Question about Panasonic DMC-FZ50

[Tom in Stl]

I recently purchased a Panasonic DMC-FZ50. I was hoping it would make a difference in the way my photos came out......but I don't see it.

I am currently using the "automatic" function but want to get away from that. I am looking into some photography classes in my area and was wondering if it would be worth it with the camera I have. I know everyone prefers the Cannon and Nikon brands but we don't have the money to spend on one of those.

This is the camera I have
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicfz50/

Thanks for the reply

[Sneezy Beltran]

<table width="90%" cellspacing=0 cellpadding=0 align=center><tr><td>Quote, originally posted by Tom in Stl &raquo;</td></tr><tr><td class="quote">I recently purchased a Panasonic DMC-FZ50. I was hoping it would make a difference in the way my photos came out......but I don't see it.

I am currently using the "automatic" function but want to get away from that. I am looking into some photography classes in my area and was wondering if it would be worth it with the camera I have. I know everyone prefers the Cannon and Nikon brands but we don't have the money to spend on one of those.

This is the camera I have
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicfz50/

Tom, although I've never played with one the specs on the camera look great for what it is, and should certainly be capable of producing satisfactory images for you.

Sometime within the next few days I plan on writing a few articles relating to photography in general and how to capture certain scenes, maybe they'll be helpful to you as well.

Once someone understands the basics of light, exposure, aperture, shutter speed, and ISO their pictures will improve drastically almost overnight. From there on, it's all up to each individual to develop an "eye" in order to paint a compelling image.

Thanks for the reply</td></tr></table>

[Tom in Stl]

Thanks,
I found a photography class that meets for 6 weeks.
6 sessions @ 2 hours per session is $90.

I think that sounds reasonable.
I'm wanting to learn basics of light, exposure, aperture, shutter speed, and ISO

[CatFan]

Tom,

How do you have it set to store pictures? RAW format is the best if you want to do editing on the pictures later, but it doesn't apply the tweaks that are done in the camera. The pictures in RAW will usually look dark and washed out until they are post-processed in Photoshop or a similar product.

If you just want to have nice looking pictures straight out of the camera, use the highest resolution and quality JPG setting. That will probably be called the "Fine" setting. You'll be much happier with the way they look straight out of the camera. You can still edit them if needed, but it makes some changes to the images that can't be undone without possibly losing some quality. It won't make a difference to most people.

Shoot at the lowest ISO setting that works. 100-400 for outdoor daylight shots except fast moving subjects.

Also, avoid using the digital "zoom". It's not a zoom in any sense of the word. It just crops the picture, meaning you lose resolution. You can do that later easily if you want to center of the picture larger.

[Tom in Stl]

Good info
Thank you! I have my camera sitting here behind my desk. I'll check it out.

My wife likes to pull the card out of the camera and shove it in the machine at Costco. Would she still be able to make prints from their machine in RAW format?

[CatFan]

<table width="90%" cellspacing=0 cellpadding=0 align=center><tr><td>Quote, originally posted by Tom in Stl &raquo;</td></tr><tr><td class="quote">Good info
Thank you! I have my camera sitting here behind my desk. I'll check it out.

My wife likes to pull the card out of the camera and shove it in the machine at Costco. Would she still be able to make prints from their machine in RAW format?</td></tr></table>

Probably, but JPG is better for that. The camera applies white balance corrections or special features like saturation enhancement for landscapes or auto red eye repair etc. to the JPG but not to the RAW. With RAW, you usually download to the computer, edit the images, then burn a CD for printing. JPG is going to give you the most useful images with no editing, but you can set up a batch to process all the RAW files to JPG for quick prints while still retaining the full editing capability on the original file. I'd recommend you start with Fine JPG at max resolution until you see the need for RAW.

[Tom in Stl]

<table width="90%" cellspacing=0 cellpadding=0 align=center><tr><td>Quote, originally posted by CatFan &raquo;</td></tr><tr><td class="quote">

Probably, but JPG is better for that. The camera applies white balance corrections or special features like saturation enhancement for landscapes or auto red eye repair etc. to the JPG but not to the RAW. With RAW, you usually download to the computer, edit the images, then burn a CD for printing. JPG is going to give you the most useful images with no editing, but you can set up a batch to process all the RAW files to JPG for quick prints while still retaining the full editing capability on the original file. I'd recommend you start with Fine JPG at max resolution until you see the need for RAW.</td></tr></table>

Damn! Uh, what was that again?

Thanks for the info. I really am starting to learn a couple of things. Maybe I'll keep an SD card just for her and then one for me and my experiments.

You mentioned editing software.....what are you using? I bought a computer off craigslist and have nothing on it.

[CatFan]

<table width="90%" cellspacing=0 cellpadding=0 align=center><tr><td>Quote, originally posted by Tom in Stl &raquo;</td></tr><tr><td class="quote">

You mentioned editing software.....what are you using? I bought a computer off craigslist and have nothing on it.</td></tr></table>

Photoshop is the gold standard, but it's expensive. Photoshop Elements can be had fairly reasonably on eBay, and it will do everything you'd ever want to do for a long time. I think Elements is the way to go, since there is a lot of tutorial information available for free on the web.

I'd recommend you come up with a process when you download from the card. Something like:

1. Download files
2. Check that images are saved and readable
3. Burn CD/DVD with original images
4. Make a second copy if the images are important
5. Verify CD(s)
6. Erase card (if you want to)

It will avoid much pain.

One key thing to remember on the difference between RAW and JPG. When you edit a JPG, you are making a change to the image. Although you may be able to reverse the change with further edits, every edit you make causes some "damage" to the image. When you edit a RAW file, you are creating a list of changes to be applied to the image by the software, but the original data isn't changed. The viewer program then processes the list of changes so the image looks the way you want it. You can edit a RAW file as much as you want with no loss of quality on the original.

JPG is easy, but somewhat limited in flexibility. RAW is extremely flexible, but harder to work with.