In my various tests of theperformance of the FZ28 I've pretty much kept to one method of capture or another....either JPEG or RAW. Part of that reason is, when you shoot RAW+JPEG with the FZ28, Panasonic does not give you the option of choosing the quality of JPEG file to attach.

There are two types of JPEG's available with the FZ28, Standard or Fine. They both produce nice quality images, the difference being the Standard files employ a higher amount of file compression, meaning, more information is thrown out in an effort to make the files smaller and give you more images per card,but the more information you throw out, the less chance to have to make fine adjustments to files in post processing.

In their infinite wisdom, Panasonic chose to fit the Standard JPEG to a RAW file in RAW+JPEG so, in theory, the RAW file will give an even higher level of adjustability, but does it? Here is a folder I have started, and I will add more, diversified files over the next few weeks to give someone an idea of what the real differences are in shooting JPEG or RAW...

http://gmchappell.smugmug.com/galler...3_ezgxR#P-1-15

In each case, I have the two identical files next to one another. In some cases, once in the RAW converter I decided to use SHADE or CLOUDY vs. Average White Balance...this is the difference in coloration you'll see in looking at these files.

These are all uploaded at their full, original sizes and I have made them all available for download for those who would like to look at both files closer, or who would like to have a shot at post processing the in-camera JPEG's.

What I have noted in looking at these is, at lower sensitivities of ISO 100 or 200, in most cases there's little difference in the file quality. In other cases, where I cut down on the exposure to prevent clipping highlights, I was able to go back in the RAW converter and bring lots of detail back, the main example of thisas of tonight is this file, first the in-camera JPEG..



I opened the RAW file in Silkypix and, using the tone curve adjustment, was able to obtainthis result..



I have made no attempt as of right now in trying to adjust the in-camera JPEG, so I'm not sure what's *there" tobring out fromthe shadows and how much was "thrown out" when the file was compressed. If you want to give it a try and compare it to the JPEGI obtainedfrom the RAW file, they all there to whoever would like to try.

I've also just picked up the adaptor tube DMW-LA3 for two things...to use a Raynox 150 closeup lens I already owned and to try the Olympus TCON-17, which I also already owned and used with my FZ50. The TCON-17 isa 1.7x teleconversion lensthat converts the 469mm tele end of the FZ28 into a 797mm f4.4 super, super telephoto!

This took about 10 seconds on your dark JPEG........just imagine what could be do on a full size JPEG shot in fine......and perhapps the building that is falling down could be straightened.

genece wrote:


I did the same thing laterlast nightin Photoshop, approximating the tree trunk in brightness,and just like your image here, it turned out much more contrasty than the RAW file I corrected because of the lack of information due to the compressing and throwing out of information when the file was processed in the camera, which was about what I expected and you showed here very well, and trying to remove the contrast only made the image I triedvery *thin* overall.

Look at the bright areas of the tree to the rear and right, how the lit areas in the RAW processed file don't fall off as abruptly into the darker areas, and same thingwith thesmaller tree on the left. You have thenon-sun lit areas at about the same values as those same areas in myRAW processed file, but the sun-lit areas are brighter to much brighter.I even see it somein areas ofthe main tree. That said,I could see many preferring the look of what you'vew done because it is brighter, although I could have continued with the tone curve adjustment and made mine brighter too. Everyone has their preference about how bright or dark something should look.

Yes, imagining what could have been donewith a Fine JPEG is, indeed, all I can do since Panasonic chose to not give me that option with RAW+JPEG. That is probably how I would be shooting a lot,given the choice.

I consistentlysee around 1/2 or 2/3rd's of a stop of leeway in highlights when I process a file in Silkypix as far as being able to bring overexposed detail back, whichallows me to expose the overall scene just a little bit brighter so shadows don't just go completely darkwith more contrasty subjects.

Greg,

I see it, I see it. I would have thought that processing the jpeg in Photoshop Levels would have given the same approximate finish as your job in the RAW converter (Silkypik, yes?), but the lighter sun areas in the trees are farther out of relationship with the dark areas. I think I see a lot of it in the sun streaks across the grass as well.

Your comment about it looking "thin" never occurred to me until I looked closely. There appears to be more dimensionality in your processed one than the Photoshopped version. How is the RAW converter different in this respect and brightening/darkening than Photoshop levels? Or is it mostly the lack of information in the compressed j files versus full info in RAW? And could PTlens straighten the leaning building?

Maybe Panasonic's idea for joining only Standard jpegs to RAW was because they figured someone shooting like this was going to keep and process the RAW, but use the jpeg for email's and the like. I agree, bad choice (love the icon).

It occurs to me that we will possibly never see a full review of the Panasonic FZ28 on this site due to the fact that you are doing the job for them, in more depth, with more controlled circumstances. With your voracious appetite for cameras and experimentation, you would have made a great tiger! (go LSU, at least...go better) :sad:

Do not forget my edit was done on a 200 kb file........the original Fine JPEG would be much better.......Perhaps even to the point of exceeding the RAw edit in this case.

But then I am also of the opinion I did not purchase a P&S camera (FZ18 /30)to edit raw files.

I use RAW almost 100 % of the time with my dslrs, because I give up nothing to do so.....but thats another story with the FZs.

genece wrote: Ditto with me and my Olympus E510.

I am at the point with the FZ28 that I agree. There's a similar post going on right now over on DPReview about RAW files from the G1, comparing them to RAW files from the LX3.

I've pretty much decided, for most cases, I'll be using the FZ28 in JPEG capture with a maximum auto ISO select of ISO 400 and with noise reduction set to -2. Once the shutter speeds start getting too long at ISO 400, I'll up the ISO setting manually to 800 and possibly (or not)change the noise reduction setting to -0-. In images I've been just shooting and downloading to thecomputer to view...no uploads to the net yet...I actually like what I am seeing from the FZ28at ISO 800 with little differencein varying the noise reduction settingsbetween -2 and-0-. Definitely better looking than what I'm getting from a RAW file processedvia Silkypix.

In the next 2-3 weeks I'll be making it to another NHL game to givethis a try, and I'm takingthe FZ28 this weekend to Lubbock, Texas for a college football game and I have a great seat to shoot from.

Greg,

Just checked your new Smugmug comparison shots, jpeg from camera vs jpeg RAW. In virtually every instance I preferred the in-camera jpeg shots. In fact on some of the roof shots, I saw some red fringing in the RAWs that wasn't there in the in-cameras. The only shot I preferred Raw was the closeup of the waterfall. The jpeg just looked too dark. Of course, I have no idea what the original lighting was. I thought the in-camera j's also had more dimensionality, and in some cases were sharper.

All of the shots you are taking now are more consistently better than those a few weeks ago (except of course for the State Fair/football jpeg shots). You are really getting the hang of this camera.

When shooting wildlife or birds I shoot jpgs. because of the burst mode, but if possible I shoot Raw (Like Genace I shoot raw exclusively with my dslr but thats because it shoots raw in burst mode). I don't put the 2 together. I took a raw picture of an Egret and thought it was overexposed. I put it in Camera Raw in PS and had enough information to make it a very usable photo. If the file size is larger you have more information to work with in post processing. There will always be more information in the shadows and lights.

Suzan