JPG processing across different Panasonic camera models

Discussion in 'Panasonic Cameras' started by agentlossing, Aug 6, 2013.

  1. agentlossing

    agentlossing Mu-43 Hall of Famer Subscribing Member

    Jun 26, 2013
    Andrew Lossing
    I keep running across mentions of the Olympus jpg rendition, and how much better it is than Panasonic's. When I used the GF3 I was a little disappointed with the jpg quality, things often lacked punch and needed to be edited. You know something's not quite right about your exposure when you need Picasa's "I'm feeling lucky" quick-fix on every photo. Some of that was probably my lack of familiarity with the camera, but still.

    Now that I'm using the GX1, however, I'm constantly impressed with how good the jpgs look. The colors are much better, at least to my eyes, and my (admittedly imprecise) initial comparisons seem to indicate that the contrast and saturation is a lot better with this sensor/camera. Unlike the GF3, one-click edit tools seem to do almost nothing to GX1 jpgs, which is another indicator, beyond my eyes, that this camera does a much better job.

    Is there really so much variance between different Panasonic models? And should we stop giving the company such a hard time about their jpgs?
  2. Al.

    Al. Mu-43 Veteran

    Jul 3, 2010
    Hull, East Yorkshire, UK
    I have no trouble with my out of camera jpegs with my GX1
  3. meyerweb

    meyerweb Mu-43 Hall of Famer Subscribing Member

    Sep 5, 2011
    You (agentlossing) do know that the jpeg output of the GF3 (and every other modern camera) can be adjusted in the camera? Oly's jpegs are "better," in the opinion of many, because they're much more saturated. You can adjust the saturation of G3 jpegs to be even "punchier" than the standard Oly output. You can also boost the contrast to make images more "punchy." Some of us, though, greatly prefer the more natural output of Panasonic's recent cameras to the artificially "punchy" Oly jpegs.

    Some Panasonic's tend toward slightly yellow response, too, especially in the greens. You can adjust blue-yellow balance in the camera's settings menu.

    That said, Panasonic has, in it's more recent bodies, made the defaults more saturated and more contrasty, since that's what jpeg-only shooter tend to prefer.
  4. agentlossing

    agentlossing Mu-43 Hall of Famer Subscribing Member

    Jun 26, 2013
    Andrew Lossing
    I use the jpg settings in-camera to reduce NR and increase sharpness, but I've always been afraid of bumping saturation in-camera. I don't want to end up with something that introduces artifacts or blows out color channels with no way to go back and fix them. I'd rather end up with something I can fix in Lightroom than something that I can't.

    But the GX1 jpgs are just plain good, and don't appear to me to be over-done.
  5. jyc860923

    jyc860923 Mu-43 Hall of Famer Subscribing Member

    Feb 28, 2012
    Shenyang, China
    I own a GF3 and have used G5, having seen a lot of images from different panasonic models, I can be sure that the JPG GF3 produces is not half as good as newer model produces.
  6. agentlossing

    agentlossing Mu-43 Hall of Famer Subscribing Member

    Jun 26, 2013
    Andrew Lossing
    The key, of course, is that you can still get awesome RAW files from the GF3... I just don't have a current enough version of Lightroom to handle their format. Hence sticking to jpgs for the moment.
  7. garfield_cz

    garfield_cz Mu-43 Veteran

    Jul 9, 2011
    Czech Republic
    All new Panasonic 16MP bodies (G3 and above) has very good out of camera AWB and corresponding JPEGs rendition. Further more JPEG engine can be endlessly tweaked to fulfill your own taste.
  8. Ulfric M Douglas

    Ulfric M Douglas Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Mar 6, 2010
    My G3 has awful auto whitebalance, I leave it on cloudy now.
    My e-pM1 has the very best auto whitebalance.
    All my Olympus bodies make pleasant Jpegs after a global WB tweak, my old Lumix G1 makes the nicest B&W Jpegs.

    thing is ... both companies keep changing things so it's a moving target and you've got to be specific : the O.P. may not like any of the Olympus colours as much as his GX1, or he may love them!
    It's so EASY to try your SD card in various models in the shop, go out to the street and take some test photos including faces and skies. Bingo.

    Edit: I took three cameras out the back door. Surprise surprise (Not!) the e-P2 made the nicest Jpeg of sky, trees & farmland. But I found a Photostyle(?) in the G3 almost as good :Scenery. Who would've though it? So, valuable thread to me, I'm going to leave it on Scenery forever.
  9. ~tc~

    ~tc~ Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Oct 22, 2010
    Houston, TX

    There are a number of threads on "tuning" the JPG engine with white balance and photo style adjustments

    That said, I do have to agree about the Olympus AWB and metering being slightly better.
  10. b_rubenstein

    b_rubenstein Mu-43 All-Pro

    Mar 20, 2012
    Melbourne, FL
    I have a GX1 and an E-M5. They have different sensors with different spectral responses and different dynamic ranges. Using the in camera JPG settings, the GX1 can not generate files that look like they came out of the current Olympus'. It's not that Olympus files are more saturated. It's not that the GX1 files are bad, but they're not the same as Olympus files. It's not all that straight forward to process their RAW files to look the same.
  11. ~tc~

    ~tc~ Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Oct 22, 2010
    Houston, TX
    I don't think anyone is arguing that - just like you would be hard pressed to make GF1 images look the same as GX1 or GH3.

    Olympus has done a lot of study on what gives images a more "emotional" impact, and they design the JPG output accordingly. Sometimes (some of us argue, frequently) this results in an image that is a bit unrealistic.
  12. agentlossing

    agentlossing Mu-43 Hall of Famer Subscribing Member

    Jun 26, 2013
    Andrew Lossing
    How long would you say Olympus has processed their jpgs this way? I had an Olympus point and shoot way back when, probably 2002 or so, and its 2mp images were sometimes ridiculously punchy, especially the greens and blues in landscape shots.
  13. Problem solved: convert the raw files to a dng file version that is compatible with your copy of Lightroom. You don't need to be confined to shooting and editing jpegs when your editing software is a bit out of date.


    Adobe - Adobe Camera Raw and DNG Converter : For Macintosh
  14. svtquattro

    svtquattro Mu-43 Veteran

    Sep 24, 2012
    Vancouver, Canada
    I was never happy (sometimes pretty disgusted) with the JPG out of my G5. Reds, and skin tones and greens (to my eyes) are horrid.

    I spent $10 to buy Huelight profiles for the G5 and $129 to buy Lightroom 4.4 and $20 for a 32GB SDHC card. Now I shoot only RAW. Happy ending.

    Problem is: G5 ($380) + all that stuff means I'm most of the way to a used OM-D. sigh. I wanted OM-D, I could afford G5.

    I'm lucky to have such a small problem in this uncertain, crazy world.
  15. monk3y

    monk3y Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    May 14, 2013
    in The Cloud...
    I think whatever your camera is, investing in a software like lightroom is good. It makes post processing very easy. :)

    Sent from my GT-N7100 using Mu-43 mobile app
  16. htc

    htc Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Jan 11, 2011
    When you come home and have some 5000 shots waiting, your biggest hope is... sorry, MY biggest hope is that the jpeg engine has done mostly successful job and there are only a few that needs serious pp from RAW. I believe nobody is willing to pay your time if those 5000 are only RAW and they are from wedding, funeral or other paid gig. Therefore I think a good and working jpeg engine is quite important part (as working AWB).
  17. Ulfric M Douglas

    Ulfric M Douglas Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Mar 6, 2010
    Anyone else find AdobeCameraRaw easier to get from a file/folder to the required tweaked Jpeg output?
    Lightroom sometimes makes me cross : frustration at it wanting to do things differently from the way I want it to do things.
  18. ~tc~

    ~tc~ Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Oct 22, 2010
    Houston, TX
    Not sure - they did several university studies and published papers on it at least a few years ago. I remember reading about it.
  19. fransglans

    fransglans Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jun 12, 2012
    Borrow this thread a little:)
    What's the latest firmware for gx1?

    I'm going to buy one for my friend and wanted to check this before she gets it.

  20. Mikros

    Mikros Mu-43 Regular

    Jul 16, 2013
    ver. 1.1 for body.