FZ 38 RAW or Jpeg ??

[Sir Monty Golfear]

Hi,

I own a lumix fz38, I have always shot in jpeg. Just recently I have tried RAW using Photoshop elements 10 and Silky Pix software (supplied with camera). I have not yet been able to benefit from the work put into the RAW development, as my JPEGs always seem to be better or at least no worse. My question is......Am I wasting my time with RAW ??

Ian

 

[Detail Man]

Sir Monty Golfear wrote:

I own a lumix fz38, I have always shot in jpeg. Just recently I have tried RAW using Photoshop elements 10 and Silky Pix software (supplied with camera). I have not yet been able to benefit from the work put into the RAW development, as my JPEGs always seem to be better or at least no worse. My question is......Am I wasting my time with RAW ??

I myself have found Silkypix SE 3.x to be rather limited - and typically requires a great deal of often frustrating effort in order to equal (or best) the in-camera JPG of Lumix compacts. This fact nearly caused me to give up on RAW processing entirely in the past - until I discovered another RAW processor (DxO Optics Pro 6.x) that made all the difference in the world (in the case of my LX3 RW2s, which it supports). It does not support FZ35/38 RW2s, however ...

The item for you to try instead is the (free) Camera RAW 6.x for PS Elements Versions 9.x and 10.x - which has the best Color NR of any RAW processor engine that I have worked with. It has the same functionality that Lightroom 3.x has (at least when used as a plug-in for Photoshop).

I find the Sharpening tools a bit frustrating myself (tip: keep the "Detail" slider at low or Zero settings; it produces some gritty artifacts that I find to be objectionable). Post-USM following downwards re-sizing of a 16-bit TIF exported from PSE gives (me) better results. After that, convert the (USM sharpened) TIF to a JPG image-file.

The plug-in (appropriate for the specific versions of PSE 9.x and 10.x) can be downloaded here:

CR 6.5 for PC: http://www.adobe.com/support/downloads/detail.jsp?ftpID=5260

CR 6.5 for Mac: http://www.adobe.com/support/downloads/detail.jsp?ftpID=5259

Another good option (if your system has 2 GB or more of RAM) is the free, high quality, and non-invasive RAW Therapee 4.x. Get the right build for your system here:

http://rawtherapee.com/downloads

Documentation at: http://rawtherapee.com/blog/documentation

 

[Sir Monty Golfear]

Hi,

Thanks for your really good advice. I have elements 10 whichnis compatable with both my dmc L10 and FZ38. I will try the tips you have given me. I am just unsure what USM stands for ( sorry ). I have been trying raw development with ACR in elements 10. I always turn the sharpening down to nil. I have then done any adjustments , then opened up in photoshop as an 8bit image , then usually use the auto sharpen tool . I have also used ACR and sharpened the imag there too, but I haven't usually able to better the in camera jpegs if the picture is well exposed.

I will try your method,

Cheers

Ian

 

[Detail Man]

Sir Monty Golfear wrote:

Thanks for your really good advice. I have elements 10 which is compatable with both my dmc L10 and FZ38. I will try the tips you have given me. I am just unsure what USM stands for ( sorry ).

(I should have, as I usually do, spelled out) Unsharp Masking (USM). I like to use the conservative Radius of 0.5 pixel, a Strength of 50% to 100%, and a Threshold (called "Masking" in Adobe apps) of 3% - 5% of the full-scale numerical value of the control. Sharpening is best accomplished here at this nearly final stage (because it will then be appropriate for the re-sampled pixel-data values).

I have been trying raw development with ACR in elements 10. I always turn the sharpening down to nil. I have then done any adjustments , then opened up in photoshop as an 8bit image , then usually use the auto sharpen tool . I have also used ACR and sharpened the imag there too, but I haven't usually able to better the in camera jpegs if the picture is well exposed.

Well, if you have (already) been using Camera RAW 6.x versions in PSE, and that is what you find, then that may be telling you something ... However, if your ACR has been a 5.x Version, definitely give the 6.5 version a try (it's said to be much better, especially where it comes to the NR tools).
.

A Possible Procedure

(1) Process the image (except for any sharpening) and downwardly re-size it (to the final "screen-size" that you want) using CR 6.x in PSE (9.x or 10.x); export a 16-bit (if possible) TIF (or 8-bit if that is all that it will make). Since the TIF will already be down-sized (in pixel size), the byte-size of the file won't be too bad (less than 12 Mbytes).

You may be able to just open the 16-bit TIF file that PSE creates for you at your requested smaller final pixel-size for presentation using it's (probably Bicubic) re-sizer (re-sampler). If one is able to open a 16-bit TIF using PSE 9.x/10.x without further altering the already processed image-data (which is the way that Lightroom 3.x behaves when a TIF or JPG is opened for image-editing) then by all means:

(2) Perform only a USM operation using the Camera RAW Sharpening tools [by being sure to adjust the "Detail" control-slider in the Camera RAW Sharpening tools to Zero (0)]; and

(3) Make a final JPG of the Quality Factor that you want (and perhaps with Chroma Sub-sampling also disabled). It's better overall approach to maximize the Quality Factor (to 95% or higher) than to disable Chroma Sub-sampling. The tool that makes JPGs in PSE 9.x/10.x likely has those adjustments for controlling the parameters (and "image-quality" of) the JPEG conversion to your "final product".
.

Notes :

You could (alternatively) use the USM tool in any other image-editor. Using PSE itself (may) perform the USM operation using 16-bit arithmetic. PaintShop Pro 4X has a high quality and nicely adjustable USM tool (which is 16-bit arithmetic for sure). Many image-editors may have an adjustable USM tool on board. If it's only 8-bit, go with that ...

Save the processed TIF with USM applied, and you could always later make different JPGs with various amounts of compression (and varying in byte-size).

When the image is converted from (a 16-bit) TIF format to a JPG, that will always (irreversibly) reduce the per color-channel depth to 8-bit.

The FZ35/38 has a fairly high level of Read Noise (which limits Dynamic Range, and low-light level performance). The excellent Color NR control (25% - 50%) with sparing use of the Luminance NR control in CR LR-3.x/CR-6.x should go a long way towards improving the overall Signal/Noise Ratio.

 

[Erik Ohlson]

In most cases the JPEG will do everything you need.

Very rarely the "RAW" will get a touch better, but in most cases only at the pixil-peeping level.

It's not really worth your trouble, IMHO.

-Erik
--
DP Review Supporter.



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

 

[Sir Monty Golfear]

Hi, thanks for that really detailed answer. I really appreciate it. If there is one area that might be able to improved over the fz38 jpegs , it would be the noise that sometimes appear if shooting at 800 iso sometimes ( depending on image type, and exposure). As a sideline , I have noticed that if the raw file is opened up in silky pix with the default settings, then the noise appears to be higher than the OOC jpeg version. If opened up in ACR then it appears to be better and closer to the jpeg. It just proves that the jpeg engine is quite sophisticated. I have never tried th USM , so with your recommendations I shall give it a good go. It sounds like with a bit of experimentation it could be possible to improve the noise in some of my images.

I do think it is worth a try, even though the camera is only a bridge camera, and would be considered by some, as not worth the effort. I find the images I get in jpeg are very good , clean and crisp even compared to the Olympus ep1 with 17mm pancake lens that I use too.
Thanks so much for your reply.

I will certainly give that a whirl.

Cheers
Ian

 

[Sir Monty Golfear]

Hi,

Yes that is and has been my general opinion, as I always try and get the exposure/ image correct in camera to give the jpeg engine a chance.

Am just curious that after being told many a time on forums, and reading in mags that RAW is the way forward, that I should at least give it a good go...

Cheers

Ian

 

[Detail Man]

Sir Monty Golfear wrote:
Hi,

Yes that is and has been my general opinion, as I always try and get the exposure/ image correct in camera to give the jpeg engine a chance.

Am just curious that after being told many a time on forums, and reading in mags that RAW is the way forward, that I should at least give it a good go...

There are around four people who post here who will go out of their way to assure you that they are (completely in general, as some kind of blanket all-applying statement) "sure" that nobody will ever benefit more than one or two "iotas" from recording and processing in RAW. In only one case (not the one here) has their been any indication that these people have ever actually worked with RAW format processing to any degre except for the most limited and cursory stabs at it. It's more an "ideological" need to convince you to think like them ... Perhaps you would prefer to judge ...

The NR in Camera RAW 6.x (particularly the Color NR) is vastly higher quality than any in-camera JPG "engines" in any Lumix camera model. Your FZ38 is a fairly noisy camera (read noise is fairly high as the FZ-Series camera models go). You need, and will benefit from using the ACR 6.x NR alone !

The prcodere listed below is no more complicated than post-procssing a JPG image-file. Period.

Don't worry about how RW2 images first look in the RAW processors. That doesn't tell the story.
.

Straightforward RW2 Processing using Camera RAW 6.x :

(1) Adjust the "Exposure" control as desired (in order to come close to the desired amount of brightness in the strongest Highlight Tones);

(2) Adjust the "Black" control to Zero (0), then slowly raise it's value no more than necessary (typically less than to the default value of 5; no need to "throw-away" too many Shadow Tones);

(3) Adjust the "Contrast" as desired;

(4) Adjust the "Vibrance" (smart color-saturation) as desired (with a little bit of "Saturation", too, if you are wanting more color-saturation);

(5) Adjust "Brightness" slightly around default setting of 50 (if image brightness isn't quite right);

(6) Go to the "Detail" tools. Disable the Sharpening tools [by setting Strength to Zero (0)]. Slowly raise the setting of the Color NR control-slider (say between 20% and 80%, depending on the amount of image-noise present). If "luminance noise" is still visible, slowly raise the setting of the Luminance NR control-slider (but only to levels that are small; less is more to preserve image-detail);

(7) If you end up using a Color NR setting of 50 or higher, you may see some color de-saturation effects. In that case, increase the "Vibrance" control-settings to compensate for that de-saturation

(8) Export a 16-bit (if possible) TIFF image-file that is re-sized to the pixel-size that you want to present the image;

(9) Mess around with that TIFF image-file further in PSE if you wish to (without sharpening); then

(10) Use the methods described for sharpening the image using a USM tool on the image and converting it to a final JPG image-file (the potential procedures that are described in previous post)

 

[Sir Monty Golfear]

That's great,

I do intend to try it.

Brilliant !

Cheers for your time

Ian

 

[Detail Man]

Sir Monty Golfear wrote:
That's great,
I do intend to try it.
Brilliant !
Cheers for your time

You bet ! ...

The proposed ACR 6.x "procedure" performs the important stuff in the correct order of adjusting .

It occurs to me that you (may) need to rename the PSE-produced 16-bit (or 8-bit) TIF image-file in order for PSE to subsequently accept that (PSE generated) TIF image-file for further processing.

I have Lightroom 3.x - but I have no need for all that Adobe "Library" stuff, and "get in" (import) and "get out" (export). For me an irritation. It would not surprise me if the Adobe apps will balk if you try to re-process one of their own processed output image-files (including TIFs) and "error" ??

But I think that merely renaming the TIF image-file will overcome that problem - and allow you to be able to re-open the TIF in Camera RAW 6.x (again), in order to perform a USM operation (only) using the Sharpening tool [with the "Detail" control set to Zero (0)]. Or use some other USM tool.

 

[Detail Man]

After you perform USM (using PSE, or some other application), you will be left with a TIf image-file. An excellent overall image-viewer that includes an excellent JPEG encoding tool (with full adjust-ability of all of the important conversion parameters) is XnView 1.985 at:

http://www.xnview.com/en/xnview.html

You can fully control whether Chroma Sub-sampling is performed, and specify the Quality Factor to any value of 100% or lower. A free, high-quality, and non-invasive "gem". XnView can also crop and resize (with very good options such as the Lanczos re-sampling algorithm), and some other basic editing functions. It can accept 16-bit TIF input, but always outputs 8-bit image-files ...

 

[Sir Monty Golfear]

Thanks,

I will give it a good go !!

 

[Humboldt Jim]

Well, here's a wimpy nontechnical answer.

I mostly shoot jpg and sometimes RAW. My criteria for choosing RAW is when the shot is marginal, challenging or difficult, or so fantastic that I want to spend time to wring all can out of it.

So, I kind of choose depending on the amount of time I want to spend post processing to get what I envision as the final result.

It comes down to what one likes to do. I have a limited tolerance for post processing but once I get an idea I want follow it through. A RAW file gives me more flexibility in PP and therefor more potential satisfaction, or frustration;-)

If I were a pro, my priorities would be different.

HJ

 

[Sir Monty Golfear]

Cheers Hj,

I can understand where you are coming from . It makes sense.

Cheers

Ian

 

[PC UK]

In most cases the JPEG will do everything you need.

Very rarely the "RAW" will get a touch better, but in most cases only at the pixil-peeping level.

It's not really worth your trouble, IMHO.

-Erik
--
DP Review Supporter.

I agree

In good light, the camera's JPEG conversion software will be very goodand RAW processing saves you very little time, and if you do not want to do a lot of post processing, then JPEGs are a great way to save A LOT of time. The Lumix JPEG system also applies lens corrections - so that your wideangle zoom shot will have straight lines rather than bent ones in citiscape and architectural shots.

Keep RAW for the low light pictures, for where you know that you want to do a lot of "photoshopping" later.

Always remember - that the camera has a very very clever trick that is often ignored - use the "scene" modes - and the JPEG compression algorithms will apply a very different pattern of sharpening, contrast, noise reduction, colour control to the image. This simple step can make a great deal of difference to your finished image. Landscapes are greener and sharper - things that would look bad on a portrait, which wants more exposure and lower contrast etc........

I still use a FZ35/38 in 2020 - it weighs <450g and has a 27 ->300mm lens at F2.8. It can resolve 2200 LPMM. It can shoot RAW if you need it. The battery is big. Mine travels the world and a decade later - it still looks "mint". It has delivered the "best value" of any camera I bought since an Olympus OM1.

Best wishes - Paul C

 

[Jon_T]

In most cases the JPEG will do everything you need.

Very rarely the "RAW" will get a touch better, but in most cases only at the pixil-peeping level.

It's not really worth your trouble, IMHO.

-Erik
--
DP Review Supporter.

I agree

In good light, the camera's JPEG conversion software will be very goodand RAW processing saves you very little time, and if you do not want to do a lot of post processing, then JPEGs are a great way to save A LOT of time. ...

Agree.

In good and 'even' lighting, low ISO's and proper exposure will probably not see much difference between JPG and RAW.

However as the lighting conditions become lower and/or more adverse, and/ or as ISO increases the benefits of RAW's additional DR and better NR increases.

The Lumix JPEG system also applies lens corrections - so that your wideangle zoom shot will have straight lines rather than bent ones in citiscape and architectural shots. ...

But at wide angle focal length an good RAW software's lens corrections can do a noticeably better job than Pany's in-camera's JPG corrections.

Below from my previous posts ...

Basically the majority of fixed-lens compacts with a 24mm equiv. to tele zoom lens, the lens image circle does not fully cover the sensor's edges/ corners at the WA. Hence the camera's JPG processing crops, corrects barrel distortion, and stretches the image to fill-in corners.

If you shoot 24mm equiv. as JPG+RAW you can view the unedited RAW image with an app like FastStone Image View to see actual image captured vs the corrected JPG image; e.g., JPG+RAW image downloaded from PhotographyBlog.com TZ70 Review:


PhotographyBlog JPG. Compare this JPG with RAW image below to see amount of cropping at edges to the JPG image.


RAW image viewed with FastStone Image Viewer and saved as JPG to post here.


RAW image from PhotographyBlog I PP w/ DxO Optics Pro

Imaging Resource FZ1000 Review Sample image (FZ1000FAR2WTW)


IR FZ1000FAR2WTW.JPG

Image below shows how much the FZ1000's JPG is crops the and upscales the back to the native 5472 x 3648 20MP resolution.


IR FZ1000FAR2WTW.RW2 RAW image opened in FastStone Image View and save as JPG w/o any edits.

Below DxO PhotoLab provides a wider field of view not possible from OOC JPG, and
DxO ViewPoint perspective corrections.


IR FZ1000FAR2WTW.RW2 RAW image processed with DxO PhotoLab & ViewPoint perspective corrections

Due to the wider PP RAW images' FOV, not going to be able to PP the OOC JPG's to match the PP RAW images.

Couple other older posts showing advantages of RAW:

FZ1000 sample images showing the JPG cropping/ stretching of image at the edges/ corners HERE.

Benefits of RAW has highlights/ shadows beyond JPG's dynamic range even with averaging metering of highlights/ shadows of a dam HERE. In high dynamic lighting range (highlights/ shadows) can be beyond the capabilities of JPG PP. Those who 'fully' understand that JPG uses method of "lossy compression" why with RAW image you have much more of the sensor's image data to work with.

... Keep RAW for the low light pictures, for where you know that you want to do a lot of "photoshopping" later. ...

Not just "low light", in less than 'good lighting' (e.g., outdoor sports on an cloudy/ overcast day) will need higher ISO's for fast enough shutter speed to prevent subject blurring. At higher ISO's the Pany's in-camera NR increasingly decimates the fine details.

Do not know which RAW app you're using, but with latter versions of Photoshop Elements and DxO Optics Pro/ PhotoLab the 'opened' RAW image (without any edits) is as good, if not better, than the OOC JPG.

... Always remember - that the camera has a very very clever trick that is often ignored - use the "scene" modes - and the JPEG compression algorithms will apply a very different pattern of sharpening, contrast, noise reduction, colour control to the image. This simple step can make a great deal of difference to your finished image. Landscapes are greener and sharper - things that would look bad on a portrait, which wants more exposure and lower contrast etc. ...

Agree the 'Scene' modes are great for those who do not to do any PP.

As always to each his/ her own preferences/ needs.

I can get better overall results from RAW PP than scene modes, and for 'myself' does not take me any longer to PP RAW or doing the same amount of PP to a JPG.

With DxO PhotoLab with a batch of images under similar lighting conditions, all I have to do PP the first image, copy the RAW corrections, and then post to all the other images.

I started PP RAW images out of necessity as the early DSLR's (2005) in-camera JPG did correct for lens distortions or CA.

Being one who had a dark room for 10+ years processing film negatives and prints, RAW processing images far easier and dryer, and provides similar amount of control over the image processing.

Hence as to:

In most cases the JPEG will do everything you need.

Very rarely the "RAW" will get a touch better, but in most cases only at the pixil-peeping level.

For LOT of the shooting I do, "I" can see difference in less than the "pixil-peeping level" of images and in prints.

It's not really worth your trouble, IMHO.

Again no 'trouble' for myself as PP RAW does not take me any longer than doing the same amount of PP to OOC JPG, and is definitely worth shooting/ PP RAW images for times you do not have good/ even lighting conditions; e.g.,

Prior to buying FZ80 below are a couple JPG+RAW sample images I downloaded from the PhotoLab FZ82 Review to see how well the RAW image could be PP (images downsized to 5MP—no 'pixil-peeping level' needed to see differences).

View attachment 5970930
OOC JPG

View attachment 5970931
PP RAW image; note image wider FOV

View attachment 5970932
OOC JPG

View attachment 5970933
PP RAW image

The 'bottom line', it's NOT an "JPG vs. RAW" as some try to make it with comments that are mostly subjective than objective; RAW provides an 'option' to work with much more of the sensor's image data to get better highlights/ shadows recovery, NR and lens corrections.

Cheers,
Jon