M240 - Out of the camera JPEGs not too sharp??

[bherman01545]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

All;

 

I've been using Leica digital cameras on and off since the original M8. Back in the day, I recall that the out of the camera jpegs on my M8 or M9 were somewhat 'soft' and the general consensus was "if you wanted sharp images, shoot Raw". Nonetheless, for the purpose of viewing on the PC, they were ok.

 

So, now I have an M240, and have heard that the out of the camera jpegs are quite a bit better that the M8/M9, but to me, they are still a bit 'soft'. This occurs on both of my bodies with pretty much every lens that I have. I tweaked the sharpness from 'Standard' to Medium High' and it makes 'some' difference, but not a ton. When I had my Fuji X100, the out of the camera jpegs were fantastic. So much so, I pretty much never felt that I needed to shoot Raw. Yes, Fuji's are known for great out of the camera jpegs, and they are two entirely-different systems - agreed.

 

So, I have a question...Am I seeing what I'm supposed to be seeing? I mean, I've been told by my Leica dealer that Leica doesn't over-sharpen or over-saturate anything. They tend to stay neutral. Is that right? Do they leave it to the photographer-artist to correct this in post processing?

 

Any comments are appreciated and welcomed.

 

Thanks!

 

Brad

[jedi996sps]

Hi Brad,

I cannot answer your question directly, and rather than ask why shoot jpegs, would answer in this way, based on my experience.

My foray into digital was/is Digilux2, M8, Sony A7r and M240

To start with, i always shot jpeg as RAW was for really 'serious' people. jpegs were also not memory hungry compared to RAW and computer storage space and processing power back then was relatively costly as was the software needed to work with RAW (photoshop).

I started the learning curve of photoshop at a friends house, working with jpegs and then RAW, but never really learnt how to batch process, so only ever worked on a few files.

Finally, i was introduced to Lightroom and have ever since only ever shot in RAW and produce jpegs to the size that i need from there. So, in answer to my own question, i cannot foresee why i personally would ever shoot jpegs, given all of the pro's that RAW have over jpegs.

[NZDavid]

Time pressure is one reason especially if you have lots of files to process. For many purposes JPEG are fine. Also, it takes some skill and knowledge to conjure up the best results out of RAW. It is not just a case of randomly adjusting the sliders. Sometimes in-camera processing can do a better job than the photographer playing about in PP.

 

Having said that, I agree you can get a lot more detail out of RAW -- especially shadow detail. Also just varying color balance will make a huge difference. Right now I am tweaking a cover shot for publication and adding just a small amount of sharpening. Something I am puzzled with with LR is why the exported JPEG ends up being smaller than the original.

[bocaburger]

DNG vs jpegs is a controversial issue on this forum as I have discovered. The reasoning in favor of DNG is sound, technically and theoretically, but some of the comments smack of elitist attitude, ie "if you buy a $7000 camera you're a poseur and a hack if you shoot jpegs, you belong using a P&S or a smartphone".

 

I've spent a lot of time learning to post process DNG's over the last 7 years because the jpgs from my M8 and M9 were unsatisfactory, but it was typically color balance that I had the greatest issue with, not sharpness. I never found that M8 or M9 files, DNG or jpeg, needed much sharpening. For the most part I have found the M240's jpegs quite satisfactory at the default setting. Certainly for shots I don't intend to print large or at all, I don't bother with DNG anymore. If I see a shot I think I will want to make a large print from, then I will still revert to DNG. Again, not because of sharpening, but for the ability to pull more detail from shadows and make significant alterations to color balance if I think it will need it.

 

Are you seeing this softness only with jpegs, or with DNG as well? Have you ruled out focus issues, eg slight rangefinder miscalibration?

[NZDavid]

Good point. Of course there is only one point of absolute sharpness -- where you aim the rangefinder patch. Everything else is only acceptable sharpness -- or unsharpness, dependent on DOF. Sharpening in PP seems to have only make a slight perceptual difference (like tweaking colors or contrast) and I am not sure if I really need to do it either.

[bherman01545]

DNG vs jpegs is a controversial issue on this forum as I have discovered. The reasoning in favor of DNG is sound, technically and theoretically, but some of the comments smack of elitist attitude, ie "if you buy a $7000 camera you're a poseur and a hack if you shoot jpegs, you belong using a P&S or a smartphone".

 

I've spent a lot of time learning to post process DNG's over the last 7 years because the jpgs from my M8 and M9 were unsatisfactory, but it was typically color balance that I had the greatest issue with, not sharpness. I never found that M8 or M9 files, DNG or jpeg, needed much sharpening. For the most part I have found the M240's jpegs quite satisfactory at the default setting. Certainly for shots I don't intend to print large or at all, I don't bother with DNG anymore. If I see a shot I think I will want to make a large print from, then I will still revert to DNG. Again, not because of sharpening, but for the ability to pull more detail from shadows and make significant alterations to color balance if I think it will need it.

 

Are you seeing this softness only with jpegs, or with DNG as well? Have you ruled out focus issues, eg slight rangefinder miscalibration?

 

--------------------------------

 

I haven't compared the out of camera jpegs to the DNG files. There shouldn't be any focus issues since my perception is the same between two different M240s. Again, the images aren't out of focus, but rather a tad 'soft'. I changed the in-camera sharpening from 'Standard' to 'Medium High', and it is a little better, but not as sharp out of the camera as the Fuji jpegs.

 

Brad

[bocaburger]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'm not familiar with Fuji's jpegs but I have noticed that many cameras' default settings produce what to my eyes are oversharpened files, and I have had people look at mine on-screen and tell me I haven't applied enough sharpening. So I think to some extent people are getting used to the slightly-oversharpened look, to the point it chances to become the new normal standard. What I noticed ever since the M8 was that files which look undersharpened on-screen compared to my Canon files, look as sharp or sharper when printed. I'm sure someone with more technical knowledge than I can explain the reason.

[farnz]

.... Something I am puzzled with with LR is why the exported JPEG ends up being smaller than the original.

David,

 

I believe that the JPEG format contains a compression algorithm and even if you leave compression at (the highest) level 12 it may as a matter of course crush down areas of the same hue, such as blue sky, to produce a smaller file although the picture should be visibly unaltered.

 

Pete.

[jedi996sps]

Just as an afterthought, when i had my 28summicron, i noticed i was sharpening the output more than say with my 50summilux.

[}{B]

Ken Rockwell has a comparison of JPEGs from the M9,M240 and the X100s on his site.

 

LEICA

[indergaard]

A popular thing for jpeg engines to do today is to over-sharpen and add a clarity effect ot the jpeg's. This increases the "pop" in the jpeg, but it also usually produces digital artifacts and files that look unnatural.

 

The latest jpeg engine from Fujifilm does exactly that. The jpeg engine in the X100S, X-E2, X-T1, X100T that is. The jpeg engine in the X-Pro1, X100 and X-E1 are far superiour and produces files that look far more natural. If you look on Fuji specific forums you will see that almost all the users prefer the old jpeg engine, as the new processing engine just adds too much pop, contrast, digital sharpening artifacts and smearing/plastic looking subjects from an over-agressive noise reduction to the images, even at base iso.

 

One more example is the newer jpeg engine in the Sony RX100M3. It also does the same thing as the latest Fuji's, and most users prefer the jpeg output from the RX100M1 and RX100M2 due to this. I have a RX100M3 as a "waiter cam" myself, and even though I sometimes use the jpeg's of my snapshots on Facebook for example, I wouldn't use them for anything serious. The digital processing artifacts are visible.

 

So... Shoot raw. No matter what camera you use. And make your own processing recipes and looks, that you can add to raw files made from any camera, and achieve a consistant look.

[jaapv]

Ken Rockwell has a comparison of JPEGs from the M9,M240 and the X100s on his site.

 

LEICA

Ken Rockwell has a highly specific preference for the way images should look, which not everybody shares....

[250swb]

 

So, I have a question...Am I seeing what I'm supposed to be seeing?

 

 

Larger sensor with more pixels needs more sharpening and increase in micro contrast. What you did for your M8 won't directly work the same way for your M240.

 

Steve

[jaapv]

I see the misconception here that sharpening is ummm.. sharpening. Unlike some forensic-type programs that actually shift pixels like Focus Magic (and the motion blur tool in the newest versions of Photoshop) "sharpening" is accomplished by increasing edge contrast and creating halos.

 

That is all fine, but it turns sharpening into a manipulation that depends heavily on the workflow, purpose (print or screen), image size and content of the photograph. I urge everybody to read the book by Schewe and Fraser "Real World Sharpening". It will improve your results dramatically. A short summary based on their technique can be found in the FAQ at the top of this forum.

[pico]

[...]Something I am puzzled with with LR is why the exported JPEG ends up being smaller than the original.

 

Smaller in file size, or in pixel dimensions?

.

[jedi996sps]

David,

 

I believe that the JPEG format contains a compression algorithm and even if you leave compression at (the highest) level 12 it may as a matter of course crush down areas of the same hue, such as blue sky, to produce a smaller file although the picture should be visibly unaltered.

 

Pete.

 

This was my impression too, and indeed what i had been taught, but taking a jpeg from LR into PS CS5 and then saving it repeatedly resulted in a small file size increase with each save in PS(?) with the pixel dimensions remaining unaltered. Interestingly, the LR jpeg nearly doubles in size when saved in PS?

[keithlaban.co.uk]

"Out of the camera JPEGs not too sharp??"

 

Is that not a good thing?

[jdlaing]

"Out of the camera JPEGs not too sharp??"

 

Is that not a good thing?

 

I would think so.

[NZDavid]

David,

 

I believe that the JPEG format contains a compression algorithm and even if you leave compression at (the highest) level 12 it may as a matter of course crush down areas of the same hue, such as blue sky, to produce a smaller file although the picture should be visibly unaltered.

 

Pete.

 

Smaller in file size, or in pixel dimensions?

.

 

Smaller in both. Original DNG is 69MB. Import to LR3, tweak image, export at 100% quality setting as JPEG, image is now only 51.6MB. (Original is 48" x 72 " @ 72dpi, resized 41" x 61" @ 72dpi. Still plenty big enough but I'm curious. We print newspapers at 200dpi, magazines are 300dpi.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[01af]

Back in the day, I recall that the out of the camera JPEGS on my M8 or M9 were somewhat 'soft' and the general consensus was "if you wanted sharp images, shoot raw". Nonetheless, for the purpose of viewing on the PC, they were ok.

 

So, now I have an M (Typ 240), and have heard that the out of the camera JPEGS are quite a bit better that the M8/M9, but to me, they are still a bit 'soft'.

Yes, that's right.

 

The in-camera JPEG files have a software anti-aliasing filter applied to them which significantly mitigates and sometimes even entirely removes any colour moirés which are clearly visible in the raw files. However as a side-effect, this filter slightly reduces sharpness—just like a hardware AA filter also would do.

 

The reduction of sharpness in the M (Typ 240) seems a little less than in the M9 but it's still there.

 

 

I've been told by my Leica dealer that Leica doesn't over-sharpen or over-saturate anything. They tend to stay neutral. Is that right?

No, that's wrong. To the contrary, Leica files have by default badly distorted and oversaturated colours. To deal with this, I am using custom profiles in Camera Raw made with Adobe DNG Profile Editor for the DNG files, and I turn down sharpness, contrast, and saturation to the lowest-possible values in the camera menu for the JPEG files.