I get what you're saying and all the technical reasons behind it all,but my TV set will only display JPEGs and no other image formats. ... View more

Ok thanks,I'll give it a go when I get the chance. ... View more

https://forums.adobe.com/people/Todd+Shaner  wrote Great news and glad you caught it in time before the warranty ended. Looks good! Imagewerx   wrote So hopefully the original question about how to get rid of green noise in deep shadows won't need to be considered any more. You can use the editing procedure outlined in myRe: Green noise in deep shadows.  for any previously shot underexposed files you run across with the green noise issue. It works fairly well. Thank you for your help and advice.I generally tend to delete my RAW files once I'm happy with the JPEGs from them,but will keep it in mind! ... View more

https://forums.adobe.com/people/Jao+vdL  wrote Great you got it fixed just in time. The circuit board makes sense for this phenomenology. I looked up the meaning of 'phenomenology' and am still none the wiser . ... View more

I don't know if anyone is still following this,but I thought I'd let you know what has happened since I was last on here. The camera went away for repair under warranty.It's still got a month left to go,and luckily the only authorised and manufacturer trained Panasonic repair agent in the country is about ten minutes drive away from me,so easy to drop off and pick up in person. The engineers report says they replaced the main circuit board,but weren't specific as to whether this also includes the image sensor as well. Apart from losing the lens cap,they seem to have fixed it from the few sample images I've taken today around home.This one at random was purposely under exposed by five stops,then boosted by the sane amount in LR without any other processing applied such as noise reduction. So hopefully the original question about how to get rid of green noise in deep shadows won't need to be considered any more. ... View more

https://forums.adobe.com/people/Jao+vdL  wrote I now remember helping another person on this forum a long time ago that had a Canon 5D that was giving a green haze on every long exposure night image but that behaved normally in day shots in full sun but even there you could find shadows that had green tinting. This indeed turned out to be a defective sensor as that person had it replaced and the problem disappeared. Can't find that thread now unfortunately. This reminds me of reciprocity failure with colour film and slides where very long exposures gave an overall green tint to the whole image. ... View more

https://forums.adobe.com/people/Todd+Shaner  wrote If you were not in video mode prior to this shot then it indicates a problem with the sensor. When shooting JPEG files even with the camera's noise reduction set to OFF you shouldn't see this many hot pixels at 1.0 sec. ISO 800. No videos at all that day,just stills. ... View more

https://forums.adobe.com/people/Todd+Shaner  wrote Imagewerx   wrote And now,in other news.I'd forgotten all about this and what was happening to photos I took last summer when the camera was only a month or so old. I got these wider spaced white spots which I don't get any more,but now seem to have been replaced by the closer spaced green noise spots. As almost all of my photos are taken outside on sunny days,I didn't see this as a problem and forgot all about it until now. These are "hot pixels," which is seems excessive for a 1.0 sec. ISO 800 shot. I noticed this image has a 1920x1080 crop applied, which may indicate you shot this still picture during recording a video. If you were shooting video the sensor gets hot, which can cause hot pixels to appear. It can take five minutes or more for the sensor to cool down after shooting video to prevent this from happening. The green noise is a different issue and I suggest you have the camera checked by Panasonic Tech Support before the warranty runs out. You can refer them to this post for more information. It was taken as as JPEG before I started using just RAW and was cropped quickly to get below the maximum file size for uploads. ... View more

https://forums.adobe.com/people/Todd+Shaner  wrote Imagewerx   wrote https://forums.adobe.com/people/Todd+Shaner    wrote Imagewerx     wrote We've had this same conversation on at least one occasion before this. How does Lightroom build previews when processing RAW images?   Yep, and you're still expecting an uncalibrated TV and cheap Acer monitor to provide accurate color and tone rendering. If that were possible everyone would be using them with no need for expensive displays and monitor calibrators. Not anymore I'm not,I now just use it when I'm typing.My TV set (a 55inch Samsung 55MU6470U) is on more or less those settings anyway.Maybe it's my crappy eyes that are the problem now,or have been all the time? The easiest way to determine that is to beg, borrow or purchase a reasonably good monitor and compare it to your TV. You'll need to of course adjust it properly, which you can do using the Lagom or AArdenburg test images files. My vision isn't what it used to be, which is why I invested in a better monitor and a calibrator. Just a suggestion. I really don't know anyone with something like that,so it's unlikely that would ever happen. I did spend some time calibrating my TV last night using Lagom and got it quite a bit better.The contrast chart now shows me at least 95% of what I should be able to see.The black level only has number 1 invisible to me and white saturation the last 1/2 aren't visible to me.It doesn't look 'right' to me as it's been the other way for so long,so I need to get used to seeing it like this. And now,in other news.I'd forgotten all about this and what was happening to photos I took last summer when the camera was only a month or so old.I got these wider spaced white spots which I don't get any more,but now seem to have been replaced by the closer spaced green noise spots. As almost all of my photos are taken outside on sunny days,I didn't see this as a problem and forgot all about it until now. ... View more

https://forums.adobe.com/people/Jao+vdL  wrote All TVs come badly calibrated from the factory. Calibration (even just using the charts mentioned above) is essential. That said, the green noise is not a result of underexposure or anything like that. I have never seen a camera do that even in severely underexposed images. This is a flaw in the sensor or the electronics. Normal behaving sensors will have neutral noise all the way down to zero or only slight tinting. What you are seeing here is either bad internal calibration in the camera with a black level offset in the green that is wrong or a general sensor flaw. I downloaded a bunch of images from https://www.photographyblog.com/reviews/panasonic_lumix_dmc_g80_review/sample_images  and none of those show the same problem in the deepest shadows even when adding +5 exposure and 100 shadows so this is probably your particular copy of the camera unfortunately. It shouldn't be a problem if you don't need to raise shadows too much but as you see here it can be an issue. If you are still under warranty I would return and exchange it. Otherwise you might need to live with this limitation. I would also check if your camera firmware is up to date. This could be a flaw that Panasonic fixed at some stage. Firmware is up to date.I didn't ever think this could be a 'fault' so just ignored it.I have a month left on the warranty so will be taking a trip to the camera shop I bought it from later this week. ... View more

ttps://forums.adobe.com/people/Todd+Shaner  wrote Imagewerx   wrote We've had this same conversation on at least one occasion before this. How does Lightroom build previews when processing RAW images? Yep, and you're still expecting an uncalibrated TV and cheap Acer monitor to provide accurate color and tone rendering. If that were possible everyone would be using them with no need for expensive displays and monitor calibrators. TV SETTINGS ADJUSTMENT PROCEDURE Use a "picture" mode with the least dynamic range enhancement such as 'Movie.' Adjust the other settings that I've highlighted in Red below to similar settings on your TV. Most TVs allow making these adjustments separately for each input. Your normal TV viewing settings for broadcast, cable and movie viewing can be different than your computer viewing. I use different settings for my Cable box and BluRay Player HDMI connection, which is also used for JPEG image file slideshows. If the room lighting is bright it's OK to use a higher Backlight setting to make the image brighter. Just make sure you can still see up to about 251 White Saturation level or higher and 3 Black Level or lower. With these settings your LR edits should be quite different Not anymore I'm not,I now just use it when I'm typing.My TV set (a 55inch Samsung 55MU6470U) is on more or less those settings anyway.Maybe it's my crappy eyes that are the problem now,or have been all the time? ... View more

https://forums.adobe.com/people/D+Fosse  wrote First of all, a TV set is not intended to view or judge photographs. Accuracy is not even on the list of priorities. High quality TV does not mean high quality photo reproduction! Unless you get a decent desktop monitor, or at least a top-level laptop screen, you can't make any judgements. You simply can't. The fact that everything above 244 appears blown-out white to you, is a clear indication that your TV is miles off the map. For one thing, it clearly does not have a standard tone response curve. But it's all I have!!! I am just a weekend amateur photographer.I go to places,I take photos when I get there to remember how it looked when I'm not there any more.Being able to look at photos I've taken on a screen 55 inches across FOR FREE is a luxury I'd only ever dreamt about until a few years ago. As I've already said,I have less than perfect eyesight.I've worn glasses for the last 55 years since the ago of four.I have astigmatism.I have photophobia and my eyes are unusually sensitive to red light. I've said this so many times now,but no one else in the world can see through my eyes,the same way I can't see though anyone else's eyes. ... View more

We've had this same conversation on at least one occasion before this. I'm an amateur photographer and take photos purely for my own enjoyment.I don't sell prints or have my photos hung in galleries for others to look at. My monitor (a 55inch high quality TV set) is not 'calibrated' to a worldwide agreed laboratory standard,but it is calibrated to what my eyes (and brain) agree looks right.I'm the only person in the world that can see through my eyes and therefore am the only person who can judge what's right or wrong for ME.If I have to have the brightness turned up higher than most people find comfortable,then that is how it is and this can't be said to be 'wrong'.My eyes are far from perfect so for me this is how I need to do it. On the above monitor test images on the top left I can JUST about make out number one (it is very faint),while bottom right I see pure white.On the white ones I can just about see the checkerboard on 244,anything above that is pure white. It is also 'calibrated' against other things I view on it that I would expect to be correct,such as photos taken by people a lot better than me at this on photo sharing sites like Flickr. Even turning the brightness down on my monitor,the white Mini in the photos above still looks to have the highlights blown out to me while the rest of the image is now under exposed. I should also explain that the reason I under exposed was a throwback to my Canon days when shooting JPEGs I had to dial in -1 EV to get it consistently not over expose.I'm still getting used to the greater dynamic range that processing RAW images gives me,but fully accept the compromises in low light performance that a micro 4/3 sensor gives me. ... View more

Ok thanks everbody.This is what I came up with that looks close to perfect.This is NOT looking at histograms,but instead using the most accurate measuring instrument at my disposal-my eyes. (For what it's worth,all of the above look over exposed to me!). ... View more

Ok then,lets do this the old fashioned way.If anyone's got the time,can they process the photo of the green E Type Jag above to get something that looks right to their eyes without reducing it to a science experiment please? I'll show you mine later when I get home from work.Ultimately I will always let my eyes be the judge as a computer program doesn't know how I see the world. ... View more

I'm sorry but I have no idea what I'm looking at above.Can you explain what I'm seeing please? ... View more

Ok thanks everyone,I will have a proper read through all the answers when I get time. I should have said earlier that I chose that particular image as it was the worst of all of them,and back then (ok it was only a month ago!) I was purposely under exposing by the same amount because I was worried about losing the highlights.It seems this wasn't needed so I've gone the other way for now to see how that works out. Dropbox - P1080230.RW2 ... View more

Thanks.I know what causes it,this is on the rare occasions the camera messes up the exposure and I have to try and rescue detail from the shadows.I just need to know if there's a quicker way than using the adjustment brush please. ... View more

Yes I have and it doesn't make any difference. Here is the original....... https://www.dropbox.com/s/txm9ii8vk802boq/P1070919.RW2?dl=0http:// ... View more

Thanks Andy.Nice to know that at least one person is on the same wavelength as me! I am just an amateur and have been for nearly 50 years now.I don't have an eye for spotting a good composition when I'm out and about,so just take photos of what ever takes my fancy.I just can't do the arty farty stuff so gave up trying a LONG time ago. I take photos of cars and motorsports events,landscapes,historical buildings or anything vaguely related that takes my fancy.Doing as much of the editing workflow myself and solving my own problems by just doing it will teach me a lot more than just watching a video on Youtube ever will.It's always reassuring that we can always come on somewhere like this and ask questions if they can't be answered any other way. The memories or emotions an image brings forth has nothing to do with any sort of science or expressing it as numbers.If we start to believe that I think we are forgetting the true meaning of photography as an art form. ... View more

I did view them and must congratulate you on a very well made and easy to understand explanation about the science behind photography. But as per the title of this thread 'How does Lightroom build previews when processing RAW images',this has nothing to do with what I need to know.Knowing any of this won't help to improve my photographs,that is to get an image with colours that look right to ME. I'll quote myself here if that's alright....... 'It's easy to lose sight of why we take photos and just bury it in techno babble.Wouldn't it be nice to get back to a simpler time when all we wanted to do was just go out and take photos?' ... View more

thedigitaldog  wrote I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind.  Lord Kelvin That's an incredibly blinkered (and arrogant) view of the world to say that if you don't know or can't explain the science behind something,you're no good at it. I've seen fantastic photos taken by people with very cheap point-and-shoot cameras who don't have a clue about expressing their photography in numbers.I've also seen really crappy photos taken by all-the-gear-and-no-idea photographers with £10K worth of camera and lens who claim they know EVERYTHING about taking photos. It's easy to lose sight of why we take photos and just bury it in techno babble.Wouldn't it be nice to get back to a simpler time when all we wanted to do was just go out and take photos? ... View more

I get what you're saying and will try this when I get the chance,but $5 for a small bit of white cardboard ? ... View more

Thank for all your help anyway.I'm sorry but I can be a bit awkward at times,but I will watch those videos sometime soon. Not meaning to argue,but a genuine question here.If I have an object of known colour in front of me,and what I see on my screen when I look at a photograph of that same object is exactly the same colour as the test object,could this not be considered to be accurate colour? ... View more

https://forums.adobe.com/people/Todd+Shaner  wrote Imagewerx   wrote The problem I have now is that skin tones aren't quite right,but I can't seem to fix this using the recommended method of the HSL sampling tool if that's the right name for it. So you're saying with the Red Hue +9 Calibration correction flesh tones are now off? Remember what I said about that correction, "I have no idea if this is a "proper" correction that will work with all images under all lighting conditions." The blue truck picture was also shot on an overcast day and the WB adjustment is not correct. Even a small 500K Temp difference (5000K vs 5500K) can cause the small color shift you're seeing. I suggest taking a look at people pictures shot with cloud-free sunlight (5500-6500K) or flash and see what the flesh tones look like with and without the Red Calibration setting. You may need to change the LR Calibration panel settings to achieve "more pleasing" colors as the thedigitaldog  mentions. I also suggest using the Adobe Standard camera profile, which provides more "accurate" color rendering. You can always dial-in some LR Basic panel Vibrance and Saturation as required based on subject content to make it "more pleasing." It doesn't make any difference I can see if it's on +9 or back at zero and this was done using the Standard camera profile.I'll wait until the next car show on a sunny day and will go from there. ... View more

thedigitaldog  wrote We've been over this, you're not and never produced accurate color, only pleasing color. Measure the car, give us Lab values from a Spectrophotometer, then we can attempt to produce accurate color which again because it's not output referred, will likely not be pleasing when viewed. JUST like the example in the URL provided of the family photo! I don't have access to the car,or any of the many,many cars I take photos of.As I already said I don't need what others judge to be 'accurate colour'.If I ever need to make prints from my photos,then I'll use what ever methods are needed to get colours that are judged by other people to be accurate.Up until then the colours I see on my chosen viewing medium are what I see as 'accurate'. ... View more

I fully understand the reasons for proper monitor calibration,really I do. I don't do prints,and as long as the image on my HDTV looks right to my eyes,that's what I want. Canon are justifiably proud of their famous colour science,and I never had reason to doubt if the colours I got from it were accurate.The very slight colour inaccuracy of the Panasonic camera easily outweighs the few advantages the Canon had over it. The problem I have now is that skin tones aren't quite right,but I can't seem to fix this using the recommended method of the HSL sampling tool if that's the right name for it. ... View more

There are way too many adjustments on this camera compared to my much simpler Canon EOS 80D.I'm still not certain that it's not because I've adjusted something buried deep in some bizarre menu somewhere.I may try a full reset to default settings to see if it looks any different. Even allowing for slight differences in how the camera adjusts itself for white balance,I still don't think it would make this big a difference that sticks out like a sore thumb. But as I understand how RAW works,white balance adjustment is only applied to JPEGs? ... View more