M8 high contrast sharpening issues with JPEG

[john_r_smith]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Jaap

 

How true. Unfortunately, however, cameras like the V-Lux simply don't hold up to the usage ours get - rough knocks, exposure to wind and rain, and swinging around your neck as you scramble through brambles and thick woodland. Which is why we always used to issue Pentax K1000s, which were as tough as they come. Several of them lasted more than ten years. So far I have been unable to find a digital substitute which is as rugged or long-lived. So, expensive though it is, the M8 could be a candidate with its all-metal body and compact lenses, if only it was waterproof, had a good AWB and produced great in-camera JPEGs.

 

John

[martinb]

But if they work like that the V-lux1 is surely the tool of choice? Not the M8.

 

Don't be so naive. Of course the M8 gives you better JPEG's than V-lux 1. V-lux 1 is a small sensor fixed lens camera that's about 1/8 of the M8 price. Panasonic's JPEG processing on higher ISO's is probably the worst I've ever seen too.

All I say is that Leica needs to improve JPEG processing because many people use JPEG and it really doesn't matter what RAW shooters think. What we now know is that sharpening should be set to OFF and not LOW for best results and that the compression is far too high.

[Mark D]

I have to confess, I've been lulled into a false sense of security after using my D2x which not only has WB sorted but also produces excellent JPEGs. I use the largest size and the lowest compression, of course, I have rarely felt the need to do NEF for images which are correctly exposed.

 

 

I agree, I have never needed to shoot NEF with my D2x. But then 99% of what I print out is on 8 1/2 x 11 size photo paper. Or viewed on the computer.

 

Now that I have an M8 I have to learn how to process DNG files. Not something I really care about doing. But I will because I love the way the M-series cameras interface between the photographer (picture taker in my case) and the subject being photographed.

 

For me personally the way the M8 handles JPEG files is much more important than the way it handles DNGs.

 

Another Mark

[jaapv]

I agree, I have never needed to shoot NEF with my D2x. But then 99% of what I print out is on 8 1/2 x 11 size photo paper. Or viewed on the computer.

 

Now that I have an M8 I have to learn how to process DNG files. Not something I really care about doing. But I will because I love the way the M-series cameras interface between the photographer (picture taker in my case) and the subject being photographed.

 

For me personally the way the M8 handles JPEG files is much more important than the way it handles DNGs.

 

Another Mark

 

You'll be surprised, Mark. C1 and M8 DNG is a marriage made in heaven.Totally intuitive. You can forget about PS full versions. Just a few tweaks and crop in PSE, ten seconds per picture, and you're there. (barring major disasters of course)

[jonoslack]

You'll be surprised, Mark. C1 and M8 DNG is a marriage made in heaven.Totally intuitive. You can forget about PS full versions. Just a few tweaks and crop in PSE, ten seconds per picture, and you're there. (barring major disasters of course)

 

Hi Jaap

This depends on your current workflow - if you've been using Aperture for a year, love it, and have 16,000 images in it (like I have) then using C1 with DNG files is a marriage made in hell. I spent a month diligently learning C1 pro - until I had it working well, I then examined it as part of a workflow situation, looked at the backup requirements, realised that it made Aperture into an extra job. In addition C1 doesn't do well with landscape and nature shots (greens are wrong).

 

What are you supposed to do? Convert to TIFF in C1 and then store them in the Aperture library? Convert to jpg and store them in the Aperture library - make the changes in C1 - make the changes in Aperture.

 

I'm quite willing to shoot RAW files if necessary (always have with Nikon in the past - usually shot jpg with Olympus). But I understand why some people want to shoot jpg - here are some reasons:

 

1. space and backup

2. speed of processing (i.e., in most cases none)

3. speed of transmission

4. Longevity - many just don't believe it will be possible to read most raw files from most cameras in ten years time, let alone twenty - even Canon are already dropping RAW support from some of their earlier cameras. As for DNG being the digital negative - fine, but it doesn't work with any program which hasn't already been configured specifically to work with that camera.

 

specific to Leica:

 

5. Colour (read British Journal of Photography) jpg colour on the M8 is more accurate than any of the current profiles available on either C1 or ACR

6. Dynamic range - half a stop more dynamic range on jpg.

 

I take the 'I always want the best' argument for shooting RAW . . . . . in which case why aren't you shooting exclusively with a medium format camera.

 

There are a number of good reasons for shooting jpg, and it's no good saying - 'it's better to shoot raw' and thereby dismiss the issue.

 

The unfortunate thing about the Leica jpgs is that they are nearly sooo good - the colour and dynamic range are excellent - and as long as you turn off sharpening and lower the saturation and contrast, they're not bad. But there is always a chance of artifacts - and also of smearing in foliage and the like.

[jaapv]

I'm not saying RAW is the only way to go, Jono, although it is arguably the best way to make most of your files. I'm saying it might be possible to streamline the filehandling through C1 and minimal PS to get better results without substantially increasing workload For me - it was fine in my workflow to use C1. I already used Canon software to convert CRW and export to photoshop as TIFF, now I do the same with C1. But I find that the conversion from M8 files in C1 is so good that it has reduced the work I have to do in photoshop to almost nil. Which is fine for me. I may be an amateur that that means I have another job that eats into my spare time. In that sense an easy and fast runthrough of the digital processing is just as important to me as it is for a pro - He may have deadlines which I have not but he has a working day to meet them which I have not. .And the C1 interface is totally intuitive for me, as opposed to some other RAW converters I could name. So for me it works - without denying it does not for somebody else, I fully accept that. I guess an alternative is to use Lightroom. But that one for me does not work. I deleted the beta version after a month of trying.

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Don't be so naive. Of course the M8 gives you better JPEG's than V-lux 1. V-lux 1 is a small sensor fixed lens camera that's about 1/8 of the M8 price. Panasonic's JPEG processing on higher ISO's is probably the worst I've ever seen too.

All I say is that Leica needs to improve JPEG processing because many people use JPEG and it really doesn't matter what RAW shooters think. What we now know is that sharpening should be set to OFF and not LOW for best results and that the compression is far too high.

 

I would think if the camera's are used as he describes the first prerequisite would be AF. And a low price to keep it economically feasible to replace camera's cooked in the rain or forgotten in the tube. Weatherproofing would be a good idea as well. Only then file quality would be a consideration. And if you read all posts, everybody - RAW shooters included, agrees that the Jpeg quality should be improved for those that want to use it. Otherwise it does not even make sense to include the possibility to do so. A high quality camera does not need an orphan format.

[martinb]

Jaap and everybody that talks about how good RAW is, we know that RAW is superior, but remember that this thread is about the JPEG's. It's impossible to have a discussion that's totally off topic so let's get back to the topic, please!

[jaapv]

Jaap and everybody that talks about how good RAW is, we know that RAW is superior, but remember that this thread is about the JPEG's. It's impossible to have a discussion that's totally off topic so let's get back to the topic, please!

 

 

the Jpeg quality should be improved for those that want to use it. Otherwise it does not even make sense to include the possibility to do so. A high quality camera does not need an orphan format.

 

And that, Mark, goes for Jpegs too and we can all agree that the M8 does not make the grade in that repect. I suspect that your speculation about computing power may be well near the real reason. Strangely enough the Digilux2 managed to output excellent Jpegs, so it is not that the thing is impossible for Leica.

 

etc....

[martinb]

I also want to say that it's possible to get excellent results from the M8 with JPEG's too. Many of the shots I made came out excellent and I really like the B&W JPEG's (yes, I know about B&W conversions and have made hundreds of them with hundreds of methods).

It just needs to be more consistent. And even though I prefer RAW there will be times when I will prefer to shoot JPEG.

[jaapv]

not consistent means not reliable. If it means losing the shot that you wanted / needed.

[martinb]

not consistent means not reliable. If it means losing the shot that you wanted / needed.

 

Exactly Jaap That's why Leica's got to do something. But if they reduce the compression and we set the sharpening to OFF I think it will be possible to get very fine JPEG's out of it.

[jrc]

I know that photojournalists (I hate that term; I've never heard it used by a photojournalist) use jpgs, and jpgs are more than enough for photojournalist publications. But the workflow is shoot>load card into computer>transmit>editor reviews, chooses and sizes photos. Or, if the photos are being routinely driven back to the office, as most are, it's shoot>load card into computer>editor reviews, choose and sizes photos. If the PJ shoots RAW or RAW+fine, and has to transmit them, it's the work of a minute or two to convert all the files in computer to the highest res jpgs (or any other res) that your post-processing program allows; most programs allow a simple mass conversion. The same is true if you drive it back. After conversion, you can then discard the RAWs, or save them, as you please. If your PJs are shooting jpgs, and that's all you use, you should reconsider your workflow: in-camera jpgs are never always the best you can get; ne ver as good as jpgs you can get from a carefully chosen and calibrated post-processing program. Even with the bad reproduction that you get in newspapers, you can still save shots with RAW that you can't save with jpgs. In my view, PJs who shoot only jpgs are essentially guilty of laziness and sloppiness, or possible ignorance deriving from poor training; I wouldn't allow it in a photo department that I was running.

 

I worked as a reporter (and occasional photographer) from the time I was eighteen until I was 45, for a college newspaper, in the Army, for the Miami Herald and then for the St. Paul newspapers. I went on hundreds of assignments with photographers -- and though people in this forum sometimes tend to assign god-like quality to "pro photographers," I don't. I would say on the joint assignments I did with pro photographers from two large newspapers, the shots were really good about ten percent of the time (and then, usually, from the same few photographers.) About 80 percent of the time, they ranged from good to fair, and another ten percent, they were simply a loss. I would say half the shots would have been better if they could have been shot digitally, in RAW, and then carefully processed to correct exposure, lighting, and cropping.

 

There have also been a few comments here about the possible use of Leicas for photojournalism. There may be an odd user here and there, but Leicas are really no longer PJ cameras. For one thing, they're not weather-sealed. You can't shoot macros without a lot of trouble, you've got no wide-range zooms, you can't really get beyond about a 35mm equivalent of 180mm with a Leica. In situations where newspapers buy the equipment, they simply aren't going to spend Leica money if they then have to spend Nikon money to get the rest of what they need. A D2x is everything a newpaper needs; a Leica is purely a luxury. Some photodocumentary guys will use Leicas, and artists, and individual pros who are looking for a certain quality, but I would bet that the number of fulltime "employed" PJs world-wide (not stringers or parttimers) who use Leicas as their main machine could be counted on the fingers of two hands.

 

JC

[Bob Ross]

 

 

I'm quite willing to shoot RAW files if necessary (always have with Nikon in the past - usually shot jpg with Olympus). But I understand why some people want to shoot jpg -

 

 

There are a number of good reasons for shooting jpg, and it's no good saying - 'it's better to shoot raw' and thereby dismiss the issue.

 

The unfortunate thing about the Leica jpgs is that they are nearly sooo good - the colour and dynamic range are excellent - and as long as you turn off sharpening and lower the saturation and contrast, they're not bad. But there is always a chance of artifacts - and also of smearing in foliage and the like.

Hi Jono,

I agree with your points, as you know and also find C1 clutsy due to my lack of training. I was wondering if you had encountered what Martin started this thread off with? My take on JPEG is that it lives in the land of nominal/average exposure situations and outside of that you need raw as insurance. My present collection of M8 shots doesn't include any exotic light situations where I hadn't trashed the shot as I did in film days. Have you had the artifacts Martin showed and how did they print?

Bob

[johnll]

Didn't use an IR filter but I don't think that this has to do with that.

The JPEG's seems to be heavily compressed. Files are around 2-2.5 mb large. My 5mp E-1 was around 3-3.5 mb large and my 6mp Fuji S3 about the same.

Those files are quite small for JPGs from a 10MP sensor. I have recently got myself a Canon G7 which does not even support RAW, but the "Large/Superfine" JPGs average out at about 4MB each. This suggest that the M8 JPGs are much more compressed.

[adan]

Jaapv et al: The realities at my newspaper:

 

The shooters each shoot 4-6 assignments per day, and an average of 200 shots per assignment (some may be 30, some may be 500). So about a 1000 images to be pre-edited and moved to the editors - per photographer per day, and there are 15 photographers.

 

Their tools of choice are Canon 1DMkII bodies (8 mPixel) as the best all-around camera (extreme pro build quality, high-frame rate for sports, decent image size for studio, good high-ISO results for indoors and night work) - although as I said above, several would like to revive their M systems for some of the quieter, calmer assignments.

 

Thta may seem like overshooting, but editors want to see a lot of options for any assignment: vertical, horizontal, wide, tight - even for an office portrait.

 

For something like a pro sports event there will likely be 2500 frames each from 4 photographers, so easily 10,000 pictures to edit.

 

Each photographer has about an hour to go through all their pictures, select 4 to 10 to move on to the editors, write caption information into the file info for ALL of those ("who, what, where, when, why"), and send them to the server from their desktop. For the medium shoots (say a parade, with 2-3 photographers shooting 500 images each) an editor may help with the pre-editing as well.

 

The photographers do have laptops, but really only use them if they need to transmit remotely. No time between assignments for much but travel and (maybe) lunch. Remote filing of pictures is becoming common, especially since we cover a news area (Colorado) about 6 times the area of the Netherlands (and with 4000-meter mountain ranges in the middle), but for many assignments (night school sports events, evening government meetings) the photographers have perhaps 20-30 minutes to do the caption writing and transmit (email) 3-4 pictures, usually at telephone-line data speeds.

 

Their outtakes get stored in the jpeg-based archive (see below).

 

Our pagination system is a lean-and-mean design system, only distantly related to Quark or pagemaker or such - really a database with sophisticated layout and writing tools. Distributed over about 600 computers, for reporters, designers, editors, photographers, ad layout people, etc. It recognizes two image formats: EPS and JPG.

 

Our wire services and photo agencies also use jpeg and eps exclusively: Associated Press, Getty/Agence-France-Presse, iStock, etc. They move about 4000 images a day (1000 in the past 6 hours - I just checked the in-box), which also must be temporarily archived for 7-10 days (after which we keep only the ones we actually published, and the rest self-delete).

 

Our photo archive, even in compressed jpegs, is 9 TERAbytes (9,000 Gigs) today - and doubles about every 2 years, although the growth will become more linear with time, settling down to a stable 3 terabytes per year eventually. It is searchable by keywords, photographer, words in the caption, etc. - again across 600 computers. As a visual database it must be able to display the results of a search as thumbnails in about 3-5seconds - again, handling requests from dozens of computers at once.

[mike prevette]

Those files are quite small for JPGs from a 10MP sensor. I have recently got myself a Canon G7 which does not even support RAW, but the "Large/Superfine" JPGs average out at about 4MB each. This suggest that the M8 JPGs are much more compressed.

 

This does not necessarily mean the compression is set at a higher rate. JPG hates noise, and I would say the G7 is going to be much noisier due to it's small chip. A very small difference in noise level can mean a great deal to JPG file size.

 

Remember JPG works by creating tiny gradients that average out the value of block of pixels. The more variation between those pixels, means the more values it stores, hence larger file sizes. So a 'smoother' file will compress better, i.e. make a smaller file.

 

Now I'm not saying the M8's JPGing rate is perfect, but I very rarely run into JPG artifacts with my M8 files, and I've shot several thousand JPGs with it now.

 

I think the whole JPG engine in the M8 needs to be rewritten. Hell just based on the fact it takes longer to write a JPG file than a DNG should be reason enough. That means that whatever chip is doing the JPGing is horribly underpowered, that it can't beat the write time of a file 5 times it's size. Just because a bunch of dentists, doctors, and lawyers with nothing better to do then plunk in C1 and polish their Nocti's think JPG is a waste of time is a good enough reason to ignore some of these issues.

 

_mike

[jonoslack]

I think the whole JPG engine in the M8 needs to be rewritten. Hell just based on the fact it takes longer to write a JPG file than a DNG should be reason enough. That means that whatever chip is doing the JPGing is horribly underpowered, that it can't beat the write time of a file 5 times it's size. Just because a bunch of dentists, doctors, and lawyers with nothing better to do then plunk in C1 and polish their Nocti's think JPG is a waste of time is a good enough reason to ignore some of these issues.

 

_mike

 

I think the engine is quite good - but I do wish the compression was less (on the E1 it's 1:2.7 - much more sensible). You might find that with less compression it would also be faster (and have less artifacts).

[jaapv]

Just because a bunch of dentists, doctors, and lawyers with nothing better to do then plunk in C1 and polish their Nocti's think JPG is a waste of time is a good enough reason to ignore some of these issues.

_mike

 

Mike, Mike, it is only because I don't own a Noctilux that you are not standing on my toes...If you think only professional photographers have the right to use camera's the companies making them would soon be out of business, Leica probably as the first one.And I assure you, if you work sixty to eighty hours a week a bit of speed in in photographic processing is as much appreciated by these amateurs (which means " lover" -remember?) as by any overworked photoprofessional. I choose C1 - but Jpeg would give me a better social life, not not mention domestic peace at times.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Jamie Roberts]

{Snipped} So, expensive though it is, the M8 could be a candidate with its all-metal body and compact lenses, if only it was waterproof, had a good AWB and produced great in-camera JPEGs. John

 

John--you need Canon 1d2s. They're all of the above, and fast and easier for non pros to use than an M8.

 

As for pros, I know plenty of pro photographers who only use JPEG. They won't be swayed by "raw is better" arguments, though almost everyone here knows how I feel (I always shoot RAW).

 

So I think Leica should fix the sharpening... it seems pretty ridiculous the way it is right now.

 

@ Andy--thanks for the sharpening demo--it really does show the issue. I seemed to have missed what colourspace you were working with... does working in aRGB make any difference?

 

@ Jono--I completely understand the workflow issues you have with Aperture and C1. C1's colour with the M8 will improve though, and storage will get larger / cheaper. It would be completely feasible, I think, to use C1 as the raw converter and Aperture as the image base. BTW--I still think the DNR ratings on JPEG vs RAW in the BJP were a bit off too Depends on how you measure, and what converter you use. I know that the JPEGs are not nearly as elastic in the shadow or gradient side as the JPEGs--that's reason enough for me to shoot RAW