reginaldwatkins Posted June 3, 2010 Share #1 Posted June 3, 2010 Advertisement (gone after registration) I'm having a hard time getting the same quality from some of my DNG files as the JPEG files straight out of the X1. What other in camera adjustments are made other than sharpening, saturation and contrast? Some colours I'm finding are hard to get even close to the JPEG. If I take an image that contains letters I'm finding it difficult to get them as clear as the JPEG. I've tried sharpening the letters but I'm not able to get the same result. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted June 3, 2010 Posted June 3, 2010 Hi reginaldwatkins, Take a look here What goes into the X1 JPEG algorithm?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Guest badbob Posted June 3, 2010 Share #2 Posted June 3, 2010 All I can say is that a JPEG from the X1 could never equal or exceed the quality of a RAW file, unless the RAW converter is way wrong somehow. I did a few Google searches for Leica X1 and RAW settings (or DNG settings) and didn't get much info - you might get what you need if you do some more searches. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardM8 Posted June 4, 2010 Share #3 Posted June 4, 2010 If anything, the OOC JPGs from the X1 are one of its weaker points. The results should be the other way around... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wda Posted June 4, 2010 Share #4 Posted June 4, 2010 Reginald, it would appear that something is badly wrong with your choice of post processing. Unfortunately you have supplied no information which makes it difficult to offer specific help. Have you dipped into the Leica Post Processing forum which is a useful place to sort out these problems? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ezc203 Posted June 4, 2010 Share #5 Posted June 4, 2010 If anything, the OOC JPGs from the X1 are one of its weaker points. The results should be the other way around... +1 Definitely have to agree with Richard (and the others here). The JPEG straight out of the X1 is often weak and unusable. May I inquire what program you are using for PP? I use Lightroom myself and have found my edited-then-exported RAWs are far superior to the JPEGs. Perhaps you can share your PP methods? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
h00ligan Posted June 4, 2010 Share #6 Posted June 4, 2010 I think I understand what Reginald is saying. I can agree that the raw files imported into LR seem extremely overexposed compared to the jpg. I know the headroom is there but the interpretation by LR seems incorrect to me. I can show you a shot where the cam made the choice for shutter speed, i set aperture and iso - cam said the exposure was spot on, jpg has good detail, raw file looks blown to hell. It's very odd - I can correct it with sliders, but I wonder why it seems so far off from what the cam considered good exposure, and interpreting to jpg the same. I definitely have shots with some jpgs that look better than the raw without very heavy tweaking.- sometimes i can't ever seem to get it right. There's definitely an exposure discrepancy with lightroom and raw right now, imho. edit, it's not exposure, the difference is in brightness and contrast... some raw files look really washed out and need more contrast. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoolPixeler Posted June 4, 2010 Share #7 Posted June 4, 2010 Advertisement (gone after registration) Used to process my RAW Nikon pictures with Nikon NX2, i feel alone with the X1 dng! So i understand Reginald and i wonder why Leica doesn't share with Adobe or Apple the PP setup? On the picture you can find here , i compare a X1-jpeg (XI setup standard), X1 dng open in LR no treatment, and open in aperture no treatment. You can download the picture full size. Look at the green dome, i cannot say that jpeg is poor So much differences! Michel. My X1 album What-eye-saw Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cirrus Posted June 4, 2010 Share #8 Posted June 4, 2010 I find the JPEGS out of the camera excellent. Except for the issue of color balance, where the DNG gives your more rang for adjustment, I can't see any reason to use the DNG with this camera. These are also big JPEGS and the dynamic range is amazing. When they convert the JPEGS they're doing a really good job of pulling in the highlights and shadows. Dan Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
h00ligan Posted June 4, 2010 Share #9 Posted June 4, 2010 Thanks for posting that Michel - I thought I was crazy but that's about what I see in LR. Interesting that Aperture seems to get it closer. Obviously there are downsides to the jpg treatment, but there's (in well lit scenes) a lot to do to the raw files to get them right, imho - the first import after bright day shots I though I flubbed it and got the exposures totally wrong. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
janmartm Posted June 4, 2010 Share #10 Posted June 4, 2010 I am finding the opposite, the results from Lightroom are much better than the jpegs. I was wondering what could be the cause of our opposite experience and possibly one of the factors you could try is checking the 'camera profile' that Lightroom uses to process the DNG files. You can find this in the 'Development' module in the right panel under 'Camera Calibration'. Since the X1 produces native DNG files the camera profile should be on 'embedded'. Hope this helps, Jan Martijn Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
h00ligan Posted June 4, 2010 Share #11 Posted June 4, 2010 Jan, I think you just hit the nail on the head! Hmm, interesting, for some shots it made a huge difference, for some it makes no difference. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoolPixeler Posted June 4, 2010 Share #12 Posted June 4, 2010 As Lightroom doesn't take into account the setup of the camera but only ICC profile there is more or less no difference between a DNG and a jpg in "standard" preset if you use standard ICC or embedded ICC. But i you use a "user preset" the difference will be sometimes very important. It's exactly the same with a nikon raw or jpg seen by Lightroom. Only Capture NX is able to see a Nikon Raw as you shot it, because the preset is embedded in the raw file. Unfortunately it doesn't work with leica-dng. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
reginaldwatkins Posted June 4, 2010 Author Share #13 Posted June 4, 2010 Used to process my RAW Nikon pictures with Nikon NX2, i feel alone with the X1 dng! So i understand Reginald and i wonder why Leica doesn't share with Adobe or Apple the PP setup? On the picture you can find here , i compare a X1-jpeg (XI setup standard), X1 dng open in LR no treatment, and open in aperture no treatment. You can download the picture full size. Look at the green dome, i cannot say that jpeg is poor So much differences! Michel. My X1 album What-eye-saw This is exactly what I'm experiencing in LR 2.7. I've updated my workflow to include the "embedded" profile. With much work I can get the DNG file to look better than the JPEG except for the sharpening portion. Maybe I should open the file in CS3 to add a layer of sharpening there. Thank you for all of your replies as I've gotten some excellent feedback. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
h00ligan Posted June 9, 2010 Share #14 Posted June 9, 2010 Playing around tonight and it seems: Raws, get contrast and brightness adjustments - set them back to 0 Desaturate to negative 17 (+- 3) Blue is more biasted toward purple to the tune of about +15 Blue is then desaturated -15 That gets them pretty close.. I don't understand why lightroom is by default adding +25 and +50 to brightness and contrast with the raws on default input.. also using the embedded profile sometimes makes a huge difference, but often does nothing I can perceive. Just some thoughts playing around. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
reginaldwatkins Posted June 9, 2010 Author Share #15 Posted June 9, 2010 Thanks Edward, I'll add this to my workflow and see what results I get. Thanks again! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexeyS Posted July 18, 2010 Share #16 Posted July 18, 2010 Well, I have one suggestion only: Leica should integrate it's internal camera JPG presets into LR and Aperture :-) Their sharpening quality is outstanding! Since I've bought Leica X1 I almost do not use DNG anymore from this camera. Expecialy B/W. How can we initiaite Leica to do that? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nippa Posted July 18, 2010 Share #17 Posted July 18, 2010 Can I be another to support the OOC Jpeg. I could never understand why the Dpreview knocked the jpeg processing because I find it totally to my taste. Long live the Leica Jpeg:) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
phancj Posted July 18, 2010 Share #18 Posted July 18, 2010 My experience is more confusing, sometimes OOC jpegs are better (especially colors) and sometimes DNG files are better, it depends on the shots. Nowadays, I take no chances, I compare both, choose the better one, then PP. But I notice with LR, sometimes embedded profile is better and sometimes adobe standard...arggghhhhh! Aperture appears to be the middle ground, but then we have PS, LR, Nik (I just bought), dun feel the need to add aperture to the mix, it is a little too much??!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardM8 Posted July 18, 2010 Share #19 Posted July 18, 2010 Amazing. Such different views! When I open both the DNGs and JPGs in Lightroom side by side I can't find a single JPG that looks better than the DNG. The JPGs all look dull, flat, cool (most) and oversharpened. And they fall apart rapidly when you touch them. Various good (tech) reviews also clearly show how much more resolution and dynamic range is in the X1 DNGs so I couldn't think of a reason why I would use the JPGs. Especially as programs like Lightroom make working with RAW just as easy as JPGs too. Just out of curiosity, we all are looking at good quality screens that are calibrated I take it?... A (very) crude and simple one from DPreview. If you can't see all the different patches below CLEARLY you're in big trouble. If in doubt, have a look at the various test screens here to get a idea how your screen does. LCD monitor test images Richard. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
phancj Posted July 18, 2010 Share #20 Posted July 18, 2010 yes, Richard, I calibrate the screen with the spyder thingy... One thing I notice in the first few weeks of owning the camera is that LR has problems (it appears to me at least) with certain shades of red. So while the X1 OOC jpeg has nice color graduation across a flower, LR conversion has a comparatively rougher gritty look in particularly the red color. Of course raw files are larger so it stands up to PP much better but I am just noticing that in terms of accuracy and shade of the colors the X1 in-camera processing engine does have some magic. So yes, I do believe in many cases the jpegs may be sufficient without much thought, but to play safe I always shoot both so can reap best of both worlds. Also, in most cases DNG files upon importation are quite horrendous, mostly over-exposed. Dun think there is much co-operation between Adobe and Leica. Colors can be way off too. compared to the jpeg, I would say most shots upon importation to LR sucks, but upon tweaking can be amazing, or at least I hope! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.