Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital Cameras (Point and Shoot) > Panasonic / Leica

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jan 9, 2005, 12:17 AM   #51
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 137
Default

some other thoughts

I want to talk about RAW FORMAT, I know our FZ's don't have Raw format but most of us wish that the next FZ' has it. May be it is "out of topic" but I think this is a part of digital photography too

If we shot in Raw format, when we want to use them for our works later, we have to convert them to tiff, .jpg or to some other format we need by using converting softwares or by photoshop plug-ins. Because there's nothing "Straight Out Of The Camera"

When you convert these photos, you can change almost the setting to your photos as: White balance, hue and saturation, over/under exposure, brightness contrast...ect. To me, these are post processing

If (just if but I hope so) our Lumix has Raw format, I wonder, in order to prove "what the FZ can do", we should or should not shot in Raw format? in case that we think to do post processing is not fair to prove quality of a camera. What do you thing? :?:
(the Panasonic DMC-LC1 and some others have Raw format)


Just want to understand your opinions, have fun

(once again, sorry for bad english, but this is an interesting topic ...)

Basac,
Basac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 9, 2005, 12:27 AM   #52
Senior Member
 
nzmacro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 389
Default

RAW is exactly that. So is what the FZ's have built in and use now with the settings we can choose. We already manipulate those and the image to suit.You are right Basac

Look, we open the box, we take out the camera, what else is insidebesides the instruction book. A CD. Now whats on that cd. Software, correct. What sort of software. Not only file facilities but also MANIPULATION facilities :-). Heck Panasonic give it us to use with their cameras. Gee, I wonder why :-)

Danny.


nzmacro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 9, 2005, 12:28 AM   #53
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,974
Default

This is a good thread but I did not think it would start to "polarize" the Panasonic masses. :-)

In my case I feel that I want to take the best shot possible due to the fact that there are instances that thereare no second chances or do overs. You get that shot of a lifetime perhaps. Making sure that your camera is at the optimum settings to get that shot in some situations is not practical or possible.

Post-processing orthe "digital darkroom" can help make that almost awesome shot out of the camera an awesome picture.

I know in my case that I will be doing all that there is to improve my photography skills and post-processing. I can't say for sure but any picture published in books or magazines etc. do go to some extent post-processing.

If we are so inclined to share our shots that came out of our Panasonic cameras, it would be nice to know what settings were used and post processing applied, but overall I just like to share and view whatever anyone has that they took with their Panasonic camera.
vIZnquest is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 9, 2005, 8:06 AM   #54
Senior Member
 
bobc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 1,433
Default

nzmacro wrote:
Quote:
Sorry Bob I missed that one. I'm not going to tell you which one is better Bob. Just tell me which one you think is closer to what the eyes would normally see or expect to see. You pick M8t. :-)

Danny.
Ahhh... Putting the ball back in my hands... I like that...:-)

Personally, I like the second one better, but... It's not how it looked to my eye.

The first one is the original, but looked a little lighter to my eye than the picture.

I know I can get the camera to produce what my eye saw with more practice. And I know I can play with it in photo shop to get the same result. But... I want to get good at the camera first. Once I get the camera down... Then... I will feel free to enhance my images, because I know I wont be doing it to cover up my lack of camera skills.

You are already past that point... But I am just a humble beginner not yet deserving of such honors...:O

BTW... If M + 8 already equals M-Eight... Why do you guys put the extra t on the end (M8t)? That is a waste of a perfectly good t...:G

bobc
bobc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 9, 2005, 9:01 AM   #55
Senior Member
 
NickTrop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 2,249
Default

fmoore wrote:
Quote:
This is not the Ansel Adams forum. This is the Panasonic forum and as such should represent Panasonic cameras in their "true" form
Ansel Adams was merely sited as an example of a famous photographers who might disagree with certain views expressed in this thread. No one said it's "the Andel Adams forum".

I still find it curious that you're so opposed to posting pictures with some post work done, when you're the master of the converter lens and all manner of filters. Certainly, screwing on a WCON-17 and taking a picture with a Lumix isn't a camera's "true form".:G Are you saying that we shouldn't post pictures with a filter either, as it's not "straight from the camera"? Even a UV/Haze filter will greatly improve shots taken under certain conditions. I always use an add-on slave flash with indoor shots. "Way" more powerful than the camera's own. If I post an indoor shot that illuminates a large interior, and don't bother to mention that I used an add on flash, isn't that also a misrepresentation? Same with macro filters, and teleconverters.

I don't see how you can find use of 3rd party add-on's in the form of filters, conversion lenses, and flashes cceptable, and not find post work - which is nearly always done, not acceptable.

I ain't diss'n you, buddy, just trying to understand your point.

PS... for the record my workflow generally goes like this... import into Photoshop -> auto adjust levels -> resize for web -> nic sharpener auto adjust for web - > save -> post.
If it's some kind of digital manipulation - like the picture of my daughter's room, I think that the end-product is so far removed from reality that it goes without saying that some post is done. Sorry, but if someone thinks something like that is "straight from the camera" they need to go back to school.

I hate to make assumptions, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you're reacting - perhaps, to a few people who have expressed disappointment at the sharpness or end-quality of their photos. In each of those cases, users seem to shoot indoors with the internal flash, with high iso's 1/10th shutter-speed, etc. Then - frankly, whine and complain about the camera, when they refuse to take the time to learn the basics! Often their shots could be salvaged with a little work in post processing - a little Neat Image, a little unsharpen mask, a little adjustment to brightness or contrast, viola!

Sorry, but it seems to me you would rather the fourm appease the lowest common denominator of camera consumer. Again, not to diss you (at all) but I struggle with the dilineation you're making.

What would you like "the rules" to be, and why? How is manipulation on the front-end of the process, different in your mind from manipulation on the back-end when in neither case it's straight from the camera?
NickTrop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 9, 2005, 9:18 AM   #56
Senior Member
 
bobc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 1,433
Default

smac,

Great post. It is obvious that you have been into photography for a long time, and know more than enough to get more into the image enhancement side. I on the other hand never even owned a camera until I got this one (minus the 3 I returned within a months time before getting my FZ20). I am truely a beginner to all this stuff, and probably know more about image editing than I do about photography (because I am a software developer). To me... Getting good at photography means getting good with the camera first. I know I am making prograss, becuse as I look at my pics in order from when I started to now, I see improvement. I now know a little bit about aperture, shutter speed, ISO, DOF, and how to frame the shot. But just a little compared to many others on this forum. You people are the ones that inspire me to improve my skills. Many times I have seen a sample posted and went right out trying to duplicate it, and beat my brain thinking... How did that person do that... And many times it would be revealed that the image had been altered, and then I think... gee.. I wish I would have known that... And then I think... Hmmm... I wonder if I could get the same result out of this camera.

I guess when I get to the point of exceeding what the camera can produce, then tweeking will be all thats left. But as I said before... I like messing around with the image editing stuff to break the menotony a little.

On your comment about the bird shooting. I try to use A mode as long as I can keep the shutter speed fast enough to get a sharp image of the little suckers and maintain the DOF that I want. If it's not a bright enough day, I use S mode and set the shutter as low as possible to still get a sharp image as well as hope to maintain a fair DOF. But either way I can get a decent exposure.

Your right. They move too fast, and the scene changes every time you point to a new spot, so you have to let the camera do the adjustment one way or another. I don't know if my approach is correct or not... Just trying to use the little knowledge I have combined with the little comman sence that I have...:?

Cheers bro...

bobc
bobc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 9, 2005, 9:33 AM   #57
Senior Member
 
bobc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 1,433
Default

vIZnquest wrote:
Quote:
This is a good thread but I did not think it would start to "polarize" the Panasonic masses. :-)

In my case I feel that I want to take the best shot possible due to the fact that there are instances that thereare no second chances or do overs. You get that shot of a lifetime perhaps. Making sure that your camera is at the optimum settings to get that shot in some situations is not practical or possible.

Post-processing orthe "digital darkroom" can help make that almost awesome shot out of the camera an awesome picture.

I know in my case that I will be doing all that there is to improve my photography skills and post-processing. I can't say for sure but any picture published in books or magazines etc. do go to some extent post-processing.

If we are so inclined to share our shots that came out of our Panasonic cameras, it would be nice to know what settings were used and post processing applied, but overall I just like to share and view whatever anyone has that they took with their Panasonic camera.
We have to be a disfunctional family to be normal... It was getting to functional around here, so I thought I would doctor it up using the poerizer in PS...:G

Also many people may not want to share their secrets, so I would be happy with just wether the image was enhanced or not...

bobc
bobc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 9, 2005, 9:39 AM   #58
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 16
Default

I think it's a good idea to mention what kind of PP has been done. It will help others to learn. But then it should be also mentioned what pict. adj. settings the camera had. What is the difference between having everything set on high or having them set on low and then do some sharpening and noise reduction? Truth is that only RAW is straight out of camera. PP is definitely part of digital photography, but I agree with Bob in that it is a good practice to mention what has been done.

-Antti
Antti is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 9, 2005, 9:59 AM   #59
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 935
Default

Here's my opinion on things about currently existing digital camera photos. I've noticed that most digital cameras don't seem to take sharp photos. That is...even if you use a tripod and follow the focusing instructions etc ... the photo won't be as sharp and crisp as a FILM photograph. Eg if you use a FILM SLR, and you use the focusing ring/collar to achieve good focus, the printed photo will be super sharp.

But for digital cameras...I don't think that camera companies have been able to achieve the same thing as for film cameras in terms of capturing a raw image with excellent sharpness. Which is why digital cameras have on-board processing, where the raw image is manipulated in order to make it look better.

It's even possible that the colour that's captured isn't so accurate on digital cameras. And once again .. onboard software treats the digital photo.

As for folks playing with photos using photo-editing software on their computers, I think it's fine to do things like sharpening and some colour correction in order to try make the picture look closer to what you actually saw when you took the photo. But I have also noticed that people try to over-do their photo and the results look completely unrealistic-which is more like trickery. On the other hand, there are automatic colour compensation features on photo software (eg the AUTO-LEVELS feature)..which CAN sometimes improve the colour nicely. But other times, it can over-correct, and the photo colour can be significantly different from what you SAW when you took the picture.

But whatever somebody does to a photo is up to themselves I guess. I'm talking about over-enhancing a photo to make it look different than what you saw originally when taking the photo. It's like girls (or some guys hehehe) wearing facial make-up. Sure..you can put the make-up on...but you know it yourself that it's not your real face appearance with all that make-up on. Using camera flash to alter lighting....fine...but using software to over-enhance colour levels and saturation....just fooling ourselves really. But when it comes to making professional photos for marketting purposes etc....it becomes necessary to enhance the photo to a point to make it very appealing. In this case, it's a money making thing, and so enhancing in this kind of regard is considered 'normal' I guess.
Kenny_Leong is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 9, 2005, 10:06 AM   #60
Senior Member
 
bobc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 1,433
Default

Nick,

Again you bring an exelent point to the table... Lets eat...:-)

I think what we need to do at this point is to determine... What is an out of the camera shot... And what is an image enhanced shot...

It's true that the camera does post processing, and once that light hits the sensor, and all those little analog signals go through the A/D converter (analog to digital converter), the in camera software takes over to produce the image. The camera software generates the best image based on the settings and other conditions. You could say that it is the "in camera dark room".

So... Where do we seperate the two? Why cant we just use photo shop to do the filtering and adjustments that we want?

This is just my opinion, but I think there is a distinct seperation. The first is the physical camera, the physical filters, the physical add on lenses, the phisicalexernal flash, and/or any physical thing that you can add into the mix.

The next is the PC Software, filters, fill flash, color, contrast, brightness, etc... Personally I do not count noise removal, cropping and resizing to be image enhancement as they do not change the color, balance or sharpness of the image.

So I think what it all boils down to is... Some people pride themselves on mastering the phisical aspect, some people pride themselve on the PC software aspects, andsome people pride themselves on both...

I personally like both, but at this point am leaning toward mastering the phisical equipment first.

And no matter what all you others are into... You are all a great bunch of people, and I admire all of your work and efforts on this forum, and some day hope to be good at this stuff.

You are all an inspiration to me in many ways...

bobc
bobc is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 1:47 AM.