Best still photo settings

[Not A Speck Of Cereal]

You know how to FLY a drone. In the air. Safely and effectively. The least challenging bit of this is learning how to use manual exposure or at least aperture priority and RAW.

Not really. I think it's still quite challenging for people to wrap their heads around photo concepts such as the exposure triangle. And you see proof in this thread that some people don't understand (or care) about the advantages or RAW files.

Chris

 

[Not A Speck Of Cereal]

We buy these things to shoot videos, stills, create content.

You do. I certainly do. But you're mistaken if you think most of us do.

There are some that don't care about the camera at all (forget that they could get a much cheaper aircraft). And there are those that DO want the photo / video capabilities, but aren't really interested in anything more than auto, just like their hand-held point-and-shoot cameras.

And there's nothing wrong with that.

Chris

 

[Not A Speck Of Cereal]

The OP asked for suggestions and got arguments....

One man's argument is another's discussion. And this is a discussion board. It's sort of how social media works.

Chris

 

[Meta4]

No, it's really only good for non-challenging conditions. In places where you need raw is where you need to recover dynamic range in post that is impossible to be captured in JPG.
...
But JPGs are not necessarily good for most photography.

I posted a link in post #14 to a gallery of 80 images shot in all kinds of conditions over several years that demonstrate that jpg images from the drone can be very good in more than just non-challenging conditions.
I get the impression that no-one has looked at it and the same old cliches about raw being the only way to go just keep being pushed.
If you don't want to have your ideas challenged and are happy with your photography, that's fine.
But for anyone new to photography and confused by it all, my images show that jpg images can still be high quality images despite what some here would tell you.
I'm a very demanding photographer and if I can get those results it's a pretty good indication that jpg are suitable for most drone flyers, most of the time.

 

[Not A Speck Of Cereal]

Okay, that's a fine message for new photographers.

But there's also nothing wrong with them hearing both sides of the conversation.

My convictions come from decades of experience and, while don't mind the challenge in a conversation, I don't believe my stance is any kind of cliche. I know the difference.

Keep in mind that I still am a rare defender of the JPG format out on places like Facebook photo groups, where lots of new / young posters telling people to only shoot RAW because JPG is crap — that's not what I'm doing here.

So to new photographers (drone or otherwise), I would say that not worrying about RAW file processing is fine at first. But as soon as you start to become not happy / satisfied with your results, you know where to look next. If that never happens, then I'm happy for you.

Chris

 

[brettbrandon]

One man's argument is another's discussion. And this is a discussion board. It's sort of how social media works.

Chris

You are right.
I thought we scared the Op away but it turned out they were kicked back taking in the show.

I guess that shows I'm am really not, a social media person.
I have only been in a few forums and thats in just the last few years...

 

[johnmeyer]

I posted a link in post #14 to a gallery of 80 images shot in all kinds of conditions over several years that demonstrate that jpg images from the drone can be very good in more than just non-challenging conditions.
I get the impression that no-one has looked at it and the same old cliches about raw being the only way to go just keep being pushed.
If you don't want to have your ideas challenged and are happy with your photography, that's fine.
But for anyone new to photography and confused by it all, my images show that jpg images can still be high quality images despite what some here would tell you.
I'm a very demanding photographer and if I can get those results it's a pretty good indication that jpg are suitable for most drone flyers, most of the time.

This simply is not true: JPEG images are NOT "high quality images." The DCT (Discrete Cosine Transform) compression in JPEG is decades old and creates nasty artifacts. More important, RAW images let you do absolutely amazing things with images in post, using Lightroom or a similar tool.

If you haven't graded thousands of photos in Lightroom, and done it with both JPEG and RAW, then you don't know what you're missing by not using RAW.

There simply is no comparison between RAW and JPEG, and to say that "the same old cliches about raw being the only way to go just keep being pushed" is misleading and wrong. There is nothing "cliché" about the absolute fact that shooting RAW will let a serious, professional photographer achieve far better results than JPEG.

So, keep on shooting either RAW, or RAW + JPEG ("brettbrandon's" advice in post #2 was spot on).

 

[Not A Speck Of Cereal]

There is nothing "cliché" about the absolute fact that shooting RAW will let a serious, professional photographer achieve far better results than JPEG.

Or a serious non-professional — there's plenty of us.

Chris

 

[kilomikebravo]

..here's a sample with no editing

Go Fast: Amigo, that is one FINE shot of Miami, or at least I THINK it's Miami..especially right out of camera. Used to have a work apartment in Kendall but it's been many years. If that's Biscayne Bay, it sure has changed.

Edit: DUH! I should have checked your profile...what a dummy am I, Yoda.

 

[johnmeyer]

Or a serious non-professional — there's plenty of us.

Chris

Yes, I get that. I think that most of the posts advocating using JPEG and not using RAW are making the point that if you just want to take the picture, view the picture, and get on with life, then JPEG is the way to go.

I agree.

However, the OP's question in post #1 was:

"... my interest right now is figuring out how to maximize the M2P's still photo capabilities. "​

I added the emphasis. If that is the goal, then shooting in JPEG rather than RAW is the wrong thing to do. Period.

 

[Meta4]

Yes, I get that. I think that most of the posts advocating using JPEG and not using RAW are making the point that if you just want to take the picture, view the picture, and get on with life, then JPEG is the way to go.

But I never advocated that at all.
Did you look at any of the examples I put up ?
You're just another one repeating the same old "raw is the only way to go" mantra.

 

[go fast]

Go Fast: Amigo, that is one FINE shot of Miami, or at least I THINK it's Miami..especially right out of camera. Used to have a work apartment in Kendall but it's been many years. If that's Biscayne Bay, it sure has changed.

Edit: DUH! I should have checked your profile...what a dummy am I, Yoda.

Thanks and yes that's Biscayne Bay /Brickell taken just a few days ago , the buildings never stop going up...

 

[johnmeyer]

But I never advocated that at all.
Did you look at any of the examples I put up ?
You're just another one repeating the same old "raw is the only way to go" mantra.

Yes I did and they are really nice photos. Well done!

However, at the risk of being redundant, the OP's question was: "how to maximize the M2P's still photo capabilities." I'm sorry but shooting JPEG does not maximize the Mavic 2's photo capabilities. If you want the best, you don't shoot JPEG. It is not a mantra, it is an undeniable, provable fact.

Almost a dozen other people have said the same thing in this thread, and anyone who has used Lightroom, which others have also mentioned, knows the gigantic difference between using JPEG and RAW as the starting point. I've graded well over 100,000 photos in the past decade and, regrettably, did not start using RAW until about six years ago. When my professional photographer son-in-law recommended it (actually, insisted on it, would be more accurate), it was an absolute revelation. The difference was not subtle or minor.

JPEG is a delivery format, not an editing format, just like h.264 wrapped in an MP4 container is a delivery format for video, but a lousy editing format. Every time you open and then save a JPEG photo, the photo degrades. The accumulation of artifacts is not difficult to see.

Editing in RAW is akin to using lossless or an intermediate codec (like Cineform) when editing video, and both are used by professionals for a reason, not because of some "mantra."

I restore media (photos, movie film, sound, LPs, 78s) for a living and have tried to learn every trick to get the best possible results. I too deliver in JPEG all the time and it can be fine for a delivery format when the images will be viewed on a monitor or smartphone. It's not so great when blown up to a really large screen, and it most certainly is not the acquisition format that any professional photographer would recommend.

Here is one of hundreds of tutorials from actual professional photographers:

Understanding all the Different Image File Formats

Key pull quotes:

"The thing that you should remember is that JPEG files are compressed quickly in the camera, and thus result in a loss of detail and quality. "​

and

"RAW files are generally available on advanced compact cameras and DSLRs and quite simply put; it is the best option if you want to get the absolute best file from your camera "​

​

I hope the OP is still reading and I hope he/she does comparisons between RAW and JPEG (since you can easily save both) and see the differences.

 

[wco81]

Just use RAW, and a decent RAW editor like Lightroom

View attachment 72811

Where do you get those overlay labels for that picture?

 

[4wd]

Where do you get those overlay labels for that picture?

It's just the text tool in Adobe photoshop

 

[electroZ]

For high rez wide angle images shoot in horizontal panorama mode.
set the app to keep RAW images and you get 9 RAWs you can photo-merge in LR or PS
LR gets you a DNG merged image that you can deeply process.

If you wish to get REAL HDR images do not use the control app HDR mode.
unlike panorama mode, the HDR mode does not let you keep the original RAWs and the mavic algorithm does a pretty lousy job processing HDR.
Manually Take 3-5 RAW with a consistent exposure difference and merge them in LR.
Again, you get a HDR DNG that you can process with much more details than a single shot.

That a HDR shot that way:

 

[dfb]

I'm coming up on three weeks now with the M2P, and I have approximately 6 hours of flight time so far due to rainy weather here in the Northeast... Also, this UAV is an upgrade to the Phantom 4 (original) that I have had for a couple of years now, so I would consider my general understanding of these systems to be fairly broad.

It seems that all the YouTube videos that I have watched regarding camera settings are more tailored toward video capture, and I can understand that, but my interest right now is figuring out how to maximize the M2P's still photo capabilities. So, I was hoping that those who may be interested in this as well - with more experience than me - could post what settings they use and maybe even a photo as an example.

Thanks in advance for any assistance!!

Think of Jpg as a FINISHED image. It has limited options for adjustment. That's why you shoot Raw + Jpg. If the Jpg looks good, you're done!
I doubt there is any advice been given here that is Mavic2 Pro specific. Everyone talks like you're a noob. You've had a P4 for years. Didn't you take any pictures? The one difference here will be the larger sensor. It will produce less noise & have better range from black to white. Higher ISOs at night will look better.
Just think of this a camera with an awesome tripod, really.

 

[Chookman]

The only advice I would add is to learn how to use manual focus. Auto focus works well but can be hit and miss in certain scenarios.

 

[Brockrock]

Think of Jpg as a FINISHED image. It has limited options for adjustment. That's why you shoot Raw + Jpg. If the Jpg looks good, you're done!
I doubt there is any advice been given here that is Mavic2 Pro specific. Everyone talks like you're a noob. You've had a P4 for years. Didn't you take any pictures? The one difference here will be the larger sensor. It will produce less noise & have better range from black to white. Higher ISOs at night will look better.
Just think of this a camera with an awesome tripod, really.

Yeah. When I first got the P4, I did more video recording than still images. Then, I slowly got into stills, but recorded in mostly jpg. I did experiment with RAW, but with little interest in post editing, they were just taking up space on the iPad for no reason.

As a result of this thread, I have revisited RAW with the M2P. I also purchased the Affinity Photo app for iPad, and I can now develop a RAW image into a pretty nice picture in very little time.

I can understand the RAW vs. jpg debate, especially due to the fact that if the camera settings are dialed in properly, the M2P - and P4 for that matter - can capture very nice jpg’s, and little editing, if any, needs to be done. On the other hand, so many subtle refinements are possible working with a RAW file, and I have come to enjoy the process.

 

[The Flashman]

Uh-huh ... so if only I'd shot dng images maybe these would be keepers?

Shipping Photography Examples - Above & Beyond Photography

This gallery hosted by SmugMug; your photos look better here.

abovephotos.smugmug.com

Could not resist commenting on your Images, VERY well done. They REENFORCE the reasoning for using RAW when wanting the most from your images. Again VERY good work.