2slow4u Posted November 25, 2008 Share #1 Posted November 25, 2008 Advertisement (gone after registration) I've recently bought the Lumix. About image quality, i'm really impressed, this camera produce very good jpegs but...i would like to use raw. The problem is that actually i'm not able to obtain the same kind of rendering converting the raw, the result is ok but "different". The signature of digilux 2/DMC-LC1 is in the jpegs and it's lost in the raw converted pics. I've used Camera Raw with defaults setting. How can i do to process raw files obtaining the same distinctive "signature" of the jpegs? Can someone suggest me good setup/raw converter/workflow? Many thanks! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted November 25, 2008 Posted November 25, 2008 Hi 2slow4u, Take a look here Digilux 2/Lumix LC1 and raw. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
John Thawley Posted November 25, 2008 Share #2 Posted November 25, 2008 I've recently bought the Lumix.About image quality, i'm really impressed, this camera produce very good jpegs but...i would like to use raw. The problem is that actually i'm not able to obtain the same kind of rendering converting the raw, the result is ok but "different". The signature of digilux 2/DMC-LC1 is in the jpegs and it's lost in the raw converted pics. I've used Camera Raw with defaults setting. How can i do to process raw files obtaining the same distinctive "signature" of the jpegs? Can someone suggest me good setup/raw converter/workflow? Many thanks! I'm not sure of the benefits to what you want to do. If you like the jpegs, then shoot jpeg. I mean, I guess I can see why you might want to shoot RAW in some situations where you're forced to higher ISO settings.. I'd have to question the RAW processor you're using. Are you sure you're using the latest/greatest for your software. I use Aperture... my Digilux 2 RAW are pretty well spot on with just the default. I have a Panasonic on the way... but can't tell you the difference yet. JT Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
2slow4u Posted November 26, 2008 Author Share #3 Posted November 26, 2008 I'm not sure of the benefits to what you want to do. If you like the jpegs, then shoot jpeg. I would like to go with RAW for the flexibility that offer. I'd have to question the RAW processor you're using. Are you sure you're using the latest/greatest for your software. Yes, i use the latest release of Camera Raw for Photoshop CS3. I use Aperture... my Digilux 2 RAW are pretty well spot on with just the default. Aperture is ok, as Camera Raw... But i think that the in camera processed jpegs are better. I can't say where is exactly the difference but i found something special in these jpegs. RAW converted pictures looks simply "good", but when i look to jpegs, i found a "plus" that i cannot describe! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ASpes Posted November 26, 2008 Share #4 Posted November 26, 2008 ... How can i do to process raw files obtaining the same distinctive "signature" of the jpegs? Can someone suggest me good setup/raw converter/workflow? ... The only drawback of using raw with the D/2-L1 is speed. Even with the fastest cards you have to wait 5-6 sec btw shots, the bottleneck being in the controller. Jpegs are good but with raw you get the very best you can have out of that camera, so I support your wish to go raw, if you can live with that speed of course. As for the raw converter, I'm a long time lover of Silkypix. In the past the interface was a bit unappealing, and the English translation sometimes sounded a bit awkward. This averted some users from it, but in the last version all this has been completely reworked and is now pretty good. What anyway has always been first class were the results, with imo some of the best colour rendition you can get. There's a trial on their site and even a free version, a bit crippled of course as many options are grayed, but some friends of mine never asked for more. As a quick hint, just drag&drop a pic (or a folder) on its icon and walk your way down from top in the options at left. If you have time have a check at the "Carnival parade" on my site, most of the pix are just as output by Silkypix from D/2 raws without any further processing. My usual disclaimer applies, if you don't like what you see, do not blame neither the camera nor Silkypix but just the photographer. Have a try at it, guess you'll find that "signature" you're looking for ... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Thawley Posted November 26, 2008 Share #5 Posted November 26, 2008 I would like to go with RAW for the flexibility that offer. Yes, i use the latest release of Camera Raw for Photoshop CS3. Aperture is ok, as Camera Raw... But i think that the in camera processed jpegs are better. I can't say where is exactly the difference but i found something special in these jpegs. RAW converted pictures looks simply "good", but when i look to jpegs, i found a "plus" that i cannot describe! I'm a little confused. You keep comparing RAW to out of the camera JPEGs. All out of the camera JPEGs are is an image converted from RAW to a Photoshop-like process done by automatic settings created to the manufacturer's taste. That's it... nothing more, nothing less. Hence the difference between the Panasonic and the Leica JPEGS. The RAW image from BOTH cameras should be identical. It is only the JPEG creation that differs due to Leica's "look" philosophy vs. Panasonic's "look" philosophy. RAW allows you to create your own "look" philosophy. And, of course, each RAW program as a "look" philosophy built in as its DEFAULT settings. Still a matter of interpretation. So, you keep saying that you like the JPEG from the camera, but you want to do it in RAW. Why? If you like the camera's interpretation of the "look" (which comes out a JPEG) then use it. That said... if you're just looking to do it yourself, keep playing with the RAW settings until you find a recipe you like. Please don't take this as an insult, but I think you might want to take some time to get a better understanding of RAW, your software and how to get the look you want. Because, frankly, anything is possible if you're shooting RAW. You just have to know how to get from here to there. JT Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ASpes Posted November 26, 2008 Share #6 Posted November 26, 2008 .... So, you keep saying that you like the JPEG from the camera, but you want to do it in RAW. Why? If you like the camera's interpretation of the "look" (which comes out a JPEG) then use it. That said... if you're just looking to do it yourself, keep playing with the RAW settings until you find a recipe you like. ... JT John, I agree when you say that he must find his own way, it's a path we all have walked and maybe still do as nothing is written in stone, so to say. Where I'd like to slightly differ is about raw converters, when you seem to hint that is just a matter of experience. It is of course, but those default settings could be closer or not to the Leica ones he's looking for, and also can be tweaked more or less easily in different programmes. What I mean to say is that in my experience you cannot have the same result whatever the converter you use, you can get maybe similar but not identical output. So if you decide to go the raw way, imo the converter is also something you must "click" with, just like your camera. Our new Leica friend has been falling in love with that hard-to-describe "Leica feeling" of his pictures, which imo is a much better start than just with the instrument, and he's trying to merge that with the raw workflow to get the best out of his images. Guess this is the core of his question. Experience for sure but also maybe a different instrument could conjure up for an answer. Just my 2(euro)cent of course. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ASpes Posted November 26, 2008 Share #7 Posted November 26, 2008 Advertisement (gone after registration) Sorry guys, just noticed that my last paragraph is a bit fuzzy. As I used the word "instrument" first to mean hw, my last sentence looks like I were hinting the OP should get another camera. This is not what I wanted to say. The last sentence refers to the raw converter, so it should read: "Experience for sure but also maybe a different [raw] instrument could conjure up for an answer." Guess I have to stand face to the wall for a little while ... :-( Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
2slow4u Posted November 26, 2008 Author Share #8 Posted November 26, 2008 Sorry guys, just noticed that my last paragraph is a bit fuzzy. No problem, your messages is absolutely clear to my eyes... "Our new Leica friend has been falling in love with that hard-to-describe "Leica feeling" of his pictures... ...and he's trying to merge that with the raw workflow to get the best out of his images." Yes, you have hit the target! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wda Posted November 26, 2008 Share #9 Posted November 26, 2008 I admire your desire to master raw conversion. As you can see from other's work, it is possible not only to match jpeg quality, but to better it. The in-camera algorithm is forced to make assumptions which, in the majority of cases, works well. However, with difficult subjects or lighting you have so many more options when you have control converting raw files. I only have experience of Lightroom for converting my D2 images. I am well-pleased with what I can do with the files. Being non-destructive, I can revisit the original raw files as often as I wish and fine-tune or produce totally different results. It holds exciting possibilities especially if you have the patience to wait that little longer at the capture phase. I can live with that although would welcome a buffer so that I can catch a second fleeting expression when shooting people pictures. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mactrix Posted November 29, 2008 Share #10 Posted November 29, 2008 Hi, I've bought "REAL WORLD, CAMERA RAW WITH ADOBE PHOTOSHOP CS" by Bruce Fraser and I'VE studied it with incredibles results. Try it! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
farnz Posted November 29, 2008 Share #11 Posted November 29, 2008 Hi, I've bought "REAL WORLD, CAMERA RAW WITH ADOBE PHOTOSHOP CS" by Bruce Fraser and I'VE studied it with incredibles results. Try it! I agree, it's an exceptional book and it's widely regarded as the definitive source of instruction on ACR. Bruce Fraser RIP. Pete. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
2slow4u Posted November 30, 2008 Author Share #12 Posted November 30, 2008 Hi, I've bought "REAL WORLD, CAMERA RAW WITH ADOBE PHOTOSHOP CS" by Bruce Fraser and I'VE studied it with incredibles results. Try it! I will take a look, thanks! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.