HELP & ADVICE please

[FUJI]

I must admit to being truly puzzled and a little concerned.....is it me....or the camera?

 

Below I post three versions of the same ot

 

1: The original RAW file as shot, then seen on my desktop before processing:

 

2: The same shot, with the AUTO TONE clicked:

 

3: Same again with a little processing:

 

All PSDs reduced t JPEGS for posting on here:

 

What is puzzling, is that JPEGS look great in the camera LCD and in the viewfinder.....and....

 

FULL JPEGS are vibrant and processedin camera.

 

It is just the RAW files (as in frst pic) that seem to have a flat colour cast and are very flat and lifeless:

 

Is this the way the latest Sensors then PCmonitors see untouched RAW files..................or is it me not getting something right?

 

Have I got a funny camera ....or.....have I got a setting badly wrong?

 

EXIF should read....A priority........ISO 200......shooting RAW only.......WB on CLOUDY ......Lens LUMIX 17-20 at 1.7..............an expensive very bright pancake lens Panasonic made:

 

Im dissapointed and puzzled.....

 

Any ideas please?

 

HELP!

 

FUJI

[FUJI]

This is the best I could do....the RAW shot is the second one above, as seen straight from camera on my PC monitor:

 

Me, or the camera????

 

FUJI

[Martyn]

My understanding is that a RAW file is just that, raw; no sharpening, no contrast adjustment, no nothing. The result is that they do look flat and unimpressive. JPGs on the other had are processed in camera to produce an acceptable result for viewing.

[Black Pearl]

Am I assuming right and this is how your computer - by that I mean Windows itself - is seeing the RAW file?

 

If so it will be because you have a new camera and need to update Windows, or wait for it to update so it can process (render if you will) the file correctly. If it is your software doing this then I'm guess ing the same applies. You need to update it so it has the right codec's to be able to handle the new format.

[Guest]

as Martyn has said, the RAW is just what the camera captured the jpg is what the camera did to the raw and the final one is what you did to the raw 

[Black Pearl]

Yes but the RAW should look pretty close to how it was on the camera and to the JPEG - not the humongous difference shown above.

[FUJI]

Thanks both.....Yes....BP that very poor looking version is...as-seen on my pC monitor:

 

Perhaps I should explore the CDs that came with the camera?

 

Will something be on them?

 

As far as I could see, they contain freebie photo processing, like Silky PiX.....or....do they contain the all important software update???

 

Im too tired tonight after a good steak meal and a very large glassof red......I took  'Er indoors out as a peace offering after telling her about my camera purchase ;-)

 

A very frustrated 

 

FUJI

[Black Pearl]

You will need the very latest version of ACR - Adobe Camera RAW - which is numbered 8.2.

 

Google Adobe ACR 8.2 and run the update  - assuming you have Photoshop CS6, Photoshop CC or Lightroom 5.2

[Guest]

Yes but the RAW should look pretty close to how it was on the camera and to the JPEG - not the humongous difference shown above.

 

does the camera use its jpg conversion algorithm to be able to display it on its display or does it just display the raw file?

[Black Pearl]

Irrelevant.....they will look similar - I'm not saying the same - but they shouldn't look anything like the example that Fuji posted.

 

That is an entirely different issue in that he has a new camera and his software isn't able to correctly preview the file. 

[FUJI]

HI, again folks

 

I think I may have cracked it....................I downloaded the latest Adobe DNG converter...............it seems to have worked with an out-of-camera shot of my monitor.

 

More tests tomorrow.......I will report back afterwards:

 

Cheers!

 

FUJI

[ChrisLumix]

Ok, here is my assessment of your three pictures. (I can't offer RAW advice as I don't shoot in it).

 

1. The original RAW : very natural, very filmlike, and to me, the best of the three.

 

2. What's gone on with that? Where has that awful pale foggy colour cast version come from? Must be something to do with the processing.

 

3. Over-processed and over-vibrant.

 

So if 1. is the RAW is it came straight from the camera, I'm not sure what you're seeing wrong. It looks absolutely fine to me. The other two don't - 2. is just horrible and 3. seems too contrasty.

 

I don't know if that helps, or just confuses the issue. But I definitely prefer shot 1, so I wouldn't be blaming the camera at this stage.

[Black Pearl]

1 is the jpeg.

2 is the RAW (before Fuji updated his software) and the one the post is about.

3 is the processed RAW.

[ChrisLumix]

1 is the jpeg.

2 is the RAW (before Fuji updated his software) and the one the post is about.

3 is the processed RAW.

 

Really? I read Fuji's post wrong then. In that case, the JPEG looks great to me, as it did to Fuji. 

 

Having said that, the Venus JPEG engine in Lumix cameras has a very strong reputation so I'm not entirely surprised. Certainly JPEGs from my FZ are - according to reviewers - as good as, if not better, than the RAW shots, which is one reason why I've never bothered with RAW from my camera. However, one would expect 4/3 RAW files to be a lot better, so it must be to do with the processing?

[Black Pearl]

Now he has the right software update I'd assume his next effort will be different - that said a well processed RAW file shouldn't look like the jpeg it should look as the photographer wants it to look or there's no point in shooting RAW.

[FUJI]

Thank you for your on going support folks......a great little debate there.......

I was very tired last night but was determined to crack the problem......downloading the latest DNG converter from Adobe seems to have worked after I took then had a quick look at the RAW version on my monitor.

I was so tired at that point, I went to bed.

Bright eyed and ready to go this morning, I am about to have a practice shoot in the garden, just a couple of test shots..... Since I purchased my LX5 three years ago, I have been using Fatstone software to convert then save my RAWs, this meant changing them into TIFFS.

After the DNG update last night, I noted that the pic opened in ADOBE RAW, a set up I was used to until I updated to CS6 .....

I note that the CD supplied with the new GX7 contains software called ...SILKYPIX......which appears to be the PANASONIC RAW converter.....after I taking my test shotsI will install Silkypix onto the PC to see what that does compared to the DNG software.

After this, if all goes to plan and if I can dodge the forecast thundery showers I will take the camera on a proper test run at our local market.

FUJI

[FUJI]

Following on from above...............I HAVE CRACKED IT!!!  

 

Thank You BP and Richard, and for your observations Chris' your combined replies spurred me on to solve what could have been an extremely frustrating issue, and me making a fool of myself in the London Camera Exchange store where I bought my new camera from.

 

You will see from the two samples below that all is working as it should now..

 

The first shot, is just the RAW straight from camera as seen in ADOBE RAW on  my PC monitor, reduced to a JPEG for posting here.

 

The second shot, is my first fully processed shot....a crop:

 

Both shots taken through my beautiful little 17-20 LUMIX lens:

 

Best viewed LARGE........Click on Pics:

 

I dont think I will bother to install Panasonic's Silkypix....it wont be used.

 

Thanks again:

 

FUJI

 

[ChrisLumix]

Love that macro flower! Glad you cracked the problem Fuji - yes, Silkypix is the standard RAW processor included with Panasonic cameras. It's actually fine, if a little counter-intuitive to use. Some people prefer the results from Adobe, some from Silkypix, some from yet other RAW converter software. It's all down to personal preference.

 

Nice you've got it sorted.  

[NannyFerret]

I know someone that uses Silky pix and recall gets on well with it.

I have a copy of the program, but it never got installed before due to lack of space on my hard disc at the time. I also use Zoner quite a bit as I get on OK with it.

I may try Silkypix one day when I want a change.

I think if you find a program that you enjoy using then that program will be the one that you get the best results from.