ropo54 Posted November 30, 2015 Share #1 Posted November 30, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) I tried printing some jpegs and the output is truly atrocious. The image on the monitor is terrific, but the printed image is flat, dull and muddled. (Frankly, they can't compare to jpeg print output from the Leica Typ 113 or the X vario or the D Lux 109 ). Has anyone had the same experience with the Q? Based on past history is Leica likely to improve the jpeg files with a software update? Thanks, Rob Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted November 30, 2015 Posted November 30, 2015 Hi ropo54, Take a look here Has anyone tried printing from jpegs?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
alee Posted November 30, 2015 Share #2 Posted November 30, 2015 If your printouts don't match what's on your screen you need to calibrate the screen, printer or both. Read up on color spaces and color profiles... there is no reason why it would look good on screen and bad in print in practice. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricky1981 Posted November 30, 2015 Share #3 Posted November 30, 2015 ^ What alee said. The Q's JPGs are not good IMO so you should try using DNG files (then convert them for printing) but if the print and screen don't match then it's not the camera at fault. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ropo54 Posted November 30, 2015 Author Share #4 Posted November 30, 2015 Much appreciated, Ricky1981 and Alee. My screen jpegs from the Q look pretty good, but the printed images look lifeless. When printing the Q's DNG images, they are substantially better. Curiously, the printed jpegs from my 113 and XVario look fine. I just cannot understand the discrepancy between the 113, X Vario and the Q's printed jpegs. Thank you, if anyone has any further thoughts. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jankap Posted November 30, 2015 Share #5 Posted November 30, 2015 Perhaps you should write somewhat more about how you do the printing. Directly from the screen or via Photoshop? What printer do you use? There are many mines in this field! There is an interesting sticky about printing in the forum. Jan Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ropo54 Posted November 30, 2015 Author Share #6 Posted November 30, 2015 Perhaps you should write somewhat more about how you do the printing. Directly from the screen or via Photoshop? What printer do you use? There are many mines in this field! There is an interesting sticky about printing in the forum. Jan Thank you, Jan. I am printing from Apple iMac Photos to an epson R 1900. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jankap Posted November 30, 2015 Share #7 Posted November 30, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) There must be a difference between the jpg output of the Q and the other cameras. The brightness of your monitor is the same in both cases? Difficult. Jan Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
alee Posted November 30, 2015 Share #8 Posted November 30, 2015 Under MENU > JPEG Settings, are you set to sRGB, ECI-RGB or Adobe RGB? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marcg Posted November 30, 2015 Share #9 Posted November 30, 2015 There is a huge amount of material written in books and also on the Internet on the subject of printing. It's not at all straightforward although it is extremely interesting.There are lots of short videos about it on YouTube as well so it's easy to learn quite a lot.It may be very possible that you are getting very different results from printing DNG's and JPEG's, but as far as I understand the subject if your print is looking different to what you have on the screen, then your first port of call has to be calibration of your screen and also calibration of your printer by producing print profiles.My particular favourite – partly because it is cheap – is the colormunki by Xrite which allows you to calibrate your screen and also your printer and then do further calibrations from the printout itself – sort of, recursive.My printouts have improved enormously since I started using this – but they are not perfect by any means and often not at all satisfactory.I can't really imagine that the difference between your printing results is wholly based upon the difference in file types – if you are printing at a level where the screen output is not matching the printout.I expect that there will be more knowledgeable people who will come along and maybe confirm this and also provide some better ideas as to a proper approach. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ropo54 Posted November 30, 2015 Author Share #10 Posted November 30, 2015 Under MENU > JPEG Settings, are you set to sRGB, ECI-RGB or Adobe RGB? Alee - The Leica Q is set to sRGB. Rob MarcG - Yes, it is baffling as to why there are differing results from the jpegs for the X series and the Q. Thank you for your input. I will definitely follow up on calibrating the screen and printer. Rob Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marcg Posted November 30, 2015 Share #11 Posted November 30, 2015 I'm not entirely sure where this gets you, but out of curiosity I be tempted to take the files to some high Street photographic print shop and get them to print out an example of each of the JPEG and of the DNG files.As I say, I'm not sure that gets you – but if the results happened to be better than you are getting then it least it gives you some food for thought.If they are getting the same results as you then clearly the problem is with the files and the way you are processing them – in which case you definitely need to start calibrating your monitor Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
beauport Posted November 30, 2015 Share #12 Posted November 30, 2015 I made an image today with the Q and uploaded the jpeg and DNG. Looking at the two images side by side in Photoshop Bridge they were extremely close though the shadow areas in the jpeg were slightly darker, estimating about 1/4 stop. I printed both images using Photoshop to drive an Epson 4900. My monitor and printer are both calibrated. The resulting prints were extremely close and mirrored what I saw of the two images in Bridge. I then changed the profile of the DNG to sRGB and printed it again and this time the two images were even closer, almost indistinguishable. I doubt the differences could be seen on line. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ropo54 Posted November 30, 2015 Author Share #13 Posted November 30, 2015 I'm not entirely sure where this gets you, but out of curiosity I be tempted to take the files to some high Street photographic print shop and get them to print out an example of each of the JPEG and of the DNG files. As I say, I'm not sure that gets you – but if the results happened to be better than you are getting then it least it gives you some food for thought. If they are getting the same results as you then clearly the problem is with the files and the way you are processing them – in which case you definitely need to start calibrating your monitor MarcG - good suggestion which I am following up on. Have ordered a new epson printer which should arrive by the weekend, along with a program to calibrate the monitor. Beauport - thank you; seems like I likely have a printer issue so am proceeding down that solution path. Appreciate your going through the effort to print the jpeg comparison. I am hopeful that this is the solution, particularly after your effort! Many thanks, Rob Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marcg Posted December 1, 2015 Share #14 Posted December 1, 2015 I hope you are my me saying that I think that you are probably jumping the gun by buying a new printer this stage – if you are buying the printer simply as a solution to the problem.I don't think that you have really identified the problem yet.If your existing 1900 printer was printing consistently bad results regardless of the file type then there might – might – be a basis for saying that it's the printer, but you yourself have said that the poor results are only with the JPEG files.This strongly suggests that the problem is not the printer.You say that you're buying a calibration program. This has to be the right way to go. However, I'm concerned that you set a calibration program and not a piece of hardware. Is that correct? And if it is, what program is it that you are buying and how does it work if it does not have a piece of hardware to read the colour values? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ropo54 Posted December 1, 2015 Author Share #15 Posted December 1, 2015 I hope you are my me saying that I think that you are probably jumping the gun by buying a new printer this stage – if you are buying the printer simply as a solution to the problem. I don't think that you have really identified the problem yet. If your existing 1900 printer was printing consistently bad results regardless of the file type then there might – might – be a basis for saying that it's the printer, but you yourself have said that the poor results are only with the JPEG files. This strongly suggests that the problem is not the printer. You say that you're buying a calibration program. This has to be the right way to go. However, I'm concerned that you set a calibration program and not a piece of hardware. Is that correct? And if it is, what program is it that you are buying and how does it work if it does not have a piece of hardware to read the colour values? I agree that the problem is not yet conclusively determined, but I would add that my printer is also now consistently printing blacks with a purplish tint on all prints - dng and jpeg. It is 6 years old and to try to deal with a mechanical fix is likely more expensive than purchasing a new epson p 600 with the current rebate. (This is hobby for me, nothing more). I did print out the jpegs on a laser printer at my office, and while the quality of the print on plain white paper was certainly lacking, the colors and details were much more evident (and the purplish tint was gone). My guess is that the print heads on my black pigments are not functioning correctly, such that I am losing fine detail in the images along with the purplish cast, and other color tone errors. So, I am going with a new printer and will calibrate the monitor at the same time. Yes, the dngs were showing more detail than the jpegs, but the colors for all were off. The laser prints from my office 'told' me that the problem was not likely with the data from the camera (for jpegs) but rather with the errant color renditions. I am buying the spyder program for calibration. Hopefully will have the printer from B&H by the weekend. I do appreciate your help. Rob Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marcg Posted December 1, 2015 Share #16 Posted December 1, 2015 Have you bought the datacolor yet? I bought one and used it briefly and then got rid of it.I settled for colormunki in the end which I bought second-hand. Although it is much older than the datacolor, looking over the Internet it seems to be considered a far more professional and valuable tool than the datacolor.As I have said, in particular I like the fact that you can fine tune your calibration by recalibrating from the calibrated printouts that you have already made. Datacolor doesn't seem to support this functionality.The colormunki is also cheaper than the full datacolor kit because in order to calibrate your monitor and your printer, you have to buy two pieces of equipment or else by the datacolor studio.I bought my colormunki in excellent condition for only £200 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ropo54 Posted December 1, 2015 Author Share #17 Posted December 1, 2015 Have you bought the datacolor yet? I bought one and used it briefly and then got rid of it. I settled for colormunki in the end which I bought second-hand. Although it is much older than the datacolor, looking over the Internet it seems to be considered a far more professional and valuable tool than the datacolor. As I have said, in particular I like the fact that you can fine tune your calibration by recalibrating from the calibrated printouts that you have already made. Datacolor doesn't seem to support this functionality. The colormunki is also cheaper than the full datacolor kit because in order to calibrate your monitor and your printer, you have to buy two pieces of equipment or else by the datacolor studio. I bought my colormunki in excellent condition for only £200 Thank you, I will look into the colormunki. I've order the Spyder program on line so I can certainly return it to B&H upon receipt. Rob Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marcg Posted December 1, 2015 Share #18 Posted December 1, 2015 You could even spend a few bucks getting a professional profiling service to create profiles for new printer. That would give you an idea of what works and what doesn't before you start spending money on new kit. It is worth doing some good research - because at the end you will find the results of your printing much more satisfying Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ropo54 Posted December 1, 2015 Author Share #19 Posted December 1, 2015 You could even spend a few bucks getting a professional profiling service to create profiles for new printer. That would give you an idea of what works and what doesn't before you start spending money on new kit. It is worth doing some good research - because at the end you will find the results of your printing much more satisfying That will be the next step if the new printer/ calibration does not work, though I am optimistic! (The calibration is a not too expensive fix so I'll see how that works first). Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marcg Posted December 1, 2015 Share #20 Posted December 1, 2015 (The calibration is a not too expensive fix so I'll see how that works first). I would describe it as part of the workflow rather than a mere fix Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.