douglas fry Posted March 7, 2016 Share #41 Posted March 7, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) That's a fair description of the jpg pictures that come out of my M (Typ 240); thanks for pointing out that for many practical purposes its JPG rendering is sufficient. True as long as the dynamic range of a scene falls within that capable of being 'seen' by the jpg engine within the Leica. Even here in London that isn't that often as buildings will be in shadow and the sky blue with white clouds, way beyond the dynamic range of a Leica jpg (or anybodies jpg) a RAW however will pull in detail from the clouds and show detail in the shadows, with jpgs you expose for one or the other. Why restrict what the sensor is capable of? There is a technical post here that describes the very limited range the jpg has compared with other cameras and the huge range of a Leica RAW file compared to DSLR's http://www.techradar.com/reviews/cameras-and-camcorders/cameras/digital-slrs-hybrids/leica-m-review-1248625/review/5 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted March 7, 2016 Posted March 7, 2016 Hi douglas fry, Take a look here Better jpgs from M240. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
jaapv Posted March 7, 2016 Share #42 Posted March 7, 2016 That is an interesting link, especially the graph that shows the way the Leica JPGs are curtailed in dynamic range. I think that explains the difference of perception we see in this thread. People who don't shoot high DR subjects or prefer a punchy rendering with cut-off highs and lows are happy with hte Leica JPGs, People who prefer to get the full tonal range into their result, as far as possible, need DNG. It explains the need for very precise exposure too. Which leaves us with the question why Leica chose this rendering. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exodies Posted March 7, 2016 Share #43 Posted March 7, 2016 Not bad at all, although the field could do with differentiation in structure. I don't think Manoleica is responsible for the ploughing Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted March 7, 2016 Share #44 Posted March 7, 2016 No - but he is for the structure of the grass and the field in the photograph. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JonathanP Posted March 7, 2016 Share #45 Posted March 7, 2016 1st ever image/jpg OOC, minimal PP in Preview.. M-P240 Safari/35mm Cron ASPH... Please don't shoot me, but to be honest I don't think this is a very good example (unless that was your point). There's fairly horrible white point clipping in the clouds and a 'muddy' appearance to the horizon. This would have been much better processed from a raw file IMHO. Jonathan Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
david strachan Posted March 7, 2016 Share #46 Posted March 7, 2016 I agree with Jonathon...sorry Mano. Needs some dodging and burning. A mask and punch in the field section would help a lot. It all looks a bit "flat" to me. Could have been worked up from the JPG without a doubt...even in-camera. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manoleica Posted March 7, 2016 Share #47 Posted March 7, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) I agree with Jonathon...sorry Mano. Needs some dodging and burning. A mask and punch in the field section would help a lot. It all looks a bit "flat" to me. Could have been worked up from the JPG without a doubt...even in-camera. Your comments gratefully accepted...L(The camera had arrived the previous day and it was literally the 1st image out.. Default settings. Subsequent PP changed the image.. jpg has a place, Raw will enable a whole lot more image to evolve) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
douglas fry Posted March 7, 2016 Share #48 Posted March 7, 2016 The subject piqued my interest, so I found a file similar to the landscape above and took the RAW file and embedded jpg to see what could be done The first is the OOC, the second via LR. The first is flatter and has despite the 35mm Summicron slight purple fringing on the twigs of the trees. Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/257233-better-jpgs-from-m240/?do=findComment&comment=3003374'>More sharing options...
douglas fry Posted March 7, 2016 Share #49 Posted March 7, 2016 This is via LR, the fringing has gone and more detail in the image (structure) Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/257233-better-jpgs-from-m240/?do=findComment&comment=3003375'>More sharing options...
david strachan Posted March 7, 2016 Share #50 Posted March 7, 2016 Yep, looks better. But changing contrast, saturation and sharpness in-camera can also produce a very nice OOC JPG too. By the time one fools around with buttons, it can also be done in PP...particularly seeing a crop, or something else may be needed anyway. My point is (laboured) that the camera can produce a good JPG (I'm sure) ...try changing some menu items, particularly if the light is flat, or you have low contrast lenses like I do. Dave S Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
douglas fry Posted March 7, 2016 Share #51 Posted March 7, 2016 Yep, looks better. But changing contrast, saturation and sharpness in-camera can also produce a very nice OOC JPG too. By the time one fools around with buttons, it can also be done in PP...particularly seeing a crop, or something else may be needed anyway. My point is (laboured) that the camera can produce a good JPG (I'm sure) ...try changing some menu items, particularly if the light is flat, or you have low contrast lenses like I do. Dave S Yes it can, but I think by the time you have gone into the menus and fiddled around with various settings, shot the scene again and checked again, tried something else, you might as well just take one shot in RAW and done all the mucking about at home, with music playing and a glass of beer next to the keyboard. You will have greater dynamic range and much more control over the image (straightening verticals, fringing, moire pattern, colour grading, fine control over contrast etc ) - and these can all be saved as a preset so just one click of a mouse you have a much stronger image, AND you have a glass of beer right to hand. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted March 7, 2016 Share #52 Posted March 7, 2016 Yep, looks better. But changing contrast, saturation and sharpness in-camera can also produce a very nice OOC JPG too. By the time one fools around with buttons, it can also be done in PP...particularly seeing a crop, or something else may be needed anyway. My point is (laboured) that the camera can produce a good JPG (I'm sure) ...try changing some menu items, particularly if the light is flat, or you have low contrast lenses like I do. Dave S But what you cannot do in the camera is get the structure right, like Douglas shows in this rather convincing demonstration, even at web resolution. In print the difference will be even more. And we still have the DR limitation. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
david strachan Posted March 7, 2016 Share #53 Posted March 7, 2016 Hahaha, cheers to you too Douglas...and can only agree. But it might be distilled beer for me...whisky. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hepcat Posted March 7, 2016 Share #54 Posted March 7, 2016 So, here's the deal with the M .dng/.jpg story as I see it. In the old days when I was selling film cameras over the counter, we had several kinds of folks who bought expensive "pro" cameras: 1) working photographers who either developed their own film and made their own prints with their own nuances or took them to custom labs who would process and print to order; 2) advanced amateurs who wanted better image quality than what they thought that "consumer gear" offered, but who were generally happy with commercial lab printing; and 3) the last group were folks who bought them because they had the money and could afford them, but really didn't understand any of the nuances of photography, and were happy with snapshots from one-hour labs. Forty years later, those groups are still alive and well. The folks who are demanding are still demanding of digital. There are those who appreciate what a pro-level digital camera can do, but seldom ask for that level of quality, may or may not have calibrated monitors, and may not want to use post-processing software; and then there are still folks who enjoy the quality of an expensive body because they've grown accustomed to nice and expensive "things," but are happy with snapshot quality and don't even know what Lightroom does or have ever heard the term 'colorimeter.' We have folks from both the first and second groups here, and who have posted in this thread. The first group is ok doing whatever it takes to get the optimum image for their taste. The second group wants high-quality images, but doesn't want to go to the lengths that the first group is comfortable with. Now, pretend for a moment that you are the team who has to develop an algorithm for processing a raw file into a .jpg. You understand the three major segments of your consumers. You know that the "true believers" will only use the .jpg files as thumbnails and a background on the monitor for framing and the histogram, and the .jpg will never see the light of day. For the majority of the second group, the .jpgs will be shared on social media on monitors of wildly varying color calibration at low resolution, and for the last group... anything out of the camera is "good enough." The next consideration is that even if you were to work your .jpgs up to some high standard, whose tastes do you cater to? Because that's what it's about... my taste in processed images. FWIW, I like the .jpgs out of my M9P much better, in general, than those from my Fuji X-T1. It's a matter of taste. I can get my X-T1 RAW files tweaked to my liking though, so it's all good. It's apparent from this thread (and others) that Leica owner's tastes in final image output vary widely. Every manufacturer is faced with those decisions, and they each make slightly different choices, and each brand's choices appeal to a different audiences' tastes. So, who knows why Leica's software engineers selected the .jpg rendering that they did? The bottom line is that probably 90% of Leica owners are happy with it. For those of us who prefer more, then developing the .dng files is the way to go. BTW, as I understand it, RAW files are not "optimized" in any way... they're the raw data captured by the sensor. What's there is there and what isn't, isn't... and it's up to the photographer to decide what to do with that to develop it to his/her liking. I do know, though, that the RAW files from my M9P and those from my X-T1 have a different rendering on import to Lightroom. Interesting stuff. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted March 7, 2016 Share #55 Posted March 7, 2016 A qualifed ÿes to this. The qualification being that the site linked to earlier in this thread shows that Leica's JPGs differ significantly from all other manufacturers' which are more or less the same. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lucerne Posted March 7, 2016 Share #56 Posted March 7, 2016 I think many are missing important points in the distinction between Raw and JPEG which seems to be ignored. The raw file is what it says. An original and untainted file of binary data representing what was captured directly on the sensor without any influence from the user, a programmer or artist. It is not an image. It cannot be processed or adjusted until it is decoded and taken into a raw processor to be crafted according to its users requirements and saved independently as a JPEG (or something) image. The other point about the value of a raw file is that it is never modified. You can always use the original file irrespective of adjustments you may make in your processor. (It may be possible to overwrite a raw file in some programmes, but that seems like a bad idea!) In comparison, the JPEG is an image from the word go! It has been compiled, massaged and adjusted according to the settings the user has programmed into the camera AND adjusted to appear pleasant enough to appeal to consumers. It's already not purely representative of what the sensor captured and never will be! . In other words it has been adjusted to suit consumer preferences. That's why some users who shoot JPEG onlly, choose camera bodies that give JPEGS that they like. You can modify it and it will retain the modification if saved. Then you cannot revert back unless you have duplicated and saved the original. Raw shooters want and need a file that is basic and which contains all the unexpurgated captured data directly from the sensor. Maximum data bytes, maximum available detail, maximum available adjustability. . Raw shooters don't choose cameras according to the initial appearance of a processed raw file. Processed but unadjusted RAW is often not pretty and they are not considered ready-for-publication. Users start work with an Unsharpened, and flat image in their processor. It's not snobbery or one-upmanship. Processing a Raw file does allow deeper control of all the adjustments that programmes like Photoshop and Lightroom offer because there is more data bytes with which to work. Hence the larger files compared to the equivalent JPEG. Thats not to suggest that JPEGS aren't useful, but I always process from raw. It is the part of the processing, and reprocessing, and reinterpretation that I enjoy. ADDED LATER. sorry if I've missed previous posts that explained similar points. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ECohen Posted March 7, 2016 Share #57 Posted March 7, 2016 Could this be Japanese vs German in terms of deciding what their customer wants? Because if that is is the case ...I'm OK with Leicas Jpg. I just don't see them as good out of the camera, compared to Nikon I tweak everything in PS in LR everything needs some "polishing" its what separates the men from the boys. Like using a Pro lab or the Mall machine print with film..... no comparison. Depending on my end goal I shoot RAW. I also shoot Jpg not for social media,mostly to give a friend or relative a DVD and say "here's the lab I use drop it off and a human will look at the work before you get it" ...it will be right....easy and done With my Nikon the Jpgs are great with the Leica they are not as good...so I have to go into LR and mess with them....I wish they were better......and yes I expect a little something special from Leicas Jpg....I don't think its too much to ask....Nikon does it? ......or is it just my preference ? Have you seen how great Leicas Black and White Jpg is! I also think it snobby to say "that's why I only shoot RAW" We all craft our photography as it suits us. And honestly the less I'm on the computer the better. I'll deal with the Jpg because the M240 is so much more fun to use than any Japanese camera and we really are talking about minutia Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lucerne Posted March 7, 2016 Share #58 Posted March 7, 2016 Could this be Japanese vs German in terms of deciding what their customer wants? Because if that is is the case ...I'm OK with Leicas Jpg. I just don't see them as good out of the camera, compared to Nikon Absolutely! Yes. And imagine if an Indian manufacturer set its JPEG profile to accurately render skin tones of its population , I think you'd see a great outpouring of dissatisfaction from Potential western buyers. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted March 7, 2016 Share #59 Posted March 7, 2016 Even more important than skin tones: the cultural differences in colour perception. Just compare the slide films from Fuji, Kodak and Agfa. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ECohen Posted March 7, 2016 Share #60 Posted March 7, 2016 Absolutely! Yes. And imagine if an Indian manufacturer set its JPEG profile to accurately render skin tones of its population , I think you'd see a great outpouring of dissatisfaction from Potential western buyers. OK I feel the need to defend. Remember when Japanese lenses were "cool" in tone and German lenses were "warm" That's what I meant...really Does India make a camera? You guys are tough crowd Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.