[BruceBanner]

Are you using a color calibration tool like the X-rite Colorchecker Passport? I would think it could be quite helpful for consistency in your baseline, even between lenses at the same location. Awhile back, there was a post here where differences in color rendition between lenses of the same subject was shown. The solution for consistency was use of a color calibration tool.

Hey, bit late getting back to you about this, things got very busy but I always intended to read a bit more about what you linked.

Ok, so I have never heard of this X-rite Colorchecker thing, but from my understanding it is something that is based more around studio (or at least using the device in studio helps with calibration), but that ultimately the results/adjustments are all made in software such as LR? This tool helps you get a preset made in LR for each lens so that when you go to edit a pic with that lens and apply the preset the skin tone/WB can be consistent when you do the same with other lenses?

Because... from my understanding, the K-1/KP can only recall fine focus adjustments between lenses, it can't for example when you apply a certain Manual WB (if that's a thing you can even do?) recall that info between switching out lenses?

Certainly you have given me much to think about even in terms of WB. I tend to be AWB all the time unless doing something like 'levitation' shots where I would stack images and therefore need consistent WB between the two shots at that instance.

I might perhaps make a separate thread around WB specifically but perhaps I need to just get off that setting period when lens swapping just so that things are more consistent during the shoot on the day between different lenses?

Thanks for contributing this interesting piece of info, I don't have time to order that piece of kit before my shoot but its certainly something worth looking into for next time.

[skierd]

Shutter Magazine // 11 November 2017 - Behind the Shutter | Free Photography Education

Saw this in the local book store yesterday, and there are several good articles in this issue about defining and marketing one's style and brand. Thought of this post while reading it actually.[COLOR="Silver"]

[clickclick]

I tend to be AWB all the time

I'm assuming you found the thread linked to "here" in the earlier post. The sample "head" shots really show how much variation can come just from switching a lens with all else equal. It was my eye opener to start digging into this, which I'm still doing. I'd also look at calibrating your monitor. If you don't have one, keep your eye on the B&H specials for the X-Rite i1Display Pro and ColorChecker Passport Bundle.

I do likewise on white balance, but I've started paying more attention to setting it based on how the pictures are looking compared to what I'm really seeing. A few weeks back I was taking photos of some paintings in what I thought was very flat neutral light, outside, no direct sun, combination of overcast and shade, and the colors were just wrong with auto white balance - it jumped at me when a predominately gray toned painting came out like a nightly blue. Switched the white balance to shade, and the colors became much more accurate. It's surprisingly easy to not see what's right in front of you...

[emalvick]

Interesting thread, and I know I am late to the "party".

But, I once thought about it like the OP, and thought I needed to create a style, and it didn't really work for me. I was trying too hard. Then I stepped back, and I think that as artists, photographers don't need a specific "style". We should always be growing our abilities, which usually means your style will evolve over time. You get better at things, you try different things, etc. I think that just doing what you do however it works, will lead to a style and experimenting will lead that way too. You may have a style for one shoot or for one year or even longer.

Others mentioned it will vary by type of photography, etc. Ultimately, I think it is subjective and without effort something that just happens.

As for the business side, consistency is probably more important than style, but it also depends on what your business is. I'm not a pro, and I am not often around pros, but a few that I know that for instance shoot weddings, portraits, family shots, etc, do it as a job where their real art is in shooting landscapes, street, etc. as a hobby that might make them money. As a business, they need to be adaptable but consistent. Ultimately, you are working for a customer, and you need to make the customer happy. You want to be quick and good enough that your customers might recommend you to future customers.

Finally, in terms of art and artists, I always step back and look at painters (the Picassos, Monets, etc of the world). Many of the great artists evolved various styles over their lifetime. I don't know that they were purposely creating styles or just channeling some other emotions or feelings into a style. I used to paint landscapes on the side, and I definitely had a style when I did that. But, my "style" was not necessarily a conscious effort in that I didn't "try" to make each painting match the style of a previous painting. Rather, my mental vision as each painting progressed led to a style that became apparent only when viewing my collective work as a whole.

Ultimately, you have to do what works for you. I do wonder sometimes if I ever went back to painting (it's probably been 10 years since I made a painting) whether my "style" would be the same. I know if I tried to be the same, it wouldn't be any good, but then again, I may not be good anyway. For photography, which I actively participate (as a hobbyist), I just take things one day, shoot, trip, at a time.

[Winder]

Ok, so I don't really know what to call this, but I'm just trying to open up a forum of discussion on peoples various styles for PP. You see, if you check out my flickr page you'll see I'll wildly flip from one style to the next, image to image, I have little consistency. One minute it could be b&w, and the next even another b&w but this time processed very differently, then onto a colour pic with declarity, then onto a vibrant desaturated but high clarity shot. I have no 'style guide'. Looking at each picture one at a time is fine, but take a step back and look at many at once and it can look a bit off putting and amateurish.

I think partially this is due to my feeling that each and every picture is taken with its own unique composition and settings therefore rather than trying to stuff it into a particular preset I feel it benefits from going in this direction or that.

But now I might have to develop some consistency from a job or workflow/presentation perspective. Even framing or bordering every shot with the same thickness and colour of bordering might bring out that kinda consistency I think some of my work may need.

I haven't gotten into LR presets yet, and I just wondered if anyone out there takes this kinda thing seriously or deems it important?

Cheers,

Bruce

I have said this 100 times. I have a couple of friends who shoot weddings and most of what they provide their clients are OOC jepgs. They both use Fuji. Why is this a good thing? They use the same film presets everytime and as a result their work is very uniform and the client knows exactly what to expect. Thier "style" is more about how they shoot and thier vision than what pre-sets they own. I have seen a lot of portfolio's that are simply a large unorganized and random collection of what the photographer feels is thier best work. It's like they looked at each image seperately and asked "Which Topaz plug-in should I use on this on?"

If you are having trouble coming up with a "style" then set your camera to monochrome or an in-camera filter you like and just go shoot. Take the processing out of the equation. Take on a personal project where you invision what you want the final product to look like before you ever pick up the camera. The process doesn't start in post processing, it ends there. Find a photographer who's work inspires you and copy it as close as you can. You won't actually end up copying them. Durring the process of trying to copy them you will develop your own vision.

If you want to work with paying clients, especially bigger commercial clients you need to be able to show consistency. The "every image is unique" mantra is fine for your personal work, or for fine art, but paying customers will look at the bag of Skittles that is the porfolio and will be unimpressed.

[BruceBanner]

I'm assuming you found the thread linked to "here" in the earlier post. The sample "head" shots really show how much variation can come just from switching a lens with all else equal. It was my eye opener to start digging into this, which I'm still doing. I'd also look at calibrating your monitor. If you don't have one, keep your eye on the B&H specials for the X-Rite i1Display Pro and ColorChecker Passport Bundle.

I do likewise on white balance, but I've started paying more attention to setting it based on how the pictures are looking compared to what I'm really seeing. A few weeks back I was taking photos of some paintings in what I thought was very flat neutral light, outside, no direct sun, combination of overcast and shade, and the colors were just wrong with auto white balance - it jumped at me when a predominately gray toned painting came out like a nightly blue. Switched the white balance to shade, and the colors became much more accurate. It's surprisingly easy to not see what's right in front of you...

This thread also triggered me into starting this thread found here, I think 'Style' and 'White Balance' go a little hand in hand hehe.

Interesting thread, and I know I am late to the "party".

But, I once thought about it like the OP, and thought I needed to create a style, and it didn't really work for me. I was trying too hard. Then I stepped back, and I think that as artists, photographers don't need a specific "style". We should always be growing our abilities, which usually means your style will evolve over time. You get better at things, you try different things, etc. I think that just doing what you do however it works, will lead to a style and experimenting will lead that way too. You may have a style for one shoot or for one year or even longer.

Others mentioned it will vary by type of photography, etc. Ultimately, I think it is subjective and without effort something that just happens.

As for the business side, consistency is probably more important than style, but it also depends on what your business is. I'm not a pro, and I am not often around pros, but a few that I know that for instance shoot weddings, portraits, family shots, etc, do it as a job where their real art is in shooting landscapes, street, etc. as a hobby that might make them money. As a business, they need to be adaptable but consistent. Ultimately, you are working for a customer, and you need to make the customer happy. You want to be quick and good enough that your customers might recommend you to future customers.

Finally, in terms of art and artists, I always step back and look at painters (the Picassos, Monets, etc of the world). Many of the great artists evolved various styles over their lifetime. I don't know that they were purposely creating styles or just channeling some other emotions or feelings into a style. I used to paint landscapes on the side, and I definitely had a style when I did that. But, my "style" was not necessarily a conscious effort in that I didn't "try" to make each painting match the style of a previous painting. Rather, my mental vision as each painting progressed led to a style that became apparent only when viewing my collective work as a whole.

Ultimately, you have to do what works for you. I do wonder sometimes if I ever went back to painting (it's probably been 10 years since I made a painting) whether my "style" would be the same. I know if I tried to be the same, it wouldn't be any good, but then again, I may not be good anyway. For photography, which I actively participate (as a hobbyist), I just take things one day, shoot, trip, at a time.

Good advice I feel.

I have said this 100 times. I have a couple of friends who shoot weddings and most of what they provide their clients are OOC jepgs. They both use Fuji. Why is this a good thing? They use the same film presets everytime and as a result their work is very uniform and the client knows exactly what to expect. Thier "style" is more about how they shoot and thier vision than what pre-sets they own. I have seen a lot of portfolio's that are simply a large unorganized and random collection of what the photographer feels is thier best work. It's like they looked at each image seperately and asked "Which Topaz plug-in should I use on this on?"

If you are having trouble coming up with a "style" then set your camera to monochrome or an in-camera filter you like and just go shoot. Take the processing out of the equation. Take on a personal project where you invision what you want the final product to look like before you ever pick up the camera. The process doesn't start in post processing, it ends there. Find a photographer who's work inspires you and copy it as close as you can. You won't actually end up copying them. Durring the process of trying to copy them you will develop your own vision.

If you want to work with paying clients, especially bigger commercial clients you need to be able to show consistency. The "every image is unique" mantra is fine for your personal work, or for fine art, but paying customers will look at the bag of Skittles that is the porfolio and will be unimpressed.

Nice response. I am particularly intrigued by pros offering a lot of work to being 'OOC Jpegs'. I will be honest with you, I have almost never shot Jpg with a camera that can do RAW. I did for maybe a week before realising in LR the extra control I had with a raw file vs jpg and then that was that.
Saying that tho, often the 'preview' jpgs seen embedded in the RAW files I edit already carry a 'look' that is actually quite pleasing, perhaps vibrant, bright and warm. Sometimes I have found my RAW edits trying to chase the jpg look (and then of course sometimes not at all!).

I wonder then... the Jpg preview I see from RAW files, are the settings in the camera 'Vibrant, Landscape' or some other settings responsible for that 'look'? Meaning, if I look through the K-1 option menu and set everything off and to Neutral as much as possible, the Jpgs will better represent what a RAW file looks like?

Because, I'm intrigued to perhaps start shooting 'RAW+' and save one jpg for every RAW, and if that jpg could be tailored towards a style or preference that might be good. For example, I could set my K-1 to RAW+ and shoot set the digital effect to Monochrome. What that would actually give me is a color RAW file and a B&W jpg with every shot taken. I could see this being of value even when it comes to the editing process. "Hey... this shot in B&W actually really suits" etc. And now I know not to mess with the RAW in colour, just toggle straight to B&W and proceed etc. That's just one example off the top of my head, perhaps I could set the jpgs to have a more desaturated look?
Very interesting, something to think about. Can the K-1 save a RAW and Jpg at the same time to both sd cards? Or is it always RAW on one card and Jpg on the other? Hmmm.... will have to check.

I completely agree with you on your last sentence. I think perhaps what I need to strive for is perhaps not a style per se but consistency on a job, and then showcasing that consistency from one job to the next in a portfolio manner. For example, Flickr Photostream is a mess of everything you have ever done, but if you perhaps select 5-7 'jobs', create albums for each job and then link the album flickr link then that works a little better (but ideally move off flickr entirely and onto something like Adobe Portfolio (which is what i'm working on now). You could then have one job monochrome, another slight desaturated, another vibrant etc, it matters not that your work is varied, but that the job was consistent. I think that's a place I will be moving towards...

[Winder]

I am particularly intrigued by pros offering a lot of work to being 'OOC Jpegs'.

Customers don't know that they are OOC JPEGs. And they save hundreds of hours every year by not post processing everything. I still shoot RAW, but I have my workflow set and I do a lot of batch processing so that all the images get the same look.

I would recommend putting together a printed porfolio or two before going live with any online portfolio. When you are paying to have a porfolio made you will be a lot more critical of what goes in and the order of the images. Online portfolios are so easy that people become lazy and since it cost nothing or very little they put a lot of trash online. Your portfolio should be about quality and not quantity. If the image isn't worth paying to have printed at 13x19 and hung on your own wall, then it probably isn't good enough to be in a portfolio. How many of your images that are in your online portfolio have you printed and hung on your own wall?

[emalvick]

The few people I know who do commercial photography use OOC jpgs for their business. It is a way to be rather consistent, and if you are in that kind of business you are less likely to need the types of edits that a RAW file gives you flexibility for.

As an amateur, myself, that has shot almost exclusively with RAW since I've had it, I think the only time I've really needed raw is when I grossly messed the exposure or white balance off. That isn't to say that I haven't benefited from having the flexibility, but when I've processed jpgs, I've only noticed issues when I need to change the color balance or adjust the exposure. Most other edits can be reasonable with a jpg. Thus, I'd imagine that an OOC jpg is good for business and in the odd instance a shot needs an edit or two, you can probably do it.

[clickclick]

I wonder then... the Jpg preview I see from RAW files, are the settings in the camera 'Vibrant, Landscape' or some other settings responsible for that 'look'? Meaning, if I look through the K-1 option menu and set everything off and to Neutral as much as possible, the Jpgs will better represent what a RAW file looks like?

Yes, the jpg in the preview would be "processesed" with whatever the camera is set for, and setting everything to off/neutral should more closely match the RAW files. I believe this also applies to things like lens correction settings. I personally like shooting in RAW+, so I get both the jpegs and the RAW file. I often find the processing applied by the camera and resulting jpeg hits the spot, but I don't want to give up the ability to do post processing. As I see it, SD cards are cheap. a couple 32 or 64GB cards have more than enough space to shoot RAW+, so why not do it and get the flexibility?

[leekil]

Because, I'm intrigued to perhaps start shooting 'RAW+' and save one jpg for every RAW, and if that jpg could be tailored towards a style or preference that might be good. For example, I could set my K-1 to RAW+ and shoot set the digital effect to Monochrome. What that would actually give me is a color RAW file and a B&W jpg with every shot taken. I could see this being of value even when it comes to the editing process. "Hey... this shot in B&W actually really suits" etc. And now I know not to mess with the RAW in colour, just toggle straight to B&W and proceed etc. That's just one example off the top of my head, perhaps I could set the jpgs to have a more desaturated look?
Very interesting, something to think about. Can the K-1 save a RAW and Jpg at the same time to both sd cards? Or is it always RAW on one card and Jpg on the other? Hmmm.... will have to check.

In RAW+ mode, the default behavior is to save the RAW and the JPG in the same folder.

It is convenient to shoot in B&W mode, the JPGs and previews are in B&W, but you also have the color in the RAW so you can compare, or maybe use it to do a different type of B&W processing to get different effects.