thu, 2 Dec 2004 22:23:08 -0000
In message <319iudF3955i9U1@individual.net>
"David J Taylor" <david-taylor@invalid.com> wrote:

> <SNIP>

I have a comment to make:

CHARTER THIS! ____________________________

This *is* the most appropriate place to ask these questions. When
groups get splintered and tightly focused, the broad spectrum of
knowledge gets lost... and being exposed to ALL aspects of digital
photography and film related background knowledge. I find that the
value of THIS forum *is* the wide diversity.

(written with only a bit of sarcasm, and not intended to be attacking.
the real problem, as I see it, is that eGroups sold out to Yahoo, and
anyone who was grandfathered into the focused moderated
product-specific groups has had many problems dealing with the
completely unresponsive Yahoo lack-of-Customer Service. I thought the
original eGroups provided that focused type of balance for a broad
topic usenet group like this.)

Jeff
!