[Browser Mike]

Taken while on walkabout.
FZ200. Manual. 1/80 @f/4 ISO 100 15mm ( 90mm equivalent )

[attachment=6739]

Processed in Lightroom CC.
Cheers,
Mike.

[MrB]

The range of wonderful colours in fallen leaves makes for attractive pattern-type photos like this one (although I wonder if the reds are a bit over-saturated here?). Another possible approach is to use depth of field to gradually blur the leaves further away from the camera, to add to the impression of depth in the image, but that might not be possible with an FZ200.

Cheers.
Philip

[Browser Mike]

Thanks very much for your observations Philip. Red saturation ?. I find that I must agree and plead guilty. I have gone a touch over the top. As for DOF the FZ200 is capable. Graham Houghton ( on YouTube ) has produced a tutorial : Panasonic Lumix FZ200 User Manual Illustrated, Part 3b - Focus, which makes interesting viewing. It is just part of a full series that he has produced for the FZ200.
Thanks once again,
Mike.

[EnglishBob]

Loving the light and colours here. I really need to head to the hills before it's too late.

[EdMak]

As Philip, turn the gas down a wee bit. Cheers. Ed.

[Browser Mike]

Thanks Craig and Ed.
Here it is with the gas turned down.

[attachment=6753]

Thanks to all.
Mike.

[EdMak]

Probably this is all down to the Monitor we use.

How bad does this look on yours, you seen the original location? Ed.

[MrB]

Ed's version looks very natural to me, Mike, but as he always adds, "To each his own".

Cheers.
Philip

[Browser Mike]

Hi Ed and Philip,
This exercise is proving to be extremely useful to me. I have now posted the original with no post processing. My thinking is that I need to be far more selective in my choice of shots that require assistance with Saturation and Vibrancy. Ed's posting is more natural and I thought it might be interesting to compare it with the original.

[attachment=6755]

The tendency to 'over' process can be difficult to subdue. I would be interested to know if you guys think that Saturation and Vibrancy levels are about right direct from the camera.
Thanks so much,
Mike.

[MrB]

I have now posted the original with no post processing.....
Ed's posting is more natural and I thought it might be interesting to compare it with the original.....
I would be interested to know if you guys think that Saturation and Vibrancy levels are about right direct from the camera.

In Post#1, Mike, there was a reference to Lightroom being used - does that infer that you recorded Raw files? As you will know, we cannot view Raw files - they must be post-processed to create viewable image files such as JPEGs or TIFFs. So can it be assumed that the "original" here was also from the Raw file, post-processed in Lightroom but with no "extra" post-processing adjustments applied by yourself?

Many cameras have lots of options to influence the picture style, and some also allow lots of customisation of each picture style - such as adjusting the contrast, saturation and sharpness. If the camera is set to record JPEGs, its firmware processes the Raw data using those settings to create its out-of-camera JPEG images. If the camera records Raw files, all of those settings are recorded in the Raw data.

I don't have Lightroom, so this is just guessing - might it be that it defaults to initially processing a Raw file by using those recorded camera settings? The resulting image could then be accepted as the "original" or, more probably, you would then adjust the controls in Lightroom as necessary to give the photo the look you want.

If the camera's image settings were left at their default options, images straight from the camera - and therefore possibly direct conversions by Lightroom with no user intervention - might be quite saturated, contrasty and sharp, as that is the look that camera manufacturers apparently seem to think many users tend to like.

In my view, the "direct from the camera original" here is still just a bit too colourful and Ed's version is about right.

Cheers.
Philip

[Browser Mike]

Hi Philip,
The shot was taken in JPEG. It is extremely rare that I shoot in RAW. #9 is therefore the cameras interpretation of the scene. One point however : the photo style was set by myself to VIVID rather than the STANDARD setting. I did this since the colours were bright and I did not want to lose any of that punch. It was also taken in Manual Mode so SS,A,ISO etc are mine.
As Ed ( the super - dooper photoshoper ) pointed out it may come down to monitors. I use a laptop and on my screen I feel that the shot is close to the mark.
The only action taken in Lightroom with #9 was to resize in order to post on the forum.
Cheers Philip,
Mike.

[MrB]

Sorry about my paragraphs referencing Raw files, Mike. They were written because I have gained the impression from all around the Internet that "serious" photographers always appear to shoot in Raw, and many of them use Lightroom to process their Raw files. So I presumed that you might also be shooting in Raw.

It often seems that I am one of the exceptions as, like yourself I take photography seriously and almost always shoot in JPEG. Most of the time I use Aperture Priority Mode. I also enjoy post-processing the images, and nearly always make adjustments to them (in PaintShop Pro) to get the final images as I want them. So far, I have rarely found any need for Raw.

As per Ed's "Each to his own" maxim, we will all doubtless do things differently and achieve different results according to our own tastes. For example, other than when experimenting, I haven't used the "Vivid" photo style, as I prefer to take the gentler "standard" approach - which is called "Natural" in my camera. Then hopefully none of the colour channels will get over-saturated and, if necessary, a bit more saturation can be applied in PP.

So thanks for the extra info, Mike - it has been an enjoyable discussion, and I hope that it has also been of interest to some others.

Cheers.
Philip

[EdMak]

Mike, when I originally looked at first image, VIVID came to mind.
Personally I use "Standard" and do as I wish via CS4, never found a need to shoot RAW, have tried it.
I mainly use Desktop, have P/S on 3 laptops, and do use sometimes, I have a colourful pic I load, and tilt screen to get as I like, if you can see a reflection, tilt till you are looking yourself in the eye, and centered.
I set brightness/contrast via a B & W image, as I see all the tones better. Works for me.
You may have a prog in the laptop, and, dependent on Windows version, can do from it.
P/S had, and I use it, a Gamma control, old hat, simple effective, it might work on your version, no longer available, here is a link to it from my Box account.

https://app.box.com/s/4oaz1kojpzh28nheiwjaq4uj9rv0assn

Just click on it and see what happens.

I tried from Laptop, HDMI to 37" HD TV, but never was comfortable, will get a Larger monitor, after I see the eye consultant in Dec. Cheers. Ed.

[Browser Mike]

Well Philip and Ed, this has been fun !. Thanks so much for your input. Apart from my need for a larger monitor, ( Eyesight not that good ), I am now convinced that I require a more subtle approach when post-processing. This is the great aspect of photography - there is always something to learn.
Cheers,
Mike.