Better jpgs from M240

[hepcat]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

 

Hep

 

You made that same argument on another thread when disguising noise on an M240 it doest fly 

ccd is different that CMOS so the M9 is  very different than the M240 . 

 

Isn't that why the form is set up for specific cameras? The M9 ccd is a different thread with a very different set of issues.

 

I can see how you are arguing the philosophy, as that argument is true.

But in practice the actual  cameras are very different. They handle noise ,Jpgs  etc. differently. 

And in turn Leica has tweaked these cameras differently 

What you do and see on your M9 is very different than the M240..... only the philosophy is the same.

 

Is that what you are arguing?..........philosophy

 

 

I'm simply saying that Leica could /should set up their processing on the M240 to make a better jpg , for those who shoot jpg and there are more of them out there than you think.

 

I promise..... I will stop beating the poor horse now

 

 

I started post-processing RAW files when Olympus changed from the Kodak CCD sensors in the E-1 to the CMOS sensor in the E-3 and later E-5 because there wasn't consistency in the appearance of my body of images.  You're right; the CCD sensor and the CMOSIS sensor handle things very differently; but from what I've seen of M240 OOC .jpgs, Leica came very close with the algorithm to the CCD output of the M9's sensor.   But that isn't really relevant here.  What you're asking for are in-camera settings tweaks to give you OOC .jpg files that look the way you want them.  I get that.  The method I employ gives me those output files I want, is no more work, and doesn't take any time to figure out camera settings, and gives me consistent file output to my liking with all of the cameras I shoot or have ever used.  It is a long-term solution.

 

There are two issues with your concerns for a better .jpg  that I see; first is that you haven't defined what "better" is in a .jpg.  The second is that I've shot enough brands now with enough models in each brand to realize that the ONLY way to get a consistent .jpg output that I find appealing is to post-process the RAW files.  

 

Yes, this is about the philosophy that you have to adopt if you're shooting long term with a number of cameras and have a body of work that you want to be consistent.  I've gotten to the point that I don't really care what the OOC .jpg output looks like because I know I won't be able to use it for anything but casual viewing anyway.   If the images are going to be used as part of an on-going project, I want them to be consistent with the rest of those images. 

 

So yes, your premise that I'm not shooting an M240 is correct; but the larger philosophy of trying to stay consistent in the quality of my work output is what I'm trying to get across.  At some point, you'll ditch the M240 and get the next iteration that will likely have a different .jpg engine yet, and you'll either accept what that gives you, or you'll find a new work flow that allows your past and present work to have consistency in its appearance. 

 

This is kind of like our discussion about the "best" exposure and how to use ISO.  I really don't worry about OOC .jpgs any more because they're just not that relevant to the final work, much like varying the ISO on a digital camera is no longer a relevant way to think about sensor speed.  If you begin to accept digital imaging outside the old film paradigms, you actually begin to find the digital process quite liberating in shooting.  Many of the things we used to find critical in making a good exposure at the shutter release are quickly falling by the wayside.  I find it all very fascinating, honestly. 

[Advertisement]

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

[ECohen]

I started post-processing RAW files when Olympus changed from the Kodak CCD sensors in the E-1 to the CMOS sensor in the E-3 and later E-5 because there wasn't consistency in the appearance of my body of images.  You're right; the CCD sensor and the CMOSIS sensor handle things very differently; but from what I've seen of M240 OOC .jpgs, Leica came very close with the algorithm to the CCD output of the M9's sensor.   But that isn't really relevant here.  What you're asking for are in-camera settings tweaks to give you OOC .jpg files that look the way you want them.  I get that.  The method I employ gives me those output files I want, is no more work, and doesn't take any time to figure out camera settings, and gives me consistent file output to my liking with all of the cameras I shoot or have ever used.  It is a long-term solution.

 

There are two issues with your concerns for a better .jpg  that I see; first is that you haven't defined what "better" is in a .jpg.  The second is that I've shot enough brands now with enough models in each brand to realize that the ONLY way to get a consistent .jpg output that I find appealing is to post-process the RAW files.  

 

Yes, this is about the philosophy that you have to adopt if you're shooting long term with a number of cameras and have a body of work that you want to be consistent.  I've gotten to the point that I don't really care what the OOC .jpg output looks like because I know I won't be able to use it for anything but casual viewing anyway.   If the images are going to be used as part of an on-going project, I want them to be consistent with the rest of those images. 

 

So yes, your premise that I'm not shooting an M240 is correct; but the larger philosophy of trying to stay consistent in the quality of my work output is what I'm trying to get across.  At some point, you'll ditch the M240 and get the next iteration that will likely have a different .jpg engine yet, and you'll either accept what that gives you, or you'll find a new work flow that allows your past and present work to have consistency in its appearance. 

 

This is kind of like our discussion about the "best" exposure and how to use ISO.  I really don't worry about OOC .jpgs any more because they're just not that relevant to the final work, much like varying the ISO on a digital camera is no longer a relevant way to think about sensor speed.  If you begin to accept digital imaging outside the old film paradigms, you actually begin to find the digital process quite liberating in shooting.  Many of the things we used to find critical in making a good exposure at the shutter release are quickly falling by the wayside.  I find it all very fascinating, honestly. 

 

 

You need to go back and read the original post . You are letting your knowledge get in the way  of reality.

 

The guy has a new baby and and he wants to use the ooc Jpgs

.....he doesn't like how they look ,many on this thread agree with him......you  agree with him.... even though your lurking on a thread you don't belong 

 

All we are saying is Leica should work on the Jpgs from the M240...thats it. There have been enough generations of the M that the jpgs should be amazing.....other manufactures do it?

 

Sure you use a lot of cameras and have a lot of experience ...What make no sense is why you put up with a mediocre ooc Jpg. from a 7 thousand camera?

 

We should be able to use the cameras Jpg .  I expect Leica's high standards in all aspects of their camera ......He is Leica's customer too and they should hear his needs....even for baby pictures.

 

Hep, Chill with the I have a lot of experience and you are using your camera wrong already......please 

We get it...... We all have a lot of experience......really we do

 

 

I think the one thing that burns me the most about  a few people on the is forum is that they expect every Leica owner is like them ...or should be

People buy this camera for a lot of different reasons  and  use it for their best needs.......  the pleasure of photography....live and let live.

 

Sorry for the rant my intent was not to offend......I like it here

[hepcat]

No offense taken, nor was there any intended from me.   And I understand the OP's point.  And I find it interesting that other than folks suggesting that he just do PP on his RAW files to his liking, there haven't been any concrete suggestions on how to get "better" OOC .jpgs out of the M240.   So perhaps other than tweaking the few in-camera settings a little, there really isn't another way to make them "better" OOC?

 

I don't believe that anyone in this thread has even defined what a "better" .jpg should look like, or what they are really unhappy with in their OOC jpgs.  What does a "better" jpg even mean?  The OOC .jpgs from my E1 and my M9P are mostly OK in my opinion, for what they are.  I think those from the M240 are the equal of the M9's.   Honestly, I don't think that anyone else puts out an OOC .jpg that isn't just mediocre at any price point.   

 

What I see here is that folks get really entrenched in their one way of thinking and tend not to be open to that there may be other practical solutions.  I don't offer my experience to be superior... I offer it as that I have encountered that same issue and have found a practical work-around.  I'm not stuck on what I think it should be, I make it the way I want it to be,  and I'm willing to share how I've done that.  I've changed my work flow a number of times over the years because someone else had an idea that was a "duh" moment for me, and I adopted some or all of their ideas.   I'm sorry that you seem to expect that you won't have to employ such work-arounds.  I think in many areas, that's an unrealistic expectation.  What you "should" be able to expect is very different from what camera manufacturers deliver.   I'm always in pursuit of the "perfect image," not the "perfect camera."  Perhaps that's the concept that our differences revolve around.  

 

Yes, I've had a bunch of cameras over the years and done a lot of 'stuff' with them, and that experience has taught me not to expect the "perfect" anything from any of them.  They all have things they do well, and things they don't do as well.  Some control sets (Nikon for example) are so complex as to be almost useless to me.  Others were pretty intuitive.  The only thing that is specific to the M240 here is its control set...  digital photography is digital photography...  sorry you seem to think that the M240 and its issues are in a world by itself.   There is, frankly, very little that's special about the M240 compared to ANY other similarly priced camera.  And there's certainly nothing one-off about the CMOSIS sensor.  It's a nice sensor, but CMOS is CMOS.   I looked at the M240 and decided that it just didn't offer enough over the M9 to buy one.  That was my choice...  but merely because I don't own one, you're out of bounds assuming I know nothing about them.  

 

As I said in an earlier post, you can either evolve, find ways that work,  and make the most of the technology in your hands, or you can be dissatisfied and rant about it...  that choice is yours. 

 

Several of us here have chimed in and given you ways to get what you want for a final product today without waiting for the next iteration of sensor/.jpg engine, but you're quite entrenched in your view that "I paid all this damn money... it ought to be better!"  Well, it isn't.   And it won't be.  But it can be, if you choose to make the effort to make it "better," whatever "better" means to you.  You're certainly welcomed not to accept any advice that anyone here has given...  but I've gotta tell you that after the ISO thread and now this one, I won't be spending any more of my time trying to help you figure how how to work around the complaints you have and have every suggestion, concept, or work-around countered with "well, I shouldn't HAVE to do that!"

 

And as you said earlier, you're only talking about small differences anyway...  so why the rancor?

[david strachan]

I wish  I could tell the difference between a raw processed image, and a processed JPG, or an OOC anything.  On the web that is.  Without guessing.

The variety of processing, which is far from always good processing, means there is so much variation anyway.

 

 

We all have very different ideas of ideal colour, suitable sharpness, and good tonal range. Exposures are all over the place, and compositions are so, so, so...often average.

So why worry if someone does, or does not, declare their hand...perhaps likes JPG's or processing raw...they all vary so much anyway.

[Manoleica]

As I have said before I use both DNG & jpeg..  The point is that some seem to think that RAW/DNG is the only way to go, the reason they say that is because they like PP and have become adept at puffing out their chests! -- How I drive my car, How I use my cameras is at the end of the day MY choice.. If you don't like my images Ok, if you don't like my Posts, don't read them..

Overall stop telling the world that there is only one way to go -- Your Way..   

[jaapv]

Nonsense. Processing from raw is essentially better and just as simple - or even more so- than using jpg. What is wrong with providing people, especially digital beginners with that information? They can make their own choice then.

The thing I dislike is : "jpg is faster/easier/just as good". That is misinformation.

[hepcat]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

As I have said before I use both DNG & jpeg..  The point is that some seem to think that RAW/DNG is the only way to go, the reason they say that is because they like PP and have become adept at puffing out their chests! -- How I drive my car, How I use my cameras is at the end of the day MY choice.. If you don't like my images Ok, if you don't like my Posts, don't read them..

Overall stop telling the world that there is only one way to go -- Your Way..   

 

If your way works for you, then have at it.  If it doesn't then the next step is probably to ask for information with which to change it into some way that works.  That's what the OP did, and everyone who has posted here has given hints and tips...  or complained about the other guy's hints and tips...  hmmm...  speaking of that, what's YOUR tip for the OP to improve his OOC jpgs since you apparently don't think much of mine?

[Manoleica]

Nonsense. Processing from raw is essentially better and just as simple - or even more so- than using jpg. What is wrong with providing people, especially digital beginners with that information? They can make their own choice then.

The thing I dislike is : "jpg is faster/easier/just as good". That is misinformation.

It's all in the eye of the beholder...

[Manoleica]

If your way works for you, then have at it.  If it doesn't then the next step is probably to ask for information with which to change it into some way that works.  That's what the OP did, and everyone who has posted here has given hints and tips...  or complained about the other guy's hints and tips...  hmmm...  speaking of that, what's YOUR tip for the OP to improve his OOC jpgs since you apparently don't think much of mine?

hepcat:- I never said or intimated that I did or did not like your images..  Different settings are beneficial for different tasks..  You set your camera as you wish..  FWIW most of the images I Post are jpeg and tweaked in Preview.. 

[hepcat]

hepcat:- I never said or intimated that I did or did not like your images..  Different settings are beneficial for different tasks..  You set your camera as you wish..  FWIW most of the images I Post are jpeg and tweaked in Preview.. 

Actually I was saying that you didn't care for the tips I was trying to give the OP in order to improve his .jpgs, I wasn't talking about my images.  And I agree with your statement here about how you set your camera wholeheartedly; the OP was looking to find a way to do that to get .jpgs that were more to his liking.   As Evan pointed out, my experience there is with the M9 sensor and settings; perhaps you could lend the OP your experience with your M240 settings.  

[Manoleica]

Actually I was saying that you didn't care for the tips I was trying to give the OP in order to improve his .jpgs, I wasn't talking about my images.  And I agree with your statement here about how you set your camera wholeheartedly; the OP was looking to find a way to do that to get .jpgs that were more to his liking.   As Evan pointed out, my experience there is with the M9 sensor and settings; perhaps you could lend the OP your experience with your M240 settings.  

Out of my bag:- Sharpness Med/High - Saturation Med/High - Basic Contrast -- Film Mode Off..  EV +3 - Shutter Auto,

Metering Classic - Auto WB & ISO 200 -- 35mm lens set @ f5.6 - Hyperfocal..  I choose and adjust other settings as and when I required... 

[Bill Livingston]

So thats two of us so far who have disclosed their in camera settings (these change the jpeg, not the DNG/Raw).

 

Although my settings are for B&W as I only use the jpeg so I can see a quick monochrome preview on import... and I may even stop doing that.

 

The other option of course is to download all my jpegs to 'Photos' on my Mac and download all the DNG files to Lightroom and delete those I don't use on either platform. 

 

Not sure I can be arsed though... I think to just use DNG and think of them as digital negatives... Oh wait... isn't that what DNG stands for?

 

Maybe thats the way to think of it... DNG as digital negatives, you can get more or less whatever you want depending on how you process... and Jpegs as 'slide film'... you get what you are given...

 

NOW I see why some want a better jpeg... so play with the 'in camera' settings and see if you can find a combination you are happy with and can leave almost all the post processing alone. Think 'slide film'... bearing in mind we all had our preferences even then..!

 

(Don't get me wrong, I think we would ALL like the perfectly processed image straight from the camera... but it isn't the real world and as one who has been involved in photography since the sixties... it never really was... Just look at the variation of film type, rating, developing and printing in the film forums to see the amount of frigging around we have all ALWAYS done... this is NOT a 'digital only' thing!!!). 

[ECohen]

Nonsense. Processing from raw is essentially better and just as simple - or even more so- than using jpg. What is wrong with providing people, especially digital beginners with that information? They can make their own choice then.

The thing I dislike is : "jpg is faster/easier/just as good". That is misinformation.

 

 

Don't ask me I'm just a digital beginner with 45 years experience in photography 

The OOC Jpg has value....I dont get why that so hard to see?

Of course properly processed  RAW  yied s better result.

Processing RAW is at best is a couple extra steps and does take more time.

Maybe this is the wrong camera for people who  shoot Jpg? ....seriously maybe it is?

[Tailwagger]

 

At some point, you'll ditch the M240 and get the next iteration that will likely have a different .jpg engine yet, and you'll either accept what that gives you, or you'll find a new work flow that allows your past and present work to have consistency in its appearance. 

 

This is so, so true.  Changing models can present many challenges. No experience with the transition from 9 to M, but I suspect its quite similar to the challenges of moving from a 645D (CCD) to the Z. Challenges that extend to raw technique as well. 

[ECohen]

Bill Livingston's Quote:

"Maybe thats the way to think of it... DNG as digital negatives, you can get more or less whatever you want depending on how you process... and Jpegs as 'slide film'... you get what you are given..."

 

​I like that !! I could get behind that and be happy...really happy with Leicas Jpgs

​The only problem is I was told not to think of digital like film?........but I do like your analogy Bill

 

​Nice....thank you  I do think I can live with that !!

[Tailwagger]

So thats two of us so far who have disclosed their in camera settings (these change the jpeg, not the DNG/Raw).

...

NOW I see why some want a better jpeg... so play with the in camera settings and see if you can find a combination of settings you are happy with and can leave almost all the processing alone. think 'slide film'... bearing in mind we all had our preferences even then..!

 

(Don't get me wrong, I think we would ALL like the perfectly processed image straight from the camera... but it isn't the real world and as one who has been involved in photography since the sixties... it never really was... Just look at the variation of film type, rating, developing and printing in the film forums to see the amount of frigging around we have all ALWAYS done... this is NOT a digital thing!!!). 

 

Apologies, no settings to offer as I don't shoot jpeg.

 

At the risk of overstaying my welcome on this subject, one thing I think deserves mentioning that is often lost in such discussions is that you've paid all this money for a 12 or 14 bit sensor. So why by default would one trust an algorithm to decide in all circumstances what information is important and what should be thrown away? If you're always shooting in good or controlled light, 8 bits can be enough, but if the dynamic range exceeds the JPG ability to retain it, the engine just crushes and clips the values as best it can and moves on. In my experience, many scenes require understanding the quirks of a given sensor to influence how to tweak the exposure.  As the D-range of sensors pushes well past that of JPG more and more decisions have to be made with regard to what stays and what goes.  For example, the 645Z greatly prefers ETTL. For that camera, in difficult scenes its always best to underexpose 3, 4 even 5 stops to preserve the highlights as they are very easily blown while shadow details tend to be retained. By understanding this and taking advantage of the latitude raw files provide, one significantly increases the chances of a successful capture in ways no JPG engine could match except by accident.

 

The point I'm somewhat struggling to make is that relying on raw files is not simply a safety net or inconvenience or crutch for not properly exposing the frame in the first place... though admittedly it can be all of those things.  Rather, channeling the quote above, it is indeed about retaining the ability to develop your negatives rather than trusting the decisions of a silicon processing lab. When sizing up a scene, knowing what is you intend to do on the back often has a direct impact on how you go about successfully handling things on the front.

[hepcat]

Sorry for the rant my intent was not to offend......I like it here

 

Y'know Evan totally off-topic,  I like it here too.  I have to say that it is kind of a schizophrenic place to hang out sometimes though.  Sometimes it's comfortable, like being at home in my easy chair.  Sometimes it makes me feel like I'm a peasant looking through the gate at Versailles just before the start of the French Revolution, and wondering about the lifestyles and 'stuff' inside the walls.  Sometimes it feels like I'm Galileo at a Flat Earth Society meeting and then, every so often, I have the sense of being in the presence of some really awesome and amazing folks who really know their stuff.

 

The one thing I do value is that there can be sometimes heated discourse about various topics, but that the caliber of the people here always keep it civil and entertaining.

 

Yep, I like it here too.  

[CheshireCat]

If you're always shooting in good or controlled light, 8 bits can be enough, but if the dynamic range exceeds the JPG ability to retain it, the engine just crushes and clips the values as best it can and moves on.

 

This is a common misconception.

The clipping problem is not much of a JPEG problem, rather a choice of the internal raw development engine embedded in the camera.

JPEG has other worse problems, but this is not the right thread to discuss them.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[ECohen]

Y'know Evan totally off-topic,  I like it here too.  I have to say that it is kind of a schizophrenic place to hang out sometimes though.  Sometimes it's comfortable, like being at home in my easy chair.  Sometimes it makes me feel like I'm a peasant looking through the gate at Versailles just before the start of the French Revolution, and wondering about the lifestyles and 'stuff' inside the walls.  Sometimes it feels like I'm Galileo at a Flat Earth Society meeting and then, every so often, I have the sense of being in the presence of some really awesome and amazing folks who really know their stuff.

 

The one thing I do value is that there can be sometimes heated discourse about various topics, but that the caliber of the people here always keep it civil and entertaining.

 

Yep, I like it here too.  

 

Thanks Hep ...this means a lot ...I have felt terrible all day. 

I have a feeling you and I are a lot a like.....and I do value you opinion.

 

Please accept my sincerely apology. I find the idea of typing my opinions and passion on this subject that I love so much very very difficult....I try so hard not to be a jerk about these things 

 

 I know if we had the same conversations in person ...over a beer ...we would be pleased to see how much common ground we share.

 

"Louie, I think this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship"- Casablanca

You can be Bogart...as he was Hep...or is it Hip?

[hepcat]

 

Thanks Hep ...this means a lot ...I have felt terrible all day. 

I have a feeling you and I are a lot a like.....and I do value you opinion.

 

Please accept my sincerely apology. I find the idea of typing my opinions and passion on this subject that I love so much very very difficult....I try so hard not to be a jerk about these things 

 

 I know if we had the same conversations in person ...over a beer ...we would be pleased to see how much common ground we share.

 

"Louie, I think this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship"- Casablanca

You can be Bogart...as he was Hep...or is it Hip?

 

 

No apology necessary, Evan, but thanks very much.   Casablanca remains one of my favorite movies!  

 

And you're right, we do agree on much...  and I appreciate that.