LX100 jpg colours query

[HPZ]

Hi,

apart from being certain, I made the right choice of camera for 99+ reasons, I have one niggle:

This has to do !only! with the in camera raw to jpg conversion.

I noted that camera jpg colors are not alway spot on vs my memory of the scene. In particular greens in foliage are excessive, regardless of which style I use vivid, natural, etc).

I have apllied the following jsettings to all styles:
Contrast: -2
Sharpness: 1
Noise reduction: -5
Saturation: -2
i Dynamic: Auto

Of course, I can remedy that by raw development, no hassle there. Camera WB seems spot on as well.
But that's entirely besides the point. I´d just like the camera to give me pgs a little more satisfying.

Any ideas what I might tweak with the in camera raw to jpg conversion?

Thanks and ge, Peter

[Dave Humphries]

Hi Peter,

Welcome to the CiC forums from me.

We have a few LX100 shooters here and I have added the word "query" to the thread title to pique their interest further

My only general suggestion would be to analyse what you do when developing the RAW* (in terms of colours) and try to replicate that with the camera jpg settings, profile/style and WB offsets for Y/B & M/G - although, from what you've said so far, you seem to have a good understanding of the camera & theory and have already tried most things we might suggest.

* I assume this does give you a satisfactory result?

HTH, Dave

PS
Could you do me a favour please?
Could you click Settings (right at the top),
then Edit Profile (on left)
and put 'Peter' in the Real Name field
and where you are (roughly) in the Location field,
then click the Save Changes button below and to right,
this helps everyone give you more personal and relevant answers - thanks in advance.

[DanK]

One of my cameras is an LX100, but I'm afraid I can't help: I don't think I have ever taken a jpg with it, and I don't trust the jpeg conversions in any of my cameras. I haven't looked into the Lumix picture-style algorithms, but I did look into Canon's years ago, when I started on digital, and some of them adjust more than saturation; they also change color balance. For example, if I recall, the landscape style emphasizes greens more than the standard style does. that's one reason that I decided not to rely on them. Canon's allow one to change a few parameters, as you did with the lumix, but not color balance.

[HPZ]

Dan, thanks.
Understood.
Regards, P.

[HPZ]

Dave, thanks for editing subject line :-) and sugestions (understood and noted). Profile details: done.
Regards, P.

[HPZ]

Ted, thanks, understood and noted for further investigation.
Regards, P.

[Shadowman]

Whenever I'm just trying to emulate nature I typically shoot in P Mode and look at the details/tones or lack there of and then modify in M Mode until there is a visual match; then I consider how much effort might be needed to edit such a capture.

[DanK]

Peter,

One other thought, which may or may not be useful, depending on how much experience you have with the LX-100 already:

While I shoot raw with all of my camera bodies, I find it particularly helpful to do so in the case of the LX-100. I don't understand why, as it has a fairly modest pixel density, but I find that images I capture with that camera often take considerably more editing than those I get with my larger bodies. For example, I find that they need a good bit more sharpening, and they get noisy quickly as ISO is increased. The final results can be very good, and I have been able to print with good results up to 33 x 48 cm, but it takes more fussing to get them ready. (I haven't tried larger.) The more editing is needed, the more I prefer to have raw. Just my preference, of course.

Last September, I spent a week in Norway and decided to take only my LX-100. That avoided the hassle of carrying substantial equipment on the flights, and once there, I could simply stick the camera in a fanny pack. The only additional equipment I took was a CPL filter. By and large, it was fine. There were times when the 70mm-equivalent maximum focal length wasn't sufficient, but when the range was adequate, the camera gave me good results. I have one image from that trip printed 33 x 48 on a wall in my house:



I edited this quite a bit in Lightroom, photoshop, and Nik.

Dan

[Manfred M]

Peter, I would say that I would trust what the camera records, even in jpeg, as there are many factors that impact colour vision and how we remember seeing things. These include issues with our visual system and how it adapts to what we see very quickly. Walk into a room with artificial tungsten light around 3000K from an overcast day with a colour temperature of aroun 6500K; both will look right to us. The camera will record these "properly".

[HPZ]

Dan, thanks. Understood, appreciated and, by and large, in agreement with my experience.
However, my query was about colour balance of the automatic in-camera raw to jpg conversion when shooting raw and/or jpg.
Regards, P.

[HPZ]

Manfred and all respondents, thanks. Points well taken. I routinely shoot raw plus jpg. 80% of my shots go straight into the bin as soon as I get home, of the remainder most would be ok as excellent jpg casual shots if the colour balance leaned less to the excessive green. Only the minority rest is good enough to warrant raw development.

Hence, it seems I ought to look into setting up a few WB/ presets for the most frequent situationsand see where that takes me. I will let you know asap.

Regards, P.

[HPZ]

Folks,
I promised an update:

"Hence, it seems I ought to look into setting up a few WB/ presets for the most frequent situationsand see where that takes me. I will let you know asap."

This is an interim status, but important to me:
1) I had fooled myself for along time: For a number of off topic reasons I had the WB assigned to the Q Menu, assuming that I´d be able to adjust WB on the fly from there. Not so, as I now, edged along by your comments, had to discover. Q Menue WB lets me only access presets! As opposed to using WB default access via the thumbwheel.
2) Initial tests indicated that I can reach my objectives by a rather small WB offset (which is sticky :-)) ) or obiously, by using dedicated presets. Hence. it seems, I´m in business.
3) Onwards for the more painstaking task of testing systematically.

With 3), I a presently sidetracked by domestics, but I am convinced I will get there.

3 cheers to learning!
Thanks again for your help.
Peter

[HPZ]

FYI, final update:

Again, I must accept that I fooled myself and that I had to train my perception of the subtleties of colour balance.

Red ears!

In detail:
1) I *thought* I was seeing "excessive green". Not so. A small offset (B:3, G:3 or B:2, G:2, in LX100 terms) renders both, foliage and brickwork, much closer to what I see by direct comparison (camera monitor and PC monitor vs directly looking at the scene).
2) Iow: A and M were excessive, this lead to "deeper" "wrong" looking foliage.
3) Learning point: Never assume you're right. Be prepared to debunk your own tacit assumptions.

Thanks for prodding.
Thread closed as far as I'm concerned.

Best wishes, Peter