Creating custom Photo Styles on the Lumix S5

In my last post I said that I was going to have a play around with making my own Photo Styles for my Panasonic Lumix S5 - a bit like the Fujifilm 'recipes'. When I shot with the Fujifilm E1 and E2 (excellent cameras and I rather miss them), I spent a lot of time creating my own film 'recipes' and then shooting them in either RAW + Jpeg, or sometimes even Jpeg only. I decided to try and replicate them in my S5, just to see how close I could get, and whether the results would be worth it or not.

For the colour styles, I wanted a classic film look (similar to the Classic Chrome film simulation of the Fuji's), as well as a more punchy 'Velvia' style. Above is my 'Classic Film' Style next to the Standard Panasonic picture profile, and my 'Velvia' next to the Vivid picture style that comes with the camera.

The 'Classic Film' style certainly has a slightly de-saturated film look compared to the Standard profile, since it's based on the L. Classic Neo photo style. My settings for the Classic Film look are:

Base: L Classic Neo

Contrast 0

Highlight 0

Shadow -4

Saturation +3

Hue +2

Grain Effect: Low

Colour Noise: On

Sharpness 0

Noise Reduction 0

For my Velvia photo style, I started with the Vivid base, and then ramped it up a bit more:
Base: Vivid
Contrast +2.5
Highlight 0
Shadows -1
Saturation +4
Hue -2
Sharpness +2
Noise Reduction -2

For the monochrome styles I wanted two contrasting styles - and these I've called Acros and Tri-X.

Acros is based on the standard Monochrome Picture style and is not a huge change, although it does add grain and a yellow filter. For my Acros style I used:

Base: Monochrome

Contrast 0

Highlight -1

Shadow +1

Tone 0

Filter: Yellow

Grain: Low

Sharpness +1

Noise Reduction +2.5

And for my grittier Tri-X style I used:

Base L. Monochrome D

Contrast +3

Highlights +1

Shadows -3

Tone 0

Filter: Red

Grin: High

Sharpness +1

Noise Reduction -2.5

Does the end justify the means? Is it worth all this fluffing about - especially when you can achieve all of these results with just the one RAW file in post?

If I'm honest, it's probably not really worth the hassle - and I basically came to the same conclusion when shooting Fujifilm. Unless you are a Jpeg shooter only, who wants their images to have a particular look and feel SOOC (straight out of camera). Then all this picture style stuff really does make sense.

The only picture style above that is markedly different from Panasonics own offerings is the gritty, contrasty Tri-X style. But even then, I discovered while playing around with picture styles that there are also 'Filters' that can be set as well (although not in conjunction with Picture Styles). Most are just gimmicky (sepia, fantasy, stars etc), but a couple of them might be worth using. Especially the Dynamic Monochrome which gives results like (you guessed it) Tri-X! 

I've got the above Picture Styles programmed in now, so I may as well keep them there. But will I shoot with them? Maybe. Just maybe....

Shooting Jpeg Only for 6 months!

Yeah, I know - the Jpeg vs Raw debate is about as old as Canon vs Nikon - and about as interesting (not). Any photographer worth their salt will tell you that you should only ever shoot in Raw, and if you absolutely HAVE to have a Jpeg (for some bizarre reason), then shoot in Raw + Jpeg (and then throw the Jpeg away).

I'm one of those photographers, to be honest. I've pretty much only ever shot in Raw since picking up my Nikon D70 sixteen years ago, and have never really understood the Raw + Jpeg argument. If you've shot Raw, what on earth would you need the (inferior) Jpeg for? Ok - maybe sports photographers had a case for shooting jpeg once upon a time (when cards were measured in Megabytes and not Gigs). But for 99.99% of the rest of us, just shoot Raw. Job done.

But... (isn't there always a but)... more recently - and I mean only in the last few years - the allure of shooting Jpeg-only has been brewing. More and more 'serious' photographers have been extolling the virtues of using Jpegs SOOC (Straight Out Of Camera) because the manufacturer's Jpeg processing engines inside their cameras are just so good! The rise of mirrorless cameras, where you can actually see your exposure (and tweak the highlight and shadow areas) before taking the shot, has helped hugely to light a fire under the 'shoot Jpeg only' brigade. Expose carefully, use a creative filter, and have the camera process it for you. Job done.

Shipwreck, Cobden Beach. Fuji X-E2 Jpeg (edited)

About a year ago, I moved over to using the Fujifilm system - namely the X-E1 and X-E2. I've absolutely fallen in love with the ergonomics, handling, and IQ from these range-finder style APS-C cameras. But if I'm honest, the main reason I wanted to try out the Fuji system - and the main reason I'll probably stay in the Fuji ecosystem for a very long time - are their film simulations.

I grew up using film, and still shoot with film cameras from time to time (see my recent posts on choosing a 35mm film system). So moving to a digital camera, from Fujifilm, that shoots with film simulations like Velvia, Provia and Astia, was almost a no-brainer! In fact, I'm not quite sure what's taken me so long to be honest?

But... (there's that but again)... the film simulations are only applied to Jpegs. Not surprisingly, the Raw files are left untouched. No problem - I hear you say. Just shoot Raw + Jpeg and have the best of both worlds. A Jpeg with the film simulations applied, and a Raw file that you can tweak and torture to your hearts content in Lightroom or Photoshop. And yes - thank you - that's exactly what I've been doing. Job done.

Or is it? Because a very large part of me isn't really very happy with this solution. I've always thought, as mentioned earlier, that shooting Raw + Jpeg was rather redundant. And I still do think that. I hate coming back from a shoot with 100 photos - only that's now 200 because I shot in two file formats, one of which I know I'm probably never going to use! In the past, that 'redundant' file was the jpeg. Now that I'm shooting with the Fujifilm, and utilising film simulations, the redundant file is - well - the Raw file!

Proud grandparents. Fujifilm X-E2 Mono (no editing)

I've toyed (briefly) in the past with shooting Jpeg-only when I was using Olympus gear. The Olympus Jpegs are known for being excellent SOOC, so I tried to go Jpeg-only with them for a while. Didn't last long through, since I wasn't really excited about their existing creative filters.

With Fujifilm, however, their film simulations are 'next-level'. On their own they are fantastic. But there's more! You can actually build your own 'custom' film recipes and programme them into seven slots to recall and use them instantly. There are many custom recipes on-line - most famously on Fuji X Weekly, a blog run by film recipe expert Ritchie Roesch. This means that you can pre-programme film 'simulations' like Kodachrome 64, Kodak Tri-X and Agfa Optima into you camera and switch between these 'looks' as the mood (or scene) dictates. For a die-hard film shooter like me, this is absolute photography heaven!

For example, at the moment in my X-E2 I have; Ektachrome 100SW, Fuji Acros, Kodachrome II, Kodak Tri-X, Fujichrome Sensia 100, Kodak Ektar 100 and Kodak Portra 400 all programmed into my custom film simulation settings. I can flick between them almost instantly, get seven different 'film' looks SOOC, and have minimal editing to do once I get the image home.

So I've decided to 'bite the bullet' and shoot Jpeg-only for the next 6 months at least. Seriously. No cheating. No Raw + jpeg 'just in case'. It will be film simulation Jpegs only for the next six months. Sounds a bit scary. And for a die-hard Raw shooter, it is a bit scary. But modern Jpegs - well exposed modern Jpegs - are surprisingly editable. And If I'm happy with the film simulations, there shouldn't be much - if any - editing required anyway?

As someone who is more than happy shooting film - I think I'll handle Jpeg-only digital capture for six months. Who knows, I may even go longer?

Jpeg experiment Part One: Jpeg Correction

I’m starting a month (or so) shooting jpegs, as an experiment to see if a:) it can replace a Raw workflow and b:) if jpegs are ‘flexible’ enough to have as my only file.

I went out this week to shoot in the early evening, ostensibly to test my ‘new’ Olympus 17mm f2.8 pancake lens, but also to kick off this whole jpeg shooting thing. To be honest, I don’t think it will ‘stick’. I’m already having withdrawal symptoms. But I also think this is largely my issue and nothing to do inherently with the jpeg file format. If I can actually stick it out for the month, I might find my attitudes have changed by the end? We’ll see.

Colour cast from 'incorrect' white balance.

It’s early spring at the moment and we are experiencing some lovely evening light, with fabulous golden-hour sun racking across the town. This gives a gorgeous golden glow to the landscape, but also introduced my first hurdle shooting with jpeg only – White Balance. I shoot on ‘Auto’ WB practically 100% of the time. Why not, I shoot Raw – right? Well, not anymore. For some of the shots I took, auto WB worked perfectly. For others – not so much. So now I have programmed my ‘video record’ button on the E-M5 Mk2 to be a quick menu WB/ISO button.

Neptune Backpackers, Greymouth. Olympus OM-D E-M5 Mk2 with Zuiko 17mm f2.8 Pancake @ f4, 1/250th. ISO 200

What happens if the jpeg gets the White Balance wrong? Is it recoverable? Well in this instance, yes, it certainly was recoverable. And it was relatively easy to achieve (although still not as easy as it is when shooting Raw). I just opened the Jpeg in Photoshop, went to the Curves Adjustment panel, chose the white eyedropper, and took a sample of an area along the top of the roofline that I knew should be white. Hey-presto, the WB was corrected (kind of). I did fiddle about with it a little bit more, reducing the yellows even further, but was generally happy with the result. For future reference – choose the WB manually when shooting jpegs.

A large dynamic range made capturing detail difficult

As the evening sun disappeared, the shadows became deeper and darker. I shot using the live view histogram visible through the EVF, but could tell that the dynamic range of the scene was exceeding what the camera was capable of capturing. I could have resorted to using a graduated neutral density filter to 'even out' some of the dynamic range - but I don't generally carry them around with me. The OM-D E-M5 Mk2 also has a HDR mode that will help overcome some of the problems with excessive dynamic range in a scene, but I will have to have a play with that setting another time. In this instance, to retain detail in the highlights, I had to let some of the shadows darken to black. Could some of this be retrieved later on when shooting a Jpeg?

Coal River Park, Greymouth. OM-D E-M5 Mk2 with 17mm f2.8 Pancake lens @ f4 at 1/250th. ISO 200

Again, the answer is ‘yes’ - kind of. For this experiment I’m also not using Lightroom – probably because it puts me too much back into the Raw workflow mind set. All the image enhancement will get done in Photoshop. Opening a jpeg that had blocked up shadows, I used the Highlight/Shadow slider and managed to return a fair bit of shadow detail back into the scene. Is it as much as I could have returned with a Raw file? No, I don’t believe so. Whether it’s true, or simply my bias, I don’t yet know. But the jpegs just don’t feel like they can take a lot of manipulation before they start showing the signs. You have to be gentle with the tweaking, or it can start to look fake really fast.

Saturation at normal levels in the 'Vivid' mode

I’m shooting all the jpegs on the ‘Vivid’ setting to boost the colours, and have the Sharpness set to +1. Looking at the files on my computer, sharpness is about right. I’d be happy to leave it at that and not touch the sharpening. Saturation, on the other hand, may need to be bumped up a notch? The colours I remember seeing when I was taking the images were actually more vibrant that what I ended up with in the jpeg file. Or maybe I just like my images over saturated? For whatever reason, I increased the saturation by around 15 to 20% in all the photos I played with in Photoshop, and even then I wasn’t necessarily getting the punch I was after. 

Facade in Evening's Glow. OM-D E-M5 Mk2 with 17mm f2.8 Pancake lens @ f5.6 at 1/200th. ISO 200

I actually ended up duplicating the layer and changing its blending mode to ‘Multiply’ to intensify the colour in the sky. I then had to mask out the building to tone that area down. There was quite a bit of work involved to get it how I wanted it to look. I’m pretty sure it would have been faster and easier to achieve the same result with a Raw file in Lightroom.

The Sentinel. OM-D E-M5 Mk2 with 17mm f2.8 Pancake lens @ f5.6 at 1/320th. ISO 200

So was my first outing shooting Jpeg-only a success? Yes – and No. Overall I’m happy with the photos I took, and very happy with a couple of them. Was it easier shooting in Jpeg? No – definitely not. I made the analogy in my initial post on this experiment of comparing jpegs to slide film. And I believe that analogy still holds true. Nail your white balance, as much as possible nail your exposure, and you should be fine. As long as you’ve got your colour saturation and sharpness where you want them as well. This will slow you down and make you think – which isn’t necessarily a bad thing. But it also means that if (when) you do get it wrong, it’s going to be harder to get a usable image out of it.

Coal River Park Silhouette. OM-D E-M5 Mk2 with 17mm f2.8 Pancake lens @ f5.6 at 1/500th. ISO 200 

It’s early days yet of course, but I’m already beginning to see that the promise of shorter processing times shooting jpegs might be more myth than reality?