JPG Engine Settings

~tc~

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Oct 22, 2010
Messages
2,494
Location
Houston, TX
Where are people setting their WB and Film Mode to? How did you arrive at those settings, what do you think, got any examples?

I have seen a couple, haven't had a good chance to try them extensively yet:

WB Cloudy +1 Blue +2 Magenta
FM Dynamic Contrast -1 , NR -1 , Saturation +1 , Sharpness +1

WB AWB +7 Amber +1 Magenta
FM Vibrant Contrast +1 Saturation -1

(below from grebeman)
WB Cloudy, +1 blue, +2 Magenta
FM Nature Contrast -1 Saturation -1

(below from yoshi234)
WB AWB no adjustment
FM Dynamic contrast -1 sharpness -2 saturation 0 NR -2

(below from IconIndustries)
WB AWB +2 blue +1 Magenta
iExposure to 'Standard'
FM Nostalgic contrast +2 sharpness 0 Saturation +1 NR -2
 

grebeman

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Mar 13, 2010
Messages
1,202
Location
South Brent, south Devon (UK)
Real Name
Barrie
I did take a protracted series of shots a couple of days ago using my GF1 set up on a tripod with WB set to cloudy, +1 blue, +2 Magenta which by my reckoning puts the spot in the lower right hand quadrant ( I guess we saw the same post). Then I took a series of shots with contrast set at -1, varying saturation from -2 to +2, so 5 shots in all, then a set with saturation at -1, varying contrast from -2 to +2, so another 5, all repeated for Dynamic, Nature, Nostalgia and Standard.
I found Dynamic a little too vivid for my personal choice, Nostalgia too washed out, so it comes down to Nature or Standard. I've not do very close analysis so far but I am tending to WB as stated above, Nature, contrast -1, saturation -1 which I've set on my GF1 and will leave as such for now. I still take raw + jpeg and will compare the in camera jpeg's with the jpeg obtained from the raw file after modifying the raw to my tastes. To date the actual raw file is less contrasty and saturated until modified to my taste, the in camera jpegs don't seem too far different to the jpeg output of my processed raw files, but further experience with these settings and possible fine tuning will be required.

Barrie
 

~tc~

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Oct 22, 2010
Messages
2,494
Location
Houston, TX
For me, it's GF1, but I would think any of the -1 series should be pretty close, right?

I added your settings to the original post.
 

grebeman

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Mar 13, 2010
Messages
1,202
Location
South Brent, south Devon (UK)
Real Name
Barrie
From my understanding the majority of Olympus users seem to be very happy with the default settings in their cameras, the Panasonic G series default settings don't seem to match up to that, but there are several variables and it must be possible to achieve satisfactory results, just that it takes rather more experimentation.

Barrie
 

yoshi234

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Nov 20, 2010
Messages
53
Location
West Hollywood
My GF1 setting:

Dynamic (color)
contrast -1
sharpness -2
saturation 0
NR -2

WB is left at auto most of the time, but I'll adjust to taste as needed; especially when shooting indoors w/o flash.
 

amberzombie

Mu-43 Rookie
Joined
Oct 28, 2010
Messages
20
Well I just got my GF1 last week and have been playing with the settings a bit with some of the suggestions above.

Overall it is working really well and pictures look amazing - however when doing indoor shots w/o flash I kinda of agree with Yoshi and just leave WB to auto as having the Cloudy preset does oversaturate the reds a little.
 

~tc~

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Oct 22, 2010
Messages
2,494
Location
Houston, TX
I played around with these settings a touch over the holiday. The second one (WB AWB +7 Amber +1 Magenta FM Vibrant Contrast +1 Saturation -1) resulted in really blown out reds.

I really need to be more scientific about it, though, not doing a very good job of seeing what's workng and what's not ...
 

Grant

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
May 16, 2010
Messages
388
Location
Lunenburg, Nova Scotia, Canada
If I am extremely concerned about white balance I take a different approach. While I am always shooting in RAW it should also work with JPEG. I take one extra image, under the lighting conditions, with a grey card in it. Later, in Aperture I balance the colour of that image using the grey card and then apply those changes to all other images. It is fast and accurate.
 

~tc~

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Oct 22, 2010
Messages
2,494
Location
Houston, TX
That is certainly the right way to do it.

FYI - I have heard that with digital, you actually want to use a white card - the grey was used with film because of it's more gentle highlight clipping behavior. Using a white card helps prevent clipping in digital. Just what I read somewhere ...
 

Grant

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
May 16, 2010
Messages
388
Location
Lunenburg, Nova Scotia, Canada
~tc~ You can use anything from pure black to pure white as long as the values for Red Green Blue are equal. The problem with using pure white or pure black, I feel, is that if one of those channels is clipped sooner than the other you may have a colour shift without noticing it. If the range of the scene is within the range of your sensor and you are exposed correctly you can very safely use black or white cards. When you use a grey, by nature none, of the three channels are clipped so you never have to worry about this problem.
 

Wasabi Bob

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Nov 23, 2010
Messages
1,100
Location
New Jersey - United States
My suggestion

You are better off using the default settings which represent "unity". These are not intended to be standardized settings, from brand to brand, from model to model. Using sharpness as an example, setting a negative value would slightly decrease the sharpness. A positive value would slightly increase the sharpness and especially in low light situations (where the s/n ratio is lower) could add some noise.

Any tweaking of the "picture values" could better be done in post adjustments with Photoshop or other similar programs.

While the goal of this discussion appears to be obtaining the best quality, let us not forget that JPG is NOT a lossless format. It uses compression which adds artifacts that are not part of the original photo. If quality is your goal, use RAW and save to TIFF. Any color adjustments would vary from scenario to scenario.
 

~tc~

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Oct 22, 2010
Messages
2,494
Location
Houston, TX
The point of this is to eliminate a compression step by getting to where you would end up in Photoshop in camera.

Obviously, RAW is required for ultimate image quality, however jpeg has definite advantages in portability and file size. Having the jpeg where you want it out of camera is better.
 

semma

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Nov 9, 2010
Messages
77
playing

I am playing a bit with the camera settings, and shoot RAW+JPEG.
Reasons?
Simple, always have a backup picture in RAW that contents a lot more info, when the JPEG is not what I expected.
I love how some people defend JPEG, and I do not wanna spent a lot of time in LR3.
Wonderfull, if you make the right settings in the cam, then mostly it is good enough for me. But, for the cases I miss a shot, there is always that backup... .

My film modes?
Film mode 1: grebeman's settings
Film mode 2: pjohngren's settings

A pity that it is freezing here, so I do only indoor shots of some objects, cannot wait to get outside to test those settings in street situations, low light situations and so on.
Well, how pjohngren looks at JPEG, I love his vision, I understand that some people do not want to do PP, and when the results are fine in JPEG, I can just be jealous at his talent :wink:

It is also nice to have 2 differents pics, one with the camera JPG engine settings, and one that you can play with (if you want) in LR3 :wink:

A last word and question, the pics Javier (member on seriouscompacts) take are fabulous, and he states there that he do NOT shoot RAW, but JPEG, and he shoots with the LX5.
Streetshooter, torture that man till he tells us his JPG-engine settings, pleaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaase :biggrin:
 

Wasabi Bob

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Nov 23, 2010
Messages
1,100
Location
New Jersey - United States
Yes, I agree

The point of this is to eliminate a compression step by getting to where you would end up in Photoshop in camera. Having the jpeg where you want it out of camera is better.
In theory, yes but since the lighting on virtually every shot will vary, so too will the signal to noise ratio. It is that ratio that is responsible for the noise that the JPG compression reacts to. But I do agree with your point on JPG being more manageable - no debate there. Once you get your system calibrated, RAW is the way to go. Regarding the LX5, it's a great camera. It has a larger sensor and a relatively fast lens so the signal to noise ratio tends to be consistently better, hence better JPG's.
 

~tc~

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Oct 22, 2010
Messages
2,494
Location
Houston, TX
Ummm ... LX5 sensor is much smaller and lens slower than GF1 with 20/1.7 ...

The big advantage I'll give to fast lens compacts is macro. Shoot wide open with fast shutter speed and still have infinite depth of field.
 

semma

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Nov 9, 2010
Messages
77
all with an LX5 in JPG

Ummm ... LX5 sensor is much smaller and lens slower than GF1 with 20/1.7 ...

The big advantage I'll give to fast lens compacts is macro. Shoot wide open with fast shutter speed and still have infinite depth of field.
I tought the same, till I saw the pics of Javier, here is the link to what the man shoots in JPG with the small sensor LX5 :wink:
I wonder wat JPG-engine settings he is using :smile:
Lumix LX-5 collection - a set on Flickr
 

Wasabi Bob

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Nov 23, 2010
Messages
1,100
Location
New Jersey - United States
Correction

Ummm ... LX5 sensor is much smaller and lens slower than GF1 with 20/1.7 ...

The big advantage I'll give to fast lens compacts is macro. Shoot wide open with fast shutter speed and still have infinite depth of field.
Larger than most point and shoot cameras (not GF1), and GF1 is also sold with the 14-42 which is not as fast as the 20mm lens. Without a doubt, GF1 is better, but at a higher cost.
 

Latest posts

Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Mu-43 is a fan site and not associated with Olympus, Panasonic, or other manufacturers mentioned on this site.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Copyright © 2009-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom