Steve's workshop - Painting the outside walls

[Steve Maskery]

It's a Lumix G1. Old by today's standards, but does everything I need, and I don't want to have to spend anything I don't need to.

 

[Noel]

Great progress Steve, personally and practically. Long journey but well worth it. Not long to go.

98 pages and nearly 115,000 views, a record I think for a single topic. Very enjoyable to read.

 

[sploo]

It's a Lumix G1. Old by today's standards, but does everything I need, and I don't want to have to spend anything I don't need to.

Steve - this http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicdmcg1/2 suggests you should be able to get raw files from it.

EDIT: Looks like it was actually quite a decent camera, but interestingly enough the review notes "Fairly unreliable auto white balance (in artificial light) and no fluorescent white balance preset"

 

[Steve Maskery]

Well I've had a play and have learned quite a bit. I don't understand what RAW is or why I would want it, but I've found where it is. And I've found how to set the WB to the 6500K of my fluorescent tubes.

I'll probably still use point and shoot though!

 

[sploo]

Well I've had a play and have learned quite a bit. I don't understand what RAW is or why I would want it, but I've found where it is. And I've found how to set the WB to the 6500K of my fluorescent tubes.

I'll probably still use point and shoot though!

Raw files depend greatly on the camera, but in a nutshell: light goes through lens to sensor => analogue sensor data is digitized => digital data is modified based on your current settings (white balance, sharpness, picture styles etc.) => resulting image is written to the memory card as a jpeg.

Storing a raw gets that data at the "just digitized" stage, with a bunch of metadata that describes the settings that were in use by your camera at the time.

With suitable software on a PC/Mac you could then effectively reproduce the jpeg (it would use the raw data + the settings metadata from the file). The advantages are that you can change settings that would have been "cooked" into the jpeg; for example, a bad white balance choice could have permanently damaged image data in the jpeg, whereas the raw stores what the sensor actually saw, plus some settings to indicate what the camera's white balance was (and that can be overridden in post).

There's also usually more dynamic range in the raw, so the camera makes a decision on what brightness range and curve profiles to map the raw data into a jpeg (likely clipping some shadow or highlight detail in the process). With the raw on suitable editing software you've got much more scope for pulling detail from shadows and recovering information from apparently blown highlights.

Some people use the analogy of a jpeg being a print, and a raw being a digital negative. It's not a great analogy, but it works at the layman level.

 

[Steve Maskery]

Hey, Sploo, I understood all of that! Thank you very much.

 

[OM99]

Steve,

a raw file is pretty much like in the old days of film a positve that need to be developed ( it was in dark rooms) now its done with software such as Adobe photoshop or easier with Adobe Lightroom.

with those you can amend pretty much anything within the RAW file from white balance to highlights etc...., a raw file will have a lot of information compared to the jpeg.

The jpeg is the developed raw but done by the camera software.

PS: I don't know much about table saw blades but know a bit more about photo .

Oli

 

[Doug B]

Hope to be up for a pint this month, had my stitches out so should be good for a jar in a couple of weeks.

Stitches?

Pete

Chronic carpel tunnel Pete, lost the feeling in some of my fingers so they got me in quick & operated

Got to wait till July then they're on about doin the left :roll:


Sorry for the hijack Steve

 

[Racers]

Ouch!

Good luck with the next one.

Pete

 

[sploo]

Hey, Sploo, I understood all of that! Thank you very much.

No worries.

One other advantage: decoding a raw into something a human can view is a complex art, and there are a variety of different ways to do it. Some software can extract more information than others, simply by being a bit more clever with the way the (usually Bayer) data is interpreted.

If you have an original raw, then it's possible that, over time, a better raw converter may appear, and this would result in a slightly better image.

If you only have the jpeg (or even a lossless format such as a TIFF) the demosaic process has already resulted in RGB data, and you couldn't gain from a newer raw converter. It's obviously also likely that a powerful PC spending a few seconds doing the conversion can produce a better result than a camera trying to do it in a fraction of a second (i.e. using a better algorithm).

 

[yetloh]

Use RAW all the time and +1 for Lightroom. Quite apart from processing the image and generating a jpeg version, it is great for organising your images with a huge range of cataloguing possibilities, you can make it as simple or as complicated as you like.

Jim

 

[Harbo]

My camera is set up to take a RAW and JPEG - a bit overkill as I generally just use the RAW file. I set it up in case PhotoStream couldn't cope with RAW but it does.

Rod

MikeG has recently had the CT Op - I suffer from it too but probably not severe enough to operate?
My GP advises other things like Gel gloves etc but they only have a limited effect!

 

[Racers]

RAW and Nikon NX-D (its free) Photoshop and Lightroom on occasions (also free for me)

Pete

 

[xy mosian]

If you wanted something that'd shoot raw without spending big money, I believe that many of Canon's consumer point and shoot models can be "hacked" using CHDK - which is a sort of third party extension firmware that can enable higher-end features on a budget camera. Adobe's Lightroom is then the ideal companion for tweaking and managing the photos - though it'd be overkill if you don't actually take many shots.

Spot on. I have CDHK installed on memory card for use in my Canon A4000 IS. The improvement in image quality, over standard jpg, is staggering. With CDHK I can not only save in RAW, or DNG, format but also in a higher quality jpg than the camera offers. There is a downside, the image saving time, to card, is greatly increased. This sometimes is a blessing, making me think longer before pressing the shutter, but more often a bit of a nuisance.

xy

 

[PAC1]

Page 99! Nearly at the magic 100

 

[Steve Maskery]

Ooh, yes, and I like magic.
Steve, Finalist, Young Magician of the Year 1975!

We do seem to have hijacked this thread a little...

 

[SteveF]

this has been an outstanding build
and to get to 100 will be a landmark

all the best with your "finishing" which is looking close now

Steve

 

[sploo]

Use RAW all the time and +1 for Lightroom. Quite apart from processing the image and generating a jpeg version, it is great for organising your images with a huge range of cataloguing possibilities, you can make it as simple or as complicated as you like.

I'd highly recommend Scott Kelby's Lightroom books - very good for introducing you to the "what" and "why"; made a big difference for me.

There is a downside, the image saving time, to card, is greatly increased. This sometimes is a blessing, making me think longer before pressing the shutter, but more often a bit of a nuisance.

Ah. You'll be needing a Canon 1DX then :wink:

this has been an outstanding build
and to get to 100 will be a landmark

Is there going to be a prize for the poster that tips it over 100?

 

[Steve Maskery]

I don't know about a prize, but I wish I'd got a Quid Per View, it would have been quite a decent business proposition. Paid for the build and a jolly reasonable living besides!
Alas, alack.

 

[Tom K]

So how many replies to do the ton?