Disappointed with Leica jpegs

[jdlaing]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

If you shoot with the M10's RF, then keep in mind that it is center weighted metering only. The M10 does not have advanced multi-metering unless you shoot the camera in Live View mode. The camera doesn't care how bright the sky above is or left/right of center frame. It will be blown if it is bright in those areas. In these cases, underexposing by 1-2 stops will save your highlights. I'd agree with you if you think center weighted belongs in the 50's.

Caveat:

 

You can turn Live View on and still shoot with the rangefinder in order to get advanced metering, if you so desire.

[Gobert]

Caveat:

You can turn Live View on and still shoot with the rangefinder in order to get advanced metering, if you so desire.

Why? The Leica centre metering is not bad. Learn to work with it, acknowledge its limitations and you can make a correct measurement in almost most situations.

[Advertisement]

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

[jdlaing]

Why? The Leica centre metering is not bad. Learn to work with it, acknowledge its limitations and you can make a correct measurement in almost most situations.

I have no problem with Center weighted. I was replying to another post and simply stated that you can use Live View and the rangefinder IF YOU SO DESIRE.

[Simon]

I don’t doubt the Fuji makes better jpegs, but I’m not sure if this is the best example to compare the two either. The perspective in the photos seems quite different; notice the position of the top of the pole in relation to the horizon. Also, the warm, yellow cast of the Fuji shot makes it look like it’s approaching dusk. Was that the case? The pelican’s head appears to be in shadow in the second pic but in full sun in the first.

 

I much prefer this Fuji jpeg as well, but what was the scene like? It could be that the M10 actually has better white balance in this instance. I’m also not sure if you should compare a jpeg that’s had its levels edited to look pleasing and to match a certain style to one that hasn’t. The M10’s jpegs seem to be just a simple guide to what’s been captured by the sensor. Until you get comfortable with its metering, try checking histograms to help you learn how the M10 behaves.

 

As others have said, you really ought to be using the RAW files whether you want to edit them or not. You can use or make processing presets that do some of what the Fuji is doing, but it’ll take time to learn how the M10 behaves in different conditions. It’s probably always going to be more work than the Fuji, especially if you’re used to using just the out-of-camera jpegs.

Edited April 22, 2018 by Simon

[pico]

Nothing wrong with using JPEGS in my view as long as you don't modify them (cropping, color balance, exposure etc.) which will deteriorate quality with each stored change. [...]

 

That brings up the question of lossless JPEG saving. I know it exists, but I do not know if saving with no loss in Photoshop or Lightroom uses it. It is a distinct algorithm.

 

Does anyone know?

[Simon]

Does lossless jpeg handle sufficient colour depth for editing? I thought it was just 8-bit.

Edited April 22, 2018 by Simon

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

There is no lossless jpg.

[pico]

There is no lossless jpg.

 

Would you bet a Guinness on that? It is a small penalty for being Wrong, Wrong, Wrong!

[ianman]

There is no lossless jpg.

 

There is actually.

[ianman]

That brings up the question of lossless JPEG saving. I know it exists, but I do not know if saving with no loss in Photoshop or Lightroom uses it. It is a distinct algorithm.

 

Does anyone know?

 

I haven't used Photoshop in years. However I do understand that they now use optimisation rather than - or at least in junction with - compression to output smaller files. In my experience, again not using Photoshop, jpeg optimisation can shave off 75% or sometimes more without visible loss of quality.

[pgk]

So why has it not been adopted and is not used extensively? Is it truly 'lossless'? Sorry to sound cynical but a 'lossless' 16-bit JPEG would potentially be so useful I'm amazed that, if it exists in a viable form, its not in general usage.

Edited April 22, 2018 by pgk

[FlashGordonPhotography]

A jpeg can be saved as a TIFF or PSD after modification so no further compression damage is made. They stay 8 bit though.

 

I've had the same feelings regarding Fuji and Leica as the OP. I have shot the systems side by side on many occasions and never has any of my Leicas produced a jpeg as pleasant as what a Fuji does. Or Olympus. Or hasselblad. But the raw files are excellent. I have given up on Leica jpegs. The CL is a lot better.

 

Play with the settings. You might get something you like a bit better. But they won't match the Fujis. Mostly I shoot raw only. But when I want a jpeg I'll often do so as a monochrome image, which are pretty good. I'll have the raw if I want a colour version.

 

Gordon

[pico]

Backing up a bit - I think we can all understand that in-camera conversions to JPEG usually create images inferior to DNG. Right. So post-processing JPEG is a whole different thing. Lossless (or lossless enough) saving  in post-processing retains the shortcomings of the in-camera compression.

 

BUT we do not know what processing Leica does in-camera before storing as DNG.

 

Look to the M9 maintenance menu for hints. Yeah, they do that.

Edited April 22, 2018 by pico

[Rob L]

I used to shoot JPEG a lot on my MP 240, but never do on my M10. Seems the M10 JPEGs are not what they were on the M240. Files are much smaller and colors suck.

[ianman]

So why has it not been adopted and is not used extensively? Is it truly 'lossless'? Sorry to sound cynical but a 'lossless' 16-bit JPEG would potentially be so useful I'm amazed that, if it exists in a viable form, its not in general usage.

 

Don't confuse two things here. Lossless JPEG does exist although it isn't common. And AFAIK there would be no actual benefit to using this file format.

 

Optimisation removes unnecessary data from files and doesn't change the image at all. It can be and probably would probably be used in conjunction with compression to create smaller files. More info here and here (at JPEGmini they use the terms "optimise" and "compress" interchangeably).

[pico]

Thanks for that Ian. Another consideration is how many photographers evaluate anything other than JPEG on a computer monitor. Exactly what are the constraints, limits to displays? Is it better to post, for example, TIFF files?

 

In my modest experience only Safari displays TIFF files.

Edited April 22, 2018 by pico

[jaapv]

A jpeg can be saved as a TIFF or PSD after modification so no further compression damage is made. They stay 8 bit though.

 

I've had the same feelings regarding Fuji and Leica as the OP. I have shot the systems side by side on many occasions and never has any of my Leicas produced a jpeg as pleasant as what a Fuji does. Or Olympus. Or hasselblad. But the raw files are excellent. I have given up on Leica jpegs. The CL is a lot better.

 

Play with the settings. You might get something you like a bit better. But they won't match the Fujis. Mostly I shoot raw only. But when I want a jpeg I'll often do so as a monochrome image, which are pretty good. I'll have the raw if I want a colour version.

 

Gordon

But the damage is done by the lossy JPG compression. The data loss can be quite severe.

[jaapv]

There is actually.

I guess you mean JPG-LS or JPG-2000 They are not lossless but nearly so - and it never caught on (yet?).

[ianman]

I guess you mean JPG-LS. It is not lossless but nearly so - and it never caught on.

 

That's not a name I've heard of before. But a concrete implementation is libjpeg which, using arithmetic compression instead of huffman algorithm can output lossless jpeg files. But as I wrote above, although it exists and is available, I don't see the point.

AFAIK web browser decoders have never supported it and even if they did, it's better to optimise and compress using technologies that leave no visible loss of quality, simply in terms of speed increase and bandwidth savings... in the case of network sharing anyway.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[ianman]

Thanks for that Ian. Another consideration is how many photographers evaluate anything other than JPEG on a computer monitor. Exactly what are the constraints, limits to displays? Is it better to post, for example, TIFF files?

 

In my modest experience only Safari displays TIFF files.

 

Well I suspect all professional and a good many "keen amateur" photographers evaluate raw and tiff and only output jpg for network sharing (email/online/etc.)

 

As for posting online, I have no idea if any browsers support tiff. To be honest I can recall ever even thinking about using tiff files due to bandwidth and loading speed issues. I would use mainly use jpeg, maybe png if I need transparency and sometime even the humble gif still.