Raw vs JPEG image quality.

[imjoshmac]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Anyone have a comparison raw vs JPEG straight out of camera? Considering the Q and was hearing that the JPEG quality out of the camera is average. Wouldn't mind seeing how good or bad it is compared to raw. Thanks in advance!

[ropo54]

I think that since the software update JPEG output it is markedly improved.  Still there is a noticeable variation in colors rendered in RAW vs JPEG; contrary to say what the variations might be with X Vario or X113 or X2.

[Advertisement]

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

[KLManhattan]

I just looked at a number of my photos in Capture One 9 and I can see very little difference between the untouched RAW and JPEG photos.  The colors in the RAW photos look a little deeper, but looking at the histograms of both the differences are IMO small.   I didn't compare photos taken before the Q update.

[Herve5]

I don't really know how we could post things here other than jpegs, but I can see two things:

 

- there are a variety of jpegs settings in the Q internal engine: you can soften things, increase colors etc.

 

- I do shoot raw + jpeg, and use raw files when lighting conditions are difficult, because I find the classical Curves tools more efficient starting from the 15-bits in DNGs. When not in these conditions, the direct jpegs are largely good, and this for me is something like 9 shots out of 10...

Edited March 21, 2016 by Herve5

[Sprintmedley]

^{I just shot JPEGs of patrons in a coffee shop a few minutes ago in Chapel Hill NC.  The JPEG's are exceptional.  I had shot several hundred DNG's in San Diego this last week - certainly in different lighting conditions in and outdoors.  Virtually no difference in the resolution/color/lighting when viewed straight from the camera.  In general - I shoot JPEG when there are not contrasting and/or low and difficult light conditions - but JPEG's otherwise.}

[pappde]

^{I just shot JPEGs of patrons in a coffee shop a few minutes ago in Chapel Hill NC.  The JPEG's are exceptional.  I had shot several hundred DNG's in San Diego this last week - certainly in different lighting conditions in and outdoors.  Virtually no difference in the resolution/color/lighting when viewed straight from the camera.  In general - I shoot JPEG when there are not contrasting and/or low and difficult light conditions - but JPEG's otherwise.}

 

What are your JPEG settings?

[cafecacao]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

What are your JPEG settings?

the same question, i like color Jpeg but shadow is dark, i dont how to set Jpeg setting let shadow be better.

[Manoleica]

Preview (iMac) - can bring out the shadows...  Mostly I shoot jpegs unless it's a serious shoot...  (X1/XVario/M-P240/V-lux40 & 4)

[jaapv]

I just looked at a number of my photos in Capture One 9 and I can see very little difference between the untouched RAW and JPEG photos.  The colors in the RAW photos look a little deeper, but looking at the histograms of both the differences are IMO small.   I didn't compare photos taken before the Q update.

This is not the point of raw vs. JPG. The quality of the JPG output may or may not be satisfactory to the user, but a raw file will contain far more data and thus be more suited to postprocessing. The skill of the photographer will determine whether the results of the postprocessng are better than the results that the camera processing to JPG produces.

Comparing JPG to "untouched" raw (what is that? it went through a raw converter with presets) makes little sense.

[lucerne]

^{I just shot JPEGs of patrons in a coffee shop a few minutes ago in Chapel Hill NC.  The JPEG's are exceptional.  I had shot several hundred DNG's in San Diego this last week - certainly in different lighting conditions in and outdoors.  Virtually no difference in the resolution/color/lighting when viewed straight from the camera.  In general - I shoot JPEG when there are not contrasting and/or low and difficult light conditions - but JPEG's otherwise.}

 

Your comment seems confusing.  JPEGS under good lighting and reasonable contrast, and JPEGS otherwise!?,(in contrasty and low light).       Can you clarify?  You shoot everything in JPEG.?  When do you switch to RAW  (DNG) and process your files in Lightroom to get the look you want?  Have you discovered the benefits of being able to adjust white balance after the picture has been taken.  

 

Pappde asks what your in-camera settings are for the JPEGS. ?    This is pointless!     Light varies throughout the world and one persons settings are unlikely to be common to another.    There are so few JPEG settings in the camera that many users leave everything set to standard and adjust the image later.  Also, be aware that those in-camera JPEG settings have no effect on your DNG / RAW shots.

 

Cafecacao finds his shadows dark and hopes that the in-camera JPEG settings can be set to give more detail in the shadows.    Maybe possible, but really it is better to pull detail from the shadows later, using Lightroom (or other ) image editor.  Processing the RAW (DNG) file is the best technique because the RAW file is more suited to being adjusted and allows more variation.    Since lighting differs on many shots, you would both find it better to edit your files on an image editor and forget trying to set your camera to give good results under any /all conditions.  

 

The  appearance of a processed Raw file is never going to be the same as its straight out-of-camera JPEG equivalent - especially when viewed on a good monitor.  A RAW (DNG) file hasn't been adjusted in any way. Initially, its  not designed to be your final piece of work.   It is pure unadulterated digital data straight from the sensor and while it contains much more detail. it is always presented to you in an unadjusted form. That's why it's referred to as RAW.   For that reason it offers more adjustability when in your image editor.  Initially it is a flat image for you to manipulate.  It is odd to see comments that suggest that the RAW file is perfect as-is.    

Are you viewing your images on a good monitor?    I think you are missing the point of these two types of file.

 

So, your JPEGS may be exceptional and to your taste, but some owners (not me!) have chosen to reject this camera because of dissatisfaction with those JPEGS.  It's a matter of individual taste.  Processing JPEGS or RAW puts control back into your hands.  That's why post-shoot editing facilities are provided.  

 

Good luck. 

[jaapv]

No - raw is not data straight from the sensor.

It is data converted by the camera to digital,interpolated,  black point set, noise suppression implemented, various other corrections applied and then written to the DNG file. -or whichever format a camera maker chooses to use-.

A common misconception happily exploited by for instance DXO.

[lucerne]

No - raw is not data straight from the sensor.

It is data converted by the camera to digital,interpolated,  black point set, noise suppression implemented, various other corrections applied and then written to the DNG file.

A common misconception happily exploited by for instance DXO.

 

Ok.  thats true technically, because those adjustments are deemed necessary to counteract / correct certain intrinsic characteristics of the sensor and those corrections apply also to the JPG, but my main point is that the DNG isn't turned into a generally acceptable (publicly pleasing) picture.  It's a digital file.  The camera JPEG output is massaged into a "nice" picture.  (subject to individual opinion of course).

 

Thanks  for raising those points.

Edited March 25, 2016 by lucerne

[Sprintmedley]

What are your JPEG settings?

I shot in full auto - JPEG - in mostly coffee shops that were well-lit and along the San Diego coast. Didn't look too much at the settings but I will look at that.

[Sprintmedley]

With the mix of full spectrum sunlight and tungsten that I usually find in coffee shops, at least so far, that full auto - and auto WB, has done a respectable job without having to adjust in LR.  I guess I am saying that the full auto function on the Q performs quite well for the settings I use it for.  

[Peter L]

It was my understanding jpg's are generated (compressed version of the raw file with in camera processing) to show the image on the LCD of the camera.

If one is only interested in shooting jpgs , a smartphone at 28mm focal length (same as the Leica Q) 8 to 12mps will do the job .

 

"The T and Q systems have two functions: first to show that Leica is present in the lucrative high-end aficionado domain of buyers who refuse to accept that any current smartphone will produce comparable pictures". quote from Erwin Puts Blog on X T and Q.

 

Intrigued by Erwin's opinions, I tried this out for myself, comparing jpgs from both the Leica Q and Leica T to the same shots on my iPhone,

lo and behold , he is right.

 

So, for one only interested in jpgs , and can live with 28mm focal length, a smartphone is a lot less expensive, fits in your pocket, multi-tasking,

and doesn't need accessories , it even has a built in flash.

 

For my photography, I only use DNG files ( misnomer, digital negative should actually be digital positive) In fact , I delete all the jpgs before I export the images to my macbookpro , to avoid clutter and would never use the jpgs anyway, I couldn't see myself printing from a ooc jpg.

 

So , there you have it, shoot jpgs only, use a smartphone, add to the photographic noise level and save your self many thousands.

 

Shoot DNGs, spend many thousands, probably tens of thousands with all the lenses , and work at and hope that one gets some really nice keepers.

 

 

[jaapv]

Actually the term DNG was coined to emphasize that the file is meant as a basis to produce the image, and that it is meant to be stored against the possibility of reprocessing the image later. The format is supposed to be as future-proof as possible as it is open-source.

[Sprintmedley]

Interesting smart phone comparison.  That observation certainly doesn't hold true for comparing the Q to my Android mini particularly for the <10mp sensor, auto focus, and lens clarity - particularly when I am showing the JPEG via powerpoint on large screen.  I am in no way demeaning the creative utility of RAW - much of my other work is edited from raw but from 6 months experience with the Q I have seen no reason to shoot other than JPEG's for the indoor public scenes that I have to shoot since the vast majority of images don't need editing.  To each his own. 

[pappde]

Well,

Nobody really revealed so far what JPEG settings they use.

Is it a secret?

[lucerne]

Well,

Nobody really revealed so far what JPEG settings they use.

Is it a secret?

 

SRGB

Standard

standard

standard

 

 

thats the problem!   Insufficient parameters to set, so not much chance to create a useful profile, and once shot, the image - once processed with  - say - extra sharpening, that sharpening  can't actually be removed.  Same limitation applies to contrast, saturation.

 

Edits made to JPEGS inside the camera are permanent. Further edits to those JPEGS outside the camera can degrade your image.  In comparison,  Edits made to Raw / DNG and saved as JPEGS via your editor can be reversed / removed.  

In other words, your DNG file gives you flexibility and a standard Re-editable file for life! as JAAPV has explained in a previous post.

Edited March 25, 2016 by lucerne

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica Q

[Peter L]

Interesting smart phone comparison.  That observation certainly doesn't hold true for comparing the Q to my Android mini particularly for the <10mp sensor, auto focus, and lens clarity - particularly when I am showing the JPEG via powerpoint on large screen.  I am in no way demeaning the creative utility of RAW - much of my other work is edited from raw but from 6 months experience with the Q I have seen no reason to shoot other than JPEG's for the indoor public scenes that I have to shoot since the vast majority of images don't need editing.  To each his own. 

I find that Capture One shows more brilliance for Leica images than LR .

The difference in file size DNG 41MB ,versus jpeg 8.5 MB, both approximately, should tell you that a little something is missing in the jpeg files.

My point is simple ; If you are satisfied with average quality , use jpegs , be it Leica Q or smartphone , not a large difference .

If one has invested in quality Leica gear, at considerable expense, having invested in photographic learning, including PS, LR, Capture One over many years, why not produce the very best one can.

I  very much doubt that Leica intended the jpeg file to be used for serious work, in fact , I have seen many requests of people on this forum to eliminate jpegs , which is impossible as jpegs are an integral part of the DNG format.

Edited March 25, 2016 by peterleyenaar