LUMIX LX100 II: Reduce JPG Shot brightness without affecting RAW

Started 2 months ago | Discussions thread
OP LowLightCompactBuyer New Member • Posts: 15
Re: You can do this - some samples

Boo wrote:

LowLightCompactBuyer wrote:

Very nice post!

Hmmm very interesting... these are additional settings ... perhaps they might do the trick. I do note that in the manual, the curves show the midpoint as fixed and not adjustable, with curves on either side of it being adjustable. I'll have to fiddle with those, maybe my beef is restricted to only the top half of the curve... but if that chosen mid point is too high for my taste, I'm out of luck ... might have to get used to always processing RAW.

Thanks!

I suspect that I'm perhaps not understanding what your issue is with the JPEGs v RAW results. But I think it's widely accepted that Panasonic cameras tend to over-expose a little and I think most users have EC set at -0.33 or more as a consequence. So it may just be this issue you're experiencing.

Because I like flat JPEGs as a pseudo raw file to process to taste, to allow me to retain as much detail at the extremes as possible, I use flat processing, as illustrated. This tends to make my JPEG's a little bright overall out of camera, so I tend to underexpose more than most, to compensate. I'm not touting it as the answer for everyone, but I like how it works for my subjects and how I choose to work.

So maybe you just have to find the combination that works for your preferences and tastes. My starting suggestion would be to set the in-camera processing so that the JPEGs look right OOC for your requirements, then adjust the RAWs accordingly as and when you process them.

It may be, that trying to force your RAW file to be the same as your JPEG is unnecessary - as the RAW files have a lot of latitude for raising shadow areas, probably moreso that at the top end. If you know that you systematically underexpose, you can set a pre-set processing parameter to process to your taste - even on a fairly automated basis. I would suggest that it's easier to make the RAW result fit the JPEG than the other way - so get your settings and exposure technique right for the JPEGs OOC and then work out how to best use the RAW files to get the results from them.

I have a test scene that I use for trying different things with during RAW development as it was an extreme dynamic range and as the camera was pretty new to me, I sat for a while deliberately taking this scene with a number of different approaches, as it gave me a series of images that were wrong in all manner of ways.

This was the OOC JPEG for one of the versions - exposed for the sky, but even that had blown areas and the deep shadow behind this conifer was almost completely black, nothing to be done with it really. I think this was probably before I started using the highlight shadow option.

A scene that was perhaps beyond the camera's dynamic range as a JPEG

This is developed from the RAW in DxO Photolab - using a flat tone profile that I am finding very good for this sort of testing scene. I didn't touch EC, it was as shot, I just applied my own deep dynamic range pre-set and then pulled highlights back another few points and lifted shadows and black point about the same. Yet look much more detail the RAW has been able to drag out from the deep shadows for the foreground trees. I've done earlier versions of this scene by doing local adjustments - down over the sky, but up over the trees - which took rather longer, but this flat tone profile is proving very good as a starting point for high dynamic range.

a 15 second fix in DxO drew this from the same scene.

So the point of showing you that was to suggest that you tweak the camera settings to get JPEGs out that you like, allowing the RAW to be developed to taste, as required, as it has much more leeway for doing so. This is an extreme example, but it shows that data lost from the JPEG is still there, at both ends. I could almost certainly have got more from that bit of bright cloud with a local adjustment, but in this instance it was an exercise, for myself, to see how good I could get a preset for speedy results.

Ah. So even after getting my JPG as close to what I like, I shouldn't worry about the negative effects of a small "-" EV setting on the RW2 shot.  This is an accurate and astute observation.  Slight underexposure can be compensated.

Very telling experiment. (To tell you the truth I find the first picture much more beautiful and natural looking, and would likely find a 7:3 mix of the two shots as the optimum, but that's my subjective taste in nature/landscape shots... which I think have gone way too wacky lately.... I can find almost NO natural looking landscape shots online anymore... and  people complain about airbrushing and photoshopping of models and celebrities... but I digress)  Thank you very much!

Using EV also means I can stay linear... since I want JPG shots that look as natural as possible,  I might start with EV -0.33 and work my way down as necessary.  Again thank you!

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow