SL raws like JPG preview?

[Robert M Poole]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

There's no advantage to dng + jpg Robert. The jpg info is in the dng. I'm not really sure why mfrs offer this setting, except that they can.

You get a better preview in camera though?

 

www.robertpoolephotography.com

[antigallican]

That's true, or seems to be. I don't worry too much abt preview in camera. Imagine the 8 year old me to my Grandad - it's 1960 and he's just bought me a Brownie.

'Where's the preview screen?'

'It's in the future boy. For now I will just have to spend a fortune getting your films developed and contact printed.' And he did, though he also complained about the cost.

[Advertisement]

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

[Daedalus2000]

The embedded option is not the solution, that gives something else - worse.

 

Interesting, I always assumed that the embedded is based on the same colours that the jpeg uses. 

 

Is it possible to share the raw? I get the same beautiful reds with the SL jpegs but I usually can reproduce them closely in Lightroom, so I would love to try to work on your file if you like.

[dancook]

Interesting, I always assumed that the embedded is based on the same colours that the jpeg uses. 

 

Is it possible to share the raw? I get the same beautiful reds with the SL jpegs but I usually can reproduce them closely in Lightroom, so I would love to try to work on your file if you like.

 

Ok, I'd be interested in trying you settings (preset) if you get a good match. cheers

 

https://www.dropbox.com/s/7xdhfc78gkofaa8/L1500468.DNG?dl=0

[antigallican]

I haven't learnt Capture One, I've only installed on a trial.

 

Capture One, with no edit.

L1500468 by dancook1982, on Flickr

 

LR with no edit

Raw by dancook1982, on Flickr

 

Leica SL in built JPG renderer

Extracted Thumb by dancook1982, on Flickr

 

My LR edit

New Version by dancook1982, on Flickr

That's really interesting Dan. So the jpg isn't bad (but darkens the red of her dress a touch) and by my reading LR flattens the red while C1 and your adjustment gets it 'right.' I'll see if I can find the original to a picture I took in Venice - a shadowy venetian red wall - that LR couldn't cope with at all but comes out gorgeous in C1 with no effort. It suggests there's a little band where the LR colour rendering isn't quite right. TBH both software has advantages. I like the colour rendering in C1 - especially for my M9 but I like the blackpoint handling in LR. C1 is great for masking and layers, LR allows me to adjust the tilt in a way that suits me better. I'd used C1 for years but got LR with the SL for free.

 

I like the SL file output a lot - it seems to be the closest to the M9 (my favourite) of anything I've seen. I think this stuff is tricky for the camera mfrs - subtle changes can make big differences

 

John

Edited May 13, 2017 by antigallican

[Robert M Poole]

That's true, or seems to be. I don't worry too much abt preview in camera. Imagine the 8 year old me to my Grandad - it's 1960 and he's just bought me a Brownie.

'Where's the preview screen?'

'It's in the future boy. For now I will just have to spend a fortune getting your films developed and contact printed.' And he did, though he also complained about the cost.

I suppose you're right. I started out on film and it of course never crossed my mind that you might one day be able to see the picture before you've had it developed! But... If the technology is there why not make the most of it? Though the tenancy is to 'chimp' too much...

 

www.robertpoolephotography.com

[antigallican]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

He died in 74. Never saw a preview screen, never owned a car or phone. Read a printed newspaper. Wrote letters by hand. Only ever wore clothes made of cotton or wool. Had a tv but didn't turn it on much. I'm kind of jealous. But then I'm using these digital Leicas; the buses don't stink when it rains, most of us are warm and fed, I can watch the giro d'Italia live on my phone and I think, no, let's stick with today.

 

I try to avoid chimping because I'm not really convinced by the image on the back screen. Crap ones look good, good ones look crap. Reviewing images in the SL viewfinder is quite good, though.

[antigallican]

Ok, I'd be interested in trying you settings (preset) if you get a good match. cheers

 

https://www.dropbox.com/s/7xdhfc78gkofaa8/L1500468.DNG?dl=0

Yes I'd be keen to see what you come up with as setting too, please.

[ramarren]

You folks talk as if the output of a raw converter at its defaults is all you can get out of it. 

The defaults are always, in any raw converter, simply a starting point. 

[Robert M Poole]

You folks talk as if the output of a raw converter at its defaults is all you can get out of it.

The defaults are always, in any raw converter, simply a starting point.

We understand that but would like a way to make the raw like the jpeg as the starting point.

 

www.robertpoolephotography.com

[ramarren]

We understand that but would like a way to make the raw like the jpeg as the starting point.

 

www.robertpoolephotography.com

 

 

Then do what I described up above, for Lightroom. It isn't difficult. (And if you're going to be critical on color accuracy and balance for printing, you MUST have a color checker of some sort to obtain a useful reference. It's a fundamental tool for calibrating a printing process, just like a reference negative and densitometer were in the days of film.)

[pico]

[...]

Edited May 14, 2017 by pico

[blacksinner]

have you set the camera profile to camera calibration profile to embedded? because in lightroom default it set to adobe standard.

[ramarren]

I find the Adobe profile works much better than the embedded profile. 

[wlaidlaw]

I find that the standard SL profile on C1 is a bit too like National Geographic Kodachrome for my taste. The reds and blues are a bit over saturated but it is very easy to make your own profile and apply that to a batch. Quite a few folks apparently prefer the DNG default profile to the SL profile. For printing I tend to stick to Ilford Galerie papers, as their custom profiles for each of their papers for at least the Epson Stylus Pro and Surecolor printers are excellent. All I find I have to do is increase brightness and sharpness a bit more than is comfortable for screen viewing and then I get near perfect prints every time. 

 

Wilson

[dancook]

You folks talk as if the output of a raw converter at its defaults is all you can get out of it. 

The defaults are always, in any raw converter, simply a starting point. 

 

Just to summarise the point of this thread,

 

I took some photos Thursday evening, I had to deliver them by Friday lunch.

 

Whilst processing, in the brief moment before the RAW loaded properly in Lightroom I saw the rich colours of the embedded thumb. It then showed me the LR rendered RAW which is flat.

 

I liked the rich red and wanted to imitate it with my RAW processing.

 

Someone suggested DCRAW which allowed me to extract the embedded thumbnail so I had a point of reference that didn't vanish. So I was able to produce my own preset, which I was happy enough with.

[Daedalus2000]

Thanks for the DNG, I played with it yesterday and I managed to get something close to the jpeg that I extracted using exiftools, but something puzzles me that I do not understand. The jpeg (extracted) looks different when you look at it in windows viewer vs say picassa or a web browser and the jpeg that I extracted looks different in Lightroom to the one I see on the browser here. There seems to be a difference in the colours you see depending on the program, so I do not know if this is because the jpeg does not have metadata? I thought using srgb should give you consistent results. Can I ask please if the jpeg you extracted has metadata and if maybe you can post your extracted jpeg for download as well? I try to understand how different programs handle color spaces and sometimes I wonder if all of us actually see the same color using different browsers. (My monitor is calibrated by the way)

[dancook]

https://www.dropbox.com/s/pgd3swxckxbh278/thumb.jpg?dl=0

 

here is the extracted thumb

[Daedalus2000]

What does this look as a quick effort? First your thumb next the DNG processed

 

 

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!

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[dancook]

What does this look as a quick effort? First your thumb next the DNG processed

 

Looks pretty good! the thumb has a slightly bit more orange in the red I'd say - but I like it all the same

 

Also the hair and skin are a good match.

 

Whilst mine are a bit warmer in my processed version

 

Would you like to share you settings as a preset?

Edited May 14, 2017 by dancook