LX3 - I found my workflow

[Ilari695464]

After trying many tricks with LX3 camera settings and some RAW converters - I thnk I have found a workflow that suits best for me.

I take all pictures with contrast and saturation setting -2 and add the contrast and saturation to JPEGS afterwards according to my taste. (As someone other on this forum, with good results.)

Silkypix is excellent in handling JPEGS. (And the new version 3.1 does not crash or freeze, 3.0 did it on my XP Home, quite often).

Average contrast I have used is about 185 with pictures taken this way, varying between 165 -195. Saturation about 124, sometimes less, max 130.

I use mostly Auto WB, and fix the white balance in Silkypix.

Silkypix Fine Color Controller is very capable too - sometimes I make some color darker or lighter in it.

If skin color is too pink, I move certain red color towards yellow a bit, etc.

(I seldom "develop" the picture from RAW, but I save the RAW files anyway. Handling of JPEGs is much simplier and faster in my opinion)

 

[breivogel]

I find that I use Raw+jpeg (with Silkypix) exclusively. The noise reduction in Jpegs , even at -2 setting in camera, is unsatisfactory. This blurring is most evident in landscapes with distant mountain vistas. It seems to affect low contrast blue tones most strongly. Not a problem if you are doing small prints, by obvious on a 1900X1200 moniitor.

 

[Ilari695464]

I have tried noise reduction -2 a couple of times (ISO 80), but I did not notice any difference.
Hmm... but I did not test with landscapes. Maybe I should test it some time.

I have used default settings in noise reduction and sharpening , so the JPEG is easier to handle in Silkypix - I do not add extra sharpening or noise reduction. I use ISO 80 - 200, and the camera has handled ISO 200 good enough for me.

Here is another picture, taken today. Spring is coming here in Finland, I like to follow it with camera

 

[breivogel]

LX3 does really well for macro flower pictures. Color balance and blowing out one color channel is an issue - especially with red and blue flowers. The in camera historgram only shows luminance, so it is better to underexpose a bit. Raw can compensate to a fair degree.

 

[Ilari695464]

I agree. I use exposure bracketing a lot, often with exposure correction, -1/3 or
-2/3 with bright flowers etc.

 

[Guy Parsons]

I have tried noise reduction -2 a couple of times (ISO 80), but I did not notice any difference.
Hmm... but I did not test with landscapes. Maybe I should test it some time.

I have used default settings in noise reduction and sharpening , so the JPEG is easier to handle in Silkypix - I do not add extra sharpening or noise reduction. I use ISO 80 - 200, and the camera has handled ISO 200 good enough for me.

I found that Sharpness at 0 yields edge halos that make savage crops or very large prints look bad, so now use -2 which also reduces the noise.

Also set Noise Reduction at -2 to try and turn it off and to stop detail smearing.

Comparing RAW to those Sharp-2 NR-2 jpegs using Silkypix then there's just a few odd pixels of noise difference, nothing to worry about on any sensible print size. So I seem to have abandoned RAW now altogether.

Also in my case Standard film with Saturation and Contrast both at -1 yields a jpeg that is easy to use and further fiddle in Silkypix. I stick to ISO 80-200 and never seem to do or need any extra noise reduction, only maybe use Neat Image if using ISO 400 and up in desperation mode. Further sharpening is done for downsized images for web display or leave it to Qimage to auto sharpen to suit print size.

Regards........... Guy
LX3 info.... http://homepages.ihug.com.au/~parsog/panasonic/01-intro.html

 

[Mk7]

I don't mean to revive the old raw v. jpeg debate, but...

breivogel wrote:
The noise reduction in Jpegs , even at -2 setting in camera, is unsatisfactory.

Guy wrote:

Comparing RAW to those Sharp-2 NR-2 jpegs using Silkypix then there's just a few odd pixels of noise difference, nothing to worry about on any sensible print size.

So, is raw worthwhile for large print sizes only? If so, what size (A3, A2)?

 

[Guy Parsons]

breivogel wrote:
The noise reduction in Jpegs , even at -2 setting in camera, is unsatisfactory.

Guy wrote:

Comparing RAW to those Sharp-2 NR-2 jpegs using Silkypix then there's just a few odd pixels of noise difference, nothing to worry about on any sensible print size.

So, is raw worthwhile for large print sizes only? If so, what size (A3, A2)?

I would not bother with RAW for A2 prints, the crops that I've printed to simulate that size look perfectly OK. Also crop a 60mm shot to about 160mm to 180mm equivalent frame and when printed on postcard size looks perfectly fine with jpeg (with my settings).

I suppose RAW may be of use for those higher ISO shots where more work may need to be done on noise reduction etc and maybe extract more highlight and shadow detail in potentially difficult shots.

Though I must say I used to always take RAW + jpeg when I thought the going was tough, but the jpegs are fine and found no real advantage for me in falling back to the RAWs. That's just me, others may love to do more pixel peeping and may find a few bent pixels if they look hard enough into the jpegs.

If the situation was really going to be difficult then I'd use a DSLR anyway and bypass the LX3, but the LX3 does most shots darn well and the DSLR gets little if any use now.

Jpegs are fine for me, but add to that the fact that I'm getting lazy in my old age and like to keep things simple.

Regards........... Guy

 

[digby dart]

Your images look great, obviously your on a winner.
--

 

[Ilari695464]

Thanks!