GF1 settings for better JPEGs - I'm getting closer...

PC Wheeler said:

Sam Bennett said:

I also dial in a little bit of Magenta bias.

Click to expand...

So how many steps is "a little bit" Sam?

I'd like to try it with GH1.

--

Phil .. Panasonic GH1 (14-140, 7-14, 20 f/1.7, 45-200); Oly E-PL1 (14-42); Canon 40D, S90
http://www.pbase.com/phil_wheeler

Click to expand...

The GH1 actually has a noticeably different colour output to the GF1 - this is why other profiles from people like fujicoly include specific versions for GF1 and GH1.... (I've tried profiles that work well for GF1 that when applied to GH1 lead to an overly yellow/green cast to the images)

Jerodequin said:

PC Wheeler said:

Sam Bennett said:

I also dial in a little bit of Magenta bias.

Click to expand...

So how many steps is "a little bit" Sam?

I'd like to try it with GH1.

--

Phil .. Panasonic GH1 (14-140, 7-14, 20 f/1.7, 45-200); Oly E-PL1 (14-42); Canon 40D, S90
http://www.pbase.com/phil_wheeler

Click to expand...

The GH1 actually has a noticeably different colour output to the GF1 - this is why other profiles from people like fujicoly include specific versions for GF1 and GH1.... (I've tried profiles that work well for GF1 that when applied to GH1 lead to an overly yellow/green cast to the images)

Click to expand...

Yeah, good catch. They're completely different sensors, so it sounds like comparing settings between the GF1 and the GH1 will only take you so far, with further tweaking being done for the GH1.

--
Sam Bennett - http://www.swiftbennett.com

I disagree.

Incorrect WB "will" in fact have an effect on exposure even in RAW. You can "tweak" the WB if it's close to desired outcome. But, if it's drastically off, it WILL effect the way the camera exposes the scene

Just try it. Set the camera to Halogen, and take some pictures in day light... in RAW. Take a few more in "DayLight" WB. Then compare the two. Even when you try to correct the WB in your RAW editor, the final image will be far inferior to the "DayLight" set.

pegasus1457 said:

The RAW file is no more than the digitized outputs from the sensor pixels. Your WB setting has no effect on the contents of this file. WB is used to control the mix of the RGB used to make the JPEG output and the visualization you see on the viewing screen.

Click to expand...

--
.Sam.
Panasonic GF1, GH1 & Pentax K20D - ist* DS - ZX-5 - LX
Photos: http://www.flickr.com/shadzee/

Sam Bennett said:

Yeah, I've seen it but it doesn't really help me much. I'm really focused on getting the most out of the camera without having to do post processing, messing with profiles, etc. For me, the only time I'd likely use JPEGs is with something like the iPad for throwing JPEGs up during a vacation, etc. so I wouldn't really have the option to use profiles.

Click to expand...

Don't be lame. Your best bet is to hope from a firmware upgrade, like the one which put the Pens on equal footing for AF with pannies.

Otherwise use Huelight profiles, which will save you a lot of empty braggings.



Am.

PS toddlers are uninteresting subjects unless the photographer isn't indifferent...

--
Photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/amalric

Don't get me wrong, but sometimes you need to spend more time thinking about the art and forget the science.

We are all guilty of this crime, me included, take this short note as friendly egg cup of cold water down the back of the neck....
Don't forget to enjoy your hobby.

Sorry, but I couldn't agree with that; the point is to understand the equipment you are using so that your attempts at art don't end up in the trash because that great photo didn't turn out the way you intended.

Richard Markeson said:

Don't get me wrong, but sometimes you need to spend more time thinking about the art and forget the science.

Click to expand...

Used with settings 7 steps to amber 1 step towards magenta on AWB.

Vibrant mode, +1 to contrast, -1 to saturation.

only processing was to increase black levels by 15 in LR2 and resized for web.

wasn't too happy with the default colours on the gf1 out of the box and this has helped lots, thanks!

XIX said:

Used with settings 7 steps to amber 1 step towards magenta on AWB.

Vibrant mode, +1 to contrast, -1 to saturation.

only processing was to increase black levels by 15 in LR2 and resized for web.

wasn't too happy with the default colours on the gf1 out of the box and this has helped lots, thanks!

Click to expand...

--
Sam Bennett - http://www.swiftbennett.com

I might have a play with my G1 using the work you've done here though I'm very much biased towards shooting raw when it comes to Panasonic.

--
Regards
J

Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/jasonhindleuk
Blog: http://jasonhindle.wordpress.com



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

Gear in profile

Thanks for the test Sam. A lot of great info there. I am going to have to try out the smooth film mode. I have always used Vivid because that suites my taste more. However, I would like to see the pictures retain more shadow detail.

I have ended up shooting in the C1 and C2 modes. I use C1 set to ISO 400 because that is what works best in the low light of my living room. I shoot in RAW only in that mode because it is so hard to get a good pic in that room that it always requires post processing.

In C2 mode I set it to Intelligent ISO and it pretty much always uses ISO 100 with my F1.4 and F1.2 lenses. I use this setting outside on sunny days almost exclusively. I also shoot RAW+jpg in this mode because I can get the RAW color image and a B&W for comparison. I never really know if a picture will look better in B&W or in color so I shoot both.

If the B&W pic looks good enough I won’t go back and post process the RAW to get a better B&W picture. I estimate that B&W benefits the least from Post processing. However, I am not sure about that. Is that a fair assessment?

I noticed that “A’s” shirt was very green in the RAW picture and it was a bluish green in the .jpg. Which one was more accurate?

What mode do you shoot in most often? P? A? S? M? or C?

--
GF1 & ZS3 Sample movies
http://www.youtube.com/user/mpgxsvcd#play/uploads
GF1 Pictures
http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/4222674355/albums

mpgxsvcd said:

If the B&W pic looks good enough I won’t go back and post process the RAW to get a better B&W picture. I estimate that B&W benefits the least from Post processing. However, I am not sure about that. Is that a fair assessment?

Click to expand...

Well, there's less concern over WB and certainly mixed WB issues (having to sources of light with differing WB), but it really depends on what kind of look you're going for. People who are really into B&W will spend time tweaking the WB to get a different contrast curve out of the image, or even to minimize or enhance noise.

mpgxsvcd said:

I noticed that “A’s” shirt was very green in the RAW picture and it was a bluish green in the .jpg. Which one was more accurate?

Click to expand...

The RAW. Not sure what was up with the JPEG there, I haven't been able to determine if that indicates a problem with greens in general or what.

mpgxsvcd said:

What mode do you shoot in most often? P? A? S? M? or C?

Click to expand...

Aperture Priority, by far. Will use Manual for more challenging exposures, but that's pretty rare. Never use Program or Shutter Priority and don't have any Custom settings set.

--
Sam Bennett - http://www.swiftbennett.com

Judging by the shallow DOF in most of your pics is it safe to assume that you use a wide open aperture most often as well?

What situations do you find the aperture priority to be the most affective? Bright sunlight when you want to get a shallow DOF?

I tried to shoot some golf shots with my Canon 55mm F1.2 lens the other day. I actually couldn't shoot F1.2 with it. I had to set it to F2.8 in order to not over expose even at 1/4000 of a second.

This is the picture PP from the RAW file.





And this is the standard .jpg straight out of the camera.





I am still trying to learn post processing. Does the RAW file at least look better than the .jpg to you? What is strange is that the processed RAW file looks horrible on one of my monitors but looks better on my laptops screen.

You make RAW processing look so easy. I am still struggling with it.

Sam Bennett said:

Sam Bennett said:

What mode do you shoot in most often? P? A? S? M? or C?

Click to expand...

Aperture Priority, by far. Will use Manual for more challenging exposures, but that's pretty rare. Never use Program or Shutter Priority and don't have any Custom settings set.

--
Sam Bennett - http://www.swiftbennett.com

Click to expand...

--
GF1 & ZS3 Sample movies
http://www.youtube.com/user/mpgxsvcd#play/uploads
GF1 Pictures
http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/4222674355/albums

Sam, I assume you are using Adobe RGB with your GF1 settings? Your settings work well for me in Adobe RGB mode, and look much better than the GF1 defaults. But when I use sRGB, shooting pics of people causes them to be much more red in the face, which is something we normally want to avoid.

Thanks.
--
JDW

Hey James -

Actually, I use sRGB since it's the most widely supported output mode - most browsers use it, the lab I use uses it, etc. Have you taken the images through your entire workflow to judge the color?

James Wages said:

Sam, I assume you are using Adobe RGB with your GF1 settings? Your settings work well for me in Adobe RGB mode, and look much better than the GF1 defaults. But when I use sRGB, shooting pics of people causes them to be much more red in the face, which is something we normally want to avoid.

Thanks.
--
JDW

Click to expand...

--
Sam Bennett - http://www.swiftbennett.com

Thanks for the reply, Sam. No, I didn't go to print. I am mainly basing the "redness in the face" on what I see in comparing photos in iPhoto. There also appears to be a slight Magenta color cast after I send photos to Facebook, especially when the scene includes a lot of white (like snow) -- but maybe my eyes are just playing tricks on me.

I'll need to study this deeper, now that I know you have been using sRGB. Thanks for that info.
--
JDW

Oye, this whole thread is hurting my head.

I've been shooting JPEG's on my monster semi-pro Sony a700 rig, thinking I couldn't really see the difference, and since I was really just using the images on the screen, that RAW was overkill.

So then I bought a GF1 last week and after reading up on the subject, decided it was crazy to shot anything BUT just RAW, not even RAW + JPEG. I just import everything into Aperture and process there, if I "need" the image for something, I export to JPEG.

Could somebody explain to me the advantages or shooting JPEG?

I can only think of two:

1. The obvious file size issue, which seems a little silly, 32GB SD cards are like $60 & you can but a 1TB drive for under $100!!!

2. Rapid burst shooting, so that it writes to the card faster?

I'm not being elitist, I literally shot JPEG ONLY until last week or so, now I'm just confused!

Stephen

camera and try to make it create JPEGs to your liking when the same camera offers RAW capability? Such a waste.

Sam Bennett said:

I wasn't implying it changed the RAW data, just the metadata tags for WB, etc. This just effects what Lightroom or other RAW converters would show with default settings in the converter. In my experience, Lightroom tries its best to give you WB settings that match what was set in the camera (it clearly changes as you change settings on the camera), but its tint is usually too magenta in relation to what's set in the camera.

Click to expand...

This coincides with my findings too, comparing RAW files from the EP2 and the GH2. In ACR I could see in in the sliders for color temperature and tint. For me, adjusting both to the left just a little produced a file much closer to what came out of the EP2 in color. The magenta shift is particularly annoying (to me at least).

I'll have to mess with some of those white balances settings... Thanks for the tip!

Amy
--



Creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes. Art is knowing which ones to keep.
Twitter: http://twitter.com/DangRabbit
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/DangRabbitPhotography
PAD Project: http://www.DangRabbit.com/photography/pad
Gallery: http://www.DangRabbit.com/photography

Stephen, you must not be married. Or if you are, perhaps you refuse to allow your wife access to the GF1?

My wife doesn't want to fiddle with adjustments on RAW photos. I don't mind such but she does. Hence it makes only logical sense for her to shoot JPEG (or JPEG + RAW).

Also, if you have children, you will shoot a lot of photos. Sometimes I will want to tweak a really great photo or two from a larger set, but I most assuredly don't want to tweak all the photos individually, even though I may keep most of them in iPhoto '11.

All said, I have been seeking a way to get the same or similar in-camera JPEGs as what the Olympus EP shoots (e.g., true blue skies, normal looking skin color in people, a tad more detail in the shadows which comes from cranking down contrast, etc.)

Overall, I like Sam's settings. Cranking down the contrast is a big benefit on GF1 in-camera JPEGs. And although bumping down 1 notch toward Magenta in the White Balance adjustment does counterbalance the GF1's tendency to shoot greenish skin tones, it sometimes results in a slight color cast on white snow. And while I started out with bumping the White Balance adjustment 7-9 notches toward Yellow as Sam recommends, I am now using only 4 bumps off-center, as 7 or more bumps produces too much of a yellow cast in my photos.

And again, keep in my that your RGB camera choice will affect colors on-screen. I had been shooting Adobe RGB thinking it was better due to the wider gamut, but since I mostly view the bulk of my photos in iPhoto '11 or upload them to FaceBook, the sRGB setting does make photos look richer in that case.

I hope this helps.
--
JDW

Corkcampbell said:

camera and try to make it create JPEGs to your liking when the same camera offers RAW capability? Such a waste.

Click to expand...

I never shoot exclusively JPEG, of course - but taking the time to do this is useful for other reasons:

• When I'm on vacation, out for a weekend, etc. I like to post shots from the road using my iPad. Having better JPEGs gets me closer to where I want to be. Sometimes that means they can go up to Facebook directly, or at least with minimal post (usually cropping).
• Having accurate JPEGs gives you a better indication of how accurate your histogram and highlight warning is for the conditions you're shooting under.
• Dialing things in on the camera generally gives you a better idea of whether you're "on track" visually for what you're trying to accomplish.

--
Sam Bennett - http://www.swiftbennett.com