My new GF1 and 20mm pancake lens.

[G.T.]

I have uploaded to my devianart see signature, what do you think. I'm no expert and and getting used to photography still. Images were shot of auto and RAW. They always seem to desaturate when they are uploaded .









I have a similar shot with my friend sitting on this bench, but haven't asked her about uploading, it is the same composition though.



Here is an HDR too http://SamaravsAlma.deviantart.com/art/Dundee-HDR-151252889

Anyone have any questions about micro 4/3rds or the pancake lens I'll try and help.

 

[miles01110]

I don't think you'd necessarily be able to tell the difference between a micro 4/3s camera and a standard DSLR from these shots. ...which is a good thing.

As for the pictures themselves... nothing really jumps out at me as being terribly interesting.

 

[G.T.]

I don't think you'd necessarily be able to tell the difference between a micro 4/3s camera and a standard DSLR from these shots. ...which is a good thing.

As for the pictures themselves... nothing really jumps out at me as being terribly interesting.

OK thanks, I understand they aren't the most interesting but I want to let people know these kind of cameras are worth getting if portability is an issue

 

[wheezy]

So what does 20mm convert to in terms of 35mm? Is that about a 50mm? Can you shoot some wide open portraits? That's where I'd like to see how they perform.

Thanks! And congrats on the new purchase.

 

[G.T.]

So what does 20mm convert to in terms of 35mm? Is that about a 50mm? Can you shoot some wide open portraits? That's where I'd like to see how they perform.

Thanks! And congrats on the new purchase.

On the web it says that it is equivalent to 40mm.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/PanasonicGF1/page34.asp Here are some online examples, you can see its portrait ability. Double check that its an image with the 20mm lens.

 

[Edge100]

So what does 20mm convert to in terms of 35mm? Is that about a 50mm? Can you shoot some wide open portraits? That's where I'd like to see how they perform.

Thanks! And congrats on the new purchase.

4/3s sensor = 2x crop factor, so 20mm = 40mm on FF

 

[CrackedButter]

I like the first one actually.

 

[G.T.]

I like the first one actually.

Thanks . The colours should be much more vibrant but it seems to desaturate on upload.

 

[bobt]

Thanks . The colours should be much more vibrant but it seems to desaturate on upload.

That is because raw strips out most of the in camera settings. When in Aperture, do a create new image from the JPG. This will display an image with the in camera settings.

I'm 99% sure the jpg image will look more as you expect it to.

 

[run-kmc]

You could also just shoot in JPG. Olympus colors are excellent.

 

[G.T.]

That is because raw strips out most of the in camera settings. When in Aperture, do a create new image from the JPG. This will display an image with the in camera settings.

I'm 99% sure the jpg image will look more as you expect it to.

Well After editing RAW I convert to TIFF and then put in Aperture, then export jpg for upload, didn't think u could upload RAW anyway. So not sure what is happening

Just checked when I click full screen they are correct, the smaller sized ones in thread are desaturated. But also on my Devianart account they are desaturated.

You could also just shoot in JPG. Olympus colors are excellent.

Its Panasonic

 

[CrackedButter]

Its Panasonic

It's a combination of both companies actually. They have come together to create the m3/4rds (and 3/4rds) format.

I like your first image because it's simple and evocative of summer time.

 

[G.T.]

It's a combination of both companies actually. They have come together to create the m3/4rds (and 3/4rds) format.

I like your first image because it's simple and evocative of summer time.

I know but the person said

You could also just shoot in JPG. Olympus colors are excellent.

does it mean sensor is by olympus?

 

[Bocheememon]

Hmm.

I don't know if this helps,

But you lose some saturation going from an adobe 1998 image to an sRGB.

When you save an image as a JPG, make sure you it is converted into sRGB. In photoshop, there is an option to save image for web.

If you have photoshop, you can convert it to sRGB and saturate the colors a bit more.

Again, I don't know if this helps, as I have no clue how Deviant Art handles images.

 

[G.T.]

I don't know if this helps,

But you lose some saturation going from an adobe 1998 image to an sRGB.

When you save an image as a JPG, make sure you it is converted into sRGB. In photoshop, there is an option to save image for web.

If you have photoshop, you can convert it to sRGB and saturate the colors a bit more.

Again, I don't know if this helps, as I have no clue how Deviant Art handles images.

Thanks though its odd cause I used the same jpg's for this thread as the uploaded devianart. While in devianart it stays desaturated, and on here it does too unless it is clicked and viewed in full size. Really odd.

 

[Abraxsis]

Actually, with some tweaking in some Nik software the bench photo could be outstanding. However, I do like it as is. Subtle natural light, good overall exposure and a very heavy feel. There is something "lonely and haunting" to it. I imagine that someone who lost a loved one, this bench being a special place for them, might have just left moments before. Kudos

 

[Bocheememon]

Hmm.

I see what the problem is.

I checked the profile of the preview that was generated versus the image you click on for a larger one.

The larger image is in Adobe 1998

The small preview is in an unmarked profile.

Because of this, your and my browser don't know how to render the colors unless there is a profile tagged to the image. Since there is no profile, the browser guesses.

I tried three different profiles and looked at them to further verify this discovery.

Weird. I'll have to check into how what causes the images to lose their image color profile tag.

Edit: Oh, the large image is in Adobe 1998. I wonder if converting it to sRGB will make the small preview match up?

 

[G.T.]

Actually, with some tweaking in some Nik software the bench photo could be outstanding. However, I do like it as is. Subtle natural light, good overall exposure and a very heavy feel. There is something "lonely and haunting" to it. I imagine that someone who lost a loved one, this bench being a special place for them, might have just left moments before. Kudos

Thanks, I think it looks very lonely too .

I see what the problem is.

I checked the profile of the preview that was generated versus the image you click on for a larger one.

The larger image is in Adobe 1998

The small preview is in an unmarked profile.

Because of this, your and my browser don't know how to render the colors unless there is a profile tagged to the image. Since there is no profile, the browser guesses.

I tried three different profiles and looked at them to further verify this discovery.

Weird. I'll have to check into how what causes the images to lose their image color profile tag.

Edit: Oh, the large image is in Adobe 1998. I wonder if converting it to sRGB will make the small preview match up?

Thanks

 

[Abraxsis]

Actually, with some tweaking in some Nik software the bench photo could be outstanding. However, I do like it as is. Subtle natural light, good overall exposure and a very heavy feel. There is something "lonely and haunting" to it. I imagine that someone who lost a loved one, this bench being a special place for them, might have just left moments before. Kudos

I couldn't help myself, some artifacts popped up since it was a JPEG but still. Retouch on the left, original on the right. Amazing shot you have there IMHO

 

[G.T.]

I couldn't help myself, some artifacts popped up since it was a JPEG but still. Retouch on the left, original on the right. Amazing shot you have there IMHO

Yeah I didn't have it vibrant enough? What artifacts though apart from saturation I don't see any??

 

[Abraxsis]

Yeah I didn't have it vibrant enough? What artifacts though apart from saturation I don't see any??

I did a little more than just upped the vibrance. I ran it through Color Efex Pro Viveza 2.0, and Lightroom. Right off the top of my head I enhanced several sections separately to give it more depth and increased the light, especially on the bench to make it pop. Then enhanced the sky, color by color so nothing got too over-saturated.

As for artifacts, there are some blockies and jaggies in the clouds, just where I added so much data to the low resolution file.

 

[G.T.]

I did a little more than just upped the vibrance. I ran it through Color Efex Pro Viveza 2.0, and Lightroom. Right off the top of my head I enhanced several sections separately to give it more depth and increased the light, especially on the bench to make it pop. Then enhanced the sky, color by color so nothing got too over-saturated.

As for artifacts, there are some blockies and jaggies in the clouds, just where I added so much data to the low resolution file.

Oh right I get u I see the artifacts on the edit.

 

[CrackedButter]

I know but the person said

does it mean sensor is by olympus?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_thirds

 

[G.T.]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_thirds

Sorry but that doesn't answer the question, does that mean all micro 4/3rd's sensors are created by Olympus (cause surely its sensor that affects colour) also the firmware will be panasonic and I'm sure that affects colour too??