A new take on JPEG vs raw - Panasonic DMC-ZS20

TKinVA · Dec 30, 2012

Raw shooters claim all sorts of advantages for their methods.

What about cameras like the DMC-ZS20 that don't shoot raw?

It turns out there are methods for us JPEG shooters that yield similar results.

Blog post is here: http://artzen2.com/artzen2-0219.htm

Here's an example of a JPEG "before" image with burned-out highlight detail. Can it be saved? (Read the blog post and find out.)

"Many photographers get lost in the search for technical excellence instead of exploring new ways to grow in artistic excellence."
.
Techno-Impressionist Museum -- http://timuseum.com
Art and the Zen of Design -- http://artzen2.com
Bookstore: http://tonykarpbooks.com
The Artist's Muse -- http://artmuse2.com
Pinterest: http://pinterest.com/tonykarp/art-1/

sherman_levine · Dec 30, 2012

Tony,

That's an excellent answer, but perhaps not to the correct question. There are lots of ways to tune the color and contrast of JPG images, including even free tools such as Picasa. You don't need to resort to ACR.

Five years ago, one could make a strong case for avoiding RAW: RAW files took up much more disk space, RAW images required manual adjustment for CA and lens distortion.

Now, disk space is inexpensive, and all (or at least most) commercial RAW processing programs automatically handle CA and lens distortion. Furthermore, it's easy to adjust a camera so it adds too much NR, sharpness, etc - and once that occurs, the original image is impossible to recover.

Perhaps it's time to change the question to "Why would one shoot JPG only, when JPG+RAW is available?"

Certainly there are some "special" modes where the camera doesn't support RAW - The hand-held night shot and multi-frame HDR settings, for example -but as a general rule, shooting without RAW in a camera which supports it seems to be a high-risk behavior.

Sherm

ANAYV · Dec 30, 2012

An interesting read....

Cant say I agree totally, though.

Your example showing a image recovering only some blown highlights...but it's at 600% !!

Well...kinda not so good, IMHO....I mean , I've recovered parts of tree branches from jpegs...and not using ARC....and didn't need to blow up to 600% , just to show a small improvement.

The truth is...

The RAW image from other Panasonic camera's (FZ200, LX7,etc) would recover even more than this, I'm hoping you realize.

You then end the blog with this statement:

"....You can use the same tools that the raw-shooters use and, in most cases, your final results will be as good or better than theirs."

Huh?

Why Better that those using same tools to edit (ARC)?

Do to what?

How would one know if the RAW shooter is any good at converting and processing the image?

So who is better? (actually it depends...sometimes the Venus engine...sometimes the post processor)

So your saying that in most cases, folk can expect same or even better results than those editing with more info/data in the RAW file, than the jpeg?

Disagree.

ARC already corrects for barrel distortion and CA/PF just like the jpeg's in Panny camera's ...so advantage in shooting jpeg for corrections isn't warranted,IMHO.

Some will argue why process at all....just take the shot, and use in camera settings to adjust to taste?

We all have different needs and some will take time to get the best possible IQ out of the gear they own.

Others wont

Having owned the ZS20 as well as newer Panasonic models (and a slew of older models) I can safely say, if my ZS20 had RAW....I would use it....maybe not always...

but I know I'd be able to get more detail at the higher iso settings , due to me controlling how much NR is used, and not the ZS20...and the slowish lens at the tele end makes for use of iso 400 to 1600 at times,when I shoot.

Nothing to debate...just truth as I've experienced.

RAW in Panasonic camera's retain more detail, especially at higher iso settings.

My FZ8 had no chroma noise at base iso.....and lots of detail...but only in RAW.

ARC automatically removed the chroma noise leaving the detail.

Jpeg's had chroma noise , especially when under exposing (which I do a lot).

Venus engine smeared some of the details.

RAW and ARC to the rescue.....

Proofs in the pudding....experience is where I'm coming from....and most Panny's will have a bit better results in RAW.

Sometimes it's hardly noticeable....other times, it can be more of a difference....but RAW will most always give better results, in the right hands.

I respect your artistic works and photographic eye, Tony, ...but can't agree to some things you write...almost as if you haven't experienced both sides first, before revealing the evidence.

ANAYV

Erik Ohlson · Dec 30, 2012

Really good info, Tony.

As you may or may not know - or care - IMHO "RAW" is greatly over-rated and thrives to some extent on the "cool" sound of it, despite some very knowledgeable supporters, (above).

And now, you point out that much of the "RAW" mystique is due to the processor, not the source of the image - good stuff!

I've actually used the PSE8 RAW processor, as well as experimenting with "RAW" files from my FZ-18 (wasn't impressed).

I shall now try your routine with great interest.

As to "blown highlights" - and some specular reflections need to be "blown", we mustn't forget - I usually do just fine with a -2/3 EV and maybe some "Lighten Shadows" to bring the darker areas forward to balance the image. Your enhanced colors are enough in themselves to warrant checking out your methods.

And to think I just completed my 2013 family calendar: 130 8x12 prints - before learning this.

I've just completed an experiment with Aperture mode - wide open, which makes it look like the dreaded "Smearing" often thrown up against the TZ/ZS series is more a product of diffraction than the +/- noise reduction settings and such that it has been blamed on. Note especially the ƒ8 smearing:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3358615

Now, to try some "vibrance"

with words like "Vibrance" & "RAW" how can it NOT seem better ?

-Erik

--
'He who hesitates is not only lost - he's miles from the next Exit.'
www.flickr.com/ohlsonmh/ [email protected]

sherman_levine · Dec 30, 2012

Erik,

If you're tool-browsing, don't overlook Snapseed. For $20 (Windows or Mac). It has some wonderful global tools, plus "set point" (X,Y,radius) tuning as well. Currently it has a horrible interface - you need to drag images onto the open Snapseed program in order to edit them - but it's recently been bought by Google, and I suspect big changes will be on their way.

Don't get me wrong about JPGs. I _like_ JPGs - and before my recent converstion I liked _only_ JPGs. The release of SP5.0 together with a few too many images which were taken with the "wrong" in-camera NR/Sharpening settings and would have been recoverable as RW2 has convinced me that I don't need to...or want to...use "JPG only" any more

Sherm

morepix · Dec 30, 2012

sherman_levine said:
sherman_levine wrote:

Erik,

If you're tool-browsing, don't overlook Snapseed. For $20 (Windows or Mac). It has some wonderful global tools, plus "set point" (X,Y,radius) tuning as well. Currently it has a horrible interface - you need to drag images onto the open Snapseed program in order to edit them - but it's recently been bought by Google, and I suspect big changes will be on their way.

I agree, Snapseed is a fun tool and a real bargain at $20. And as I discovered just the other day, dragging images onto it is not the only way to use it. It can be set up as an external editor from/to Lightroom (4 anyway). It's all explained here .

sherman_levine · Dec 30, 2012

morepix said:
morepix wrote:

morepix said:

sherman_levine wrote:

Erik,

If you're tool-browsing, don't overlook Snapseed. For $20 (Windows or Mac). It has some wonderful global tools, plus "set point" (X,Y,radius) tuning as well. Currently it has a horrible interface - you need to drag images onto the open Snapseed program in order to edit them - but it's recently been bought by Google, and I suspect big changes will be on their way.

Click to expand...

I agree, Snapseed is a fun tool and a real bargain at $20. And as I discovered just the other day, dragging images onto it is not the only way to use it. It can be set up as an external editor from/to Lightroom (4 anyway). It's all explained here .

Erik Ohlson · Dec 30, 2012

Probably just as well I stick with what I have - not knocking your suggestion, it's taken me 5 years or more (don't actually remember :-|, likely a sign of age) to finally feel like I get out of PSE what my "vision" requires.

And, yeah, using PSE's RAW converter is a bit different, but maybe (or maybe not) it can add some depth to PP without going too far out of mt (PSE) comfort zone.

Mostly, my preferred cameras are strong on long zoom and small size, which for unknown reasons Panasonic & other manufacturers leave "raw" out of. maybe they think they are "punishing" us. :-O

I wouldn't compromise that for what - to me - is more 'gimmicky' than necessary - sorry, "YMMV" & all, not knocking your preferences, just stating mine.

Plenty of room for varying opinion.

One thing I have learned in the past 65 years of photography is that very, very few people actually notice the fine points.

I'd rather worry about such horrors a "Touch Screens" (Shudder)

New Year's Cheers! =Erik

--
'He who hesitates is not only lost - he's miles from the next Exit.'
www.flickr.com/ohlsonmh/ [email protected]

Gary Waugh · Dec 31, 2012

Fixing white balance is another great use of a raw converter on a jpg file.

Rudy Pohl · Dec 31, 2012

Erik Ohlson said:
Erik Ohlson wrote:

One thing I have learned in the past 65 years of photography is that very, very few people actually notice the fine points.

I've noticed the very same thing!

Rudy

TKinVA · Dec 31, 2012

You're the one who talked me into getting a ZS20. (And thank you again for that.) The camera only shoots JPEGs, so I don't even have the choice of not shooting raw.

Seriously, though, I was amazed at how much you could get out of a hopeless-looking JPEG using ACR. I tried the other photo editing programs, but I was unsuccessful in matching the results from ACR. I have Photoshop CS5 Extended. but it uses ACR as a front end, which is very effective.

I use Adobe Bridge for cataloging, and in Bridge you can just right-click on an image and select "Open in Camera Raw..." which saves a lot of time.

Here's an oddity. You can open a JPEG (or any bitmap file) in ACR and save it as a DNG. Now you have a JPEG-to-raw converter. I wonder if you can use it for those times you wish you had shot raw.

.

"Many photographers get lost in the search for technical excellence instead of exploring new ways to grow in artistic excellence."
.
Techno-Impressionist Museum -- http://timuseum.com
Art and the Zen of Design -- http://artzen2.com
Bookstore: http://tonykarpbooks.com
The Artist's Muse -- http://artmuse2.com
Pinterest: http://pinterest.com/tonykarp/art-1/

Erik Ohlson said:
Erik Ohlson wrote:

Really good info, Tony.

As you may or may not know - or care - IMHO "RAW" is greatly over-rated and thrives to some extent on the "cool" sound of it, despite some very knowledgeable supporters, (above).

And now, you point out that much of the "RAW" mystique is due to the processor, not the source of the image - good stuff!

I've actually used the PSE8 RAW processor, as well as experimenting with "RAW" files from my FZ-18 (wasn't impressed).

I shall now try your routine with great interest.

As to "blown highlights" - and some specular reflections need to be "blown", we mustn't forget - I usually do just fine with a -2/3 EV and maybe some "Lighten Shadows" to bring the darker areas forward to balance the image. Your enhanced colors are enough in themselves to warrant checking out your methods.

And to think I just completed my 2013 family calendar: 130 8x12 prints - before learning this.

I've just completed an experiment with Aperture mode - wide open, which makes it look like the dreaded "Smearing" often thrown up against the TZ/ZS series is more a product of diffraction than the +/- noise reduction settings and such that it has been blamed on. Note especially the ƒ8 smearing:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3358615

Now, to try some "vibrance" with words like "Vibrance" & "RAW" how can it NOT seem better ?

-Erik

--
'He who hesitates is not only lost - he's miles from the next Exit.'
www.flickr.com/ohlsonmh/ [email protected]

TKinVA · Dec 31, 2012

I think you may have missed what I was getting at.

I'm currently shooting with a DMC-ZS20, which doesn't shoot raw, just JPEGs. So raw-vs-JPEG isn't at issue here.

But I was looking at some overexposed pictures and I wondered if you could use the same tools the raw-shooters use, in order to things like restoring highlight detail.

It turns out that Adobe Camera Raw can do some interesting things to JPEG images that I haven't been able to achieve with regular editors such as Photoshop (I have CS5 Extended).

I can hear everybody jumping up and shouting that they can do it with their favorite editing program. Perhaps you can, but in ACR it becomes trivial, just a matter of moving some sliders.

Think of what I wrote as a how-to article, aimed at solving a specific problem (with examples), rather than as one more discussion of this vs that.

.

"Many photographers get lost in the search for technical excellence instead of exploring new ways to grow in artistic excellence."
.
Techno-Impressionist Museum -- http://timuseum.com
Art and the Zen of Design -- http://artzen2.com
Bookstore: http://tonykarpbooks.com
The Artist's Muse -- http://artmuse2.com
Pinterest: http://pinterest.com/tonykarp/art-1/

sherman_levine said:
sherman_levine wrote:

Tony,

That's an excellent answer, but perhaps not to the correct question. There are lots of ways to tune the color and contrast of JPG images, including even free tools such as Picasa. You don't need to resort to ACR.

Five years ago, one could make a strong case for avoiding RAW: RAW files took up much more disk space, RAW images required manual adjustment for CA and lens distortion.

Now, disk space is inexpensive, and all (or at least most) commercial RAW processing programs automatically handle CA and lens distortion. Furthermore, it's easy to adjust a camera so it adds too much NR, sharpness, etc - and once that occurs, the original image is impossible to recover.

Perhaps it's time to change the question to "Why would one shoot JPG only, when JPG+RAW is available?"

Certainly there are some "special" modes where the camera doesn't support RAW - The hand-held night shot and multi-frame HDR settings, for example -but as a general rule, shooting without RAW in a camera which supports it seems to be a high-risk behavior.

Sherm

sherman_levine · Dec 31, 2012

TKinVA said:
TKinVA wrote:

I think you may have missed what I was getting at.

I'm currently shooting with a DMC-ZS20, which doesn't shoot raw, just JPEGs. So raw-vs-JPEG isn't at issue here.

But I was looking at some overexposed pictures and I wondered if you could use the same tools the raw-shooters use, in order to things like restoring highlight detail.

It turns out that Adobe Camera Raw can do some interesting things to JPEG images that I haven't been able to achieve with regular editors such as Photoshop (I have CS5 Extended).

I can hear everybody jumping up and shouting that they can do it with their favorite editing program. Perhaps you can, but in ACR it becomes trivial, just a matter of moving some sliders.

Think of what I wrote as a how-to article, aimed at solving a specific problem (with examples), rather than as one more discussion of this vs that.

.

"Many photographers get lost in the search for technical excellence instead of exploring new ways to grow in artistic excellence."
.
Techno-Impressionist Museum -- http://timuseum.com
Art and the Zen of Design -- http://artzen2.com
Bookstore: http://tonykarpbooks.com
The Artist's Muse -- http://artmuse2.com
Pinterest: http://pinterest.com/tonykarp/art-1/

TKinVA said:

sherman_levine wrote:

Tony,

That's an excellent answer, but perhaps not to the correct question. There are lots of ways to tune the color and contrast of JPG images, including even free tools such as Picasa. You don't need to resort to ACR.

Five years ago, one could make a strong case for avoiding RAW: RAW files took up much more disk space, RAW images required manual adjustment for CA and lens distortion.

Now, disk space is inexpensive, and all (or at least most) commercial RAW processing programs automatically handle CA and lens distortion. Furthermore, it's easy to adjust a camera so it adds too much NR, sharpness, etc - and once that occurs, the original image is impossible to recover.

Perhaps it's time to change the question to "Why would one shoot JPG only, when JPG+RAW is available?"

Certainly there are some "special" modes where the camera doesn't support RAW - The hand-held night shot and multi-frame HDR settings, for example -but as a general rule, shooting without RAW in a camera which supports it seems to be a high-risk behavior.

Sherm

Click to expand...

Tony,

Right - I was mostly in my "Once you cook the tuna you can never go back to sushi" mode - but I can make the same modifications you're showing with ACR by moving some sliders in Snapseed. Give it a quick try - you might be surprised.

Sherm

R Johns · Dec 31, 2012

You share some good tips for squeezing the most out of a JPEG, as possible...

I am a RAW shooter, because I will always get the best results from a RAW file, but you do offer some hope for those who cannot record RAW files.

Thanks for sharing, and Happy New Year...

Russ

~ Greater is He that is within me, than he who is in this world... ~

Erik Ohlson · Dec 31, 2012

sherman_levine said:
sherman_levine wrote:

sherman_levine said:

TKinVA wrote:

I think you may have missed what I was getting at.

I'm currently shooting with a DMC-ZS20, which doesn't shoot raw, just JPEGs. So raw-vs-JPEG isn't at issue here.

But I was looking at some overexposed pictures and I wondered if you could use the same tools the raw-shooters use, in order to things like restoring highlight detail.

It turns out that Adobe Camera Raw can do some interesting things to JPEG images that I haven't been able to achieve with regular editors such as Photoshop (I have CS5 Extended).

I can hear everybody jumping up and shouting that they can do it with their favorite editing program. Perhaps you can, but in ACR it becomes trivial, just a matter of moving some sliders.

Think of what I wrote as a how-to article, aimed at solving a specific problem (with examples), rather than as one more discussion of this vs that.

.

"Many photographers get lost in the search for technical excellence instead of exploring new ways to grow in artistic excellence."
.
Techno-Impressionist Museum -- http://timuseum.com
Art and the Zen of Design -- http://artzen2.com
Bookstore: http://tonykarpbooks.com
The Artist's Muse -- http://artmuse2.com
Pinterest: http://pinterest.com/tonykarp/art-1/

sherman_levine said:

sherman_levine wrote:

Tony,

That's an excellent answer, but perhaps not to the correct question. There are lots of ways to tune the color and contrast of JPG images, including even free tools such as Picasa. You don't need to resort to ACR.

Five years ago, one could make a strong case for avoiding RAW: RAW files took up much more disk space, RAW images required manual adjustment for CA and lens distortion.

Now, disk space is inexpensive, and all (or at least most) commercial RAW processing programs automatically handle CA and lens distortion. Furthermore, it's easy to adjust a camera so it adds too much NR, sharpness, etc - and once that occurs, the original image is impossible to recover.

Perhaps it's time to change the question to "Why would one shoot JPG only, when JPG+RAW is available?"

Certainly there are some "special" modes where the camera doesn't support RAW - The hand-held night shot and multi-frame HDR settings, for example -but as a general rule, shooting without RAW in a camera which supports it seems to be a high-risk behavior.

Sherm

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Tony,

Right - I was mostly in my "Once you cook the tuna you can never go back to sushi" mode - but I can make the same modifications you're showing with ACR by moving some sliders in Snapseed. Give it a quick try - you might be surprised.

Sherm

I "Dunno' " - why?

I checked Snapseed's website and was badly underwhelmed - among other things, it was slow, and among all the whiz-bang exciement about how wonderful it is, they forgot to mention in which WAY it's wonderful.

I did not persist very long, but I never found out what it's supposed to DO - other than go to meetings with an iPad.

So far, I'll stick with PSE8.

It does raise questions, but as near as I can tell, Snapseed is not a Game-Changer like, say, a Clearviewer.

-Erik

Signature not posting today. :-|

--
'He who hesitates is not only lost - he's miles from the next Exit.'
www.flickr.com/ohlsonmh/ [email protected]

morepix · Dec 31, 2012

TKinVA said:
TKinVA wrote:
Here's an oddity. You can open a JPEG (or any bitmap file) in ACR and save it as a DNG. Now you have a JPEG-to-raw converter. I wonder if you can use it for those times you wish you had shot raw.

Wonder not. You know what the Second Law of Thermodynamics says: "There's no free informational lunch." What you get is a linear DNG, one of three types, lacking the full information that a camera raw file has. Google info on the limitations of linear DNGs. Or pop over to the Micro Four Thirds forum and ask Detail Man.

Warning: You may be better off researching it yourself.

=> DM.

sherman_levine · Jan 1, 2013

Erik,

Here are the 6 image pairs from Tony's site, with my match attempt in Snapseed.

For five of the images, I started with the top right (dark) slider presets, and then changed the sliders to get what I thought was the best match to the "after ACR". For the sixth, I used one of the "drama" filters as a start. Didn't take very long for any of them.

I probably could have done the same in Picasa, which has better color adjustments but lacks the very nice "ambiance" slider. I'm sure you could do the same with PS.

All I'm trying to say here is that there are many products, including ACR, which can adjust JPGs, but that doesn't turn the JPGs into RAWs. Ultimately, you're limited by the JPG's 8-bit data and whatever the camera's done to post-process the sensor capture.

Sherm

TKinVA · Jan 1, 2013

You have uncovered the secret message.

"There are those who believe that the JPEG images, straight from the camera have this unchangeable, etched-in-stone quality and that you're stuck with whatever the camera produces. Nothing could be further from the truth."

I think that your demonstration proves this as well. And you've done it with a simple, inexpensive product.

But I'm curious about this last paragraph:
"All I'm trying to say here is that there are many products, including ACR, which can adjust JPGs, but that doesn't turn the JPGs into RAWs. Ultimately, you're limited by the JPG's 8-bit data and whatever the camera's done to post-process the sensor capture."

Can you explain this a little?

.

"Many photographers get lost in the search for technical excellence instead of exploring new ways to grow in artistic excellence."
.
Techno-Impressionist Museum -- http://timuseum.com
Art and the Zen of Design -- http://artzen2.com
Bookstore: http://tonykarpbooks.com
The Artist's Muse -- http://artmuse2.com
Pinterest: http://pinterest.com/tonykarp/art-1/

sherman_levine said:
sherman_levine wrote:

Erik,

Here are the 6 image pairs from Tony's site, with my match attempt in Snapseed.

For five of the images, I started with the top right (dark) slider presets, and then changed the sliders to get what I thought was the best match to the "after ACR". For the sixth, I used one of the "drama" filters as a start. Didn't take very long for any of them.

I probably could have done the same in Picasa, which has better color adjustments but lacks the very nice "ambiance" slider. I'm sure you could do the same with PS.
All I'm trying to say here is that there are many products, including ACR, which can adjust JPGs, but that doesn't turn the JPGs into RAWs. Ultimately, you're limited by the JPG's 8-bit data and whatever the camera's done to post-process the sensor capture.

Sherm

sherman_levine · Jan 1, 2013

TKinVA said:
TKinVA wrote:

You have uncovered the secret message.

"There are those who believe that the JPEG images, straight from the camera have this unchangeable, etched-in-stone quality and that you're stuck with whatever the camera produces. Nothing could be further from the truth."

I don't think anybody on this forum thinks we're stuck with whatever the JPG engine produces. We all brighten and darken and re-contrast and...and... using any of dozens of available tools which work fine on JPGs.

The problem is that some of what the JPG engine produces and stores on the memory card is bad and irreversibly damaged.

I had set the camera to sharpen +1 or +2 here, and the image is terribly oversharpened. I'm stuck with it because there's no simple transform to reverse the sharpening artifact. Had I shot in RAW, I'd have been fine. The common complaints about about a camera's "smearing" or "excessive noise reduction" refer to artifacts which can't be reversed. Unfortunately, the camera doesn't have a "Just save the JPG, don't diddle with it" setting - so your only alternative is Raw.

TKinVA said:
I think that your demonstration proves this as well. And you've done it with a simple, inexpensive product.

But I'm curious about this last paragraph:
"All I'm trying to say here is that there are many products, including ACR, which can adjust JPGs, but that doesn't turn the JPGs into RAWs. Ultimately, you're limited by the JPG's 8-bit data and whatever the camera's done to post-process the sensor capture."

Can you explain this a little?

.

To my knowledge, the JPG format stores just 8 bits per channel (255 levels).

TKinVA said:
"Many photographers get lost in the search for technical excellence instead of exploring new ways to grow in artistic excellence."
.
Techno-Impressionist Museum -- http://timuseum.com
Art and the Zen of Design -- http://artzen2.com
Bookstore: http://tonykarpbooks.com
The Artist's Muse -- http://artmuse2.com
Pinterest: http://pinterest.com/tonykarp/art-1/

TKinVA said:

sherman_levine wrote:

Erik,

Here are the 6 image pairs from Tony's site, with my match attempt in Snapseed.

For five of the images, I started with the top right (dark) slider presets, and then changed the sliders to get what I thought was the best match to the "after ACR". For the sixth, I used one of the "drama" filters as a start. Didn't take very long for any of them.

I probably could have done the same in Picasa, which has better color adjustments but lacks the very nice "ambiance" slider. I'm sure you could do the same with PS.
All I'm trying to say here is that there are many products, including ACR, which can adjust JPGs, but that doesn't turn the JPGs into RAWs. Ultimately, you're limited by the JPG's 8-bit data and whatever the camera's done to post-process the sensor capture.

Sherm

Click to expand...

Sherm

...Shoot RAW. Get the chicken, not the nugget.

Rossuziers · Jan 1, 2013

For the most part, as I see it, without actually bothering to resort to ACR & opening a JPG as a raw & fiddling with tools I know little of...

I generally do what you did with merely the highlight & shadow adjs, with or without any other tools such as levels & maybe some saturation, at first in PSE & since in the free program FastStone Image Viewer.. And as a side note, If I wasn't such a neanderthal with curves that I just can't grasp in any-way-shape-or-form that I'm sure would also go a long way to recovering hi-lites & raising shadows in JPG's.. Predominantly with my Lx3 & Fz50 & only a little with my Tz5 only because I use the TZ so little..

I have each JPG engine in-cam tweeked to my liking with respect to, generally setting contrast to 0 or minus.. Saturation likewise in the Fz but maybe a touch to the plus in the Lx3 due to starting in the rather dull Nostalgia Film out-of-the-gate.. To a degree, in most cams, JPG engines can be helped, in-cam, to accept some editing better, if you know editing will be part of your process... Usually that means de-tuning the default in-camera settings of the JPG engine most notably with regard to sharpening & contrast & I suppose NR too & to a lesser degree saturation... Granted not as much as raw but enough to pull off what you've shown here...

I feel that generally all cams JPG engines are way over-saturated & frankly most images I see posted also tend to be at varying degrees of over-saturated, especially in overcast conditions & with the possible exception of flowers.

And to lessen artifacts I've set sharpening to as low as any cam I've had that has the ability to be set, as low as possible & sharpen to my taste, usually globally, likewise in PSE & since in FastStone although FastStones sharpen tool isn't quite up to PSE's tool, which while similar enough for me helps to reign me in & prevent me from over-sharpening...

If Picasa was just a little different in the way its tools are set up, I'm pretty sure the same could be achieved in that program...

I'm no noise-a-phobe neither like most are & for me noise really doesn't pose much of a prob until under-exposure is significant although the Fz 50 is a bit more limiting in that respect as is the Fz30 even more so.. If I had the latest Fz & Lx, I doubt I'd even concern myself with noise, at least until Iso gets well into 4 or 5 figures...

I understand the quest for technical perfection at all iso, especially just to keep the companies on their toes to overcome it with each new generation but it's just not as much the issue to me as everyone else, especially when I remember how much more it occurred in film at merely 400-800 ASA...

Needless to say, I'll not be resorting to raw anytime in my foreseeable future nor the software for it to work on JPG's, even with the 3, 4 & 5 generation old Cams I don't see me upgrading for at least another two generations or more barring physical loss or destruction of them ;-}

PS:

All this quest to recover hi-lites while admittedly a bit of a prob, really is also blown out of proportion... where most hi-lites may be blown are usually in areas where they're even blown to the naked eye & happens in nature only just a bit more.. When you shoot into the sun the sun as well as the closest clouds to it are usually also blown out likewise waxy shiny green leaves that shine to the naked eye as well as ripples on water etc... Geeze it's gotten to the point where even if it's there it must be gotten rid of...

A new take on JPEG vs raw - Panasonic DMC-ZS20

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Attachments

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Keyboard shortcuts