G1, poor camera jpg, gamma too high...

Hi,
I've not been very happy with the camera JPG photos produced by my G1:

At first sight they either: look too bright, lack details in faces and dark areas, have very dull highlights.

So I've been taking pictures in raw+jpg since then. In Picasa (that uses DCraw to render automatically the raws) the raws look much better than the camera jpgs 90% of the time (skies are less white, dark areas and faces are much more detailed, etc..)

I realised opening the raws in Silkypix (provided with the camera) that for all photos, the default settings (that generate a photo very close the camera jpg) have a gamma of 1.15 and a contrast of 1.5. Setting the gamma back to 1.0 and reducing the contrast (and tweaking the exposure compensation) gives a much better picture than the default raw settings.

Is this default gamma of 1.15 normal? Also I've been playing with the camera "film mode" settings (contrast, saturation etc..) but they seem to be post processing only and dont affect dramatically the final jpg.
I've also done a camera reset but this doesnt change anything.

The default jpg rendering seems really subpar and I'm a bit surprised as the camera has had very good reviews... Is there a way to improve this? Thanks for any help.

Show us some samples please

I have not selected a raw converter yet - I may have to - but I too have been trying to find a way to trick the camera into better jpegs using film modes and exposure compensation.

My favorite strategy at this point is to use -2/3 exp comp, then set Multi shot flim mode to take two shots each time, one in Nostalgic and one in Nature. In Nature modes I have the contrast, noise reduction and saturation set at lowest setting and sharpness at highest setting. Nostalgic is set identically except the saturation is turned to highest setting. I find that one of the two shots is bound to come out well in everyday general photography or at least be easily adjusted, and there is rarely a white-out in the Nature setting. Also the negative exposure allows a faster shutter or lower iso setting (at the expense of some viewfinder brightness, but I find it a bit too bright to begin with). Both settings render truer color than Standard (turns yellows green), in my opinion, although Nostalgic is a bit warm.

Nostalgic seems to be the lowest contrast and saturation mode in G1 flim modes. But if not compensated downward it blows highlights regularly, by intentional design I assume. But for indoor shots or dark faces, it's unbeatble. My Nature mode work best for good skies and accurate color if saturation is turned down as above.

It's a shame to have to take two shots, but in fine jpeg it's still a smaller file burden than raw. And often both shots are in the ballpark allowing you to choose the best of the two regarding eye blinks or other subject factors.

Give it a try. I'd like to know how you think it compares to raw in Picassa. gp

That's not to say they're bad. They've improved a lot over the last two years and are now reasonably competitive. If you want the best out of your G series camera, shoot raw. The Silkypix raw developer that comes with the camera is actually quite competent.

--
Regards
J



http://www.flickr.com/photos/jason_hindle

Gear in profile

--
Thanks,

Teski
http://www.tedescophotography.com

Do you mean no Silkypix for Mac?

Actually there is:
http://shortcutinc.com/cms/index.php?id=281

It would seem that Panasonic becoming a serious contender in the stills photography market has not been noticed by the high priests of the Great Jobsian Temple!

--
Regards
J



http://www.flickr.com/photos/jason_hindle

Gear in profile

Sure, I've uploaded some pictures on an unlisted picasa album:

http://picasaweb.google.co.uk/billou2k/DPRG1JpgComp?authkey=Gv1sRgCMH066TlncCaBQ&feat=directlink

I've renamed each file so that it specify "camera" jpeg, "picasa" one, or the "default silkypix" one. Click on "more info" on the right panel to see the filename.
Generally the order is: camera, picasa, default silkypix.

The default silkypix settings are : gamma 1.15, contrast 1.5, contrast center 0.46.

For some pictures I've added more silkypix renderings: with a gamma set to 1.0, and lower contrast... (Should the default gamma really be 1.15?)
The problems with the camera jpg should be obvious.

(The picasa version's geometry is different from the camera and silypix pictures as DCraw (Picasa) does not correct the m43 lense distortion.)

Thanks for these tips,

So you reckon it's possible to get descent highlights with the built in jpeg then?

I tried several of them and didnt seem to reach a picture that pops out like picasa manages to do with the raw...

I'll try this at the week end anyway (if the weather is not totally rubbish )

Thanks!

It's not bad although a bit buggy...
The batch handling and copy/paste of development settings is very convenient.

But I feel that the highlight handling is not as good as in RawTherapee for example(that uses DCRaw like Picasa, and therefore has the same problem of not correcting the lens distortion).

Lightroom is pretty goot too (and correct lens distortion) but is not quite in my budget

billou2k said:

Is this default gamma of 1.15 normal? Also I've been playing with the camera "film mode" settings (contrast, saturation etc..) but they seem to be post processing only and dont affect dramatically the final jpg.

Click to expand...

Try Dynamic or Vibrant film modes for better JPEGs. Forget the contrast and saturation settings - the review here mentioned that they do not make much difference.

I've now played with all the film modes and although the rendering changes slightly, they dont affect the gamma. So my major problem is still there: all jpegs in all mode have a gamma that is too high: They all look very close to silkypix rendering with the "default" gamma of 1.15 and that washes out most face details and highlights etc...

see : http://picasaweb.google.co.uk/billou2k/DPRG1JpgComp?authkey=Gv1sRgCMH066TlncCaBQ&feat=directlink#

Is there a way to change that gamma value in the camera from 1.15 to 1.00 ?

Surely it seems like a very obvious problem and should it be a problem with the G1 in general people should have noticed by now...

Any idea?

billou2k said:

all jpegs in all mode have a gamma that is too high:

Click to expand...

I don't think so.

What software are you using to assess the gamma as being too high?

I have just looked at the bride pics so far, and the first obvious is that the jpg is underexposed.

Why didn't you correct that in software? It's easy as pie...with almost any software and a histogram and it's associated sliders..

The second obvious is that only the jpg would appear to be rendering the bride's dress correctly - or was it pink?

billou2k said:

Is there a way to change that gamma value in the camera from 1.15 to 1.00 ?

Click to expand...

While the gamma might be too low (it certainly isn't too high, and I don't know why you keep saying it is) that can be overcome with the right PP, even on a jpg.

billou2k said:

Surely it seems like a very obvious problem and should it be a problem with the G1 in general people should have noticed by now...

Click to expand...

So that should be the first warning that you are misunderstanding something, or not using available tools.

billou2k said:

Any idea?

Click to expand...

You need software which displays the histogram, and then you need to adjust to correct deficiencies. I'm happy to provide some clues once I know what software you have for processing jpegs.

--
Cheers

Trevor G

http://www.computerwyse.com/photo.html

All the jpegs I have seen so far have been under-exposed.

The one of the stone relief on the church was more than 1 whole stop under-exposed.

Use the display button to turn on the RGB histogram when reviewing your pics. This is essential to correctly set exposure.

Then use the + / - EV adjustment to correct under or over-exposure. You should also be using the record mode histogram in the display/viewfinder window - it's a better than average guide.

You cannot set-and-forget with a digital camera - EV values are constantly changing outside, depending on the angle of the sun in regard to your subject, especially. You just need to keep looking, adjusting and watching for blown highlights - turn that feature on as well.

Finally, any under-exposure is better than over-exposure, and can be corrected in any worthwhile jpeg-processing software. The jpg of the stone relief is great once adjusted.

--
Cheers

Trevor G

http://www.computerwyse.com/photo.html

First, thanks Trevor for taking the time to read, check the pictures and propose solutions.

Trevor G said:

What software are you using to assess the gamma as being too high?

Click to expand...

I'm using Silkypix that was provided with the camera. In the contrast settings, it has a gamma value that is always defaulted to 1.15 with all my jpg.

I've played with RawTherapee too that uses DCraw (like Picasa) and the highlight handling seems much more effective at keeping details. Unfortunately, it doesnt correct the barrel distortion introduced by the m4/3 lenses.

I've updated the picasa album with screenshots of the main contrast settings for several pictures:

http://picasaweb.google.co.uk/billou2k/DPRG1JpgComp?authkey=Gv1sRgCMH066TlncCaBQ&feat=directlink#

I've also uploaded some raws (+camera jpg and picasa renderings) in here:
http://billou2k.free.fr/silkypix/gamma/

Trevor G said:

I have just looked at the bride pics so far, and the first obvious is that the jpg is underexposed.

Why didn't you correct that in software? It's easy as pie...with almost any software and a histogram and it's associated sliders..

Click to expand...

Well that's the problem, I didnt find it that easy, in silkypix from the raw, simply increasing the exposure compensation doesn't restore the highlights. the picasa picture gives a much more natural look to the material as well as the creamy colour that disappeared from the camera jpg.

Trevor G said:

While the gamma might be too low (it certainly isn't too high, and I don't know why you keep saying it is) that can be overcome with the right PP, even on a jpg.

Click to expand...

I might be wrong but I keep saying it is too high for 2 reasons : I'm talking about the gamma value in the contrast settings of Silkypix and with all my raws, it's always set to 1.15, when I thought the default gamma value should be 1.0.

But the main reason I think it's too high, is that on all my raws, I have to lower the gamma from 1.15 to 1.00 to restores details in the highlights.

As you spotted on some pictures, exposure compensation has to be applied too, but without the gamma set to 1.0, the details in highlights are just lacking.

e.g. on the balloon, without the gamma at 1.0, it looks really flat (see the picasa album link for a step by step changes in silkypix)

Trevor G said:

So that should be the first warning that you are misunderstanding something, or not using available tools.

You need software which displays the histogram, and then you need to adjust to correct deficiencies. I'm happy to provide some clues once I know what software you have for processing jpegs.

Click to expand...

I'm happy to learn!

I dont have a problem with tweaking and improving some pictures from the raws, but what is annoying is that I find that I have to lower the gamma value in silkypix to 1.00 on every single picture I take to avoid flat highlights (e.g. the examples in the picasa album: balloon, portrait, statue, dress...).

Compensationg the exposition is normal but I'd have thought that this gamma setting could be fixed directly in the camera... because having to shot every single picture in raw then correct it is a bit of a pain. Don't you think these camera jpgs have their highlights flatten and look dull in comparison to the picasa / improved Silkypix version?

Cheers

billou2k said:

Don't you think these camera jpgs have their highlights flatten and look dull in comparison to the picasa / improved Silkypix version?

Click to expand...

No, not at all.

As I said before, once they are exposed correctly (which after the event needs to be done in software) they look fine.

Do you not have any software for working with jpegs?

--
Cheers

Trevor G

http://www.computerwyse.com/photo.html

Trevor G said:

Do you not have any software for working with jpegs?

Click to expand...

Now I feel silly - I did not realise sillypix also handled jpg!

--
Cheers

Trevor G

http://www.computerwyse.com/photo.html

Some questions, Bill

1) Which pic in the picasa album presents the female model's skin colour correctly, or most accurately according to the way it looked on the day?

My first task is always to get colours as close to natural or accurate, before proceeding. That's because I work from a scientific base, rather than an artistic one.

I just want to see, first of all, what I have to do to get the skin tones right...rather than the way you might prefer to see them

2) I notice you had White Balance set to manual. Did you actually change it, and did you use a white card?

To me, your preferred pics of the model are too dark.

BTW You have done good work with the screen shots - lots of time there.
--
Cheers

Trevor G

http://www.computerwyse.com/photo.html

billou2k said:

I've also uploaded some raws (+camera jpg and picasa renderings) in here:
http://billou2k.free.fr/silkypix/gamma/

Click to expand...

Can I ask what lens you were using on these shots? (I'm contempating getting a G1 and looking at all the image samples I can!)

To me, they all looked a bit soft. Not out of focus, just soft. The SilkyPix version does show more detail but I think was expecting more.

I tried processing the raw files in RawTherapee (and the DCB version of DCRAW) and both squeezed out a fraction more detail. I don't know whether you have tried it but RawTherapee produced a version which (to my eyes at least) was much better in all respects than the jpeg from the camera.

I agree, the camera jpgs can look a bit softer, although I have played with the film modes and film settings a bit so they might not all be representative

I just checked the 4 pictures I uploaded: 2 are using the standard film mode (the statue and the dress), 1 is using dynamic mode (the portrait) and 1 is using the smooth mode (the balloon). All have the saturation for those mode set to normal (0) apart from the dress where it's set to -1.

But it seems that in most cases yes, silkypix retreive more details than the camera jpg.

I'm using both the lumix 14-45 and the lumix 45-200, but the 4 pictures uploaded were with the 45-200.

I've played with RawTherapee too, and liked the highlight handling in particular but the fact it doesnt correct the m4/3 lens barrel distortion is a no go...

Although by using Silkypix I have noticed that I get more details than the JPG, I haven't yet tried to push the sharpness settings in the film modes to see how much more "detail" can be retrieved.

I'm trying for now to understant if the white look to the jpg (that I associate to that gamma value set in Silkypix to 1.15) can be fixed.