Better jpgs from M240

[Tailwagger]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

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.

True, its a function of the engine, not the format per se. 

[Advertisement]

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

[jaapv]

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?

I did not say it has no value in certain cases.

But procession raw in Lightroom is no extra step. It opens raw and jpg in exactly the same way and the processing controls are the same as well.

[Bill Livingston]

I think Ecohen uses, or would like to use, the JPEG directly out of the camera with no post processing at all. Hence the interest in getting a JPEG he really likes.

 

Obviously, Jaaps makes the point that there is no difference between opening a DNG or a JPEG in Lightroom and any processing done is exactly the same, but with less options and less control... so there is no advantage to using JPEG then, and many disadvantages.

 

But that isn't the point. Hence my first paragraph.

 

Anyone who wants to simply store, post or print the photos directly from their camera and do absolutely no post processing is going to be very interested in these answers. The rest of us, less so.

 

Maybe my point of thinking of the JPEG as 'slide film' and 'you get what you're given' is a valid way of thinking of this from the OP's point of view... and then answer accordingly.

 

Whether we agree, disagree or 'know better' isn't relevant. What is relevant is for the original poster to play around with the settings available to see if he gets closer to what he likes.

 

Given that any ooc JPEG is basically someone else's preferences that may or may not coincide with your own, the only objection to this whole question that I have is stating that the Leica JPEG is not good enough. Or worse, saying its not good enough for an £/$/€000's camera. That just shows a lack of understanding.

 

It probably also accounts for the kind of replies this thread has been getting - quite rightly, defending the Leica JPEG and suggesting the OP does his own DNG processing rather than rely on someone else's and then being critical of it.

 

I can accept the Leica JPEG just doesn't suit some people, not because Leica is wrong, but because the choices made don't coincide with their own preferences.

 

You may as well have complained about Kodachrome and blamed your M4... almost to the point of selling it...when really you should have kept the M4 and changed to a different slide film... (JPEG settings in the digital world) or changed to negative film and processed and printed to EXACTLY what you wanted (Post processing the DNG files in the digital world).

[CheshireCat]

I can accept the Leica JPEG just doesn't suit some people, not because Leica is wrong, but because the choices made don't coincide with their own preferences.

 

You may as well have complained about Kodachrome and blamed your M4... almost to the point of selling it...when really you should have kept the M4 and changed to a different slide film.

 

 

I don't think the analogy with slides can be stretched enough to cover this case.

 

The M in-camera development engine has been programmed by Leica, and if a big percentage of users can't tune it to their own taste as much as they can in other cameras, then it is certainly Leica's fault.

Unlike slides, one cannot keep the M and change to a Fuji (or other brand) in-camera development engine.

It is also important to note that the M engine is quite primitive if compared to other cameras. Not sure it is to blame, but certainly deserves no praise.

[Bill Livingston]

I am well aware that I was pushing the analogy to its limit, but I think it still holds. Certainly enough to make the point... and if by using this analogy clarifies this subject for some, then it's done is job.

 

As far as the second point is concerned, I think I understand exactly what you mean, but I disagree that it is Leicas 'fault' if they choose less flexibility in their JPEG engine than some manufacturers have opted for... assuming you are correct in suggesting this and that I have understood you correctly.

 

So really, until the OP has tried all the options for changes that can be made within the camera settings for the JPEG output, and then determined whether they meet his requirements for colour, contrast, sharpness, WB and all the other variables open to him AND is viewing those results on a colour calibrated monitor with an otherwise colour calibrated workflow, we can't really answer whether 'changing to a different slide film' will fall within his requirements.

 

Perhaps asking the OP to show examples of a JPEG he likes by taking a photo in a controlled test environment* (so it's completely repeatable) with whatever camera produces the sort of JPEG he likes, then change to his Leica (with its own characteristics of both the sensor and lens in terms of colour, contrast etc,) and make comparisons with each of the variables available within the Leica JPEG settings in the menu and show us exactly what is produced and whether or not he is happy that the Leica gets close to his previous ideal. It will be interesting to see what others think too... although I think we can all agree that we would all need accurate and consistent lighting, fully matched calibrated monitors and the same eyesight and preferences if we are all to agree!

 

I can't help thinking that it's much quicker and easier to post process the good images from DNG's at each import and be done with it.

 

At least you would get some control and consistency over your own work then... and it would be your 'signature' over every image you produce and display, not someone else's

 

 

 

 

*(the very thought of me writing 'controlled test environment' anywhere has made me feel quite queasy...!)

[Manoleica]

At the end of the day maybe it's just buyers remorse! The first few images from any camera are always disappointing until you sync with the camera.. Knowing what you want helps but not even every mixture of settings can satisfy.. So RAW/DNG & PP is the best way to go.. Satisfaction in all its forms takes time. Let's have another Remy old boy'..

[david strachan]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi,

I recently looked through some old in-camera Fuji x100 jpgs, and was wondering if I'm missing something in how to properly set up the jpgs in my Leica. I really want to shoot DNG+jpg, but my jpgs are rarely good enough to keep. Mostly the problem is around exposure - the leica really tends to make evrything too dark.

 

With a baby on the way, I'm thinking my time is better spent away from the computer, so good jpgs would help me a lot (easier to just share directly).

 

What are your jpg settings? (If you shoot jpgs, or have experience with it)

Yes, If you want an OOC Jpeg, Fuji is the way to go. Also they know how to work with flash, ... for baby pics...  ( I recommend the Nissin i40)

And Fuji lens output qualities  are second to non.

 

But for the fun of photography, tweaking Jpegs or DNG's, and the love of the camera itself...Leica.

 

I use both equally...for large prints and web...both work.  Who cares how it's processed...no one can tell...didn't Picasso get irritated when asked how he did his art?

 

Dave S

[hepcat]

Hi,

I recently looked through some old in-camera Fuji x100 jpgs, and was wondering if I'm missing something in how to properly set up the jpgs in my Leica. I really want to shoot DNG+jpg, but my jpgs are rarely good enough to keep. Mostly the problem is around exposure - the leica really tends to make evrything too dark.

 

 

Sometimes its useful to return to the original post and re-read it.

 

After seven pages and 127 replies to the thread (ok, now 128) the problem here isn't .jpgs at all... the problem is exposure.   

 

Exposure isn't a camera problem... exposure is a photographer's choice, especially in a non-program camera such as a Leica.   

 

So, to the OP if you're still around...  please explain more about how you expose your images and that will help the folks here make some suggestions to improve your ability to expose more accurately.    For those frames you've under-exposed already, if you did shoot .dng all is not lost.  As a matter of fact, likely the RAW files can be developed into acceptable .jpgs.  See Tailwagger's post here.

[ECohen]

"After seven pages and 127 replies to the thread (ok, now 128) the problem here isn't .jpgs at all... the problem is exposure.   

Exposure isn't a camera problem... exposure is a photographer's choice, especially in a non-program camera such as a Leica."  

 

Excellent point.  Although I think we scared off the OP a long time ago.

 

I need a break from this topic. I am passionate about the OOC Jpg.....From now  'till Monday I'll be  shooting nothing but Jpg's

And try to figure out what my major problem is ... I suspect the problem is going to end up being me, my expectations and how I feel about Workflow in general.

 

No longer working professionally, yet photography having huge presents in my life.  I have a very laissez-faire/ casual attitude about the craft.......I'm not sure if thats the correct way of saying it ...give me a few days.

 

Thanks to all for you patience

[Jakobben]

OP here

 

I have read along with all the post, and the discussion going back and forth. There have been some good nuggets of information, which I have tried to put to use (as much as possible in the limited "new-dad" time I have :-).

 

As it has been mentioned, my issue probably had/has a lot to do with exposure. It seems to me that the camera rarely exposes to what I want (it almost always underexposes by something like a full stop). However, as it does this "underexposure" fairly consistently, it is perhaps me who is doing something wrong? 

I get that the metering system is not like in Fujis or Canons, and I have stopped expecting that. It still bums me out a bit, that I very often have to meter somewhere dark, to get a decent exposure. If I use auto ISO and aperture priority, and photograph an evenly lit scene (my apartment wall with a bookcase, no lamps or particular highlights), the right 1/5th of the histogram is unused.

This means that my photos almost always have to be adjusted in LR with +1 exposure stop. The DNGs look ok with no PP - it is primarily by looking at the histogram that I notice that it is darker than it has to be. However, with my jpgs, it gets even darker. If I increase the contrast in camera (jpgs), it looks to me like this is only done to the darker side, instead of stretching the histogram both directions.

 

I could put in a +1 EV and just leave it there. But once in a while the exposure is accurate, and then the +1 EV would overexpose it, and since the sensor does not retain blown highlights as well as shadows, there is a higher risk with this approach than sticking to adjusting exposure in LR.

 

Also, I should maybe add, that I don’t PP jpgs… If the jpg is off (e.g. too dark), I’ll probably throw it out (90% of the time), and just work on the DNG. But getting a good jpg is to me (again, to me!) a major success criteria when I go out shooting. If I can get everything right in camera, I’m one happy camper

 

I’m not trying to bash my beloved Leica M, simply trying to get better at using it. Also, if my camera behaves differently than everybody else’, I’d like to know .

[Tailwagger]

OP here

 

I have read along with all the post, and the discussion going back and forth. There have been some good nuggets of information, which I have tried to put to use (as much as possible in the limited "new-dad" time I have :-).

 

As it has been mentioned, my issue probably had/has a lot to do with exposure. It seems to me that the camera rarely exposes to what I want (it almost always underexposes by something like a full stop). However, as it does this "underexposure" fairly consistently, it is perhaps me who is doing something wrong? 

I get that the metering system is not like in Fujis or Canons, and I have stopped expecting that. It still bums me out a bit, that I very often have to meter somewhere dark, to get a decent exposure. If I use auto ISO and aperture priority, and photograph an evenly lit scene (my apartment wall with a bookcase, no lamps or particular highlights), the right 1/5th of the histogram is unused.

This means that my photos almost always have to be adjusted in LR with +1 exposure stop. The DNGs look ok with no PP - it is primarily by looking at the histogram that I notice that it is darker than it has to be. However, with my jpgs, it gets even darker. If I increase the contrast in camera (jpgs), it looks to me like this is only done to the darker side, instead of stretching the histogram both directions.

 

I could put in a +1 EV and just leave it there. But once in a while the exposure is accurate, and then the +1 EV would overexpose it, and since the sensor does not retain blown highlights as well as shadows, there is a higher risk with this approach than sticking to adjusting exposure in LR.

 

Also, I should maybe add, that I don’t PP jpgs… If the jpg is off (e.g. too dark), I’ll probably throw it out (90% of the time), and just work on the DNG. But getting a good jpg is to me (again, to me!) a major success criteria when I go out shooting. If I can get everything right in camera, I’m one happy camper

 

I’m not trying to bash my beloved Leica M, simply trying to get better at using it. Also, if my camera behaves differently than everybody else’, I’d like to know .

 

 

Glad you're hanging in there .  

 

Given your Fuji/Canon roots... mine too... it does bear mentioning that if, like me, you previously relied on spot and scene metering, eschewing the middle option, it does seem to take a bit of recalibrating to come to terms with the proper use of center weighting.  It does just occur to me, however, that if one were willing deal with the technical embarrassment and utter waste of battery power, one could, at least for more difficult scenes, switch to live view. Never actually stooping to looking at the screen per se...blasphemy of course... but having set LV metering to spot or scene, simply switching to it to take advantage of its metering modes. Perhaps that might get better results.

 

Perhaps its obvious, but its also worthwhile noting that simply half pressing on arbitrary darker areas to adjust the exposure can be hit or miss.  I will fully confess that although I rarely chimp, when confronted with lots of light and wide contrast, assuming its not a capture of a fleeting moment,  I will let the camera meter as it will, playback the shot, noting then altering the shutter speed to manually compensate.  When I'm on my game and in more of a hurry, I essentially do manual exposure by consciously noting the shutter speed when properly framed and just moving around until I see a shutter speed in the VF that I think will do the trick, half pressing and then return to getting the shot. The key difference of course being conscious enough to calculate the differential by reading out the speed, rather than simply guessing that metering a given area will get the correct result.  

[ECohen]

Glad you're hanging in there .  

 

Given your Fuji/Canon roots... mine too... it does bear mentioning that if, like me, you previously relied on spot and scene metering, eschewing the middle option, it does seem to take a bit of recalibrating to come to terms with the proper use of center weighting.  It does just occur to me, however, that if one were willing deal with the technical embarrassment and utter waste of battery power, one could, at least for more difficult scenes, switch to live view. Never actually stooping to looking at the screen per se...blasphemy of course... but having set LV metering to spot or scene, simply switching to it to take advantage of its metering modes. Perhaps that might get better results.

 

Perhaps its obvious, but its also worthwhile noting that simply half pressing on arbitrary darker areas to adjust the exposure can be hit or miss.  I will fully confess that although I rarely chimp, when confronted with lots of light and wide contrast, assuming its not a capture of a fleeting moment,  I will let the camera meter as it will, playback the shot, noting then altering the shutter speed to manually compensate.  When I'm on my game and in more of a hurry, I essentially do manual exposure by consciously noting the shutter speed when properly framed and just moving around until I see a shutter speed in the VF that I think will do the trick, half pressing and then return to getting the shot. The key difference of course being conscious enough to calculate the differential by reading out the speed, rather than simply guessing that metering a given area will get the correct result.  

 

 

 

That may solve  the exposure issue. But babes/kids and Live View on the M240 will have shutter lag and a new issue to deal with.

You may be better off in a controlled  stable well lit room going with manual exposure.... shooting proper test shots then shooting the kid

 

I hate to say this but the M240 may not be the best camera  for this job.

Perhaps a nice Panasonic LX7/ Leica DLux 6 may be an easier solution to capturing your bundle of joy.

 

Save the M for when the little tike is running around the back yard .....and start practicing your hyperfocal distance focusing.

[CheshireCat]

Exposure isn't a camera problem... exposure is a photographer's choice, especially in a non-program camera such as a Leica.

 

Exposure is a camera problem, if the user has set the camera to "A".

 

Even so, when the camera develops the RAW image to create the JPEG, therefore the internal engine should do its job and equalize the image exposure (shadows and hilights).

Often the camera underesposes to keep highlights (that is typical of Leica) and it is required (and sufficient) to push shadows in post. This is not rocket science, it just needs some extra calculation for a decent result. Why the M doesn't do that, I fail to understand... well, actually I have an idea of why, but I won't say

[ECohen]

New baby.... lots of inside shots, birthday party's, etc.  ....How did we miss the obvious? 

 

You need a TTL flash for your M......pop it against a ceiling or white wall......and done

 

You'll use the heck out of it and your photography life will back to normal.

 

Shoot Jpg no post...unless you want to.

[Tailwagger]

That may solve  the exposure issue. But babes/kids and Live View on the M240 will have shutter lag and a new issue to deal with.

You may be better off in a controlled  stable well lit room going with manual exposure.... shooting proper test shots then shooting the kid

 

Thats very true, the LV lag is awful. You can click LV, half press, click LV while in C and from my testing it seems to hold the exposure setting through the series.  That said, In experimenting with LV in spot and multi, and despite trying to use a scene which I would have thought should have resulted in differing shutter speeds, I was saw no difference between what the center weighted suggested and either of the other two modes. Triple checked I was indeed in Advanced mode.  Was a little surprised by that, and it has me wondering about just how useful the alternate metering modes actually are. 

[ECohen]

Thats very true, the LV lag is awful. You can click LV, half press, click LV while in C and from my testing it seems to hold the exposure setting through the series.  That said, In experimenting with LV in spot and multi, and despite trying to use a scene which I would have thought should have resulted in differing shutter speeds, I was saw no difference between what the center weighted suggested and either of the other two modes. Triple checked I was indeed in Advanced mode.  Was a little surprised by that, and it has me wondering about just how useful the alternate metering modes actually are. 

 

 

I'm still going with the TTL flash popped in the ceiling as the best way to document your babes growth in a dark room.

 

I never shoot action in Live View but I commend  your ingenuity ...you have managed to fool the camera. I will defiantly play with that....good job

I would never have thought to try that.

[Tailwagger]

I'm still going with the TTL flash popped in the ceiling as the best way to document your babes growth in a dark room.

 

Certainly. My final remarks were more directed at anyone running across this thread seeking info on the topic of better JPGs.  Best of luck!  

[Olsen]

It is not an exposure problem that an IPhone - and a Canon 1Ds III reproduces a correct 'red' colour of a fabric while the jpg's from Leica 240 is way off!

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[jmahto]

It is not an exposure problem that an IPhone - and a Canon 1Ds III reproduces a correct 'red' colour of a fabric while the jpg's from Leica 240 is way off!

I would check WB setting.

[faxao]

http://www.overgaard.dk/leica-M9-digital-rangefinder-camera-page-17-light-metering-and%20quality-of-light.html

 

Very insightful on light metering and WB