The GetDPI Photography Forum
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
Best Camera Settins/Workflow A900
- Thread starter Tex
- Start date
Terry
New member
I'm very simple:
I use the single point focus, have the focus programmer to the back buttonand only exposure on the half press.
I use the camera at Iso 200 or 320 much of the time.
I use daylight or tungsten white balance 99% of the time and done use AWB (not that it is bad but just got myself out of the habit). I do not go through the uniWB routine.
I shoot only RAW so I don't bother with a bunch of the other settings.
Any specifics you were looking for.
I use the single point focus, have the focus programmer to the back buttonand only exposure on the half press.
I use the camera at Iso 200 or 320 much of the time.
I use daylight or tungsten white balance 99% of the time and done use AWB (not that it is bad but just got myself out of the habit). I do not go through the uniWB routine.
I shoot only RAW so I don't bother with a bunch of the other settings.
Any specifics you were looking for.
Quentin_Bargate
Well-known member
douglasf13
New member
I've gone from a dual C1/Raw Therapee workflow to only using Raw Therapee.
Hi, I use pretty much every ISO between 100 and 800 without problems. I have used 1600 without hesitation and with good results.
For outstanding sharpness and fine grain I think 100 ISO is unbeatable.
RAW conversion:
DXO, very nice colors, good noise reduction.
RPP, extremely sharp.
For outstanding sharpness and fine grain I think 100 ISO is unbeatable.
RAW conversion:
DXO, very nice colors, good noise reduction.
RPP, extremely sharp.
For raw conversion, working on a Vista PC with a recent dual-core processor and the maximum 4GB RAM, I'm still figuring out my own optimal approach. So far I haven't been happy with the results from ACR. As alternatives, I've been tinkering with C1 and Raw Therapee. I had some speed and stability issues with the RT 2.4 early release versions, but the RT 2.4 final version, just out, seems to have settled down nicely on my machine.
The C1 defaults are overcooked for my taste. And I'm still finding the user interface a bit awkward, which means that getting to a result I'm happy with takes more work than I'd prefer. For the moment, with RT 2.4 now stable, most of my effort is going into learning the ropes with that.
Re settings, that depends heavily on what you're trying to photograph and on your own preferences. FWIW, these are mine:
* Raw capture only.
* For general hand-held snapshooting with the 50/1.4 AF, I'm using single-shot, center-point AF. For manual focus with a variety of adapted 35mm M42 lenses, I've put in the M screen.
* ISO either 200 or 320, depending on the light. With the AF lens, I'm keeping the meter mode on aperture priority and the pattern on evaluative. It's running a bit hot for my taste, so I'll probably start dialing in -0.3 or -0.7 as a default. For the adapted M42 lenses, manual exposure only, a lot of seat-of-the-pants plus adjustment based on the histogram.
* For daylight snapshooting, AWB. For typical household tungsten lighting, I switch in the lowest value manual Kelvin setting. Since I'm fairly crazy about dynamic range, when my raw converter workflow settles down I'll probably experiment with UniWB.
* I've been switching on the anti-shake for speeds below 1/125, leaving it off otherwise. I've not yet tested this in a controlled way - this is just caution based on anecdotal reports from users of other cameras with AS, that at higher speeds it can sometimes make things worse. If I were working with longer lenses, or with something really heavy like the CZ 24-70, my threshold might be higher.
If you can tell us more about what you like to photograph and what kind of final output you're aiming for, perhaps folks here can give you more specific advice.
The C1 defaults are overcooked for my taste. And I'm still finding the user interface a bit awkward, which means that getting to a result I'm happy with takes more work than I'd prefer. For the moment, with RT 2.4 now stable, most of my effort is going into learning the ropes with that.
Re settings, that depends heavily on what you're trying to photograph and on your own preferences. FWIW, these are mine:
* Raw capture only.
* For general hand-held snapshooting with the 50/1.4 AF, I'm using single-shot, center-point AF. For manual focus with a variety of adapted 35mm M42 lenses, I've put in the M screen.
* ISO either 200 or 320, depending on the light. With the AF lens, I'm keeping the meter mode on aperture priority and the pattern on evaluative. It's running a bit hot for my taste, so I'll probably start dialing in -0.3 or -0.7 as a default. For the adapted M42 lenses, manual exposure only, a lot of seat-of-the-pants plus adjustment based on the histogram.
* For daylight snapshooting, AWB. For typical household tungsten lighting, I switch in the lowest value manual Kelvin setting. Since I'm fairly crazy about dynamic range, when my raw converter workflow settles down I'll probably experiment with UniWB.
* I've been switching on the anti-shake for speeds below 1/125, leaving it off otherwise. I've not yet tested this in a controlled way - this is just caution based on anecdotal reports from users of other cameras with AS, that at higher speeds it can sometimes make things worse. If I were working with longer lenses, or with something really heavy like the CZ 24-70, my threshold might be higher.
If you can tell us more about what you like to photograph and what kind of final output you're aiming for, perhaps folks here can give you more specific advice.
Bill_Green
Member
It is a little premature for me to comment, but I am leaning heavily toward C1. It is neither the best converter nor best workflow, but acceptable on both -- meaning you can reasonably easily and reasonably quickly get very good conversions from a lot of images. No experience with Raw Therapee as it is PC only. Raw Photo Processor is exceptional, but very time consuming. Raw Developer is also exceptional, but IMO not for large scale processing.
I would REALLY like to standardize on Lightroom, but I'm just not that happy with the colors I'm getting. My issues with all the processors I have tried is either the workflow is horrid or the profile stinks. On C1, with the advice of Doug Peterson, I'm using a linear curve, and then adjusting the image from there with the curve set to "contrast" (I have a couple custom ones, but they are virtually identical), sharpening set to 3.7 default, +20 saturation, a little contrast, white balance as shot, and adjusting the brightness mostly to move the histogram around relative to the curve. The levels handles the real look of the image from there.
In camera I have exposure compensation of +.7 (thanks EdwardKaraa for that) and white balance set to 5600/0 (may need to skew the tint slightly green). ISO 100 is for more shadow detail, ISO 200+ is for more highlight detail. The +.7 ec may be conservative as I still seem to push the exposure an additional +.3 in C1. I don't think that the meter is necessarily off, but more calibrated for film (or jpeg perhaps) and fails to take into account that camera is weak in the shadows but has seemingly endless headroom on the highlight side. If you have ever used a Nikon, it is the exact opposite.
I may try to get a custom profile for my camera.
I would REALLY like to standardize on Lightroom, but I'm just not that happy with the colors I'm getting. My issues with all the processors I have tried is either the workflow is horrid or the profile stinks. On C1, with the advice of Doug Peterson, I'm using a linear curve, and then adjusting the image from there with the curve set to "contrast" (I have a couple custom ones, but they are virtually identical), sharpening set to 3.7 default, +20 saturation, a little contrast, white balance as shot, and adjusting the brightness mostly to move the histogram around relative to the curve. The levels handles the real look of the image from there.
In camera I have exposure compensation of +.7 (thanks EdwardKaraa for that) and white balance set to 5600/0 (may need to skew the tint slightly green). ISO 100 is for more shadow detail, ISO 200+ is for more highlight detail. The +.7 ec may be conservative as I still seem to push the exposure an additional +.3 in C1. I don't think that the meter is necessarily off, but more calibrated for film (or jpeg perhaps) and fails to take into account that camera is weak in the shadows but has seemingly endless headroom on the highlight side. If you have ever used a Nikon, it is the exact opposite.
I may try to get a custom profile for my camera.