Canon PowerShot ELPH 190

Topics covering photography and videography of the flora, fauna and landscape of the Sierra Nevada mountains. Show off your talent. Post your photos and videos here!
User avatar
SSSdave
Topix Addict
Posts: 3044
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2005 11:18 pm
Experience: N/A
Location: Silicon Valley
Contact:

Re: Canon PowerShot ELPH 190

Post by SSSdave » Mon Feb 04, 2019 6:54 pm

That is a sensible strategy CAMERONM if one has a maximum weight range in mind and if one is only going to be toting a single camera into the backcountry.

In my case ever since I began carrying heavy 6x7 and then 4x5 plus big tripods, have tended to carry 2 cameras, one for serious work and another for convenient hand held snap shots.

Daisy, as for the RAW versus JPG debate, one can go to a site like dpreview dot com and search on that to see although during the early DSLR era post processing RAW was clearly an advantage, in this mature period of ILC's the differences may be trivial. Today there are many like this person that either don't or rarely bother processing RAW because in many cases jpg are much better processed today within camera microprocessors due to some of the same improvements being used low level in RAW tools and in smartphones. I especially like color fidelity of jpg's in better ILC's whereas with RAW unless one snaps a second jpg, one only has fading memory days later in post processing to duplicate moments in time. Though that won't matter to many.

As for being concerned about accidentally destroying a camera in the field, its part of the game. Klutzes ought especially not be allowed to carry tripods. (:








User avatar
bobby49
Topix Expert
Posts: 960
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 4:17 pm
Experience: Level 4 Explorer

Re: Canon PowerShot ELPH 190

Post by bobby49 » Mon Feb 04, 2019 8:37 pm

SSSdave wrote:
Mon Feb 04, 2019 6:54 pm
As for being concerned about accidentally destroying a camera in the field, its part of the game. Klutzes ought especially not be allowed to carry tripods. (:
That's interesting. Over the last thirty years, the only two times that I accidentally destroyed a camera in the field was when they were used on tripods. By the way, if you see any miscellaneous camera parts around the north peak of Mount Goddard, we should talk.

User avatar
SirBC
Topix Regular
Posts: 144
Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2014 6:30 pm
Experience: Level 3 Backpacker
Location: SF Peninsula

Re: Canon PowerShot ELPH 190

Post by SirBC » Tue Feb 05, 2019 10:33 am

SSSdave wrote:
Mon Feb 04, 2019 6:54 pm

I especially like color fidelity of jpg's in better ILC's whereas with RAW unless one snaps a second jpg, one only has fading memory days later in post processing to duplicate moments in time. Though that won't matter to many.
When you shoot RAW there is also an embedded jpg saved in the RAW file which you can extract. This is the image you see on the back of the camera when you take a shot. This embedded jpg won't be full size, but would be sufficient to duplicate with the RAW in post. Also, when you import the RAW into Lightroom (or another RAW processor), you may have noticed how it briefly looks like the jpg preview on the back of your camera before it changes to look totally different. That is LR rendering it's own preview.

Also, Lightroom has camera profiles specific for each camera that will mimic whatever jpg setting you use in camera. That will get you very close to what the jpg looks like. You could of course just change the settings in your camera to take a RAW + JPG so that you have both files to work with in post.
SSSdave wrote:
Mon Feb 04, 2019 6:54 pm

Daisy, as for the RAW versus JPG debate, one can go to a site like dpreview dot com and search on that to see although during the early DSLR era post processing RAW was clearly an advantage, in this mature period of ILC's the differences may be trivial
The difference between RAW and JPG has gotten bigger in today's cameras, not smaller. It's the amount of information that is contained within the RAW, information that is thrown out if saving as a jpg, that makes it an ideal format for landscapes. Modern cameras can capture much more dynamic range than they used to and when shooting landscapes we need all of the dynamic range that we can get. I can easily boost my shadows 3-4 stops in RAW, but even a small shadow adjustment in a jpg and the file starts to fall apart.

Below is just one example that would have be 100% impossible to capture in a single jpg. I was shooting directly into the sun while standing in shadow so the dynamic range of the scene was very large. I exposed for the highlights so that they were not being blown out, but that left everything else in the image dark. I just boosted the shadows by about 3.5 stops in LR so that the rest of the image was no longer underexposed. I could only do that because the RAW file contained all of that shadow information, information that would not be present in a JPG and if attempted those shadows would just turn to noise. It isn't just dynamic range either, even basic edits like dodging and burning can easily cause artifacts.
RAW.jpg
processed.jpg
I would suggest that even if someone doesn't think they would want to process RAW's and are happy with jpgs, at least consider shooting in RAW+JPG. There may be some point down the road where you change your mind and you will be happy that you can go back and process those RAW's. I know that happened to me. I bought my first serious DSLR about 15 years ago and didn't even know what a RAW was so all of my shots from then are JPG's. There are a number that I would like to print, but for reasons such as missed exposure, funky color balance, the images are a huge struggle to process because they start to fall apart when I try to correct my beginner mistakes. If they were RAW's it would be trivial. That's a huge bummer. Hard drive space is so cheap these days that space shouldn't be a concern when it comes to shooting RAW's. I have every single image I've taken over the last 15 years as well as digitized versions of a lifetimes worth of film prints all sitting on a single $135 hard drive.

But that's just my opinion :D
You must be registered and logged in to view the files/photos attached to this post.
-------------
Dave | flickr

User avatar
SSSdave
Topix Addict
Posts: 3044
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2005 11:18 pm
Experience: N/A
Location: Silicon Valley
Contact:

Re: Canon PowerShot ELPH 190

Post by SSSdave » Tue Feb 05, 2019 12:52 pm

True about the little thumbnails and I should have noted that.

Your dim image with some bright elements is the type of contrasty subject where RAW has most advantages. Of course some photographers tend to take a lot of those type of shots and for them RAW is essential. However for typical front lit landscape subjects, not that much difference. I have no trouble shooting and processing dim subjects that don't have contrasty bright elements though it is true with RAW one has more flexibility there too. As noted, one can search and read through a list of threads at dpreview with many posts on that debate that shows many serious shooters now consider the issue trivial for many subjects while it is still true there are also some that think it is still of enough importance to bother with on all subjects.


Image

User avatar
SirBC
Topix Regular
Posts: 144
Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2014 6:30 pm
Experience: Level 3 Backpacker
Location: SF Peninsula

Re: Canon PowerShot ELPH 190

Post by SirBC » Tue Feb 05, 2019 4:08 pm

True, I do get what you are saying. You can get fantastic shots shooting with jpg, as is evident with your wonderful rhododendron photo. It's just that you can also get really bad shots because of the limitations that you get with an 8 bit file format that jpg has vs. 16 bit RAW. This can be particularly evident in sky areas with a smooth gradation of color. Jpeg only has 256 shades of grey per channel vs. RAW's 65,000. Just one little adjustment, like say, changing the blue luminance, can result in very noticeable banding in the sky. That is exactly the kind of problem I see in my own photos when trying to edit jpg's I took years ago.

But, to each their own. It's a wonderful thing when you finally get a system dialed in that works for you.
-------------
Dave | flickr

User avatar
wildhiker
Topix Expert
Posts: 713
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2011 4:44 pm
Experience: Level 4 Explorer
Location: Palo Alto, CA
Contact:

Re: Canon PowerShot ELPH 190

Post by wildhiker » Tue Feb 05, 2019 11:27 pm

SirBC says,
Hard drive space is so cheap these days that space shouldn't be a concern when it comes to shooting RAW's. I have every single image I've taken over the last 15 years as well as digitized versions of a lifetimes worth of film prints all sitting on a single $135 hard drive.
But be sure to get a second drive and regularly synchronize from the first to the second! Also good to keep copies on a cloud provider site if you have high internet bandwidth. After 40 years in IT management, I can tell you that hard drives all eventually fail.

-Phil

User avatar
SirBC
Topix Regular
Posts: 144
Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2014 6:30 pm
Experience: Level 3 Backpacker
Location: SF Peninsula

Re: Canon PowerShot ELPH 190

Post by SirBC » Wed Feb 06, 2019 9:09 am

Wise words. I do have two onsite copies and an offsite (Backblaze).
-------------
Dave | flickr

User avatar
ChuckSten
Topix Newbie
Posts: 4
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2018 10:41 am
Experience: Level 3 Backpacker
Location: San Diego

Re: Canon PowerShot ELPH 190

Post by ChuckSten » Tue Nov 26, 2019 10:34 pm

Talk me out of buying the Canon 360 instead of the similar Canon 190.

Even though I’m a confirmed gram weenie who is aiming for a base weight of 5 pounds, I’m willing to schlep the additional .3 ounces compared to the Canon 190. The Canon 360 is 5.2 oz vs 4.9 oz for the Canon 190. The .9 “ thickness and the streamlined shape should fit any shoulder strap or pants pocket. A camera left at home is worthless.

Since the viewing of LCD screens in sunshine is a major problem, I’m hoping that the 461 dots in a 3” screen compared to 230 dots in a 2.7” screen will be helpful. The biggest disadvantage, that both models share, is the tiny 1/2.3" sensor, about the same size as in a cell phone. But I often do not want to carry a phone.

Using the ingenious Blend-If Sliders in Maverick’s 2/4/19 post above, one could overcome the awful blown highlights of small format cameras. They don’t call it “The Range of Light” for nothing. Both the 360 and the 190 were released in February 2016 and both have the Digic 4 processor, while the current cameras are up to Digic 8. How much difference does that make?

There are attractive deals on eBay for about half the list prices.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests