D-Lux 3 – sharing familiarisation experiences – JPG fine and RAW comparison

[macgarvin]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Below an image shot using JPG fine with ‘minimum’ settings on sharpness, etc, and with RAW. The shots were taken successively (ie NOT the companion JPG produced with the RAW), were tripod mounted using 2 second timer, at 100 ISO, 2 seconds exposure at f5.6, with a focal length of 6.3 mm (ie widest angle possible). White balance was auto. For the RAW version I then took the grey balance off the colour card (which looked dreadful) and then brought it some way back to a more realistic colour. The overall colour was then more realistic than the JPG (eg blue sofa) but the red ring on the Canon lenses was a little too pink. However, I wasn’t mainly interested in colour balance here, but in image detail. Focus was taken on the didgeridoo.

 

The images below show – a reduced full frame image from the JPG; similarly for the RAW; and thirdly some 100 percent details, of the JPG, the RAW file with Camara Raw settings of luminance smoothing 4, colour noise reduction 3 (ie both minor adjustments) and minor correction for lens chromatic aberration with no further processing; and the final RAW file in addition with some restrained sharpening using Photokit Sharpener and local contrast enhancement, also restrained.

 

There will be personal preferences, but I feel that I have reached an acceptable compromise – to me - in the final RAW version between bringing out detail and increasing noise. But there are some clear artefacts in the ‘JPG fine’ image out of the camera which are not easily correctable and which do affect image quality overall. Most obvious are the white blobs on the didgeridoo, but also visible in other highlights. There is also some smearing of detail on what are white numbers on the up-ended lens. In both JPG and in the RAW, the knurling on the rear shield of the lens is visible (pitch ca 3mm) but the knurling (pitch ca 1.5 mm) on the rubber focussing ring is not visible.

 

These results reinforced my belief of shooting in RAW unless I want a sequence of images, when JPG is the only option. As an aside I found that it takes ca 2.5 seconds to save a raw to an Sandisk Extreme III 2 GB card, which makes it very usable.

 

Malcolm

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!

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Guest malland]

Malcom, your comparison pictures confirm my feelings that I don't at all like the Venus III JPG engine that the D-Lux 3 uses and is one of the reasons I always use the RAW files.

 

—Mitch/Bangkok

http://www.flickr.com/photos/10268776@N00/

[anupmc]

Malcom, I have a D-Lux 2 and get pretty much the same results that you do with the DL3.

 

That said, I do tend to find that the jpegs generally give a slightly more accurate colour saturation (of the real world) than does raw for some reason. In your first picture, which of the two has more accurate colour saturation of that room?

[macgarvin]

Malcom, I have a D-Lux 2 and get pretty much the same results that you do with the DL3.

 

That said, I do tend to find that the jpegs generally give a slightly more accurate colour saturation (of the real world) than does raw for some reason. In your first picture, which of the two has more accurate colour saturation of that room?

 

The RAW out of the camera was somewhere between the two images shown (I'd adjusted the RAW shown using Colour Mechanic) and that RAW was the more accurate overall for most parts of the picture but not absolutely right, hence the adjustments with Colour Mechanic. However the JPG was better on the red ring on the lens.

 

I've not tested it, but my impression is that the JPGs usually have more saturated colours that the raws, but also the black point in the JPGs is set higher, so that some details in the RAW are coming out as inky black in the JPGs. That may contribute to the impression of more saturated colour. That may not be a bad thing because the detail in the deeper shadows that are revealed in the RAW (not JPG) image have some really nasty artifacts (so do the JPGs, but that is another story).

 

Which I prefer depends on what mood I am in, but it is usually the RAWs. But for 'normal' people I suspect that they would instinctively prefer a more saturated image.

[macgarvin]

... I do tend to find that the jpegs generally give a slightly more accurate colour saturation (of the real world) than does raw for some reason....

 

I was a bit hasty in my first reply re. what is more accurate colour, the ‘Leica’ JPG or the RAW file. I said that the JPGs looked more saturated, but yesterday I noticed some where the RAW file was more saturated.

 

So that stimulated me to be more systematic. I took a photo of a GregtagMacbeth card and there and then compared the card up against the screen renditions of the Leica JPG, the Adobe Camera Raw file with its guesses at ‘optimisation’ turned off (hearafter ‘RAW’) and with the optimisation turned on (hereafter ACR).

 

To my surprise, it wasn’t as clear-cut as I had previously thought.

 

Colour comparisons are a nightmare, of course. For example in converting the RAW files from my colour space (ProPhoto) to sRGB for display on this web page the blue third row, far left ‘jumped’ to a blue more like that on the card (!) – the remainder stayed close. There can be variation between individual cameras, etc . . .

 

Those caveats noted, in short, the Leica JPG appeared to be making a better job of the blues, notably across the blue diagonal on the card. The red, (third row, third column), was also a better rendition. On the other hand, the Caucasian skin tone, row one column two, was poorer

 

More systematically, images of the cards,

 

‘Leica’ JPG

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!

 

RAW, no ACR optimisation

 

RAW, ACR optimisation

 

and by my interpretation below, for the first three rows, of which appeared the more faithful rendition. (xxx) means marginal difference, ‘JPG’ means that the ‘Leica’ JPG was the most faithful rendition, ‘RAW’ that the RAW without the ACR optimisation was more faithful, ‘ACR’ that the Adobe Camera Raw optimisation seemed more faithful.

 

 

RAW RAW JPG (JPG) (JPG) (RAW)

(ACR) JPG JPG (JPG) same (ACR)

JPG JPG JPG ACR JPG RAW

 

So if Leica JPG blues appear better in real life? I stuck my head out of the window right now and tried a shot of the sky, with blues and greys:

 

 

The leica jpg is doing fine, indeed the clouds seem slightly truer to life (less blue cast) that the RAW no ACR optimisation. The RAW, ACR optimisation is dreadful, but I’m not sure that it is meaningful, as you would only use it as a starting point.

 

Perhaps my overall conclusion is that the variation between the modes is less that that imposed by personal intervention when editing a picture:

 

 

 

After editing this I again looked outside the door, and have to admit that the unprocessed JPG and RAW files are closer to the actual colours in similar light today (pic taken yesterday) – however my edit seems closer to the colours that I take away in my head of pines and the pink granite Cairngorm grit! Perhaps a summation of seeing this familiar sight in many different lights? Alternately, I didn’t realise that real life was so ugly!

 

The bottom line is perhaps that colour interpretation is hugely personal, but the increased awareness of colour that comes from this sort of fiddling around informs personal insights . . . ?

 

Malcolm

[sitcur]

Hello Malcom, I need a little help.

 

I just purchased a D-Lux 3, my first digital camera after shooting film for years. From everythink I have read RAW is the way to go. What (software) do you recommend to work with the Leica RAW images? I have Photoshop Elements 4 that came with the camera (and which can not load the raw images) and I purchased the new Adobe Lightroom on-line last night.

 

Is this sufficient to get started? Any advice is appreciated.

 

Thanks, Roger

[sanqhar]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

With Adobe Photoshop Elements 4 that comes with the camera you need to get the RAW Plug-in from the Adobe web site. Then it will load the RAW files.

[filcasolo]

Malcom, I have a D-Lux 2 and get pretty much the same results that you do with the DL3.

 

That said, I do tend to find that the jpegs generally give a slightly more accurate colour saturation (of the real world) than does raw for some reason. In your first picture, which of the two has more accurate colour saturation of that room?

 

 

To all of you from a D-Lux 2 user.

Why should the camera package include an Adobe Photoshop Element 3 which can't unload RAW files unless supplemented by some kind of Plug-in which one can find on the web at very high prices?

Thanks

filcasolo

[steve kessel]

To all of you from a D-Lux 2 user.

Why should the camera package include an Adobe Photoshop Element 3 which can't unload RAW files unless supplemented by some kind of Plug-in which one can find on the web at very high prices?

Thanks

filcasolo

 

 

Filippo

 

Having obtained the item myself for my D-Lux 2, I'm almost 100% sure the RAW plug in is a free download.

 

Best wishes

 

Steve

[netdog]

ACR Optimisation is in the Adobe Camera Raw plugin settings in CS3 (what I have) or in the camera? If in the camera, where do I find it?

 

Also, I plan to start using Aperture. Any tips on importing with Aperture now that OS X supports the Leica RAW file format?

[filcasolo]

Filippo

 

Having obtained the item myself for my D-Lux 2, I'm almost 100% sure the RAW plug in is a free download.

 

Best wishes

 

Steve

 

Thank Steve:as I have been navigating unsuccessfully,are you able to recall the web site where to get the free download for elements 3?

Filippo

[XD7]

Check out Adobe and look under Downloads.

[spylaw4]

If you have LR - particularly V1.1 - then you should have enough. I do recommend reading some of the tutorials online or getting the Lumious Landscape videos.