lifting shadows in jpeg

I was shooting with my dad's T1i this past weekend.  I didn't immediately figure out how to put it into RAW mode, so I shot jpeg.  It seems like the jpegs lend themselves to much easier lifting of shadows compared to Samsung jpegs (on my NX200).  Anyone know why?  (I didn't do any controlled test).  Simply the choice of tone curves?  i.e. the default Samsung tone curve has less DR on the left compared to Canon?

And I guess this comment applies to "smart range=off" on the samsung.

Ian Leach wrote:

I agree with Leon. If you want jpeg to behave more like RAW use picture wizard to reduce sharpness and contrast settings, then use an editor to bring them back.

I will use this same picture wizard setup, even though I shoot raw. In conjunction with the histogram, this helps in exposing to the right without fear of clipping, while maximizing information in the shadows for easy processing. Helps with jpg info too; just requires post processing. For me, if I'm going to do pp work (which I enjoy), I would just as soon do it with the raw file.

TJL LTFF wrote:

Ian Leach wrote:

I agree with Leon. If you want jpeg to behave more like RAW use picture wizard to reduce sharpness and contrast settings, then use an editor to bring them back.

I will use this same picture wizard setup, even though I shoot raw. In conjunction with the histogram, this helps in exposing to the right without fear of clipping, while maximizing information in the shadows for easy processing. Helps with jpg info too; just requires post processing. For me, if I'm going to do pp work (which I enjoy), I would just as soon do it with the raw file.

Makes sense.  I'll try it!

Leon Obers wrote:

I am not a Samsung camera user yet, only a "lurker" to this part of the forum because I am interested in Samsung Gear.

In general (in favour to all camera brands) a JPG picture is a processed image at top to the RAW-data with the settings applied within the camera. To have more detail within shadows, choose a Picture Wizard style that exhibit already much detail in shadows. I suppose (as not a user, but reading from the manual) "Standard" or "Portrait" is a good start. Maybe individually tweaked for contrast. (Is it possible using a NX200 ?).

I would imagine, but I haven't played much with Picture Wizard since I usually shoot RAW.

The other option could be "Smart Range" or "HDR" where in the last option at least two pictures with different exposures are combined. From what I read from the manual, HDR is not an option for the NX200 camera.

There is standard exposure bracketing, but no in-camera HDR matrixing on NX200.

But likely you can do a lot afterwards on a PC using an image editor.

-- hide signature --

Leon

Thanks for the tips!

shademaster wrote:

TJL LTFF wrote:

Ian Leach wrote:

I agree with Leon. If you want jpeg to behave more like RAW use picture wizard to reduce sharpness and contrast settings, then use an editor to bring them back.

I will use this same picture wizard setup, even though I shoot raw. In conjunction with the histogram, this helps in exposing to the right without fear of clipping, while maximizing information in the shadows for easy processing. Helps with jpg info too; just requires post processing. For me, if I'm going to do pp work (which I enjoy), I would just as soon do it with the raw file.

Makes sense. I'll try it!

And the default JPEGs from the Canon certainly did have pretty low contrast (but they looked pretty sharpened to me).

Leon Obers wrote:

Jaberwok wrote:

If you want a quick and simple way of pulling back shadow detail then look at PhotoScape and its 'Backlight' feature. All the settings are adjustable and it's a very useful and FREE program.

I tried, and it is a handy little tool if you have no other photo editing programs to do a quick correction. However by the simple set-up and not very sophisticated used algorithms, under certain circumstances it can give strange density and looking false color at other areas. So use it with care and be aware of such behaviour.

Mostly all general more sophisticated photo editing software (but not free programs)

It seems to me that you are neglecting GIMP and Darktable here.  They certainly have some fairly sophisticated options available if one wishes to make use of them.  Granted they may not be quite at the same level as the more expensive paid programs (they blow the cheap ones out of the water) but they can certainly do things like shadows and highlights and much more besides.

do have better algorithms to tweak in a better way. Many RAW-converters also can be used for editing JPG and TIF files and images can be tweaked in the same way.

Photoshop Menu -----> Image ----> Adjustments ----> Shadows / Highlights

Nikon Capture NX2 (Nikon RAW converter plus Photo tweaking program for JPG + TIF)
- Under "Fast editing" ----> lifting shadows
- Under menu ----> D-lighting
- Using a "Color control Point" (comparable as Nik Viveza plugin for Photoshop)

Photo Ninja (general RAW converter plus Photo tweaking program)
- Shadows
Beware. If an image do have nearly real black within the shadow area, the correction can have posterization at the darkest regions. If you have some spare, the tones are rich and have a fine micro contrast.

Capture One Pro 7 (general RAW converter plus Photo tweaking program)
- several sliders to lift or tweak shadow

Each editing software do have their advantages and disadvantages. For best perceptual image quality, often you have to use other tools too. E.g. to lift micro-contrast (clarity) or colour saturation within shadow areas.

-- hide signature --

Leon

Leon Obers wrote:

ttbek wrote:

It seems to me that you are neglecting GIMP and Darktable here.

I think --know for sure-- that I am neglecting much more editing programs with comparable functions. But it is not my intention to sum up all the possible known software packages in the market, just to mention some that have good options for it.

Other packages that could be of interesting too are e.g. Adobe Elements, Paint Shop Pro, Ulead PhotoImpact.

More to find on a list < SEE HERE >

Well, I guess you did qualify your sentence with "mostly" but I guess it just felt a bit like you were dismissing all free software, so I wanted to point out a few pieces of free (and in this case open source) software in particular that are very capable.  I think I was feeling bit prickly at the time, lol.