In-Camera Processing

Discussion in 'Open Discussion' started by pjohngren, Mar 26, 2011.

  1. pjohngren

    pjohngren Mu-43 Top Veteran

    560
    Oct 15, 2010
    I am curious how many members might be into in-camera processing, rather than using a RAW workflow? After a trial period with RAW, I got involved with in-camera processing using a G1 and GF1 and that has become my exclusive approach. I find it works extremely well.

    I am wondering if there are others who have adopted this approach, and if there is any interest in sharing on a wide variety of related issues, including camera settings, what still needs tweaking, what programs you use for such post processing, etc. I also assume that those working in-canmera are using sRGB color space, which I have moved to, since that seems to be the most widespread color space for jpeg.

    I am not interested in rehashing the jpeg vs. RAW debate, which is irrelevant to in-camera processing. Rather I am interested in getting the most out of these terrific cameras with the tools that they contain.
     
  2. blue

    blue Mu-43 Veteran

    280
    Jun 1, 2010
    UK
    What do you count as in-camera processing ?

    I just posted my settings in the other thread but will repeat here:

    "On my G1:

    I use Vibrant mode, further tweaked with contrast +2, sharpness 0 or +1, saturation +1, NR 0 to +2 (depending on iso).

    WB adjustments as necessary, and sometimes manual exposure comp. as metering is not always right.

    Resulting JPEGs from this work well for me."

    I think the WB and exposure setting make a big difference to the quality of the picture, the Film Modes are perhaps more about individual taste.
     
  3. pjohngren

    pjohngren Mu-43 Top Veteran

    560
    Oct 15, 2010
    Everything done by the camera at my direction - the setting and tweaking of the white balance, the choice of sRGB, the film mode and all its possible adjustments - everything that the camera then does on its raw information before it creates the final jpeg. But that may still leave some additional post processing. Even with the sharpenning cranked to +2, I find I have to do a little additional sharpenning in Photoshop. Sometimes I add a little more saturation or contrast. However, the jpegs out of the camera using the settings I have, are almost there.

    As to WB for outdoor shots, I am using "Cloudy" then adjusting it one notch toward blue and two notches toward magenta. This takes away the slightly yellow/greenish cast that I get with straight Cloudy. I am using both a G1 and a GF1, and they are set up the same way.
     
  4. jcdoss

    jcdoss Mu-43 Regular

    52
    Mar 10, 2011
    Little Rock, Arkansas
    I'm using an E-PL2, and I've been in search of a way to avoid RAW processing for a while. I'd like to shoot in RAW, then process the photos either individually or in batches with the camera. Unfortunately, I don't think batch processing is available in the E-PL2. Processing images in-camera is still a little clumsy and slow, but the results are so far about as good as I can muster w/Lightroom.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  5. pjohngren

    pjohngren Mu-43 Top Veteran

    560
    Oct 15, 2010
    My understanding is that you can batch process with Lightroom, though I have never used the program. I did batch process all my 6 months of RAW files with SilkyPix and it did a great job and I was able to chuck all the RAW files. Now I am going strictly with jpegs.
     
  6. nursenicole

    nursenicole Mu-43 Regular

    76
    Feb 24, 2011
    boston
    i find that doing anything in-camera is frustrating because of the small screen size - i got into the habit of exporting from camera to laptop with my previous P+S camera and i am still doing it now for that reason. is there some workaround that i dont know about?
     
  7. pjohngren

    pjohngren Mu-43 Top Veteran

    560
    Oct 15, 2010
    Do you have the laptop connected while adjusting and taking shots? I have never done any adjusting that way, but rather take pictures at various settings, downloading them, and viewing the results.

    For example, I was trying to decide how good the sharpening is in my G1, so I took a shot at each of the five settings of sharpness of some leafless tree tops against a blue sky. It proved to be a good test as I could see if the sharpness affected the clear blue sky - it didn't. It was smooth as silk all the way up to 2+ sharpness.

    Also, as the twigs on the treetops got sharper and sharper, I wanted to see of there were white halos around the twigs - there were not. I now have the sharpness set at 2+ and can still sharpen the jpegs further in post processing with no problems. Remember that the sharpenning in-camera takes place on the raw information before the jpeg is created, so it is likely the best time to do the sharpenning.
     
  8. nursenicole

    nursenicole Mu-43 Regular

    76
    Feb 24, 2011
    boston
    No, I have never taken photographs with a laptop connected - is that the "workaround" i suspected people were using that I didn't know about? I have never taken a laptop with me out adventuring and I don't think I ever will, but if it's possible to do photo-editing in-camera, but plugged in and using the laptop screen instead of the camera's tiny screen, well...that sounds like a whole other way of doing things! I wonder if people have found that's easier/more efficient/??? or if it's just another way of getting the same end result.

    Also thanks for the reminder re: in-camera sharpening!

     
  9. jcdoss

    jcdoss Mu-43 Regular

    52
    Mar 10, 2011
    Little Rock, Arkansas
    I didn't mean to imply I wanted to do any serious editing of photos in-camera that requires the laptop screen.... just batch processing, or applying presets to RAW files in-camera. I keep hearing how great the Olympus jpgs are, so it makes sense to me to make those jpgs a bit easier to obtain.
     
  10. pjohngren

    pjohngren Mu-43 Top Veteran

    560
    Oct 15, 2010
    I guess I created a bit of confusion by refering to "in camera processing." I am simply referring to the fact that the camera takes its own RAW data and processes it into a jpeg, when we shoot jpegs. With RAW the camera does little if any processing, and you do it all in the computer after the fact.

    With Panasonic cameras, you have a lot of control in how the camera creats your jpeg. There are nine WB settings, each of which can be adjusted as to the amount of yellow/blue and green/magenta - a couple of settings you can set using a white or gray card, further customize them in the field, and a degrees Kelvin, which you can adjust, all offering you lots of control over the color cast.

    There are 9 different "film mode" settings, each of which you can customize as to contrast, saturation, sharpenning, and noise reduction by 5 settings each.

    Then of course there is the use of the histogram and exposure compensation.

    My goal is to have pre-set up the camera with regard to WB and Film Mode, so that I have one or two collections of settings that work for all outdoor shooting, so that any further variations are simply a reflection of the natural light at the time.

    I am simply setting up the camera to produce the right jpegs for me - in that sense "batch processing" them or more accurately creating them the way I like them each time I click the shutter. So far this approach is working great for me. It feels as though I am refining as I go along. I have a great all around outdoor setting, and plan to add a more vibrant outdoor setting if I want to creat a "Fuji Velvia" effect. But one could then move on to setting up a great black and white setting, a great setting for flash, and one for general indoor lighting.

    By the time you are out in the field, with all this now as your standard settings, you would simply choose you favorite outdoor look. For me it would be my adjusted Cloudy WB and my adjusted Dynamic film mode. That is all I would have to set the camera to. I would then concentrate on getting the exposure right and composition. When I clicked the shutter, the camera would follow all my settings and create the "perfect for me" jpeg.
     
  11. WT21

    WT21 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Feb 19, 2010
    Boston
    I use Lightroom, because I can keyword and manage my assets as well. So, while I'm there, it's easy enough to do a develop from RAW. Additionally, I've gone back and decided to completely rework pictures. That's much easier with the RAW data, in my experience.

    But I do sometimes shoot 6:6 B&W with my EP1 into jpg fine (boost the contrast and sharpness). I find this produces what I like out a B&W, so RAW isn't necessary in that case.
     
  12. pjohngren

    pjohngren Mu-43 Top Veteran

    560
    Oct 15, 2010
  13. Isn't the point of all this tweaking to make your Panasonic images not look like they're from a Panasonic? You might already be making your images look like a Canon's without knowing it.
     
  14. pjohngren

    pjohngren Mu-43 Top Veteran

    560
    Oct 15, 2010
    I think the point of my tweaking is simply to get the image to look the way I want it to look with the least amount of post processing needed. After decades of being a Nikon user, I don't feel that either Nikon or Canon are any sort of standard for someone like Panasonic to shoot for. In fact I view them as "old" in every sense of the word. I sold all my Nikon stuff and went with Panasonic because, frankly, I think it is better - certainly better for my purposes.
     
  15. I think your last sentence is an important one - that m4/3 suits your purposes better. I personally don't see m4/3 as the second coming or anything like that, nor do I see it as better or worse than the incumbents. I do see it as offering something fun and different but there is nothing that I see in the system yet that would make me want to completely offload my existing SLR gear. Canon and Nikon have not got where they are now without making quality products and it would unwise to dismiss them just because their cameras still have a mirror and OVF.

    Sorry, I will let the thread get back on-topic. I do appreciate your intent to optimise camera settings and let the camera do the maximum amount of work for you, as long as it is being presented as A method of working, not THE method of working.