# Canon 5D settings recommendations



## PhoenixAsh

So my 5D has many years of use, and hundreds of thousands of frames run through it. But something still to this day bugs me. Why can't I find a camera setting I'm 100% happy with? Right now I'm on neutral +3 on sharpening and usually use appropriate WB. I shoot mainly large Jpeg (occasionally when I'm feeling decadent I shoot RAW). 

--Pauses to actually look at his settings -- 

Actually right now its in "faithful" with +7 on sharpness (changed that to +3 - no wonder images have been way too sharp) color temp 6000 (I dont think this affects unless I WB by K?) Adobe RGB.

As an ilford delta and agfa shooter I can't seem to get the right feel out of cam 50% of the time and it frustrates me. Can anyone shed some light on these settings to make it look better / feel more natural? Next year I know I'm upgradeing most likely but while the old beast is old she'll still get used so it'll be nice to "know" what settings rock.

A couple of "raw" shots from recently, I don't know if they'll help?


----------



## fjrabon

If by natural, you're trying to mimic a film feel, then use K and simply input the K value for whatever film you're 'aping'. With film you really only had two values, 5000 and 3200. 5000 was for daylight, 3200 for incandescent. I find I get much more of a film 'feel' if I just shoot 5000k for everything outdoors. Obsessiveness over white balance is a modern digital phenomenon that is a result of it being easy to adjust as a result of digital. A lot of film shooters in fact think all the control over white balance is harmful, but that's mostly because they're used to 5000k and that's it. 

As far as sharpness goes, I think JPEG natural +1 looks most like 125 ISO film to my eyes. +7 is crazy, haha.


----------



## Robin_Usagani

Well.. I would start using sRGB instead of adobeRGB.  Adobe RGB wont be displayed correctly on most browsers.  As far as other settings, I dont know.  I usually shoot RAW and fix it later.  If I do shoot with JPEG, I would think I would use custom WB instead of preset WB.


----------



## Light Guru

PhoenixAsh said:


> Why can't I find a camera setting I'm 100% happy with? Right now I'm on neutral +3 on sharpening and usually use appropriate WB. I shoot mainly large Jpeg (occasionally when I'm feeling decadent I shoot RAW



Exactly what setting are you looking for?  

The only settings I do on the camera is set it to RAW and then for each image the other settings like ISO, Aperture, and Shutter Speed are going to vary from shot to shot.


----------



## PhoenixAsh

Light Guru said:


> PhoenixAsh said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why can't I find a camera setting I'm 100% happy with? Right now I'm on neutral +3 on sharpening and usually use appropriate WB. I shoot mainly large Jpeg (occasionally when I'm feeling decadent I shoot RAW
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly what setting are you looking for?
> 
> The only settings I do on the camera is set it to RAW and then for each image the other settings like ISO, Aperture, and Shutter Speed are going to vary from shot to shot.
Click to expand...


My background was film so I guess I want that warmth that I don't seem to get. I understand the RAW idea - I LOVE shooting RAW, but I simply don't have the space to do so efficiently and cost effectively. Last wedding I shot over 1000 images, that just wouldn't be possible using RAW without dumping cards every 40 minutes! Plus the backup cost would be astronomical! Right now I have 2005+ and that takes over 4TB of data just for backups.... I just feel like my lack of understanding of settings makes the camera limit itself. I loved film, you got film dependent on light, and amount of light. Then you'd simply meter and shoot. Digital sometimes feels clunky to me due to too many (Oh damn I'm sounding like an old person I'm only 30!) options and settings simply confuse what I really love which is capturing the image! I guess I really relate to what Fjrabon says about shooting, feel and organics. And yes +7 sharpness was silly. thank god I caught it before shooting a clients work!

Edit: I changed cam settings to "Neutral" + 1 Sharp, 5000k, sRGB. I'll keep you posted if that feels better - stuck in the office working a couple of photo books for the next few days...


----------



## fjrabon

addressing the original pictures:

1) in the dog picture, I think the auto white balance picked something a bit cold.  
2)I think what you're noticing here is digital's harsh transition to blowout.  Film is much less linear to blowout than digital is, ie film has a much more pronounced S curve, whereas digital, when it crosses over that magic blow out line, it's an abrupt jump to blown out that most people find unappealing.  It's literally the same phenomenon as to why people prefer tube clipping in guitar amplifiers to digital clipping.


----------



## Light Guru

PhoenixAsh said:


> Light Guru said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PhoenixAsh said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why can't I find a camera setting I'm 100% happy with? Right now I'm on neutral +3 on sharpening and usually use appropriate WB. I shoot mainly large Jpeg (occasionally when I'm feeling decadent I shoot RAW
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly what setting are you looking for?
> 
> The only settings I do on the camera is set it to RAW and then for each image the other settings like ISO, Aperture, and Shutter Speed are going to vary from shot to shot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My background was film so I guess I want that warmth that I don't seem to get. I understand the RAW idea - I LOVE shooting RAW, but I simply don't have the space to do so efficiently and cost effectively. Last wedding I shot over 1000 images, that just wouldn't be possible using RAW without dumping cards every 40 minutes! Plus the backup cost would be astronomical! Right now I have 2005+ and that takes over 4TB of data just for backups.... I just feel like my lack of understanding of settings makes the camera limit itself. I loved film, you got film dependent on light, and amount of light. Then you'd simply meter and shoot. Digital sometimes feels clunky to me due to too many (Oh damn I'm sounding like an old person I'm only 30!) options and settings simply confuse what I really love which is capturing the image! I guess I really relate to what Fjrabon says about shooting, feel and organics. And yes +7 sharpness was silly. thank god I caught it before shooting a clients work!
> 
> Edit: I changed cam settings to "Neutral" + 1 Sharp, 5000k, sRGB. I'll keep you posted if that feels better - stuck in the office working a couple of photo books for the next few days...
Click to expand...


You want the images to have a "warmth" feel.  Well thats done via exposure and how you process it.  It was the same way with film the "warmth" of the image came from the choice of film, your exposure and the settings when printing the image.

I think your confusing camera settings with how the image is processed after it is taken.


----------



## Robin_Usagani

There are plenty of photographers who do weddings successfully shooting JPEGs.  How about if you do it in the middle?  I shoot with RAW but I only back up the HIGH RES jpeg.  I keep the RAW for a year.


----------



## fjrabon

Light Guru said:


> PhoenixAsh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Light Guru said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly what setting are you looking for?
> 
> The only settings I do on the camera is set it to RAW and then for each image the other settings like ISO, Aperture, and Shutter Speed are going to vary from shot to shot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My background was film so I guess I want that warmth that I don't seem to get. I understand the RAW idea - I LOVE shooting RAW, but I simply don't have the space to do so efficiently and cost effectively. Last wedding I shot over 1000 images, that just wouldn't be possible using RAW without dumping cards every 40 minutes! Plus the backup cost would be astronomical! Right now I have 2005+ and that takes over 4TB of data just for backups.... I just feel like my lack of understanding of settings makes the camera limit itself. I loved film, you got film dependent on light, and amount of light. Then you'd simply meter and shoot. Digital sometimes feels clunky to me due to too many (Oh damn I'm sounding like an old person I'm only 30!) options and settings simply confuse what I really love which is capturing the image! I guess I really relate to what Fjrabon says about shooting, feel and organics. And yes +7 sharpness was silly. thank god I caught it before shooting a clients work!
> 
> Edit: I changed cam settings to "Neutral" + 1 Sharp, 5000k, sRGB. I'll keep you posted if that feels better - stuck in the office working a couple of photo books for the next few days...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You want the images to have a "warmth" feel.  Well thats done via exposure and how you process it.  It was the same way with film the "warmth" of the image came from the choice of film, your exposure and the settings when printing the image.
> 
> I think your confusing camera settings with how the image is processed after it is taken.
Click to expand...


Plenty of people call white balance a 'camera setting'.  All of the settings he is talking about are in camera settings.  Yes, they are settings that have to do with how the camera processes the input from the sensor into a JPEG, but calling them camera settings isn't wrong either.  He never said anything about ISO, aperture or Shutter speed.  I don't think he's so much confused about settings as much as you just misinterpreted him.


----------



## fjrabon

Robin_Usagani said:


> There are plenty of photographers who do weddings successfully shooting JPEGs.  How about if you do it in the middle?  I shoot with RAW but I only back up the HIGH RES jpeg.  I keep the RAW for a year.



Do original 5D's have small raw?  That might also be a good compromise solution for him.  It's probably the single biggest advantage I think Canon has over Nikon.


----------



## PhoenixAsh

fjrabon said:


> Light Guru said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PhoenixAsh said:
> 
> 
> 
> My background was film so I guess I want that warmth that I don't seem to get. I understand the RAW idea - I LOVE shooting RAW, but I simply don't have the space to do so efficiently and cost effectively. Last wedding I shot over 1000 images, that just wouldn't be possible using RAW without dumping cards every 40 minutes! Plus the backup cost would be astronomical! Right now I have 2005+ and that takes over 4TB of data just for backups.... I just feel like my lack of understanding of settings makes the camera limit itself. I loved film, you got film dependent on light, and amount of light. Then you'd simply meter and shoot. Digital sometimes feels clunky to me due to too many (Oh damn I'm sounding like an old person I'm only 30!) options and settings simply confuse what I really love which is capturing the image! I guess I really relate to what Fjrabon says about shooting, feel and organics. And yes +7 sharpness was silly. thank god I caught it before shooting a clients work!
> 
> Edit: I changed cam settings to "Neutral" + 1 Sharp, 5000k, sRGB. I'll keep you posted if that feels better - stuck in the office working a couple of photo books for the next few days...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You want the images to have a "warmth" feel.  Well thats done via exposure and how you process it.  It was the same way with film the "warmth" of the image came from the choice of film, your exposure and the settings when printing the image.
> 
> I think your confusing camera settings with how the image is processed after it is taken.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Plenty of people call white balance a 'camera setting'.  All of the settings he is talking about are in camera settings.  Yes, they are settings that have to do with how the camera processes the input from the sensor into a JPEG, but calling them camera settings isn't wrong either.  He never said anything about ISO, aperture or Shutter speed.  I don't think he's so much confused about settings as much as you just misinterpreted him.
Click to expand...


Correct. All settings are in cam technically. I was mainly referring to temperatures, "style" modes and colour spaces. The warmth is a feel (forget WB) When I shot film it had a distinct organic feel, digital lacks that - the blow out effect being one of the reasons film still has better "feel" (imagine Dr evil doing the " in this sentence). Great point with tube vs digital sound. I loved my old tube amp and even though my digital practice amp is great its just not the same... 

So a follow up question: Does the 5D Mk II / III handle images more organically? Or are they the same as my 5D with its slightly befuddling portrait modes etc... Also is the Dynamic range better in the newer cameras? That alone may help me seal the deal next year for a new cam.


----------



## fjrabon

PhoenixAsh said:


> fjrabon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Light Guru said:
> 
> 
> 
> You want the images to have a "warmth" feel.  Well thats done via exposure and how you process it.  It was the same way with film the "warmth" of the image came from the choice of film, your exposure and the settings when printing the image.
> 
> I think your confusing camera settings with how the image is processed after it is taken.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Plenty of people call white balance a 'camera setting'.  All of the settings he is talking about are in camera settings.  Yes, they are settings that have to do with how the camera processes the input from the sensor into a JPEG, but calling them camera settings isn't wrong either.  He never said anything about ISO, aperture or Shutter speed.  I don't think he's so much confused about settings as much as you just misinterpreted him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correct. All settings are in cam technically. I was mainly referring to temperatures, "style" modes and colour spaces. The warmth is a feel (forget WB) When I shot film it had a distinct organic feel, digital lacks that - the blow out effect being one of the reasons film still has better "feel" (imagine Dr evil doing the " in this sentence). Great point with tube vs digital sound. I loved my old tube amp and even though my digital practice amp is great its just not the same...
> 
> So a follow up question: Does the 5D Mk II / III handle images more organically? Or are they the same as my 5D with its slightly befuddling portrait modes etc... Also is the Dynamic range better in the newer cameras? That alone may help me seal the deal next year for a new cam.
Click to expand...


I'm not as familiar with the old 5D classic.  The impression I get though is that they haven't changed much in this regard.

What most digital photographers do is shoot in raw, shoot so that none of the highlights clip in the histogram, and then in post processing apply an S curve to the image, which replicates the film rolloff for highlights, then raise of lower the exposure to get the key tones you want.

edit: in some ways this is sort of similar to how people used to shoot kodachrome, except you don't have to underexpose nearly as much.  You're just shooting so that the highlights don't hit the right edge of the histogram.


----------



## PhoenixAsh

fjrabon said:


> PhoenixAsh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fjrabon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Plenty of people call white balance a 'camera setting'.  All of the settings he is talking about are in camera settings.  Yes, they are settings that have to do with how the camera processes the input from the sensor into a JPEG, but calling them camera settings isn't wrong either.  He never said anything about ISO, aperture or Shutter speed.  I don't think he's so much confused about settings as much as you just misinterpreted him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correct. All settings are in cam technically. I was mainly referring to temperatures, "style" modes and colour spaces. The warmth is a feel (forget WB) When I shot film it had a distinct organic feel, digital lacks that - the blow out effect being one of the reasons film still has better "feel" (imagine Dr evil doing the " in this sentence). Great point with tube vs digital sound. I loved my old tube amp and even though my digital practice amp is great its just not the same...
> 
> So a follow up question: Does the 5D Mk II / III handle images more organically? Or are they the same as my 5D with its slightly befuddling portrait modes etc... Also is the Dynamic range better in the newer cameras? That alone may help me seal the deal next year for a new cam.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not as familiar with the old 5D classic.  The impression I get though is that they haven't changed much in this regard.
> 
> What most digital photographers do is shoot in raw, shoot so that none of the highlights clip in the histogram, and then in post processing apply an S curve to the image, which replicates the film rolloff for highlights, then raise of lower the exposure to get the key tones you want.
> 
> edit: in some ways this is sort of similar to how people used to shoot kodachrome, except you don't have to underexpose nearly as much.  You're just shooting so that the highlights don't hit the right edge of the histogram.
Click to expand...


Interesting, I've never considered that approach... Guess I may need a few larger cards sooner than later if that works better!


----------

