Q2 MONOCHROM .JPGs

[Richard K]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Is it my failing eyesight or are the Q2M JPGs really pretty good? I got my Q2M yesterday and shot 10 or so RAW + JPG. In several cases after working on the RAWs in LR, I liked the JPG (with just minor adjustments) just as much as the processed RAW. Maybe I’ll see more differences as I proceed but I was impressed with the JPGs. As for the camera...totally love it...

Your thoughts on the JPGs?

[Kreeshp]

I shoot only JPEGs on my Q2M.  The tonality and exposure are more than satisfactory in the JPEGs so I don’t even bother with the DNGs.

 

Saving time and hard drive space is a double win.

[Guest]

I shoot JPEGs exclusively as well. Contrast set to “medium high”. I try to get things right in camera, so most of the time no PP, just SOOC JPEG.

 

Edited July 30, 2021 by mcpallesen

[ruskkyle]

Do you not find you need to boost shadows in some high-contrast scenarios where you have underexposed to protect your highlights though? I have not experience with this camera, just interested.

[Guest]

36 minutes ago, ruskkyle said:

Do you not find you need to boost shadows in some high-contrast scenarios where you have underexposed to protect your highlights though? I have not experience with this camera, just interested.

Sure, from time to time I do. Then I will just lift shadows of the JPEG file in post. The Q2M JPEGs are quite malleable and I never go overboard editing anyway.

But I also think, it’s a matter of choices - no right or wrong here.

But I generally prefer to try and shoot SOOC whenever possible. I simply prefer to shoot and not to edit behind a screen. But that’s just me, and I know it’s a compromise compared to seeking ultimate IQ from DNGs.

This also means, that sometimes in high dynamic range situations, I know, I will have  to pick whether to blow some highlights or crush some shadows. And I even believe that can work fine in some images.

Highest possible DR isn’t always the most “natural” looking - whatever that means. 😉 

Imagine all the classic BW film images from yesteryear. Here blown highlights or crushed shadows also happened due to DR limitations of film.

Again, it’s a matter of choices and doing your best within the limitations, you choose. No right or wrong, just personal choices and what works best for the individual, what sparks ones creativity and what you want achieve.

But of course if highest possible IQ/technical perfection is the goal, DNG and PP is the way to go.

I chose my approach to keep things simple, fun (for me) and found what sparks my creativity best.

Hope (some of this) makes sense 😊

Best,

Mads

[ruskkyle]

Yep that makes total sense - each to his/her own process.

I guess in that sense DNG + JPG is the perfect solution.

1 hour ago, mcpallesen said:

Sure, from time to time I do. Then I will just lift shadows of the JPEG file in post. The Q2M JPEGs are quite malleable and I never go overboard editing anyway.

But I also think, it’s a matter of choices - no right or wrong here.

But I generally prefer to try and shoot SOOC whenever possible. I simply prefer to shoot and not to edit behind a screen. But that’s just me, and I know it’s a compromise compared to seeking ultimate IQ from DNGs.

This also means, that sometimes in high dynamic range situations, I know, I will have  to pick whether to blow some highlights or crush some shadows. And I even believe that can work fine in some images.

Highest possible DR isn’t always the most “natural” looking - whatever that means. 😉 

Imagine all the classic BW film images from yesteryear. Here blown highlights or crushed shadows also happened due to DR limitations of film.

Again, it’s a matter of choices and doing your best within the limitations, you choose. No right or wrong, just personal choices and what works best for the individual, what sparks ones creativity and what you want achieve.

But of course if highest possible IQ/technical perfection is the goal, DNG and PP is the way to go.

I chose my approach to keep things simple, fun (for me) and found what sparks my creativity best.

Hope (some of this) makes sense 😊

Best,

Mads

 

[T. McCool]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

12 hours ago, Richard K said:

Is it my failing eyesight or are the Q2M JPGs really pretty good? I got my Q2M yesterday and shot 10 or so RAW + JPG. In several cases after working on the RAWs in LR, I liked the JPG (with just minor adjustments) just as much as the processed RAW. Maybe I’ll see more differences as I proceed but I was impressed with the JPGs. As for the camera...totally love it...

Your thoughts on the JPGs?

The JPEGs can be quite nice, surely.. However as you brought up later in the thread, the loss of shadow information (when lifting them in post) is noticeable to say the least compared to DNGs. and the noise patterns seem finer to me in the DNG as well. 

In my opinion, we buy this camera to achieve the best quality in such a compact size.. and I feel like leaving that much quality out of the picture (pun intended) is a mistake when using this camera.. I shoot JPG+RAW myself to have options. Can just use the JPG if I want (with toning, etc) or have the raw DNG should I want to edit with more nuance..

The JPEGs crush too much of the detail for me - but maybe I'm a nitpicker.

 

[P.S. on the file size concern.. the Q2M is not a camera I'm really shooting in continuous auto / at a sporting event or anything like that.. I am pretty deliberate with how many frames I take - I gladly accept the 100MB per photo JPEG+DNG workflow]

Edited July 30, 2021 by T. McCool

[Richard K]

Thanks for your reply. Yes, I took a few more photos and I do see better shadow detail in the RAW. I’ll continue to shoot both as I too am more deliberate.

[Richard K]

3 hours ago, mcpallesen said:

Sure, from time to time I do. Then I will just lift shadows of the JPEG file in post. The Q2M JPEGs are quite malleable and I never go overboard editing anyway.

But I also think, it’s a matter of choices - no right or wrong here.

But I generally prefer to try and shoot SOOC whenever possible. I simply prefer to shoot and not to edit behind a screen. But that’s just me, and I know it’s a compromise compared to seeking ultimate IQ from DNGs.

This also means, that sometimes in high dynamic range situations, I know, I will have  to pick whether to blow some highlights or crush some shadows. And I even believe that can work fine in some images.

Highest possible DR isn’t always the most “natural” looking - whatever that means. 😉 

Imagine all the classic BW film images from yesteryear. Here blown highlights or crushed shadows also happened due to DR limitations of film.

Again, it’s a matter of choices and doing your best within the limitations, you choose. No right or wrong, just personal choices and what works best for the individual, what sparks ones creativity and what you want achieve.

But of course if highest possible IQ/technical perfection is the goal, DNG and PP is the way to go.

I chose my approach to keep things simple, fun (for me) and found what sparks my creativity best.

Hope (some of this) makes sense 😊

Best,

Mads

Excellent thoughtful answer. I think the Q2 Monochrom JPGs really are that good and I agree about film day limitations, the old expose for the shadows, develop for the highlights days. Now as long as we don’t blow the highlights, we can recover the shadows nicely. For what I do JPGs are fine 90+% of the time.