Jump to content

M10 JPEGS - please post them


EdwardM

Recommended Posts

I cannot upload big files, so here are some small unaesthetic  :)  JPEGs I can provide. They are straightly OOC.

 

I can say that the yellows are a bit problematic, maybe a bit much saturated as this can be seen in the night shooting ( The pavement part especially )

 

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

I cannot upload big files, so here are some small unaesthetic  :)  JPEGs I can provide. They are straightly OOC.

 

I can say that the yellows are a bit problematic, maybe a bit much saturated as this can be seen in the night shooting ( The pavement part especially )

 

attachicon.gifIMG_9938.JPG

 

attachicon.gifIMG_0084.JPG

 

attachicon.gifIMG_0090.JPG

 

attachicon.gifIMG_9991.JPG

Looks like Sodium-vapor street lights there CYBORA.  A very yellow light in a very narrow band...I'd expect no camera to be able to change that.

 

see..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium-vapor_lamp

 

all best..

Link to post
Share on other sites

I cannot upload big files, so here are some small unaesthetic  :)  JPEGs I can provide. They are straightly OOC.

 

I can say that the yellows are a bit problematic, maybe a bit much saturated as this can be seen in the night shooting ( The pavement part especially )

 

 

That night street scene has so many different color temperatures going on...which one do you want?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Another OOC JPEG taken today

 

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

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Again this is artificial light.  The new low power light bulbs have absolutely horrible colour, even to my eyes.

 

Try your camera outside, on a reasonable day.  Try auto, sun and cloudy light balance...pictures of people.  Make a critical eye assessment at the time,  if they have yellow-tinted skin.  Then look at your JPG's and see if the camera is exposing too yellow for your taste in skin tones.

 

 

Inside with artificial light you can do a quick white balance, with a grey card.  I often use a white handkerchief.  Make sure the light is falling on your reference surface for the white balance.

 

all best...

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are using the embedded profile in Lightroom (discussed in other threads) that is why you are getting the strong yellows. Check out the discussions.

 

Yes thank you for pointing it out , I already use Adobe Standard profile on LR 6.8 for my photos when I upload photos on my computer , but for instant sharing , JPEGs without this issue would be great.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I had to scroll up and make sure I was on the right forum.  Nobody answered the guy's question about jpegs by telling him to shoot DNG!  I got the crap kicked out of me when I brought up shooting jpg on the M240,  it's not fair! <_<

 

I think EdwardM's question is great, because now we are in the social media age ( instant sharing ) , so it is normal to expect some good quality JPEGs out of cameras. 

 

Leica seems listening to this request, as their JPEG engine has been improved so far.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This test http://www.lesnumeriques.com/appareil-photo-numerique/labo-leica-m10-meilleur-que-m-typ-240-pas-tout-a-fait-n59949.html suggests that the M240 JPEGs are sharper / more sharpened than those from the M240.

 

 

Very interesting article...but if you read the entire piece he states that the M10 only offers one JPEG setting and his test is comparing JPEG-FINE on the M240 to JPEG-STANDARD on the M10. Not a fair comparison.

 

A better test would be to compare both at the same settings, although currently the M10 only offers one.

 

IMO, this is fine as I only use jpeg when sharing quickly. Otherwise I use DNG 90% of the time.

 

At the end of the article he tests the DNG files, and the results are very different. The M10 has the edge here...but most interesting is that the file sizes have dropped dramatically. 

"45.9 MB for those from the M (Typ 240) and only 25.3 MB for those of the M10. 45% lighter!"

Link to post
Share on other sites

Presumably the embedded jpeg preview is much smaller on the M10

 

 

Not presumably. They are smaller.

 

As stated in the article you linked:

"the JPEGs from the M10 weighed 5.4 MB, against 7.75 MB for those coming from the M (Typ 240): almost 30% Less, that makes a difference! Where does it come from?"

Link to post
Share on other sites

Very interesting article...but if you read the entire piece he states that the M10 only offers one JPEG setting and his test is comparing JPEG-FINE on the M240 to JPEG-STANDARD on the M10. Not a fair comparison.

 

A better test would be to compare both at the same settings, although currently the M10 only offers one.

 

IMO, this is fine as I only use jpeg when sharing quickly. Otherwise I use DNG 90% of the time.

 

At the end of the article he tests the DNG files, and the results are very different. The M10 has the edge here...but most interesting is that the file sizes have dropped dramatically. 

"45.9 MB for those from the M (Typ 240) and only 25.3 MB for those of the M10. 45% lighter!"

 

 

The M10 does have 3 different JPEG settings...they are just in a separate menu. Hopefully the author will redo his tests and compare the L-JPEG files.

L-JPEG (24MP)

M-JPEG (12MP)

S-JPEG (6MP)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...