Panasonic GH4 problems with 'stills'

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... The JPEG's are lighter when brought into the computer. ...

Wait, are jpegs on the computer 2-3 stops lighter than: 1. raws on the computer or 2. the same jpegs on LCD?

[mcbroomf]

Can you link to a jpg and raw so that some of us can try different LR installs?

[bengedlow]

Hi Mike,


Yes!

Give me a bit to figure out how to do this (links to files uploaded).  I do it so rarely I forget the process.  Will put up a couple of samples shortly.


Ben

[bengedlow]

Hi Mike,

I'm in the middle of cutting a complicated film, on deadline, and my brain hurts.  Is there an instruction or tutorial for how to put up a single photo on the web so you can access it with a URL?  I've completely forgotten how to do it.  And my Googling isn't giving me any results.

Ben

[mcbroomf]

I'm sorry I don't know how you host things.  In fact my website won't allow me to link raw files, only jpgs.  I think you could use dropbox or some other free file service (with limited capacity).  Make sure you load up the matching raw and jpg.

[bengedlow]

Will research and get back to you.  I use DropBox and WeTransfer ... so I can send files to any email address, but I'll figure out how to do the linking thing ... and report back.

B

[eronald]

Hi Mike,

I'm in the middle of cutting a complicated film, on deadline, and my brain hurts.  Is there an instruction or tutorial for how to put up a single photo on the web so you can access it with a URL?  I've completely forgotten how to do it.  And my Googling isn't giving me any results.

Ben

Ben,

Go to www.yousendit.com then register for free, send yourself the file via their site. This will yield an URL, and you can post this URL here. The advantage is there is no software to install. Otherwise dropbox is fine AFAIK.

Edmund

Edmund

[bengedlow]

Edmund,

Aha!  That's the way one does it.  Yes, I use YouSendIt and WeTransfer regularly.  I had forgotten that a URL is produced by doing this.  I will organize my stills and do this today.

Thanks for the tip.

Ben

[SZRitter]

Just curious, you haven't tweaked any kind of profile in the camera, have you? You said the video is coming out perfectly, so what do you have for your settings? If it is anything like my former Nikon and current Olympus, the settings you set to get your video should also affect how it renders the jpeg, but not the RAW. Just a theory that I haven't seen anyone else mention. But I could be totally wrong on this thought.

[bengedlow]

SZRitter,


I shoot video in the 4K Cinema mode.  I switch to 'M' to shoot stills.  Canon/Nikon people tell me that what you see in the viewfinder is not necessarily what you are exposing.  Which makes sense in a DSLR camera viewfinder.  And I've never quite understood why those cameras don't allow one to SEE ones adjustments on the LCD monitor.  Perhaps there is a setting that allows this - but not a single Canon or Nikon user that I know has been able to show me.  The GH4 has a 'Preview On' switch, which seems to always show exposure changes.  I can see the exposure changing as I make adjustments - so my assumption is that the changes are literal.  If I shut off the 'Preview On' mode, then when I move the camera through varying light I can see the camera making auto-adjustments, pumping up and down, even though I'm in full manual mode.  Which I don't quite get.  I'm going to see if I can put up one of my problematic RAW files ... and put a link here shortly.

B

[bengedlow]

Hi Gang,


I've put up two files, the RAW file, and a JPEG.  The JPEG wasn't shot in camera, I made it from the RAW to give you an idea of what the image looks like in-camera, perhaps even slightly brighter.  So that's my issue.  In-camera all my RAW stills look like the JPEG uploaded here, but when they are brought into the computer (two different Macs, one PC), they look like the RAW file uploaded here.

http://we.tl/cWFMgUVxJC

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

That look more like 2 f/stops difference, not 5-8, but still...

Try reducing LCD brightness on camera one or two positions from the middle (I do one on my camera). Also, try shooting a gray card with a spot meter, rather than a high-contrast scene with a center-weighted one, as in your case.

[bengedlow]

Hi Slobodan,

Now that's interesting!!  Perhaps you are getting a different read on your system??  They are at least five stops darker on my system.  If they were only two stops I might live with them.  I don't think I'm exaggerating – I've been behind a camera, professionally, since I was fifteen years old; that's half a century or more, ouch.

One of the reasons I haven't just 'adjusted' the LCD screen ... is that for two months after I got the camera the stills were just fine, perfect.  The 'dark' stills have only come into play since the last firmware update.  Which makes me wonder.

[nma]

Do you think the answer to all this may be in the histograms?

I would look at that first. I am betting that OP is looking at the rear screen and (mis)judging his exposure.

[bengedlow]

And I just went back to look at a few different shoots during the last couple of months, since the firmware update.  Dark.  Here's what is intriguing me - the thumbnails for all the stills are more or less perfect in Aperture, the moment I click on the thumbnail to bring up the RAW file ... bang, dark.  Now why would Aperture be producing perfectly exposed thumbnails from supposedly very 'dark' original RAW files?  That's the mystery, for me.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Hi Slobodan,

Now that's interesting!!  Perhaps you are getting a different read on your system??  They are at least five stops darker on my system.  If they were only two stops I might live with them....

All I did in Lightroom is raised exposure by 1 and ⅔ of a stop, i.e., not even two stops:

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Do you think the answer to all this may be in the histograms?

I would look at that first. I am betting that OP is looking at the rear screen and (mis)judging his exposure.

My guess as well. Looking at the raw file histogram, it does look underexposed. The scene itself is very contrasty, containing blown highlights and deep black (i.e., in the 0-5 range) at the same time, beyond sensor's ability to cope.

I would suggest, as I already did, to shoot more evenly lit scenes, perhaps daylight, using P or Auto mode on the camera, or even "sunny f/16" rule.

My second guess, as I also mentioned before, is that the LCD is too bright, bringing it down a notch or two, plus proper exposure, might solve the problem.

[bengedlow]

Hi Slobodan,


Thank you for doing that, very kind of you.  I'm going to take another crack at talking to Panasonic.  Are you on a Mac?

I just scanned another shoot.  On the camera all the exposures, several hundred, are more or less within a stop of each other on the in-camera LCD screen, or in the viewer, same thing.  Pulled into the computer some shots are only a stop or so under, and some about 4-5 stops under ... there is a very weird inconsistency here.  To note: I shot most of the sequence with roughly the same exposure settings.  I'll keep trying till I get a knowledgeable techie at Panasonic, and then report back what the conclusion was.  With luck.

Thank you Slobodan...

[mcbroomf]

I did the something similar, but with +2ev I got a reading off the guys forehead to pretty well match (63/53/43). I don't know anything about Aperture 'fraid, I'm a PC guy.

[bengedlow]

Thank you Mike.


I'm going to have to find myself a PC with a RAW reader installed.  One or two stops would have been acceptable, even expected ... as the light was very low and I was already shooting at very low speeds, 15th, 10th.  So I was expecting to have to bring some of the shots back up ... but on the camera they look like they are sometimes maybe a 1/2 stop or a single stop down, no more.  Most look very close to bang on.