phernz Posted January 23, 2020 Share #1 Posted January 23, 2020 Advertisement (gone after registration) Hey guys, I've had my Q-P for 3 weeks now and I'm in love, just a small "inconvenient". How can I improve the Dynamic Range or the Metering of the Q-P? I've found myself pulling a bit more than usual the shadows. I have my camera set to multi point and tend to shoot at +0.3 ev. Maybe lower the contrast setting on JPEGs? Any help would be highly appreciated! Thanks! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 23, 2020 Posted January 23, 2020 Hi phernz, Take a look here Improve Dynamic Range on Q-P. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Le Chef Posted January 23, 2020 Share #2 Posted January 23, 2020 You will get a lot more of everything if you try shooting RAW and using some post production software like Capture 1 or Lightroom. It’s a small effort that significantly pays back. 2 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leica Guy Posted January 23, 2020 Share #3 Posted January 23, 2020 29 minutes ago, Le Chef said: You will get a lot more of everything if you try shooting RAW and using some post production software like Capture 1 or Lightroom. It’s a small effort that significantly pays back. +1. I only shoot RAW and post process in LR any images I think worthy. It’s a very efficient way of realizing the most from the camera and definitely superior to jpeg’s for dynamic range and ultimate IQ. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bags27 Posted January 23, 2020 Share #4 Posted January 23, 2020 +1 to above. If there is a weakness to the Q, it's the jpegs. Generally, I suspect Leica thinks of jpegs as a way to quickly review a shot rather than to be the final product. Interesting you push the EV a bit. I believe most of us expose to the left. In RAW, far easier to recover shadows. 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
M11 for me Posted January 23, 2020 Share #5 Posted January 23, 2020 And in the beginning you might want to shoot JPG and DNG at the same time in order to be able to compare and choose the better of the two. Then you find out that in 99% of the cases the DNG (RAW) ist the better choice and subsequently you will stop shooting JPGs. Oh sorry: This is my own story. . . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
phernz Posted January 23, 2020 Author Share #6 Posted January 23, 2020 3 hours ago, Le Chef said: You will get a lot more of everything if you try shooting RAW and using some post production software like Capture 1 or Lightroom. It’s a small effort that significantly pays back. 3 hours ago, Leica Guy said: +1. I only shoot RAW and post process in LR any images I think worthy. It’s a very efficient way of realizing the most from the camera and definitely superior to jpeg’s for dynamic range and ultimate IQ. 3 hours ago, bags27 said: +1 to above. If there is a weakness to the Q, it's the jpegs. Generally, I suspect Leica thinks of jpegs as a way to quickly review a shot rather than to be the final product. Interesting you push the EV a bit. I believe most of us expose to the left. In RAW, far easier to recover shadows. 2 hours ago, M10 for me said: And in the beginning you might want to shoot JPG and DNG at the same time in order to be able to compare and choose the better of the two. Then you find out that in 99% of the cases the DNG (RAW) ist the better choice and subsequently you will stop shooting JPGs. Oh sorry: This is my own story. . . I fully understand your points and I highly appreciate them, but my case is that I have a mobile work flow, I edit my photos on my iPhone (if you can call play a bit with shadows and highlights, a bit of contrast and sharpen edit), so I don't know how that workflow would adapt to DNGs. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bags27 Posted January 23, 2020 Share #7 Posted January 23, 2020 Advertisement (gone after registration) I believe that Snapseed--an excellent and free editor--now works with RAW. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbripley Posted January 24, 2020 Share #8 Posted January 24, 2020 14 hours ago, phernz said: I fully understand your points and I highly appreciate them, but my case is that I have a mobile work flow, I edit my photos on my iPhone (if you can call play a bit with shadows and highlights, a bit of contrast and sharpen edit), so I don't know how that workflow would adapt to DNGs. Even the free version of Lightroom for iOS/Android allows DNG editing I think. The main problem with a mobile workflow for DNGs is the (10x) size difference, making it way slower to transfer them over. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted January 24, 2020 Share #9 Posted January 24, 2020 18 hours ago, bags27 said: Interesting you push the EV a bit. I believe most of us expose to the left. In RAW, far easier to recover shadows I don't. I watch the histogram in the EVF and use (on the CL) the exposure wheel to compensate the EV to an optimal histogram. That way I generate the most data to use in postprocessing. As often as not, I expose to the right instead of to the left. It all depends on the contrast distribution of the subject. Pulling a bit to the left is a fine technique on cameras where you cannot monitor exposure real time but on EVF cameras you are throwing away dynamic range. 4 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viv Posted January 24, 2020 Share #10 Posted January 24, 2020 I don't generally expose to the left. Regarding RAW, not to use it is to throw away a lot of the data that the Q's processing engine and wonderful lens are capable of capturing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bags27 Posted January 24, 2020 Share #11 Posted January 24, 2020 3 hours ago, jaapv said: I don't. I watch the histogram in the EVF and use (on the CL) the exposure wheel to compensate the EV to an optimal histogram. That way I generate the most data to use in postprocessing. As often as not, I expose to the right instead of to the left. It all depends on the contrast distribution of the subject. Pulling a bit to the left is a fine technique on cameras where you cannot monitor exposure real time but on EVF cameras you are throwing away dynamic range. Sorry. I was writing metaphorically, when I said expose to the left. The OP writes that he exposes +0.3 ev. while I (and a lot of folks I know) shade that in the other direction. Filling the histogram and yet having a setting of (say) -0.3 ev is effectively "exposing to the left." I realize that it is an increasingly debatable point with improving camera and software technology, but the "truism" in digital, to protect the highlights, is the flip of the "truism" of Adams's zone system, which protected the shadows. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted January 24, 2020 Share #12 Posted January 24, 2020 You misread my post. I regularly expose at +1 or even more to 51 minutes ago, bags27 said: Sorry. I was writing metaphorically, when I said expose to the left. The OP writes that he exposes +0.3 ev. while I (and a lot of folks I know) shade that in the other direction. Filling the histogram and yet having a setting of (say) -0.3 ev is effectively "exposing to the left." I realize that it is an increasingly debatable point with improving camera and software technology, but the "truism" in digital, to protect the highlights, is the flip of the "truism" of Adams's zone system, which protected the shadows. You misread my post. I regularly expose at + 1.0 or more, depending on the subject, using this method. Or -1.0 etc. for that matter. I find a spread of about 3 EV values around zero. A blanket underexposure by -0,3 only makes sense when you are not able to tweak exposure real time using the histogram. = 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bags27 Posted January 24, 2020 Share #13 Posted January 24, 2020 2 minutes ago, jaapv said: You misread my post. I regularly expose at +1 or even more to You misread my post. I regularly expose at + 1.0 or more, depending on the subject, using this method. Or -1.0 etc. for that matter. I find a spread of about 3 EV values around zero. A blanket underexposure by -0,3 only makes sense when you are not able to tweak exposure real time. = Thanks for this: much appreciated! And obviously it must work. But please correct me if I'm wrong (and I know you will 🙂), but I thought the histogram reflects the jpeg settings and is only an approximation of dng. Thanks. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted January 24, 2020 Share #14 Posted January 24, 2020 Yes, it does, and it gives you some leeway. But still, exposing for a "full" histogram and avoiding (or understanding and accepting) a spike up against the righthand side of the histogram avoids blown highlights whilst providing an optimum exposure. That is the nice thing of a wheel: you can walk your histogram from left to right (and opposite, of course). 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
phernz Posted January 25, 2020 Author Share #15 Posted January 25, 2020 On 1/23/2020 at 11:43 AM, Le Chef said: You will get a lot more of everything if you try shooting RAW and using some post production software like Capture 1 or Lightroom. It’s a small effort that significantly pays back. On 1/23/2020 at 12:13 PM, Leica Guy said: +1. I only shoot RAW and post process in LR any images I think worthy. It’s a very efficient way of realizing the most from the camera and definitely superior to jpeg’s for dynamic range and ultimate IQ. On 1/23/2020 at 12:37 PM, bags27 said: +1 to above. If there is a weakness to the Q, it's the jpegs. Generally, I suspect Leica thinks of jpegs as a way to quickly review a shot rather than to be the final product. Interesting you push the EV a bit. I believe most of us expose to the left. In RAW, far easier to recover shadows. On 1/23/2020 at 1:21 PM, M10 for me said: And in the beginning you might want to shoot JPG and DNG at the same time in order to be able to compare and choose the better of the two. Then you find out that in 99% of the cases the DNG (RAW) ist the better choice and subsequently you will stop shooting JPGs. Oh sorry: This is my own story. . . I decided to give the DNGs a go and the Fotos Pro version. Will try playing around lightroom to see how it goes. Just out of curiosity, I used to own a Ricoh GR II which had in camera dng conversion, I could convert to b&w in camera, and tweak jpegs, is this posible with the Q? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted January 25, 2020 Share #16 Posted January 25, 2020 Fotos pro is not very useful for general downloading, far too slow - use a card reader. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hdmesa Posted January 26, 2020 Share #17 Posted January 26, 2020 (edited) JPEGs look a lot better on the Q/Q-P if you adjust the in-camera JPEG settings to lower contrast and increase saturation. The lowered contrast will allow you to shoot JPEGs with no exposure comp or only -1 and not as easily blow the highlights. Of course RAW DNG is best, but I've found the JPEGs now are very close to where I ended up with the RAWs. Edited January 26, 2020 by hdmesa Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LexS Posted January 28, 2020 Share #18 Posted January 28, 2020 Without all pros and contras: I use DNG+JPG on my Q always (I play both into Lightroom perpetual). I don't see much difference between them, either on the camera or in LTR. Firmware 3.1. Settings: JPG settings: sRGB contrast medium high saturation medium high sharpness standard White Balance: AWB Automatic Exposure Preview:: P-A-S-M Exposure Metering: Spot Exposure Compensation: +/- 0 Focussing: AFs Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now