1DX MK II PICTURE STYLE AND CUSTOMIZATION

This is an interesting discussion and one that I encounter repeatedly in the bird photography workshops that I lead. I too prefer to use blinkies to adjust my exposure in the field, and I advise my workshop clients to do the same. Histograms can be difficult to see in bright sunlight, and even more difficult for most photographers to interpret in the field. Most modern sensors are good enough that you don't have to absolutely nail your exposure in camera; a little LR and/or PS work will take care of most minor exposure transgressions. When people obsess over getting the perfect exposure or pushing the exposure to the right, they tend to miss a lot of great photographic opportunities. A quick glance at your blinkies suffices in most situations.

I will add that I'm not a big fan of ETTR in bird photography, especially for BIF, because the cost of ETTR is slower shutter speed, less DOF, or higher ISO. I typically go for 1/3 to 2/3 stop of blinkies on the subject and no more, because I know that I can recover those in post. I advise people to develop an understanding of how the JPEGs that they see on their camera backs will look as RAW files on their computers; then they can determine how much highlight recovery they're able to perform.

I agree that picture styles do affect the histograms of JPEG thumbnails, but if you shoot in standard or neutral the effect will be minimal.

Good points Doug, my counter argument, regardless of whether you use blinkies, or histogram, or zebras (in non Canon brands), would be that there really isn't much if any difference to going under by 2/3 of a stop and using recovery in post as compared to raising ISO 2/3 of a stop and not needing to do that in post.  Either one will give you the same shutter speed for fast moving subjects and similar noise.  On the picture style thing, standard will give you blinkies about a half a stop before the RAW file goes to 255, and Neutral is about 1/3 of a stop.  If you turn the contrast to -3 on the Neutral picture style, then there is almost no difference.

Agreed EJ. The only thing I would add is that I'd rather see people protecting the whites by underexposing a bit rather than risking blown whites by pushing the exposure a bit too far.

It is interesting to read information from knowledgeable people.
It makes you to try out different ideas and learn from them.

Doug Brown wrote:Agreed E.J. The only thing I would add is that I'd rather see people protecting the whites by underexposing a bit rather than risking blown whites by pushing the exposure a bit too far.

Agree. I have spent far too much time trying to recover detail in the highlights. 
But now that I'm using a Sony a7RII I don't spend anywhere as much time as I use to doing this.

Doug Brown wrote:Agreed EJ. The only thing I would add is that I'd rather see people protecting the whites by underexposing a bit rather than risking blown whites by pushing the exposure a bit too far.

Highlight with details is what is needed to be protected. ETTR is fine as long as one knows how much over one can go. This usually requires a little bit of easy testing of one's cameras. At the end of the day, whether it's the shadow details that needs to be protected or the highlight/white details depends on the subject matter and the content.

DChan wrote:

Doug Brown wrote:Agreed EJ. The only thing I would add is that I'd rather see people protecting the whites by underexposing a bit rather than risking blown whites by pushing the exposure a bit too far.

Highlight with details is what is needed to be protected. ETTR is fine as long as one knows how much over one can go. This usually requires a little bit of easy testing of one's cameras. At the end of the day, whether it's the shadow details that needs to be protected or the highlight/white details depends on the subject matter and the content.

Personally I would never advocate going over on the subject if you use the Contrast at -3 method that I wrote about earlier or if you use the Flat picture style in a Nikon.

A bit off  topic, but as a Canon shooter I was impressed with the ability to zoom what shows on the LCD on the Nikon D500 and be able to get a histogram for just what is showing on the screen. That makes it easy to hone in on the whites and keep them in check.   I wish Canon had this feature.

john wrote:A bit off  topic, but as a Canon shooter I was impressed with the ability to zoom what shows on the LCD on the Nikon D500 and be able to get a histogram for just what is showing on the screen. That makes it easy to hone in on the whites and keep them in check.   I wish Canon had this feature.

Being able to superimpose a full screen histo over the picture is nice too

I use both the blinkies and histogram and have never had an issue.

Interesting discussion. I find it so frustrating when folks are simply debating a topic and someone takes it as a personal attack when it's not meant to be. EJ has spent countless hours (literally countless) helping folks on the site and just because he has his way of doing things, or disagrees with others does not mean he is attacking. I find the written word can come with tone applied but only for the reader and their interpretation and often times the interpretation is way off. I have known EJ for many years and his comments were not attacks. He says it like it is with no tone implied - I know.

With regards to the actual discussion. I do, and teach, exactly as EJ does. Moving the contrast down on the standard picture style will more closely represent what the raw file will produce in terms of the blinkies and histogram. Blinkies or histogram will be effected by this setting and turning the contrast down allows you a little more headroom in the highlights and keeps the blinkies from blinking sooner than they need to... Whatever your technique this is a sound and time proven way of doing it. I also agree that underexposing too much to save the whites is a bad move - underexposing these days is more prevalent and often worse than slight overexposure IMO. Under-exposing to save shutter speed is also not recommended as doing so, and then post processing it brighter, would essentially result in the same noise as you would have if you simply increased the ISO appropriately and shot the exposure correctly or slightly bright. Doug is right about protecting the whites but the latest sensor technology can take a bit of over-exposure and sometimes, IMO, it is better to do that slightly in order to keep the shadows from blocking up or being overly noisy in certain images. ETTR is still a valid theory but one which should be used with skill and adjusted based on what is in the image. IMO underexposure is a bigger problem and more common for the layman these days than slight over-exposure. I teach folks to allow small blinking area in the whites when there are dark shadows in your image that need to be exposed properly and I never recommend any underexposure to the point where exposure needs to be increased in post.

I wouldn't worry about the "other" person feeling attacked. In other forums he pulls same stuff if his views aren't accepted as dogma. He has a grandiose, conceited way of talking down to people. Hopefully, he will not return or you would lose readers.


PS This is NOT referring to EJ

Greg Wrote;
"EJ has spent countless hours (literally countless) helping folks on the site and just because he has his way of doing things, or disagrees with others does not mean he is attacking."
I fully agree with Greg.
E.J. is one of the best if not the best in helping people with all kind of topics.
He is very polite, tactful, knowledgeable and dedicates tons of his time to helping people.
I heard about him even before I joined to this website from a friend.
I had a question and since my friend did not have the answer, he gave me the address of this site and EJ's name. (Year 2004)

Karl Egressy wrote:Greg Wrote;
"EJ has spent countless hours (literally countless) helping folks on the site and just because he has his way of doing things, or disagrees with others does not mean he is attacking."
I fully agree with Greg.
E.J. is one of the best if not the best in helping people with all kind of topics.
He is very polite, tactful, knowledgeable and dedicates tons of his time to helping people.
I heard about him even before I joined to this website from a friend.
I had a question and since my friend did not have the answer, he gave me the address of this site and EJ's name. (Year 2004)

Totally agree with Karl. I appreciate all that E.J. has done to help all of us become better photographers and make wise choices when deciding which equipment to purchase.

Mark

Mark Boranyak wrote:

Karl Egressy wrote:Greg Wrote;
"EJ has spent countless hours (literally countless) helping folks on the site and just because he has his way of doing things, or disagrees with others does not mean he is attacking."
I fully agree with Greg.
E.J. is one of the best if not the best in helping people with all kind of topics.
He is very polite, tactful, knowledgeable and dedicates tons of his time to helping people.
I heard about him even before I joined to this website from a friend.
I had a question and since my friend did not have the answer, he gave me the address of this site and EJ's name. (Year 2004)

Totally agree with Karl. I appreciate all that E.J. has done to help all of us become better photographers and make wise choices when deciding which equipment to purchase.

Mark

EJ has helped almost everyone on this site. If anyone is not happy with him, please do us all a favor and stop your comments.
He is extremely helpful I all of his commentary and I suggest that we all should Praise him.
Thanks EJ.
Phil

Hi folks, thanks so much for all of the support and I am happy that many of you feel that I have helped you over the years. That's why I continue to do it. I think at this point this thread has run its course and I am going to lock it. If we need further discussions about picture styles, histograms or blinkies, lets start a new thread. Thanks again everybody.