Opinions on shooting in "VIVID." Does anybody else do it?
Jan 22, 2020 20:11:51 #
CHG_CANON wrote:
Wouldn't we all desire to create images that are distinct, colorful, fresh-looking images with just the right emphasis on your subject’s contrast and sharpening?
Paul, for that you'd have to get a Nikon. And somehow I think that ain't gonna happen. So you're just plain outa luck...😊
Jan 22, 2020 20:22:54 #
Longshadow wrote:
Maybe not for i your /i camera, but my Canon has... (show quote)
Peace, brother, I agree, we're probably saying the same thing..... The camera manufacturer's RAW converters will use the in-camera settings as a starting point for post-processing, other RAW development software will use something else.
Jan 23, 2020 05:53:29 #
Except for people photos, I always shoot in vivid, landscapes, flora, fauna! I like saturated colors and it can always be reduced in post production.
Jan 23, 2020 06:30:27 #
tcthome
Loc: NJ
mwsilvers wrote:
Actually, raw images are, by their nature, dull since they don't contain in-camera settings for picture style, sharpening, contrast, color tone, etc., and must be post processed to get the best from them.
Like developing a negative !!
Jan 23, 2020 06:34:36 #
Though I can see the temptation, I don't. The biggest reason is that settings like that don't affect the image as I capture it.
--Bob
--Bob
Overthehill1 wrote:
I live on a hill facing west and sometimes when the sunset looks promising I set my D7000 to vivid and focus on the horizon. These were was my most recent. I like the effect but wonder what others think of using it.
Jan 23, 2020 07:15:48 #
FWIW, Ken Rockwell has written that he uses VIVID for everything except people.
Jan 23, 2020 07:24:08 #
tcthome wrote:
Developing your raw file, digital negative and digital darkroom are commonly used terms now. It's all good Like developing a negative !!
Jan 23, 2020 07:30:49 #
srt101fan wrote:
Peace, brother, I agree, we're probably saying the same thing..... The camera manufacturer's RAW converters will use the in-camera settings as a starting point for post-processing, other RAW development software will use something else.
Jan 23, 2020 07:33:06 #
n3eg wrote:
Every camera I own, from old Kodaks in my collection to my Olympus E-M5 III, is set to Vivid.
I'm not going to set them to Dull.
I'm not going to set them to Dull.
I agree. Except for portraits I shoot vivid. While I enjoy post-processing, I enjoy shooting pictures more. I rather concentrate on cropping and distraction removal in post-processing and let the camera do the easy stuff.
Jan 23, 2020 07:34:54 #
billnikon
Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont
Overthehill1 wrote:
I live on a hill facing west and sometimes when the sunset looks promising I set my D7000 to vivid and focus on the horizon. These were was my most recent. I like the effect but wonder what others think of using it.
I have all my Nikon's set to vivid. Best kept secret know to photographers.
Especially for fall images.
Jan 23, 2020 07:35:14 #
MrBumps2U wrote:
FWIW, Ken Rockwell has written that he uses VIVID for everything except people.
That's because Vivid is what he likes to use. Simple.
(Just because someone uses it and may rave about it won't make me use it.
I do my own thing.)
Jan 23, 2020 07:36:15 #
camerapapi wrote:
I never use VIVID. If necessary I could use it during editing.
Jan 23, 2020 08:30:33 #
It's a personal thing, like how much to process an image. I shoot raw, but if I shoot JPG, I use the neutral setting.
Jan 23, 2020 08:31:25 #
Jan 23, 2020 09:13:52 #
When shooting IR with my Olympus em-5 I will shoot normal and also vivid by switching from A to Art, the vivid serves to represent the potential of a scene but is too over cooked, then I can compare them in post and adjust the normal to where I want, never shot raw, don’t plan on starting as I try to get it right in the field
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.