1. Welcome to Mu-43.com—a friendly Micro 4/3 camera & photography discussion forum!

    If you are thinking of buying a camera or need help with your photos, you will find our forum members full of advice! Click here to join for free!

Indoor Photos... who's taking good ones?

Discussion in 'Panasonic Cameras' started by richiebee, Oct 21, 2010.

  1. richiebee

    richiebee Mu-43 Regular

    Jul 26, 2010
    St. John's, NL, Canada
    I've started using the G10, and I must say I'm really disappointed in the quality of my indoor images. Noise even at 100ISO, and lacklustre colour really have me somewhat turned off. I realize I'm new to this camera, and my photos are surely suffering from it. If anyone is taking good indoor photos with one of the Panny's, what is your approach and what kind of settings do you use on the camera?

    Just using standard kit lens.

  2. shoturtle


    Oct 15, 2010
    With the color you can shoot in raw and edit in post production to get the color more to your liking. The panny jpeg engine is not that great.

    The 20mm would give you a bit better low light ability.
  3. grebeman

    grebeman Mu-43 All-Pro

    Mar 13, 2010
    South Brent, south Devon (UK)
    I was lead to believe this to be true, and that's as an owner of both G1 and GF1 cameras, however I think this is now only true in terms of the default settings. It requires some work since there are several settings that can be adjusted to give much more satisfactory jpeg output from the Panasonic cameras.
    Can I suggest you read this thread https://www.mu-43.com/f35/return-jpeg-6580/ which should give you some ideas about setting up the jpeg output from a Panasonic camera to provide better output than the default.

  4. kevinparis

    kevinparis Cantankerous Scotsman Subscribing Member

    Feb 12, 2010
    Gent, Belgium
    are you shooting with flash or just natural light? - post an example of what you are getting and maybe we can help.
  5. shoturtle


    Oct 15, 2010
    I read it, and you can set the setting to be more pleasant to ones eye. But it still does not do the colors as well imho as other jpeg engine. It is not great but okay, and some pp work can work on it more with jpegs as well.

  6. richiebee

    richiebee Mu-43 Regular

    Jul 26, 2010
    St. John's, NL, Canada
    Here's an example


    Not using flash. Internal flash isn't powerful enough, and don't have budget for anything else.

    Some kind of supplement light might be necessary I guess. These tend to be fast moving shots and I just can't get enough light with a fast enough shutter speed and acceptable ISO.
  7. shoturtle


    Oct 15, 2010
    You will have to shoot at 1600iso if you do not get a external flash. There is nothing else you can do if you do not want the motion blur the pianist shows. Shooting at 1600iso, will put you about 1/60 with f7.1, opening up to 5.6 will give you 1 1/3 stop putting you at 1/100 1/120 of a sec. It will do a better job at stopping the motion blur. But you will need to accept the noise. If you have noise reduction software. You may want to use it.
  8. kevinparis

    kevinparis Cantankerous Scotsman Subscribing Member

    Feb 12, 2010
    Gent, Belgium
    the flat fluorescent is never going to do your shots any favours - maybe try a different white balance

  9. richiebee

    richiebee Mu-43 Regular

    Jul 26, 2010
    St. John's, NL, Canada
    Thanks for the advice. Well, somewhat deflated, I started snapping today. I've not totally resolved my issues, but one thing I have figured out is that I can underexpose significantly at ISO 100-200 and recover through Adobe RAW without an unacceptable increase in noise. So that takes care of much of my motion blurring issues particularly since the current picture shoots are for our web site. I've been taking some pics with the built in flash, but I'm not happy with them - not because the flash isn't powerful enough... I guess I just don't like flash pictures. Or I just don't know how to take good ones!
    Anyway, I'm happier with the pics I got today.
  10. jonima

    jonima Mu-43 Regular


    I find that up to ISO 400, using a good noice reduction software, it is still usable (taken from RAW)

    Using higher ISO, noice will be too visable. But when you change your picture to Black and White people start talking about GRAIN instead of NOICE and how nice it looks!!!!:biggrin:

    Using the flash is always a different photo than available light, but try using 2nd curtain flash or 2nd curtain with slow sync.

    Also there are some little softboxes on the market you can put over your internal flash. I have not used them yet but this could change your flashlight from harsh to being more natural.

    Off course if you take lots of indoor without flash a faster lens in the best solution.

    Good luck.

    Here is a photo taken indoor with light coming from the window at an inteligent ISO (around 300) at 1/15 sec. - aperture 6.3 - distance 40mm.

    Kitlens 14-45mm


    • Like Like x 1
  11. deanrinehart

    deanrinehart Mu-43 Rookie

    Oct 22, 2010
    Strobes on a budget

    I've had great luck with Cactus wireless triggers and used Nikon SB-24s (or really any powerful, manually adjustable strobe). I bought a 2 receiver set and 2 used SB-24s for about $175 total. I usually place a strobe high in opposite corners of the room, set them to fire at 1/8 power, aim them at the ceiling and set the exposure compensation on the camera to -2 at ISO 400 as a starting point. I adjust the exposure in large steps with the strobe power and fine tune with the camera.


    (BTW...first post!)
  12. ampan

    ampan New to Mu-43

    Nov 9, 2010
    I always use RAW + jpg and for indoor shots I almost always use the RAW and edit using Sagelight. Removing chroma noise is very quick and probably equivalent to what you are suggesting.

    I've tried using various full noise removal plug-ins but they are very slow and I couldn't be bothered waiting with lots of pics to process. It's also difficult to get exactly the right balance to avoid the pic looking too bland. It's easier to leave the non chroma noise.
  13. PeterB666

    PeterB666 Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Jan 14, 2010
    Tura Beach, Australia
    It is slightly under exposed. ISO100 will do you no favours as the native ISO is 200. I would probably recommend ISO400 or ISO800. As others have suggested, there is ISO1600 but as you head away from ISO200 you lose some dynamic range (not that it is going to matter one iota in such flat lighting.

    Shoot in RAW to get the best results. Even with JPEG you can do some tweaking to saturation and the like to give it a bit of a lift.

    For around $100 you can pick up the Nissin Di466 Four Thrids flash from eBay, including shipping to your front door. It isn't very much and it works a treat.
  14. NetizenSmith

    NetizenSmith Mu-43 Regular

    Oct 28, 2010
  15. ~tc~

    ~tc~ Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Oct 22, 2010
    Houston, TX
    I think I would spend money on the 20/1.7 lens before I spent a dime on flash units. The extra 2 stops of light available from the aperture can cut that ISO1600 to 800 AND the shutter speed from 1/60 to 1/120!

    Check out the book "Understanding Exposure" by Bryan Petersen to really understand the relationship between ISO, aperture, and shutter speed and when to use "A" mode and when to use "S" mode.
  16. Brian G

    Brian G Mu-43 Veteran

    Nov 16, 2010
    Victoria, BC
    I doubt these are the kinds of image you're looking for, but . . .

    What the heck (and this is, after all, my first post).

    G1 with 20mm f1.7 lens, available light.


    Attached Files:

    • Like Like x 3
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.