Just wanted to share.... - DPChallenge Forums

Tamron AF 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di LD Aspherical IF for Canon

07/18/2005 10:32:53 PM · #1

Just wanted to share some pictures from our trip to the mountains to visit my parents. (my daughter took the mountain scene. She wanted credit for that one! LOL! It's the view from their deck).

//usera.imagecave.com/pianomom2003/Flowers/P1010203edited.jpg

//usera.imagecave.com/pianomom2003/Flowers/P1010336edited.jpg

//usera.imagecave.com/pianomom2003/Insects/P1010285edited.jpg

(edited to reput some of the pictures on again. I took some of them off of imagecave.com and lost them on here. The mountain one is no longer on imagecave, sorry)

Message edited by author 2005-08-12 23:14:35.

SDW

Canon EOS-60D

07/19/2005 12:25:51 AM · #2

Very nice photographs. The Panasonic FZ20 is a wonderful camera. I really like #3 and #4. And Yes tell your daughter #1 looks good as well. Just wish it wasn't so hazy that day.

Are you shooting in JPG or TIFF. I had the FZ20, I suggest shotting in tiff and make sure you don't up the saturation in the camera settings. It will show in artifacts. Just a bit of advice, some I learned from the camera.

07/19/2005 08:44:27 AM · #3

I've only tried the JPG mode. I'm still learning what all the camera does. What's the difference in the pictures with the two? (JPG & TIFF) One thing I don't like though is that I looked into getting one of the telescope lens for it and it costs almost as much as the camera did! I think it was only like $100 less than what I paid for the camera.

PS I'll give my daughter your message! :) I think #3 was my favorite too (not counting the one of our pup LOL!)

Message edited by author 2005-07-19 08:46:48.

07/19/2005 09:59:19 AM · #4

Tiff is a lossless format whereas jpg is compressed so some detail is lost. The downside of tiff though is that the files are quite large.

07/19/2005 10:42:51 AM · #5

So, if you don't want to use up a lot of space on the computer, use the JPG one? Or, if there's a picture that I really want great detail for, then switch over to the TIFF? Do you know if you can do a mix of both kinds on the same memory card in one photo session?

07/19/2005 11:21:18 AM · #6

Originally posted by pianomom:

Mix and match is fine. Use tiff for the more important images that you think may need more than the standard post processing. Also, save any intermediate files in either tiff or PSD (if you use photoshop). This will preserve detail while you are still working on the image. Only save the final version as jpeg.

Also, never re-save a jpg. When a jpg is saved it is compressed. When you save again it gets compressed again. Each time loosing more and more detail eventually turning the contents to mush.

Message edited by author 2005-07-19 11:22:41.

07/19/2005 01:08:51 PM · #7

Ok, thanks for the info! So much to learn.....
Does the JPG get compressed & lose detail each time that I do a backup disk? Dumb question, I just wanted to be sure if you meant this too or just when I'm editing the pictures and saving them (sometimes I'll edit one and then do another edit where I'll crop it, so I may end up with several different versions of the picture.)

Message edited by author 2005-07-19 13:14:20.

srbrubaker

Nikon Coolpix 8700

07/19/2005 01:54:12 PM · #8

It depends. My guess is that if you open a jpeg file in good image editing software, do nothing, and save it with exactly the same settings as were used to create it, the process would not degrade the photo. But If you change settings, then the compression routine will alter the photo a little bit each time it gets new compression parameters. And this will change the photo and can eventually 'turn it to mush.'

I'm not an authority on work flow, but here's what I do. I download the original from my camera. And I keep this file on a HD. Then I open the file to edit it. After editing I always save the file to a different hard drive. ( in this way, all the photos I have edited are naturally backed up the original is on one drive and the edited copy is on another.) I save the edited copy as a photoshop file, since that's the software I use to edit it. This saves every pixel of info as TIFF would. And the files are about ten times as big. But only one in ten photos really comes out so the two photo folders are roughly the same size. I back up the photo files from both HDs from time to time.

If I want to post an edited photo to pbase or dpchallenge I choose SaveAs .. and select jpg. I have another folder that holds online jpgs. When I save edited photos for other uses I put them in the folders for those uses.. So it is frequently true that I will have three or four different versions of the same photo.

Probably everyone has evolved a different work flow. But this one works for me. Hope this helps.

07/19/2005 01:59:26 PM · #9

Originally posted by srbrubaker:

This isn't exactly true. When you open the image it uncompresses to full size. When you save it recompresses. So even if no changes are made the act of saving will degrade the image.

Try it on one of your images (copy it first of course). Re save a few times and compare the end result with the original. Try it at different quality levels. At highest quality you may not see much of a difference at web size but when printed you'll probably notice compression artifacts.

07/19/2005 02:24:33 PM · #10

Dang, this gets so confusing when you're just starting out and trying to figure out what the heck you're doing! :)

Message edited by author 2005-07-19 16:07:46.

srbrubaker

Nikon Coolpix 8700

07/19/2005 02:29:43 PM · #11

Originally posted by cpanaioti:

Originally posted by srbrubaker:
It depends. My guess is that if you open a jpeg file in good image editing software, do nothing, and save it with exactly the same settings as were used to create it, the process would not degrade the photo.

This isn't exactly true. When you open the image it uncompresses to full size. When you save it recompresses. So even if no changes are made the act of saving will degrade the image.

Try it on one of your images (copy it first of course). Re save a few times and compare the end result with the original. Try it at different quality levels. At highest quality you may not see much of a difference at web size but when printed you'll probably notice compression artifacts.

Here's what I did. I took a photo open in photoshop. I saved it as a jpeg using Quality 3 which is "LOW" I then closed the file. Then I opened it in photoshop. I did no editing, I saved it as a new file. I opened the file, did no editing, saved it as a new file, closed, opened the new file and so on. Each time I saved it as jpeg it using Quality 3. which is LOW. I did this eight times. I then made another layer and pasted the first copy of the photo that was compressed at Quality 3 on top of the one that had been Saved As JPG eight times. And I DIFFERENCED the layer. NO DIFFERENCE. The result was totally black.

I do not advocate treating photos this way, which is why I wrote about work flow. After all, who writes down the jpeg parameters they use to compress a photo? But It is good to know that JPEG doesn't just arbitrarily chew away at the quality of the data every time you open and close the photo. It only does it every time something about the photo changes - either through editing or through a change in jpeg parameters.

It is completely true that the first time a photo is compressed there is inevitable loss. That's what JPEG does. But with a little care and understanding of the process, the losses can be managed.

Message edited by author 2005-07-19 14:34:17.

07/19/2005 04:35:04 PM · #12

I found an article related to jpeg images. There's some good information found in section [10] about compression and loss of quality or lack thereof.

//www.faqs.org/faqs/jpeg-faq/part1/

07/19/2005 06:46:29 PM · #13

I'll read the article and see if I can understand what to do. Thanks!

srbrubaker

Nikon Coolpix 8700

07/19/2005 07:23:44 PM · #14

Originally posted by cpanaioti:

I found an article related to jpeg images. There's some good information found in section [10] about compression and loss of quality or lack thereof.

//www.faqs.org/faqs/jpeg-faq/part1/

Thanks Much! It's a great source of info on JPEG. It definitely supports the idea of not converting back and forth between jpeg and other formats often - as you suggest. And it suggests that the losses for converting the same file in exactly the same way are small (though not identically zero.)

...

What to do (suggested practice by a Photoshop owner):
1) Copy the file that's in your camera to your computer's file system ( hard drive.)
2) Open the file in your editing software .
3) Edit this second file until it is what you want.
4) SaveAs a TIFF file. or in Photoshop format, or in whatever lossless storage method your editor supports. But be sure to SaveAs so that it makes a copy rather than Save which will overwrite the original photo. Also, if you are lucky enough to have two hard drives you may want to save this file to a different hard drive than the drive holding the original photo.
5) When you want to post it to the DPChallenge or some other web site, open the file, choose SaveForWeb and make the image the size you want using that utility. The utility will create a new jpeg file you can post at this site. It will let you manage the image size and the file size separately. You can make the image bigger or smaller and you can change the jpeg compression.

In this way you can make lots of different copies of the photo, all with the best quality consistent with the final file size because they are being copied from a 'master,' rather than from other copies. I'm afraid I've had no practice with other image editing software. Each would implement step 5 differently. I imagine most people will manage these steps a little differently, but I imagine this is not greatly different from what many people do. I bet there are some other good threads on this topic here, but I don't know how to look for them...

Hope this helps.
Steve

07/19/2005 08:59:29 PM · #15

These look much noisier than pictures I've been taking with the FZ20 - what ISO settings are you using? I've looked long and hard at the differences between jpg and tiff images taken with the camera, and using tiff won't reduce noise from the sensor - there's some difference between the two formats, but not enough to give you the noise that you've got on the shots. Saving several times in jpg format shouldn't increase noise, it should reduce detail.

The hazy mountain shot, you can't do much about the noise in the sky, although it does look heavily sharpened. The interior doggy shots, you should be able to remove the noise in the background by changing the camera settings.

07/20/2005 09:40:54 AM · #16

When I was out taking pictures that morning, I started off using ISO 200 and then changed it to 100. I think the flowers were on the 200. (& I believe the inside one of our dog was on 200) When you were talking about these pictures being noisier than the ones you've taken with your FZ20, were you talking about just the mountain one and the dog one? If so, the dog one was taken with my camera but the mountain one my daughter took with HER camera (small point & shoot). There have been times though that I've thought some of the pictures taken with my camera looked too noisy. Any advice?

07/20/2005 03:16:33 PM · #17

The flower shots look only slightly noisy, but it's still there.
Have you switched the anti-shake off? The doggy shot looks like it has some motion blur. I had a look at some of the other photos on your web site, and there's more noise on the background than I expected to see.

I generally leave the camera in ISO 80 and use aperture priority to shoot. If the shutter speed is too low and I'm getting motion blur, then I'll increase the ISO settings. I've left all the picture adjustment settings at standard, but that's something with which I want to experiment in the near future.

I have to agree though, sometimes I shoot photos in reasonable light, that come out way noisier than I expect - usually I only notice when I try oversharpening in post-processing.

07/20/2005 03:41:16 PM · #18

I've kept the anti-shake on because I've needed the extra help for not getting blurry pictures. I haven't played around with the aperture priority yet. How do you set yours? (sorry, I'm a beginner) Any idea why I'm getting so much more noise than you are? I'll try the ISO 80 & see if that helps.

Message edited by author 2005-07-20 15:46:58.

07/20/2005 07:25:40 PM · #19

heh - don't turn the anti-shake off! It lets you shoot in a darker environment without having to use a tripod. (basically, you can get the shutter speed down to 1/30th of a second if you hold the camera steady, which usually is enough to record motion blur with anti-shake off. Of course, if you want motion blur, turn it off! :)

By putting the camera into aperture priority, you have full control over depth of field without having to worry too much about shutter speed. There are plenty of good tips on the web for controlling depth of field. In fact, there should be some info lying around this site somewhere

Something to bear in mind is that most of the bright shots in my portfolio were taken on a sunny day, and have been post processed to remove noise & reduced in size, which makes them look smoother. I'll put some unprocessed pics up tomorrow for comparison.

Message edited by author 2005-07-20 19:26:28.

07/20/2005 11:08:02 PM · #20

Originally posted by _Io_:

Something to bear in mind is that most of the bright shots in my portfolio were taken on a sunny day, and have been post processed to remove noise & reduced in size, which makes them look smoother. I'll put some unprocessed pics up tomorrow for comparison.

That would be helpful. Thanks! Mostly what I do with the photos that I've taken is sharpen them, correct color, shadows, etc. & sometimes crop them. I have PS Elements 3.0. It helps talking with someone that has the same camera.

07/21/2005 03:27:10 PM · #21

Here are some recent images. The car is taken as a TIFF, iso 80, I've shrunk the full pic down to 640x480, and included a section of the final image to show the noise levels inherent in the sensor. The other images are taken in low light: the latter is a section of the former shot, which shows a whole lot of noise, as expected with such low light conditions - I shot at ISO 200, without a tripod.

Car detail:

Car overview:

Hills detail:

Hills overview:

Io.

Message edited by author 2005-07-21 19:52:13.

07/21/2005 06:21:22 PM · #22

On my computer the car images look very clear and the low light one, as expected, very noisy. I'll have to try the TIFF ISO 80 & see if my pictures come out better too. Do you use ISO 80 most of the time? Or do you switch it to 100 or 200 outside too? We'll be going on vacation soon and it would be nice to get better photos from different places that we go. What setting do you usually use if you're inside?

07/21/2005 07:40:30 PM · #23

I generally leave the camera on ISO 80, regardless of indoor/outdoor.

If when reviewing the photos on the camera after shooting, there is any motion blur or obvious problems with the shutter speed, I'll increase the ISO. Make sure you remember to knock it back down to 80 afterwards, though! Alternatively, get a tripod, and use the 10 or 2 second delay timer to take your shots. (even pressing the shutter button manually will cause the camera to vibrate to an extent)

I usually play with the exposure settings and knock them down a stop - the pictures rarely go to complete black when underexposed, and post processing can bring the detail out again. Over exposure generally leads to complete white out, especially with bright cloudy skies, and it's impossible to get any detail back again. There are still some scenarios I find it really hard to shoot with the level of clarity I want - namely mid-range landscapes on a bright day - I can never get the right exposure settings to ensure that the landscape is clear and crisp whilst getting blue (albeit hazy) skies! (The blue is definitely there to the naked eye!)

I was experimenting with the TIFF format on the car photos - the camera stores both TIFF and the highest encoded JPG. On the computer, they both look very similar - there's no extra noise in the JPG, though, it just looks very slighty different when magnified at 800%.

Inside, if I'm taking snapshots of people/critters, I'll use the flash with the anti-redeye settings. If I'm trying to take "studio" shots (I use the term loosely!), then I'll try not to use the flash. All my challenge shots that are obvious "studio" shots are taken without flash.

The only concession I've made outside is changing the white balance settings - if it's cloudy, I'll switch the white balance to cloudy, or whatever's appropriate; and if I'm taking "studio" shots, then I'll change it to interior lighting, but normally, I leave it on auto. You're probably OK leaving it on auto 'til you get used to the camera more.

I've found learning how to use a high spec compact much harder than I expected: the FZ20's probably got as many options as dSLR, but without the range that high end dSLR's have. All the lessons that you'll see on this site regarding dSLR's will still apply to the FZ20. There's probably a lot of posts on this site already regarding the many variables you can adjust to take your photos: Aperture (to change depth of field), shutter speed, ISO setting, exposure, white balance, using jpg/tiff, camera post-processing (the picture adjust settings), etc etc....

I hope this helps you take some better pictures. Any other FZ20 users care to comment????!!!!