Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

modify images in camera or pc?

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
March 25, 2005 2:47:53 PM

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

I was testing my Nikon4500, taking multiple shots with variations in
camera settings of contrast, saturation, sharpening etc, on jpegs, to
find if there was a general setting I liked most, except for unusual
conditions.
Or is it better to reduce image modifications by running the camera on
neutral settings, and modify jpegs once only, in your photo edit
program? Or does it not matter much?
DonB

More about : modify images camera

March 25, 2005 3:42:34 PM

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

Joseph, maybe I wasn't quite clear - 2 things-
Will you get image degradation by image modification in the camera, and
then further modification in the pc?
Or is it best for the image quality, just to shoot on normal settings,
and modify in pc?
Thanks,
DonB
Anonymous
March 25, 2005 4:59:31 PM

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

oink@woosh.co.nz writes:

> program? Or does it not matter much?

Do it both ways, then save the 'original' files as archives. That way you
can always change whatever you want on copies of the files, but if you
screw it up, your backups are still there for you.

--
Phil Stripling | email to the replyto address is presumed
The Civilized Explorer | spam and read later. email from this URL
http://www.cieux.com/ | http://www.civex.com/ is read daily.
Related resources
Anonymous
March 25, 2005 7:09:17 PM

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

oink@woosh.co.nz wrote:

> I was testing my Nikon4500, taking multiple shots with variations in
> camera settings of contrast, saturation, sharpening etc, on jpegs, to
> find if there was a general setting I liked most, except for unusual
> conditions.
> Or is it better to reduce image modifications by running the camera on
> neutral settings, and modify jpegs once only, in your photo edit
> program? Or does it not matter much?

I think it's easier to leave the camera settings at the levels
you like best and then develop a post processing workflow
for images that need to be 'tweaked'.

This is far easier than having to go into the camera menu and
change multiple settings on a regular basis..
March 25, 2005 10:01:51 PM

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

oink@woosh.co.nz wrote:

> I was testing my Nikon4500, taking multiple shots with variations in
> camera settings of contrast, saturation, sharpening etc, on jpegs, to
> find if there was a general setting I liked most, except for unusual
> conditions.
> Or is it better to reduce image modifications by running the camera on
> neutral settings, and modify jpegs once only, in your photo edit
> program? Or does it not matter much?
> DonB


For low constrast screnes, let the camera do the work. For high contrast
lighting, turn off the contrast boost (makes sense eh?). I believe the
camera can do better if it works with the RAW image though I'm not
absolutely certain it works that way.
Anonymous
March 25, 2005 11:08:44 PM

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

oink@woosh.co.nz wrote:
> I was testing my Nikon4500, taking multiple shots with variations in
> camera settings of contrast, saturation, sharpening etc, on jpegs, to
> find if there was a general setting I liked most, except for unusual
> conditions.
> Or is it better to reduce image modifications by running the camera on
> neutral settings, and modify jpegs once only, in your photo edit
> program? Or does it not matter much?
> DonB

I always vote for what works best for you. You are approaching it
correctly. What works best for me is not really material for you.

--
Joseph Meehan

26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math
March 25, 2005 11:14:50 PM

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

Thanks guys.
Sounds like some very sensible advice here, speaking as someone short
on the technical aspects.
DonB
Anonymous
March 25, 2005 11:28:44 PM

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

oink@woosh.co.nz wrote:
> I was testing my Nikon4500, taking multiple shots with variations in
> camera settings of contrast, saturation, sharpening etc, on jpegs, to
> find if there was a general setting I liked most, except for unusual
> conditions.
> Or is it better to reduce image modifications by running the camera on
> neutral settings, and modify jpegs once only, in your photo edit
> program? Or does it not matter much?
> DonB
>

Get the best possible shot the camera can deliver, and you have a 'leg
up' on the editing step.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
March 25, 2005 11:32:27 PM

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

Jim Townsend wrote:
> oink@woosh.co.nz wrote:
>
>
>>I was testing my Nikon4500, taking multiple shots with variations in
>>camera settings of contrast, saturation, sharpening etc, on jpegs, to
>>find if there was a general setting I liked most, except for unusual
>>conditions.
>>Or is it better to reduce image modifications by running the camera on
>>neutral settings, and modify jpegs once only, in your photo edit
>>program? Or does it not matter much?
>
>
> I think it's easier to leave the camera settings at the levels
> you like best and then develop a post processing workflow
> for images that need to be 'tweaked'.
>
> This is far easier than having to go into the camera menu and
> change multiple settings on a regular basis..
>
>
>
>
It is downright stupid to leave the camera set, for instance, to always
underexpose the pictures, and then to have to fix that on the computer.
Get the best possible picture from the camera, and then do what is
needed on the computer. Note that this does NOT include processing such
as sharpening, or other 'post processing' in the camera as it is usually
less controllable than the computer's processing.
This includes such things a JPEG compression, which should be set for
best quality.

--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
March 26, 2005 12:10:25 AM

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

<oink@woosh.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1111783354.117075.163180@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Joseph, maybe I wasn't quite clear - 2 things-
> Will you get image degradation by image modification in the camera, and
> then further modification in the pc?
> Or is it best for the image quality, just to shoot on normal settings,
> and modify in pc?
> Thanks,
> DonB

Modify in camera - you're stuck with it.
Backup and then modify as many times as you like on pc - nothing is ever
lost.
March 26, 2005 4:49:08 AM

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

<oink@woosh.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1111780073.152871.155370@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> I was testing my Nikon4500, taking multiple shots with variations in
> camera settings of contrast, saturation, sharpening etc, on jpegs, to
> find if there was a general setting I liked most, except for unusual
> conditions.
> Or is it better to reduce image modifications by running the camera on
> neutral settings, and modify jpegs once only, in your photo edit
> program? Or does it not matter much?
> DonB
>
Since I maintain that there can be no single best way to perform any
non-trivial task, there is no answer for your question. The way you should
do this is the way that feels best for you.

But, if you want to know how I do this, I set only exposure compensation in
the camera after I have reviewed the histogram. I cannot evaluate images
for quality on the very small screens; it is much easier for me to do all of
that in the computer. I also never work on the original; instead I use a
copy of the original to save myself from mistakes (careless or otherwise).
Proper use of layers will help save you from mistakes or changes of mind,
and no camera provides layers.

Jim
Anonymous
March 26, 2005 4:55:16 AM

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

People should appreciate rather than denegrate the tremendous amount of
in-camera processing that jpeg algorithms accomplish: it is like Photoshop
automated on a chip.
You are doing the best possible thing by experimenting and seeing what works
best for you.
Many cameras have excellent jpeg processing algorithms, some do not.
I have an old Nikon coolpix 990 that I think does a tremendous job on
default jpeg settings. I took it on a brief trip recently and was astounded
by the quality of its jpeg images. Nikon did the software right with this
early digital camera.
I have a Sony 828 that does so much processing of supposedly raw files they
look just like jpegs anyway, and the jpegs are excellent in terms of color
fidelity.
I have a Nikon D70: I like the D70 but I think this camera seriously
distorts color with all of its jpeg settings so I try to never shoot
anything but raw with it (I look for sale prices on 1gb compact flash
cards).
!