Hi everybody,

My friend and I recently each bought new Canon XSi DSLR cameras. So far I'm loving mine; it's allowing me to do all sorts of things that my point-and-shoot was incapable of --and I'm just getting started!

However, both he and I have noticed that our pictures seem "faded" or "whitewashed" compared to the photos taken with our old (both Canon!) point-and-shoots.

Thus, I was wondering if I could get some input as to what's going on here.

Here's two example pictures:

Taken with Canon SD870IS:
<img src="http://pictureposter.audiworld.com/107444/canon_sd870is_small.jpg" border="1">

Taken with Canon XSi:
<img src="http://pictureposter.audiworld.com/107444/canon_xsi_small.jpg" border="1">

Some notes:
- Both cameras use the DigicIII processor.
- Both photos were taken at the same time (minus camera switching time).
- Both photos have been resized to 25% of their original size.
- Both JPEGs still have their EXIF data.
- Both photos are owned/copyrighted by the photographer, Kevin Lynch (for his blog, <a href="http://closetcooking.blogspot.com/">Closet Cooking</a>).

You need to adjust your jpeg picture style settings to get similar results. Bump up the saturation, contrast and sharpness settings a notch or two, if you want to get similar results without post-processing. Just watch out for blown-out highlights and over-sharpening.

Some folks like to let the camera do the work.. I feel that PS does a better job..

...besides just letting it convert to JPEG?

Also, I assume you set this up as a batch, right? I know the Canon EOS software has the ability to batch operations, but I haven't looked into setting that up yet. (Since I got the camera I've had very little time to play with it!)

Typically, you take a RAW file, adjust exposure, WB, contrast, and maybe saturation in the converter (ACR is the converter that comes with PS, but there are others) and then bring it into PS. From there you can do things like masking for local adjustments of color or exposure, cropping to specific output sizes, sharpening, etc.

It can be a batch process but doesn't have to. I tend to do everything manually. Post an original unaltered pic (or maybe link to your RAW file hosted somewhere since it should be pretty large) and we could all take a shot at it so you can see the different results.

...in some type of photo editor. The SLR type camera is more geared towards a photographers eye...and tries to capture exactly whats seen the best it knows how...to allow for "developing" in the digital darkroom.

P&amp;S cameras usually do some element of post processing IN camera...hence the boosted colors. DSLRs are capable of far more controlled settings...but usually require a bit of extra work. =]

two aperture extremes may account for some of the difference.

<ul><li><a href="http://dgrin.smugmug.com/gallery/2292454/1">Make Your Image Pop</a></li></ul>

While the P&amp;S saturation looks great to the eye, is it "realistic" or is it too much? In the end it depends on what you're going to do with the image. Some images looks awesome if the saturation is heavily boosted while at other times, if you want something a little bit more realistic, the saturation adjustment won't be as extreme.

Especially with the macro shots, I thought it defaults to this behaviour. (unless I'm mistaken?)

1.) Both images have exposure compensation. The bottom image has .67 so almost one stop overexposed.

2.) If you were not using tripod, for 24mm assuming the lens was not one of the IS lenses, your shutter speed on the second image was a little too slow (1/6). Adjust this to maybe 1/50? Or considering there was enough light, faster speed wouldn't hurt. Some people use "1/focal length" rule as a rough estimate. So try 1/24 if you have steady hand.

3.) Try same iso on both.

4.) You can apply picture setting to get closer look (contrast, saturation, etc) or use automatic on both.