Jump to content

In camera jpeg Vs DNG


Fgcm

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

This week I did some comparison between in camera jpeg and DNG processed in LR4 and Aperture.

First of all, I must say that LR4 and Aperture give very similar results: both wrong.

on the other hand, in camera jpegs are very detailed and show a great color profile.

First of all, have a look at the color of the violin.

No comment. In camera jpeg wins.

To know which is which, right click and download the file to see the file name.

Franco

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Now have a look at the Duomo.

Again, right click to download and discover which is which.

Franco

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure I'd characterize the jpegs that Lightroom or Aperture create as "wrong." Both programs are entirely reliant upon whatever settings and modifications the user makes to the original DNG. You can, of course, create a jpeg in Lightroom or Aperture which is identical to the out-of-camera jpeg.

 

Although I stopped using in-camera jpegs some time back, I agree that the M9 produces very nice jpeg files.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Jeff, not M9, but M240.

The camera is not supported by LR4 and Aperture, so DNG files are developed with a generic color profile.

This causes several problems.

The nuances of violin's wood are lost in Aperture (the picture is crop of a 100% magnification).

This is just a sample.

I have several other samples showing similar problems.

I think we have to wait for a new release of both softwares to exploit the full potential of the camera.

In the meanwhile, Jpegs are a temporarily solution.

Franco

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, congratulations on the M240, Franco! (I hope to have mine on the next shipment). Indeed, hopefully Adobe and Apple will have proper profiles out shortly (I know Adobe has theirs in beta). I agree, that will certainly improve things.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Jeff, not M9, but M240.

The camera is not supported by LR4 and Aperture, so DNG files are developed with a generic color profile.

You could download Lightroom 4.4 that does support the new M. But in any case there are a gazillion possible settings so one cannot say a single file was the output of a raw converter.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Sorry but you just don't understand what raw (or DNG) format is about. Your raw converter's default settings are just a starting point, not the final (or optimal) result. If you are unwilling or unable to actually use your raw converter then in-camera JPEG indeed will be the better alternative—with any digital camera.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You could download Lightroom 4.4 that does support the new M. But in any case there are a gazillion possible settings so one cannot say a single file was the output of a raw converter.

 

I'm downloading it now. Thanks.

 

The point is having a software which doesn't require a gazillion settings to get colors out of the file.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Right" or "wrong" is (i) in the eye of the beholder; (ii) is difficult to judge on an Internet file viewed on screen; and (iii) can be changed so easily in ACR (or Lightroom, but I don't use that) to suit your taste (see point (i)) that I am not sure this kind of comparison is very valuable.

 

For most cameras there will be differences between jpgs and raw out of the camera. Some in camera jpg profiles will result in very different files (even when the jpog is set to "neutral") but if you are going to post process, it really doesn't make much difference.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can anybody replicate the problem of the loss of detail in RAW format files that Fgcm is showing us?

 

Of course there is never any objective "wrong" and "right" in photography, but in the samples Fgcm is showing that the RAW file has a substantial loss of detail compared to the straight ooc jpg. Personally I would call the water-colouring effect of the RAW file output very "wrong". Of course we don't know what settings he is using to convert the raw files. It almost looks like he has the noise reduction settings "wrong", since way too much detail gets lost. But it seems unlikely that his settings are accidentally "wrong" in both Lightroom and Aperture.

 

So we need somebody else with a M to post some comparisons between straight ooc jpegs and jpegs converted by either LR or Aperture from Raw (with conversion settings neutral/default).

Can anybody replicate the loss of detail, which would point to overly aggressive in-camera NR when producing RAW files?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Pieter,

I followed mjh advice and downloaded LR4.4.

It works better than 4.3 on color side.

Sharpness is still the same as before.

Of course it's my fault, but whatever I change in LR 4.4 or Aperture, I do not get the same punch I get out of camera jpegs.

Anybody can suggest what to do to?

Franco

Link to post
Share on other sites

All three settings sharpness, saturation and contrast are set to standard.

 

My end line is that waiting for a new release of Aperture or Capture One supporting M240, I will save both DNG and jpeg, taking advantage of the very good jpeg.

 

Ciao

Franco

Link to post
Share on other sites

Franco - glad you got LR 4.4 RC - it makes a HUGE difference to the rendering of colour values. I still feel that overall there's a need to improve this profile, but it's good enough to live with for now.

 

Chris, I agree with you, but I never got accustomed to LR.

I hope in a quick upgrade of C1 or Aperture.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I fought Lightroom for quite a while before finally making the switch to Photo Ninja for raw conversions, and I couldn't be happier (no relation to either company).

 

I have Aperture too, but Photo Ninja is clearly better.

 

So many things just never seemed right about Lightroom. Colors were off, hightlights usually blocked up very early, and yes in camera JPGs were often better than some of the results I'd get from Lightroom.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fcgm- Your ACR methods are not yet clear to me so I offer the following comments:

 

Have you ever tried the LR "AUTO" button in the develop module (ACR for LR)? Of course you do not have to live with what it gives you (as you can continue to make changes from that point onwards), but often it can speed up your ACR processing just to see what the algorithms do for a particular image.

 

If "Auto" is not to your liking perhaps changing the "As Shot" to another WB setting can produce different, but possibly a more preferred look for the "eye of the beholder".

 

Personally I find that I can dial in an M image to my liking maybe twice the time it takes for me to dial in a MM image, but still that can often be around 5-6 minutes for my first pass

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a comparison of conversions done in Lightroom vs Photo Ninja. This was really eye opening for me because I didn't realize before this test how dramatic differences in raw converters could be.

 

In the large white areas the Lightroom conversion has got blocked up highlights, loss of fine detail and a bit of a dull, lifeless look.

 

Maybe with more work the two images could be made more similar, but I spent roughly the same amount of time, about 2-3 minutes, on each. Also, these are crops of a very small part of a much larger image.

 

1st image = Lightroom 4.3

 

2nd image = Photo Ninja 1.0.4

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Edited by brusby
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...