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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Dec 22, 2005, 7:04 PM   #11
Senior Member
 
HarjTT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 4,535
Default

Thanks for posting the RAW shot:

On my Ibook the RAW looks much better than the jpeg - very natural compared to the jpeg. However, when i checked on my PC - I have a Mitshubshi 2047 Diamondtron 21" (calibrated) the colours do look very saturated like Gene says. Now it could be just that I have to calibrate the IBook and theres also the question of the quality of the display between teh two and then there is the question of gamma settings between Windows and MacOS which would effect the way the image looks.

Cheers

HarjTT


HarjTT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 22, 2005, 7:15 PM   #12
Senior Member
 
rduve's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,504
Default

HarjTT wrote:
Quote:
Thanks for posting the RAW shot:

On my Ibook the RAW looks much better than the jpeg - very natural compared to the jpeg. However, when i checked on my PC - I have a Mitshubshi 2047 Diamondtron 21" (calibrated) the colours do look very saturated like Gene says. Now it could be just that I have to calibrate the IBook and theres also the question of the quality of the display between teh two and then there is the question of gamma settings between Windows and MacOS which would effect the way the image looks.

Cheers

HarjTT



I have a Sony VAIO laptop at work, and a Viewsonic 17" LCD screen at home. The processed image on both of them looks quite natural, but definitely leaning toward warm and high saturation,however not overly saturated or orange. I purposely processed it like that as a warm, soft portrait. On my home computer I have a feature called "digital vibrance" which is part of the NVIDIA video driver software. It exaggerates contrast and saturation and makes the image look bright orange. I turned this feature off. The true test is how the prints come out and they match the pleasing image that I have on both of my screens. I am using the Canon i9900 at its default settings, by the way.

Again, while the post processing might not be everybody's cup of tea, I just tried to show how much can be done working from a RAW image without any loss in image quality, so I might have exaggerated it to make the point.

On anothertopic though,I am not too happy with how the FZ30 handled the exposure and white balance in the original shot. It seems too lean more toward pale and bluish tones with indoor shots than my FZ20 did. Did anyone else observe that tendency? I'd rather not have to shoot in RAW all the time, but have my jpeg's come out well balanced out of the box. (and, no, I am not talking about being overly processed like a Kodak, but just have a spot on white balance and good contrast).

All in all, I am quite happy with my FZ30 so far. Still playing around with it. Regarding the noise issue: I find that it actually has worse noise than the FZ20 at 80 and 100, but not at 200 and 400. I can work my way around it, and the Fun Factor (as Kenneth put it so well)well outweighsthis downside. But noise is a definite factor. Unless, there is a revolutionary breakthrough in the next FZ generation, I will add a DSLR (or other large sensor camera) to my collection. The images of the Sony R1 are not just marginally, but immensely better than the FZ30. But I'll wait it out until the prices tumble. For now, the FZ30 is the best cam for the money, by far.

rduve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 22, 2005, 7:29 PM   #13
Senior Member
 
HarjTT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 4,535
Default

Thanks for the quick post - i was going to suggest printing the image out and then comparing it but you beat me too it .

About the white balance I think Jerry aka Lovelife has had the same issue, but on a personal note I'd just shoot RAW - no need to worry about WB at all and your not loosing any detail to the in cam jpeg compression.

Regards the R1 - it is a pretty impressive cam and as good as Canon D20 at lower ISO's check out the imaging resource review http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/R1/R1A.HTM. I have yet to see a review that does not state that and Steve's review of the cam was just glowing. I don't like the ergonomics at all and am hoping that Pana do bring out an LC1 replacment which will do what the R1 does but better. If they do I'd much rather have an LC1+ (here I go again!):

4/3 CCD + 28-150mm Summuricon f2.4-2.8 62mm or even a 67mm diameter lens.

HarjTT

:|


HarjTT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 22, 2005, 7:50 PM   #14
Senior Member
 
rduve's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,504
Default

Yeah, I remember, Harjtt, you were the one who turned me on to the R1 in the first place. I am sure Panasonic is going to design a camera in the same class, and if it has a minimum of 8x zoom, I might even trade in my FZ30 for it. But for now,I am not ready to plunk down $1,000 for technology that's in constant development and with ever dropping prices. By the end of next year, APS sensors might be standard in a $500 cam, who knows?
rduve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 22, 2005, 7:50 PM   #15
Senior Member
 
rduve's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,504
Default

oops, double post, sorry.
rduve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 23, 2005, 12:37 AM   #16
Senior Member
 
mtngal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Frazier Park, CA
Posts: 16,056
Default

I took a bunch of photos at an office retirement party yesterday and was surprised at how good they came out. I used auto white balance and the lighting was a combination of flourescent and filtered light through windows and the FZ30 did great with the people, even with such difficult lighting. I took two different scenes of mostly white surfaces (a cake and a poster that had writing on it) and they were darker than they should have been (was that too much reflected light causing the light meter to get confused, like in snow?).

However, I have noticed that the jpg version of purple flowers I've taken have come out too blue-ish, so if it does guess wrong it goes more toward the blue side, and I have been using mostly raw now, too.
mtngal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 23, 2005, 4:51 AM   #17
Member
 
Ivan Karamasov's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 82
Default

>>>>On anothertopic though,I am not too happy with how the FZ30 handled the exposure and white balance in the original shot. It seems too lean more toward pale and bluish tones with indoor shots than my FZ20 did. Did anyone else observe that tendency? I'd rather not have to shoot in RAW all the time, but have my jpeg's come out well balanced out of the box. (and, no, I am not talking about being overly processed like a Kodak, but just have a spot on white balance and good contrast).<<<<<

Hi there,

yes we did observe this tendency. I think we also discussed it earlier. Shooting RAW definitely gives you a lot of options to prevent it. The problem obviously is card-space then.
If you do not want to use RAW all the time, you could try out two things: Either buy a skyfilter 1A (1B could be a little too much). This should help against the pale bluish cast (Thank you Msantos, for this tip). I will post some samples as soon as I have some (My parents were looking for a Christmas present for me, so I generously gave "my" fz30 away to them until christmas:idea.

The second possibiliy especially for indoor portraits could be a tiny little program called CleanSkinFX by mediachance.com. It is free and extremely easy to use.
It pushes the pink and red tones a little and applies some NR to embellish skin tones.
I helped myself with your unprocessed photo, Rainer. I hope you don't mind.
So here is what it does:

And now I wish you all a very pleasant and peaceful christmas.
Best wishes
Ivan
Attached Images
 
Ivan Karamasov is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 23, 2005, 4:57 AM   #18
Senior Member
 
HarjTT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 4,535
Default

Ivan

Hey, now thats a very nice bit of freeware !

Thanks for the tip!

HarjTT

:?
HarjTT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 23, 2005, 12:24 PM   #19
Senior Member
 
rduve's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,504
Default

Ivan Karamasov wrote:
Quote:
If you do not want to use RAW all the time, you could try out two things: Either buy a skyfilter 1A (1B could be a little too much). This should help against the pale bluish cast (Thank you Msantos, for this tip). I will post some samples as soon as I have some (My parents were looking for a Christmas present for me, so I generously gave "my" fz30 away to them until christmas:idea.

The second possibiliy especially for indoor portraits could be a tiny little program called CleanSkinFX by mediachance.com. It is free and extremely easy to use.
It pushes the pink and red tones a little and applies some NR to embellish skin tones.
Thanks for the tips. Believe it or not, but I already have a skylight filter attached at all times, including in the photo above. So, it really doesn't handle the issue, but it probably helps a little. I will certainly try out the program you recommended. That might come in handy for portraits. Thanks again and Happy Holidays to you as well.






rduve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 24, 2005, 10:05 AM   #20
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 11
Default

I'm finding that, when shooting RAW (and of course processing it with ACR), shadow detail recovery is far better than its highlight counterpart. I can increase exposure compensation by as much as +3EV, obtaining shadow details and without getting that much more noise; on the other hand, there's little else I can obtain from highlights beyond the -1EV setting. So much so that, keeping this in mind, I'm actually starting to under-expose slightly when shooting RAW.

Are your experiences similar?

By the way, and while we're at it: is there any 'hidden trick/setting' to make the FZ30 save only the RAW file, without its JPEG version? I don't think it'd made much of a difference in terms of shot-to-shot speed and card space saving, but the fact is, I'm constantly deleting the JPEG version the moment I download it to the PC, because I have no use for it at all.
Koosla 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 6:15 AM.