Thanks, yes, definitely. Now that I've finished picnicking in Oxford I may get the chance to shoot one or two new RAW+JPEGs. I am bored with my church interior. I used the ZS7/TZ10 in Greece so RAW was not an option. Well, that's my excuse anyway.
No, I ought to tackle the church interior again, not run away from it . . . . it's mostly on your first video.. . . . . I am bored with my church interior. I used the ZS7/TZ10 in Greece so RAW was not an option. Well, that's my excuse anyway.
Interesting that with the small sensor (or is it any sensor, with the screen being the limiting factor?), onscreen viewing at higher that 1300 pixels high ( I have been arbitrarily using 1500 PX high, 50%) does not help as things get worse. That is only 2.25 MP and 3 MP respectively.
I really wouldn't do that. With RAW on the FZ200 you (almost) always shoot at full resolution anyway (the exception being if you have iZoom on and go beyond 24X zoom), but when I was shooting JPEG I would always shoot full resolution. Some post processing operations depend not just on individual pixels but on the pixels around them. I wouldn't throw away any information until you absolutely have to, which as far as resolution is concerned is the final resizing to the target viewing size.
It fits nicely on to my 1440 pixel high screen. That way I can look at them quite large but without any resizing confusing the issue and degrading the image. Selfish of course, but you have to choose some size or other.
Got it.
OK, thanks.
Ah, so with my 768 px screen, I might want to stay with 1500 px to enable me to zoom in to more detail.
You could leave it full size of course if you want to zoom in on detail. But full size is often not too pretty on the FZ200, so 1500 pixels high might be about right, yes.
That's why I wanted to fix on a smaller size, which would also look better when someone hit "Original Size" on the Forums.
Am I dreaming, or did someone tell me that viewing size should best be a simple factor of screen size, e.g. on my 768 px high screen, not 1500 but 1536 [2x screen height] ?
Thanks, yes, I have never changed it from default on my 19" monitor, 1366x768 px.
Good to have the video showing the process at a detailed level.Ive bin trying out some partial tools of sp7pro and the cloning tool is more useful than first though of.
Did a video capturing
The video is in the tutorial folder called: Local spotting holding ctrl
This was the original image
This was the leafe and image after fiddling around.
www.flickr.com
(The video is made with TinyTake video mode, works rather fun; map out the video area and you can record for 5 min for free. With premium you can record longer and also annotate afterwards. Just want to try out this future
)Yes with larger areas the PSE color replacement is working better i think.
hmmm, i think this thread is finaly get to rest.
Maybe better to have more focused threads now? Mike has started threads about Helicon Filter. Perhaps we should start one on SP7. That way folk who are interested in a particular product won't have to wade through stuff about other products they aren't interested in, which may put them off bothering at all.
I've done some work on sharpening with SP7 (good sharpening, but artefacts, and how to get rid of them), and I've done some comparisons with alternative approaches. I'm fairly settled now that for my insects etc I'm going to use DXO followed by SP7 (with SP7 doing the sharpening). I'm not absolutely sure yet about flowers (my other main subjects) but it looks like I may not be using Lightroom much now.
It's true that there isn't much information about SP7, but they must have enough users to make it worth their while continuing to develop it, so even though there isn't much SP7 knowledge and enthusiasm to tap on these forums I'm not downhearted about its future.
That can be a good idea, maybe started with links to all information and tutorials we already found. (should this not placed in the retouching section or is it better to keep it close to the Panasonic /smallsensor users in order to keep it low threshold and easy going?)
Did you found out which does what and how to fine tune the different sharpening/noise reduction settings?
ok which part is DxO better for? (im fairly sure we talked about that earlier but i forgot.) Denoising? view /distortion correction? highlight recovering?
I think the Japanese market is more there selling placel (given the fact that most of all tutorials are Japanese application and maker.)
Given the work needed to create such a link reference would the Google drive you created perhaps be the best place to keep it? If it is here at dpreview, whether on this forum or the retouching forum, I think it will quickly disappear from view and become difficult to find.
I've found settings that seem to be working ok for my insect images (given pre-processing with DXO). I can't really say I've got a feel for how all the alternatives work though - it's like with DXO, I've found some settings that seem to work ok even though I don't really understand why they work or whether they might be improved if I experimented more and/or understood better.
DXO is good for (FZ200 images) denoising raw images, microcontrast enhancement and lens softness correction. This is all mainly to do with my FZ200 insect/spider etc images. I also use DXO to do an initial "brightness level", so for example under-exposed images come out of DXO and into SP7 at a fairly good level to use either "as is" or as a starting point for adjusting Exposure bias, Color burn, Dodge etc and Black level.
Ok i did make a new folder inside the "tutorial folder" named "Silkypix Developer Studio" and a "Helicon Filter" folder (this is just for if someone wants to ad some thing in it). Inside i placed all tutorial like links or files. (Maybe a LightRoom folder also?)
I think your right ;-)
Same here only less knowledge.
Ah when i am satisfied with learning sp7 i start a trail in DxO. just for fun. see where its ends up.
Lightroom? Maybe, if anyone shows any interest. But there is plenty of stuff around about Lightroom so quite probably not necessary.
Don't understand what you are suggesting here ....
... but I've never found distortion correction to be an issue when using any of my close-up lenses.
I don't know if it matters or not. But assuming it does, are you suggesting the software suppliers should add settings to take account of close-up lenses? I can't see that happening - too much work for too small an audience to make it worth their while I should think.
