Leica CL - changing the picture styles

[davidrc]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi,

I’d like to discuss with anyone who has experimented in the menus with the film styles, deeper than just the 3, std. nat. viv.

in particular the sub menu where you can change contrast and sharpness, which applies to monochrome.

having sharpness turned as low as possible is generally a good idea.  Being able to tweak it higher then later if needed.

But, it’s the effect of the contrast and the two monochrome styles which may change the look a lot and how people have used these i’m particularly keen on.

none of the above applies to dng, obviously.  The settings are jpeg.

[Advertisement]

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

[jaapv]

I think that most users prefer  DNG on the computer for effects like these. 

[wda]

For those photographers who are implacably opposed to processing raw files I can see the attraction of playing with presets. But they are limited and permanent unless you also capture DNG as well.

[dpitt]

The only type of JPEG I find useful is B&W, and this mostly because it shows a B&W preview when shooting. I always use the setting DNG or DNG +JPEG(B&W) and use the DNG file 99% of the time, even for converting it to B&W.

[davidrc]

7 hours ago, jaapv said:

I think that most users prefer  DNG on the computer for effects like these. 

So do I, (in the way you probably mean jaapv) but it’s interesting getting to know a new camera.  
The default setting of jpegs are quite over processed as they are.  And knocking down the contrast and sharpness of the pegs really gets them closer the the DNG default.

Getting a jpeg in camera (how it looks) and records, so you know what the DNG is likely to be is very useful.

Even the Nat style is way too much. Can be depending on the scene and lighting…..However, today I have changed the settings for the jpeg, only one notch down on each parameter, but the resulting jpeg is quite close to how I would probably want a processed DNG to be.

I did a side by side (after processing the DNG) and was pleasantly surprised.  The DNG was superior, but the jpeg could be tweaked further and is useable.  Having a jpeg file to look at which gives a clue which DNG to use is very very useful.

If anyone is interested and thinks it could help them, when things are settled, I will pass on what has been changed.

 

[davidrc]

2 hours ago, dpitt said:

The only type of JPEG I find useful is B&W, and this mostly because it shows a B&W preview when shooting. I always use the setting DNG or DNG +JPEG(B&W) and use the DNG file 99% of the time, even for converting it to B&W.

Today I have used the BW for the first time and tweaked that jpeg in the same manner.  I am really impressed with how it looks.

I was before when doing a conversion from colour, which has its advantages, but for a BW jpeg it is really good.  I’d say as good if not better than the colour.  Keep in mind every digital camera sees in black and white, what is put over the top makes the colour.

Nothing will every be as good as a monochrome M, but the CL mono jpeg is really nice.  

[davidrc]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

6 hours ago, wda said:

For those photographers who are implacably opposed to processing raw files I can see the attraction of playing with presets. But they are limited and permanent unless you also capture DNG as well.

Even more important then to try to get a jpeg in camera near to how you want.

[Boojay]

22 minutes ago, davidrc said:

Even more important then to try to get a jpeg in camera near to how you want.

But so much quicker to just edit a Dng😀

And so many more options later.

 

[dpitt]

11 minutes ago, davidrc said:

I did a side by side (after processing the DNG) and was pleasantly surprised.  The DNG was superior, but the jpeg could be tweaked further and is useable.  Having a jpeg file to look at which gives a clue which DNG to use is very very useful.

Yes, this is true for most images. It is the ones that are difficult that make me shoot DNG. If white balance is off, a JPEG is limited to correct it. If exposure is not perfect you are very limited with the JPEG. DNG files can recover more than a stop extra in highlights and possibly 2+ stops in the shadows.

Other difficult shots are the ones requiring HDR (exceeding the normal dynamic range of your camera). These can only be salvaged by bracketing JPEGS or using one DNG.

For B&W, the DNG gives you the opportunity to change the character of the B&W in PP, much more than even a JPEG with everything on low would give. You can also apply color filters after the shot. To do that properly you need the full color information. A Jpeg will not have that, a monochrom will not provide that either.

I shot JPEG exclusively with my Digilux 2. Mainly because it was very slow writing RAW files to the SD card. That was a compromise for practical reasons. The CL is lightning fast compared to that, even with DNG files, and editing is very fast with modern software.

YMMV but shooting DNG allows me to focus more on getting the shot in the first place...
Timing, focusing, framing, choice of aperture. All these things are difficult to recover in PP and are hard to nail in the limited time I have. Shooting JPEG would require me to take even more time and it would limit my options later.

[davidrc]

6 minutes ago, dpitt said:

Yes, this is true for most images. It is the ones that are difficult that make me shoot DNG. If white balance is off, a JPEG is limited to correct it. If exposure is not perfect you are very limited with the JPEG. DNG files can recover more than a stop extra in highlights and possibly 2+ stops in the shadows.

Other difficult shots are the ones requiring HDR (exceeding the normal dynamic range of your camera). These can only be salvaged by bracketing JPEGS or using one DNG.

For B&W, the DNG gives you the opportunity to change the character of the B&W in PP, much more than even a JPEG with everything on low would give. You can also apply color filters after the shot. To do that properly you need the full color information. A Jpeg will not have that, a monochrom will not provide that either.

I shot JPEG exclusively with my Digilux 2. Mainly because it was very slow writing RAW files to the SD card. That was a compromise for practical reasons. The CL is lightning fast compared to that, even with DNG files, and editing is very fast with modern software.

YMMV but shooting DNG allows me to focus more on getting the shot in the first place...
Timing, focusing, framing, choice of aperture. All these things are difficult to recover in PP and are hard to nail in the limited time I have. Shooting JPEG would require me to take even more time and it would limit my options later.

I couldn’t agree more.  Which is why I like to get a sympathetic jpeg in camera, and file, which points the way to which DNG file to use (if there are various files taken to choose from)

Previously with Fuji, despite their styles, I have never really got close enough for me.  And since using the CL, I can see the issue has a lot more to do with a sensor and how that jpeg is produced than I would have thought.

And the main point is the colour. Much better.

[davidrc]

1 hour ago, Boojay said:

But so much quicker to just edit a Dng😀

And so many more options later.

 

That’s not my point. The point is….changing the jpeg in camera settings just the once….and then leave it alone, permanently, so it gives a better impression as you are taking photos which are in keeping to what the DNG will be like.

Getting a better idea in camera of how the DNG will be, saves time later.  Less time in front of a computer the better.

Toning down the in camera jpeg, even though it won’t be used, which gets close to how the DNG will be does actually work.

The histogram is king, but a sympathetic flatter jpeg lets you see more of what the end result is.

And it really does help. (If you want to do it) 

[davidrc]

Check out a photographer called Damien Lovegrove, he explains in blog some years ago. Using the then XT-1.

It can be found.

[ruskkyle]

 

3 hours ago, davidrc said:

Nothing will every be as good as a monochrome M, but the CL mono jpeg is really nice.  

Agreed! I’ve always felt the B&W jpegs from this camera are really terrific. 

[davidrc]

Well, I was hoping some other members had experience of changing jpeg in camera settings, but I have found my own way quite easily.

It does help in assessing exposure. This yesterday produced a jpeg which was very similar to the DNG, of which the latter was used for the end result.

Colours from the CL needed no altering from AWB used.  The slightly less vivid files which the Sigma 24mm lens produces I find helpful in PP.

Blooming cold in the UK.

 

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!

Edited December 6, 2023 by davidrc
Typos