M8 high contrast sharpening issues with JPEG

[mjh]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

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).

Only at 1:2.7, JPEGs would take about as much space as DNG files. I’d suggest using a compression ratio of 1:7 to 1:5, depending on the amount of fine image detail (right now it varies between about 1:16 and 1:10).

[Advertisement]

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

[Jamie Roberts]

{snipped} 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 agree with you up to this point, and then you lost me entirely. Do you think Phase One software (or hardware, for that matter) is for amateurs? That's pretty funny

 

JPEG is a waste of time for me as a pro because I want the best image quality to work with, preferably as close to 16 bpp as possible.

 

@ Jono--in the same way, there are myriad reasons why I don't always shoot with a MF back Not the least of which is portability! I still want the quality of RAW.

 

But back to being on-topic, yes, the JPEG sharpening on the M8 apparently is terrible in edge conditions.

[Peter41951]

Well, there's certainly a high contrast in opinions about M8 high contrast sharpening issues with JPEG:eek: .

 

...and some sharp exchanges. Must be all those surgeons' scalpels.

 

PS By the way, I'm not a doctor, lawyer nor dentist, nor do I have a Nocti......

[jonoslack]

 

JPEG is a waste of time for me as a pro because I want the best image quality to work with, preferably as close to 16 bpp as possible. .

 

Hi Jamie

I hope you're well.

 

If we are to believe Anders Uschold in the British Journal of Photography, then the M8 jpgs have much more accurate colour than any of the raw profiles, and they provide 1/2 stop of extra dynamic range.

 

Now what was that you were saying about the best image quality?

 

More seriously, I mostly shoot RAW (I'm just irritated with the lack of Aperture support), but what bugs me is the "I want the best image quality" - we all make major compromises at every step ( yours would appear to be not to use medium format). The difference between a jpg from a camera which produces good jpgs and RAW is a very minor increase in quality.

 

Your profiles are magic for urban and indoor shots, but I've still seen nothing to touch the colours of the Leica jpgs for landscape - and I can't make the greens as good even if I work really hard at it. It's just a pity that they are quite so severely compressed.

 

But there is an implication that if you shoot jpg you don't really care about quality, and that need not be the case.

[mike prevette]

Sorry I was trying to make a bad joke. I didn't mean to step on any toes. I had a very early morning and had a shoot I wasn't very excited about. I might have been a little on the snarky side. And no I did not mean to imply that C1 was for amitures.

 

Being a professional image maker is always about balance, art/efficiency or time/money etc. Whatever brings you in balance is cool with me. I just wish people wouldn't go around preaching that RAW is the ONLY way to really work. Because that is a personal decision, and controlled by too many variables for someone on the other side of the world to determine for you.

 

_mike

[jonoslack]

Sorry I was trying to make a bad joke. I didn't mean to step on any toes. I had a very early morning and had a shoot I wasn't very excited about. I might have been a little on the snarky side. And no I did not mean to imply that C1 was for amitures.

 

Being a professional image maker is always about balance, art/efficiency or time/money etc. Whatever brings you in balance is cool with me. I just wish people wouldn't go around preaching that RAW is the ONLY way to really work. Because that is a personal decision, and controlled by too many variables for someone on the other side of the world to determine for you.

 

_mike

Thank you Mike - being an amateur image maker is just the same - simply take out the money - it's still about balancing art/eficiency/time, and the arguments for jpg/raw aren't different.

 

But what bugs me is exactly as you have said it - the assumption that RAW is the ONLY way to work.

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

No hard feelings Mike. Just drop the words "image maker" after the word "professional" and you and I are saying exactly the same thing.

[jrc]

But what bugs me is exactly as you have said it - the assumption that RAW is the ONLY way to work.

 

Jono, I've seen quite a bit of your stuff (and I like it, a lot) and I remember from past discussions on the Askey site that you have always been a bit of a fan of jpg.s. I always just assumed that was an idiosyncrasy, but I have to confess, I honestly, truly don't understand it, unless you really have an aversion to post-processing. Don't understand it especially in your case, with those Constable-esque landscapes, and the stuff that could be done with Photoshop...But, I accept it as an idiosyncracy, and further, that you know what you're talking about.

 

*Of course,* RAW isn't the only way to work. I routinely carry a Canon G7, and it doesn't even offer RAW, but makes some nice shots. But shooting jpg is a little like shooting film, where you accepted what some guy at Kodak or Fuji preferred in the way that colors would be applied to your work. I still shoot an M7 for particular kinds of work, and all I can say is, thank God for scanners -- at least I can get some of it back in post.

 

JC

[peterv]

Jono,

 

your irritation towards Aperture is very understandable. (how many times more do we have to e-mail/beg Apple for DNG-support?)

 

My workflow:

- shoot DNG + JPEG

- use JPEG to select photos

- save DNG's on external hard drives for proccessing for clients/printing

- import JPEG's into Aperture as reference for the DNG-numbers and fast e-mail

 

Peter

[Bob Ross]

But shooting jpg is a little like shooting film, where you accepted what some guy at Kodak or Fuji preferred in the way that colors would be applied to your work. I still shoot an M7 for particular kinds of work, and all I can say is, thank God for scanners -- at least I can get some of it back in post.

 

JC

The interesting thing about developing the raw file is that we are always accepting what someone else thinks an image should be and programed it as a profile, be it the color or the tonal curve, in-camera or in a raw developer like C1, etc.

I used to shoot slides and adjusted my techniques to their peculiarities and then made Cibachrome prints with it's peculiarities....to get my own peculiar look:D JPEG workflow is quite similar. Now there is no denying that starting with a 16bit TiFF is the best starting point for a larg fine art quality print, but the printing process for ordinary inkjet prints has a few leveling qualities that cover up the gains from going the long way, instead of the short cut.

Bob

[Jamie Roberts]

@ Jono--hi!--I'm doing better than I was in December; still way behind (and bleary-eyed now from the wedding show business over here. 'Tis the season, though. And we don't even do that many!).

 

Anyway, I'm not meaning to imply at all that RAW is the only way to go, and Leica should definitely fix the compression problems / sharpening issues with their camera.

 

Many pros and amateurs that I admire a lot--and that includes your landscape work, Jono--shoot JPEG exclusively.

 

Having said that, most of them still "finish the image" in Photoshop, and I must say that for your work in particular, Jono, I wouldn't be sharpening in-camera anyway, since you'd probably never think of printing out an in-camera JPEG as is, right? You'd sharpen for output anyway. So if that's the case, well, then the JPEG with no sharpening is going to be best for you anyway.

 

Now, the reasons *I* always shoot raw are simple, really, and are related to quality, but not in the way most people think. Shooting RAW:

• I get better WB and mixed light performance
  
• I have a latent image--not a developed one. Since I use images as advertising collateral, it's important to me that I have choices for developing them according to use, and that their quality might even increase over time as RAW converters get better
  
• Much greater exposure latitude, in highlights and shadows. I know the BJP says M8 JPEGs have higher dynamic range. I don't agree with their method of measurement or their results, and M8 experience also says their measuring incorrectly, so that's easy for me. You simply can't get the DR from a single in-camera JPEG that I can from multiple RAW conversions of the same shot.
  
• input and output profiles (in C1 and others) allows me to tweak color response from the initial RAW data and optimise it for printing
  
• much, much better editability with a 16 bpp process, especially in gradient-prone images like skies or harsh highly saturated colors
  
• easy application of different per-channel curves for non-destructive and impossible-to-replicate-in-JPEG image tweaks

Notice I didn't even mention the "I shoot RAW to cover my a** on the all-important shot I nearly missed at the wedding because (insert human excuse here) and I saved it after manipulating the RAW file"

 

These are all pretty compelling business reasons for me and others, so that's why you hear people saying "you must shoot RAW"...

 

But you don't, of course--and Leica should fix the JPEG sharpening and compression.

 

FWIW, for my current profiles, Jono--as published they are good for a workaround as you say. But I've only just (yesterday) received some of the profile-making gear I need to actually do the fine tuning, especially for profiling a filtered M8. I'm not going to release any more until I'm satisfied I have a consistent and major improvement in color interpretation from the camera.

 

So really, the RAW color from C1 (or some other converter) will improve, too. Just give it a little more time.