Oly, Jpeg, Lightroom and me.

Discussion in 'Olympus Cameras' started by Alf, Apr 4, 2011.

  1. Alf

    Alf Mu-43 Top Veteran

    846
    Mar 23, 2010
    Northeastern Tuscany
    So there I was, happily browsing which pics to process, importing into lightroom, tweaking, moving dials here and there. That is what jpeg+RAWs are for.

    But. Big But.

    5589563663_0f59c5d168. 5590156336_fc32ca15de.

    5590185544_7386060f6c. 5590186744_502e4f2a89.

    5589607861_e7383b57f2_b. 5590199606_d0f1c0d788_b.

    5590207176_619693dfee_z. 5589618049_3e8c48f96a_z.

    5590223806_2a4fbc866d_b. 5589635157_063dba71a0_b.

    Ok, LR3 gives me some latitude, and I love tweaking pics until late into the night. But but but.
    Long live the glorious Oly Jpeg Engine.
    (oh, and OOC jpegs are the second of each couple)
     
    • Like Like x 3
  2. shoturtle

    shoturtle  

    823
    Oct 15, 2010
    I have not yet been really able to produce a jpeg better then the oly with a raw shot, might have some different color cast with curves. But as a jpeg goes. The oly is hard as hell to out edit. But you can change that color cast on the oly jpegs easily in pp.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  3. greenandgold

    greenandgold Mu-43 Rookie

    13
    Jan 19, 2011
    I like the first two. They are really sharp! what lens and aperture did you use?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  4. Alf

    Alf Mu-43 Top Veteran

    846
    Mar 23, 2010
    Northeastern Tuscany
    Lumix 20/1.7 to the rescue.
     
  5. kevinparis

    kevinparis Cantankerous Scotsman

    Feb 12, 2010
    Gent, Belgium
    in every case your raw processed ( the first one) image looks better to me

    Also if you have the RAW you can always go back later when your skills and or your software get better


    but thats just me


    K
     
    • Like Like x 1
  6. soundimageplus

    soundimageplus Mu-43 Top Veteran

    782
    Feb 2, 2010
    Worcestershire
    I'm with Kevin on this. I'm seeing a rather unpleasant yellow cast on some of the OOC jpgs.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  7. Howi

    Howi Mu-43 Veteran

    208
    Feb 23, 2011
    Sheffield
    Howard
    Me too, LR images win hands down - stand out a mile.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  8. Hyubie

    Hyubie Unique like everyone else

    Oct 15, 2010
    Massachusetts
    Herbert
    The first two I prefer the Oly colors. The others I prefer your processing. That's what I try to do too - shoot in RAW+JPG. Then I try if I can process better. If not, I go with the Oly JPEG. And I'm finding out it's hard to compete with. :)
     
    • Like Like x 1
  9. pjohngren

    pjohngren Mu-43 Top Veteran

    560
    Oct 15, 2010
    The fact that they are competing with each other, so that different people prefer one over the other, says to me that jpeg is clearly able to produce images equal to RAW - they may be different, but they can be just as good. Can you fine tune the Oly jpeg like you can the Panny?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  10. DHart

    DHart Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Jan 7, 2010
    Scottsdale, Arizona
    Don
    Pete, this assertion is wrong. You may prefer the OOC color rendition to whatever you are able to produce yourself in post, but that doesn't confirm that in-camera JPG capture is superior to RAW capture. There is much more to image quality than just color rendition. And as you develop skills in image editing, with the tools available in Lightroom/Aperture, the sky is the limit in development potential. You are only fooling yourself in declaring that JPG capture is equal to RAW capture. Looking at the above comparison of RAW & JPG captures tells you NOTHING about whether JPG is equal to RAW capture.

    I know you have been fiddling around with your Panasonic in-camera settings, trying to find one or two in-camera JPG settings that will suffice for every photographic situation you might encounter. I believe you're trying to find a way to garner the satisfaction that many find with Olympus OOC color. That's great, for what it is. But don't try to declare that JPG capture is the equal to RAW capture - it isn't.

    The tools available in Lightroom/Aperture are vastly superior to the relatively crude in-camera JPG settings in nature, precision, and degree. And the RAW file format is similarly vastly superior to JPG in richness and depth of image detail content. Combine the richly detailed RAW capture with the power of Lightroom/Aperture and you've got a vastly superior system for image development. That's even easier to use that fiddling around with the few, crude, in-camera JPG settings.

    About all that one really can say that's true is that the images can look acceptably similar from both methods under limited circumstances.... when the image has been captured as perfectly as possible (this can be a fair bit of work at moment of capture if you don't have all day to fuss around with in-camera settings) and when you only evaluate them at screen resolution on a forum.

    You can take any of the above images and with adjustments make more and less pleasing renditions in color tone, shadow detail, brightness, etc. but the degree to which you can do this is significantly greater if you start with a RAW vs. a JPG.

    In the case of those who want to use the famous "Oly JPG colors", capturing both JPG and RAW gives the most capability of all... you have the OOC Oly colors and you have the RAW for any other direction you might want to take a given image, when you have more time and better tools to fine tune and tweak the captures.

    BUT, in this scenario - looking at 800 pixel images on a computer display - there is no way you can possibly truly evaluate results in any meaningful way whatsoever. The potential tweaks that can be made to the RAW file in Lightroom/Aperture are so vast that comparison of OOC JPG to any given development of the RAW in LR/Aper is not terribly fruitful.

    Camera-processed JPG files are relatively fragile in their ability to be manipulated in post. A little bit more than mild processing adjustments to a camera-processed JPG typically pushes the file data to ruin. If you capture in JPG and discard the RAWs, as you repeatedly pronounce as a wonderful way to work, you have destroyed your ability to effect significant development potential of the image after the moment of capture. Doing so makes no sense whatsoever to me.

    And all you have to do to bump into stone walls with JPG capture is:

    1) having a very wide dynamic range to capture,

    2) detail existing in shadow areas and in highlight areas that you want to retrieve,

    3) significant shifts in color balance, levels, curves that you want to effect,

    4) conversion to very richly toned B&W renditions,

    5) enlargement to wall display sizes...

    6) creation of a variety of very different potential development results

    and more...

    in all of these situations, the RAW will be unmistakably superior to the JPG.
     
    • Like Like x 4
  11. mauve

    mauve Mu-43 Top Veteran

    892
    Mar 9, 2010
    Paris, France
    The only obvious difference between those images on screen is the warmer colorimetry of the LR profile vs. Olympus profile. Cool the WB a couple 100°K, and you'll get very close.

    Another solution is to create a custom color profile better matching your expectations, with standard charts, but it's tedious.

    Cheers,
     
    • Like Like x 2
  12. DHart

    DHart Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Jan 7, 2010
    Scottsdale, Arizona
    Don
    Alf... please note that my above post was directed at comments made by Pete (following a number of other similar posts he has put in other threads), not to your post!

    No doubt you can achieve pleasing results for average scenes displayed at computer screen resolution from JPG capture. And OOC JPGs from Oly are generally very pleasing in color rendition.

    If the OOC JPGs please you and meet your photographic needs, then that's all that matters!

    And as long as you still have those RAW files, the potential for further image development and enhancement is unlimited! Good to have and to keep the RAWs for any and all images that might be meaningful to you or which you might want to develop with different artistic renditions in future. :thumbup:
     
    • Like Like x 1
  13. Alf

    Alf Mu-43 Top Veteran

    846
    Mar 23, 2010
    Northeastern Tuscany
    Agreed. I'm just happy that I can take my time learning composition and still get some nice results.
    As you said, the RAWs are there, when the PP bug bites.
     
  14. pjohngren

    pjohngren Mu-43 Top Veteran

    560
    Oct 15, 2010
    Good approach. It is all too easy to get caught up in the technical side of photography, and forget why we got into this in the first place. If you can get your camera to provide you with acceptable results ooc, then you can spend your time and energy working on taking good shots. I also feel that the restrictions placed on you by having to shoot good jpegs - especially re: getting the exposure perfect - can only help. If you feel you may need them in the future, you can always save the RAWs.
     
    • Like Like x 1