What exactly is this colorspace stuff anyway? Basically its the amount of color that is contained in the file when you save it. The three most common colorspaces are Adobe RGB, sRGB, and ProPhoto RGB.  As my friend Rick Miller puts it, you can relate gamut to containers of beer. With sRGB being a 12oz can of beer, Adobe RGB would be a pony keg, and ProPhoto RGB being a full kegger.

The image shown here (courtesy of Cpesacreta) shows the relative sizes of the different colorspaces.

The difficulty here is knowing when to use which colorspace. Who would take a 12 ouncer when they can have a whole keg right? You would think, but the problem is that not all devices can actually display the larger colorspace  which can cause even more problems when it comes to viewing the images, add to that the lack of color management in most applications (like web browsers) and you will often get dull or washed out colors when viewing the images.

Wait a second, huh? If you use a colorspace that allows MORE colors, than why would the images look WORSE when viewing them? The answer that since almost no devices can actually display Adobe RGB, you wind up with an intepretation of the image causing it to look dull.

Effects of Color Space

Does all of this really make a difference? Let’s take a look at some images that were shot in RAW (thus no colorspace recorded on capture) and then saved as both Adobe RGB and sRGB using Adobe Photoshop Lightroom.

Adobe RGB

sRGB

Adobe RGB

sRGB

Adobe RGB

sRGB

Adobe RGB

sRGB

In all of these cases, the images saved as sRGB should appear more vibrant in Internet Explorer and Firefox since they are not color managed applications. Apple’s Safari browser is supposed to properly display Adobe RGB files and Firefox is supposed to have color management in upcoming versions. However, until everyone is using a browser you should avoid Adobe RGB in order to provide the best images to the widest audience.

What about ProPhoto?

ProPhoto offers the widest gamut of the available common color spaces so should have a place somewhere right? Well yes it does. The best use of the ProPhoto is to use it within your workflow to preserve the largest amount of color in your images and then only do a final conversion to sRGB when saving your images as jpegs.  This is quite easy with Photoshop and Camera Raw while Lightroom uses ProPhoto RGB internally (Geek Note: Actually, Lightroom uses Melissa RGB which uses ProPhoto RGB chromatisity values working in linear gamma, named after Melissa Gaul, one of the Lightroom engineers).

Should you shoot in Adobe RGB or sRGB?

This is another tough question that different people will answer differently. The simple answer is niether. Shoot in RAW and convert to the colorspace you want during your workflow process. If you want to shoot in JPEG then you have to make the choice. The best thing to do is actually experiment with your equipment and software to determine what gives you the best results. Some people think you should shoot in Adobe RGB and then convert to sRGB if the file is for the internet, while others think you should shoot in sRGB so no conversion or translation is applied, thus you should get more accurate color representation.

In the end, you have to make up you own mind as to what works best for you, but you do need to be aware of the differences and some of the issues you can run into based on your choice.

Author: Kerry Garrison

References used in this article

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/sRGB-AdobeRGB1998.htm
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/adobe-rgb.htm
http://www.steves-digicams.com/techcorner/October_2006.html
http://www.smugmug.com/help/srgb-versus-adobe-rgb-1998

“Lost That Spare Tire” from PeptidBond. He will receive a new R-Strap from BlackRapid. They also announce the next contest “converging lines”. More info about this new contest will be posted tomorrow.

Later, Kerry sat with Master Photographer David Ziser. David is a high end wedding photographer who has recently made the switch from JPEG to RAW and discusses the reasons for making the switch.

David has also recently switched to the new Canon 5D Mk II and discusses the new camera and how video will play a role in wedding photography.

Be sure and check out David’s website at http://digitalprotalk.blogspot.com and watch for news on his upcoming seminar.

Show Hosts

Kerry Garrison (http://kerrygarrison.com)
David Esquire (http://esquirephotography.com)

This podcast is also available on iTunes.

What is a RAW image?

By RAW, I mean an image that is shot with your camera image quality set to RAW mode which stores the actual sensor data for the scene that was shot. This is different than a JPEG image that is a rendered image of the RAW data that has different effects applied to it by the camera such as sharpening, saturation, and contrast. A good quality JPEG image can look incredibly good and can be printed at large sizes and will look great. A RAW image will need some form of software program to convert the RAW data to something usable. The most popular programs for this today are Lightroom, Photoshop, Aperture, Capture One (Nikon), and Digital Photo Professional (Canon).

Is there a technical difference?

Anyone that tries to tell you there is no difference in image quality between a RAW image and a JPEG is simply mistaken or ill-informed. From a purely technical perspective, a RAW image will always give you a better image. A RAW image simply has more data, for each pixel there is at least twice as much data on older cameras like my 30D and as much as eight times as much data with newer cameras that have more bit depth. This means that a RAW image has the ability to have a greater tonal range than a JPEG. A RAW image will also then have greater latitude than a JPEG image, giving you the ability to process the image to recover shadows and highlights more than you can if you started with the JPEG. Since white balance settings are applied when an image is saved as a JPEG, shooting in RAW will allow you to adjust the white balance during post processing without sacrificing any image data.

This is not an opinion, it is a pure technical fact. So let’s accept that this is true and that RAW has a distinct technical advantage over a JPEG saved from the camera. I don’t think we need to debate that RAW has an inherent technical advantage and I think some people get caught up in this. I think the real issue is whether or not you need the advantages of RAW versus the negative reasons for using RAW that we will look at later.

Getting down with the downside of RAW

The big debate over RAW vs JPEG is whether or not the pros outweigh the cons so let’s look at the cons and see what the downside of using RAW images is:

• Increased file size
  This is probably the biggest issue there is. RAW images are considerably larger files than their corresponding JPEG images. With my 30D, a RAW file will typically be around 5mb while a fine quality JPEG will be around 1.5mb. As the megapixel count goes up, the files get downright huge with RAW images from a new Canon 5D MkII being around 22mb each. If you are shooting lots of images, at a wedding for example, then the larger size of RAW files will be a significant hit. Since the files are larger, they will require more horsepower from your computer to process. For the same number of images, you will need more flash card storage.
• Specialized software needed to process
  If you can call Photoshop, Lightroom, or Aperture specialized software, then yes, you will need something like this or use the software that came with your camera. If you use something other than these programs then you may have issues dealing with RAW files. For a brand new camera, you may have to wait for updated versions of these programs before they can recognize your files. This also means that if your camera is discontinued in the future, there is no guarantee that your camera’s format will always be supported (this is a good reason to use DNG files, but that’s for another article).
• RAW workflow is different than a JPEG workflow
  Is it? If you are already using Aperture, Lightroom, or Adobe Bridge for processing JPEG’s, then there is little to no change in your workflow. Two years ago, before tools like Lightroom and Aperture, working with RAW images was such a pain that RAW was said to mean “really awful workflow”. Since many of us are using Lightroom and Aperture now, there is little to no changes at all for working with RAW files other than they take longer per image to download off a CF card.
• RAW images in third party tools don’t look as good as the JPEGs
  This has been a real serious problem for a while as only the camera manufacturers really have the secret sauce for decoding their RAW images properly. Adobe has pretty much solved this issue with Lightroom 2.2 and the inclusion of camera profiles that setup the RAW processor to match the settings used to create the JPEG images in your camera.

Again, we are looking at facts here and not opinions, but it is important to understand that there is a downside to using RAW files even if I personally feel that the negatives are typically blown a bit out of proportion with the exception of the increased file size which can be a really significant issue for heavy shooters.

The non-destructive workflow

One of the biggest advantages of shooting RAW is that it inherently provides you today with a non-destructive workflow. What it means is that there is no image degradation between saves and any given step in the editing process can be removed. If we are using any of the three most popular tools today (Photoshop, Aperture, or Lightroom) then when we edit a JPEG, and make our changes, those changes are permenant, and because we just re-saved our image as a JPEG some compression has occured, every time we do this we lose some image quality. Sure you can make multiple copies along the way so you can go back to previous versions, but that negates the whole point of JPEG’s saving disk space. I personally work in Lightroom and I can take my RAW images and apply as many edits to them as I want but these changes are simply stored as a set of instructions to Lightroom, thus the original image is never modified. This also allows me to make virtual copies of an image so I can have a color, B&W, Sepia, or dozens of different versions of an image and take up only a trivial amount of disk space since it is only storing the steps to make the changes and isnt storing a new copy of the image itself and again, no matter what I do, there is no image quality lost at all during the post-production process.

Is anyone still using JPEG these days?

If nobody was shooting JPEG anymore than I wouldn’t have so many questions about it but are any real professionals shooting JPEG and the answer is yes.

Carlos Baez is a wedding photographer from Florida, this is someone who makes his living delivering top quality images to high paying clients and yet Carlos shoots JPEG because he can consistently deliver great images without the extra overhead of RAW files. Carlos is an expert at lighting and understanding exposure so he doesn’t rely on post processing to get his images right.

Ken Rockwell is a huge advocate for shooting in JPEG mostly because a lot of people use it as an excuse to not get the image right in camera. Although he has an article about this (http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm). I have posted a link to his article because he does make a few valid points but I think he does go over the top a little on some of the negatives while I do agree that many people use RAW without either knowing why or using it to correct their mistakes from not knowing how to use their camera properly.

Pros against JPEG

It’s only fair that I point out a few pros who have made the switch to RAW and some of their reasons for doing so.

Scarlett Lillian from Florida has been shooting RAW since she started shooting weddings but then tried going to JPEF to save disk and CF card space. After really giving it a try, she finally switched back to RAW because she felt she just wasn’t getting the color and skin tones from the JPEG files that she was when she was using RAW. She uses Photoshop with Bridge as her workflow tool.

David Ziser is, without a doubt, one of the biggest names in wedding photography and recent convert to the RAW side. David’s big switch came when he started using Lightroom for his workflow and then discovered that the images he was getting with Lightroom and RAW files simply gave him a better image than starting with JPEG. David details his experience in a post on his site, although he also make a case for use JPEG for less critical shots that will never be printed at larger than 5×7. Anything destined for the album or enlargements he suggests shooting in RAW and the filler shots can safely be shot in JPEG to conserve space.

Rick Miller who is a Senior Solutions Engineer at Adobe does a segment when he is demoing Lightroom where he shows a picture of his girlfriends dog that is a white curly haired dog. Rick took a picture of the dog that when the rest of the scene is properly exposed, the dog is overexposed. Saved as a JPEG, the details in the dogs fur are completely lost and unrecoverable. The same image shot in RAW is able to use tools like recovery and exposure control to regain all of the detail in the dog’s fur. This demonstrates how even a shot that is technically correct for the rest of the scene may still suffer from being shot in JPEG.

RAW or JPEG – Which is for you?

Since I am far more likely to forget to change my camera from JPEG back to RAW when I need to, I simply leave it on RAW and take the disk space penalty. With a large wedding costing me around 10-12gb of space, it isn’t that big of an issue. If I upgrade this year to a 50D or 5D MkII and I move to having 30-40gb of space per wedding, I may have to rethink this strategy. What I like about shooting RAW for weddings is that in the thick of things, if you do make a small error in exposure or white balance, it is far easier to correct it afterwards. I don’t use this as a crunch, but it is a safety net.

To decide If you should stick with JPEG all you need to do is to take a close look at your images and compare them with what you can get from a product like Lightroom and then decide if your images are good enough or if any improvements that you get from using the RAW image are noticeable and worthwhile.

What do some other photographers say?

Mark Teskey “RAW only. Shooting JPEG is like working without backing up files or a second body/flash. There’s no safety net with JPEG.”

JE Images “RAW all the way. if I need to tweak anything then I have full access to all the info..”

Denise Clay “[I shoot] RAW – I used the best film I could that matched the job in film days, why not do the same now with the best digital file?”

MrsBoesch “I shoot JPG. It takes up less space on my hard drive, and I am of the opinion that you should try to “get it right” the 1st time”

So what are you to make of this?

There is certainly a case to be made that higher quality final images can be made from using RAW files and that shooting in RAW provides a technical safety net (even if you dont need it because you are wicked good). The main issues of working with RAW for me are the non-destructive workflow and the ability to have multiple virtual copies of an image without eating up more disk space. I do believe that almost all of the main complaints about RAW have been more than satisfied with current software leaving the issue of disk space and storage being the only real issue, albeit a signifigant issue for some people.

In the end, the only thing that matters is that you are happy with the images that you are delivering and if you are shooting for clients, that they are happy with the images you are delivering. If you are shooting in JPEG and are happy with your images and you see no compelling reason to switch, then don’t. If someone like Carlos Baez can shoot a wedding in JPEG and he makes a LOT more per wedding than I do, I am not going to tell him he is wrong for shooting in JPEG. On the flip side, if you are shooting in RAW and the disk space is killing you and you are good enough that your images require basically no tweaks for color, white balance, exposure, fill light, highlight recovery, or saturation, then you may be a good candidate for shooting in JPEG. It all comes down to a personal choice. There is no right or wrong answer to this debate, its just a question of what works for you in order for you to deliver the best quality images to your clients.

Author: Kerry Garrison

Getting the Camera

Since I am not sponsored by Canon (any help here would be appreciated – wink wink) and I haven’t been able to justify the cost yet, I decided that another way to get one for a little while was to call up the good folks over at BorrowLenses.com. I hooked up with Max to get a weekend rental on the 5D Mk II so I could use it on a wedding shoot I had planned as well as to play around with the other features. If you have never rented equipment, you can’t go wrong by using BorrowLenses.com as their prices are great and you don’t get slapped with a huge deposit (no deposit in fact), but more about BorrowLenses.com in an upcoming article as I review their service.

I got the camera and couldn’t wait to slap in a card and start playing with it.

First Impressions

When picking up the body the first thing you notice is the surface has a much better texture on it than previous cameras making it easier to hold. The form factor is much like the 30D/40D/50D/5D. For users of those mentioned cameras, the control layout will be very familiar with the only noticeable exceptions being that the delete button has shifted due to the large screen and the top LCD illumination button has been moved to the right side of the display. For people moving up from a 30D/40D you will notice the lack of a pop-up flash and no preset modes on the mode dial (this is much more of a Pro camera than a consumer camera after all).

The large LCD on the back is just stunning with its much higher resolution display which enables you to better see if an image is sharp and in focus.

The new menu system is super clean and sharp looking on the big display although a little hunting around the first few times to find some of the features will be in order. The only thing that threw me for a loop for a minute was figuring out how to setup exposure bracketing. Not wanting to turn to the manual, I figured it out quickly enough. What I did have to crack the manual for was to figure out how to  use the video mode. Simple enough, go into Live View mode and press the Set button in the middle of the large dial on the back to start/stop recording.

First time setup

Before really being able to push the 5d Mk II to it’s limits, you will need to go into the menus and setup a few options first. Here are the things I did to get it ready for my tests.

C. Fn I : Exposure
Custom Function 3 changed to 1 to enable ISO expansion. This is needed to shoot at ISO ranges above 6400.

C. Fn II : Image
Custom Function 3 changed to 1 to enable Highlight Tone Priority. This enables Highlight Tone Priority which can help from overexposing important aspects of your image. Note however that when this is enabled, you will not be able to go over ISO 6400 regardless of the previous setting.

C. Fn III : Autofocus/Drive
Custom Function 3 changed to 1 to enable Multi-controller direct. This option enables you to select the autofocus point by using the multi-controller (mini joystick).

Live View Function Settings
LV Func. Setting set to Stills+movie, Screen Settings set to movie display

Image Quality
Image quality was set to RAW.

Finally, I made sure the date and time was correct, dropped in a compact flash card, formatted it and I was ready to go.

Shooting the 5D Mk II

Like many people getting the 5D Mark II, I have been shooting APS-C sized sensors for the past few years as I use a 30D as a primary and a 20D as a backup. Functionally, the 5D Mk II is virtually identical in how to operate the camera although the shutter sound is different and quieter. The big difference comes into play when using the same lenses you were using on the smaller sensor. If you aren’t familiar with this phenomenon, the smaller sensors in the 20D/30D/40D/50D are smaller APS-C size sensors versus the full frame sensor in the 5d Mk II. The smaller sensor size introduces an effect referred to as a zoom factor (also known as crop factor) which, in essence, magnifies the focal length of your lenses by 1.6.  To put it into simple terms, subjects on an APS-C sized sensor will appear closer (as if zoomed in by 1.6x) and the same lens on the 5D will give you an wider field of view. If we take a 50mm lens and put it on a camera with an APS-C sensor, what we get is basically an 80mm lens. A 70-200mm on the 50D becomes a 112-320mm lens on the APS-C sensor. This is interesting to note that a telephoto lens will get you more reach on a smaller sensor but you lose width at the smaller focal lengths. With my typical lenses, I now have to move closer to the subject to get the same effect as before, but I now have the added bonus of wide angle lenses being wider than before.

Image shot with 50mm on 30D (APS-C)

Image shot with 50mm on 5D Mk II (Full Frame)

Ok, so how about this ISO stuff, how good is it really? Yeah, well, its pretty damned good. On my 30D, it pained me to go up to 1600 ISO, on a 40D, 1600 would give you a very usable image but 3200 got to be a bit much, on the 5D Mk II, 3200 is a no-brainer and 6400 will give you very usable images. Moving up into 12,800 gets to be noisy but should be usable with a good noise reduction software while 25,600 ISO is basically unusable unless you convert the image to black and white and then you will get something looking like an older newspaper image.

Comparison of ISO settings from 5D Mk II

A feature that first appeared on the 40D is Highlight Tone Priority which can be a saving grace in numerous situations. Instead of going into how great this feature is, please refer to David Ziser’s post about Highlight Tone Priority.

What’s missing from the 5d Mk II?

Yes, the 5d Mk II is a huge leap forward for Canon, so much so that some shooters with the higher end 1Ds Mk III are actually “downgrading” to the 5D to get the improved sensor cleaning and higher ISO performance. But surely the 5D Mk II is not the Holy Grail of cameras, something must be missing right? Well, of course, otherwise it would be an $8000 camera. So what is it that we don’t have on the 5D Mk II that it’s big brother has?

• Dual memory card slots
  Many people think this is a major disappointment that the 5D wasn’t outfitted with dual memory slots to provide real-time redundancy when shooting.
• Built in battery grip/portrait grip
  The original 5D didn’t have one, and the 5D Mk II is aimed at the high end Pro-sumer market, not the professional market so this is an option. Unfortunately, the 5D Mk II uses a redesigned grip so existing ones will not work.
• Long life shutter
  The big gun 1Ds Mk III is rated as about double the shutter activations as the 5D Mk II (150,000 (5D) vs 300,000 (1Ds)).
• Dual Digic processors
  While the 5D Mk II does have the newer Digic IV processor, the 1Ds Mk III has dual processors for faster image processing.1

Granted, the higher ISO performance, larger, higher resolution LCD screen, improved dust reduction, 21 megapixel , full frame sensor, full HD video, and significantly cheaper price does make for a very compelling camera.

Focusing on Video

Yeah, the 5D Mk II is the Grand Poobah of DSLR’s that can shoot video with its full 1080p video capture. Being able to use all of the lenses at your disposal to shoot video is quite awesome indeed to achieve the same shallow depth of field that you can get in stills. So look out Sony, your days of being a video camera manufacturer have come to an end and the 5D Mk II is taking its rightful place of the King of all things video…..well….not exactly.

There is no question you can get stunning HiDef video out of the camera, there are plenty of examples online. But let’s look at the reality of shooting video with the 5D Mk II.

First off, abandon all hope of using autofocus when shooting video. If you are using the on-board microphone, you will hear constant whirrrr whirrrrrrrr whirrrrrrrr as the contrast-based autofocus “attempts” to focus. In some situations it may do alright, but the majority of the time you will end up with lots of times where the camera is trying to focus but tracks back and forth a few times before locking on. You really need to consider the camera as a manual focus camera when shooting video. Use autofocus in still mode to get your focus, then switch to video mode with autofocus off for best results. As for the built-in microphone (located just underneath the 5D logo), its alright for playing around, but anything serious will require an external mic plugged into the microphone jack on the side of the camera.

5D Mk II LowRez Video from Kerry Garrison on Vimeo.

Sample HiDef Video from 5D Mk II from Kerry Garrison on Vimeo.

Megapixels = Mega Storage

Oh sure, we all SAY we want more megapixels, but you really have to think of the ramifications of that. Here is a comparison of the same image taken with several of the different available image quality settings:

This means that a RAW file from the 5D Mk II is 4 times larger than a RAW from a 30D and even the 5D Mk II’s Fine JPEG is 2mb larger than the RAW file on the 30D. That’s 1/4 of the number of images I can fit on the same memory card and a typical wedding shoot for me will balloon from 10gb to 40gb. Add to that the additional disk space required to hold the images, and the addition computer horsepower (CPU and RAM) needed to process these huge files and you need some seriously beefy hardware to use this camera to its full potential.

For best results, UDMA Compact Flash cards are recommended, using these will speed up write times to the disc. Keep all of these things in mind if considering moving up to the 5D Mk II as it could turn out to be a bigger investment than just the camera itself.

Using the 5D Mk II

The first project I had was a small wedding reception, shooting out on a golf course at 11am presented some really harsh lighting conditions, the highlight tone priority system did a great job at keeping the subjects from getting blown out. One thing that I noticed was that the autofocus was really fast and super accurate. This is compared to the 30D that I normally shoot with. Normally I will get a handful of out of focus shots for no apparent reason, of almost 500 shots, there were only two that were out of focus, a significant improvement in the autofocus system over my camera.

The shutter noise is fairly quiet and doesn’t draw attention which is nice for quiet ceremonies and for catching candids without disturbing anyone.

For all your Shamu fans out there, here are some shots from Sea World.

5D Mark II - 70mm 1/640 f/9 ISO 200 Mode: Program sRAW1

5D Mark II - 70mm 1/5000 f/8 ISO 200 Mode: Program sRAW1

5D Mark II - 70mm 1/500 f/8 ISO 200 Mode: Program sRAW1

5D Mark II - 24mm 1/25 f/6.3 ISO 400 Mode: Manual sRAW1

5D Mark II - 42mm 1/60 f/2.8 ISO 400 Mode: Manual sRAW1

Is the 5D Mk II Right For You?

I only had the 5D Mk II available to me for a few days but I am completely impressed with it from a technology point of view. One of it’s biggest selling points is also one of its biggest problems, and that is the size of the images. A typical wedding will take up 30gb of space and just a simple day at an amusement park could easily eat up 6gb.  The ability to use the smaller sRAW sizes is a plus, but its painful to have to limit the camera, something I think I could get over easily enough but it remains to be seen if it is too limiting for doing paid wedding shoots in the reduced file format sizes.

Unless you already have a beefy uber-computer and have more compact flash cards than pairs of underwear, then there are going to be some hidden costs of getting into the 5D Mk II. I am probably fairly typical (or at least not abnormal) in that I am currently shooting with a 30D and put together some numbers as what it would take for me to purchase and use the 5D Mk II, and this is not upgrading the CPU or RAM in my machine as it isn’t that terrible to work on images with what I have.

That’s well over $4,000 with tax and shipping and isn’t counting having another as a backup. I would certainly recommend the 5D Mk II to anyone who can afford one, but, for myself, I need to take a look at the 50D before deciding to save up for the 5D.

Author: Kerry Garrison

Rental Equipment by: http://BorrowLenses.com