New York, New York
On August 17, I posted a version of this picture made from the in-camera JPEG file. Adobe Camera Raw was not yet supporting files from the new Panasonic Lumix G3 I used for the picture, so I was shooting Raw+, working from the JPEGs and archiving the Raw files. I did some adjustments to the files using ACR 6.4.1 since it can be set to work on JPEG files.
This morning I discovered that Adobe Labs has released a late Beta (Adobe Photoshop Camera Raw 6.5 Release Candidate) along with a matching new release of the DNG converter program, so I immediately downloaded and installed them. Then I ran the whole folder of "G3 downloads" through the converter and into a new folder. The files are significantly smaller after being converted to DNG, and operations in Bridge run much faster on these DNGs than they do on the native Panasonic files.
A first glance at the files in Bridge as interpreted by ACR 6.5 showed, as expected, the more "open" tonality I prefer to the harsher tonal scale of the JPEGs, along with smoother transitions in color saturation. The next things I wanted to see were how well ACR dealt with relatively high ISO, and with difficult mixed-source light. This was shot at 1/60th @ f/1.7, ISO 1600, and the light was about as crazily mixed as you could ask for.
detail
This is a 100% crop from the picture (after you click on it—the frontpage presentation is altered), using just ACR default capture sharpening and no attempt at noise reduction. While of course there is visible noise, it's tight and even. The un-interpolated file at 300 ppi will print at 11.5x15.3" and this slice would be about 2.5 inches wide. I haven't had a chance to do any test prints yet, but based on examination of the full size file at 25% view I expect it to look really good. Good enough to make me want to test at higher speeds and see how much farther up it can go.
2 comments:
I find that with Raw there is more opportunity to represent a feeling of space; I hesitated to make this comment on the recent G3 pictures because you have already been eloquent on this exact issue - but these camera JPG-derived pictures have (as may be expected) seemed a little "crushed" and "airless" compared with the best that is likely possible via a supervised Raw conversion. You now have open options for all these shots, of course, having shot Raw+JPG at the time.
Personally I find it takes longer to process and adjust an image I have shot in camera JPG (I use Lightroom), than one that I have shot in Raw - even despite LR's inability to honour certain camera settings. You just have to be so much more finicky and "corrective"!
Exception: the Pentax K-5 I use part of the time has separate highlight and shadow contrast controls that can somewhat improve the editability of the JPG and the 'pushability' of its shadow areas; though I don't know whether the G3 offers something like that in its image or scene settings.
Richard, I've now had a chance to look at a lot of G3 Raw files in Bridge as interpreted by ACR defaults and they are very nice: really open tone with shadows that seem to glow. It's obvious that dynamic range is significantly greater than with the GF1, though I haven't had a chance to do a formal test.
I've always considered JPEGs to be not just technically inferior but much harder to deal with from a workflow perspective, compared to the integrated Bridge>ACR>PSCSx working system.
The G3 has a dynamic-range-modifying tool for JPEGs but I didn't bother to try it since I've never intended to look at a jpg again once I got access to the Raw files.
Post a Comment