Q3 Jpeg Quality

[David Wien]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The recent thread on zoom settings in the Q3 caused me to do some experiments. I was not impressed by the quality of the jpeg compression on the 90mm setting.

Then I looked at the quality at the "28mm zoom" setting, also not impressive, with jpeg compression making it noticeably worse than the DNG files. There was also over-sharpening to be seen.

This was at a quite modest ISO setting of 400, f/1.7, 1/50s. The jpeg settings in the Q3 were STANDARD, with all the parameters set to zero.

As I always shoot raw and process, this was an eye-opener for me. But is there a setting that I am missing that makes the jpeg closer to the dng quality?

David

[Advertisement]

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

[Kozonoh]

I had the same feeling with shooting Ldng + Ljpeg. The difference between the Ljpeg from the camera and the jpeg from the dng in pp is so strong that for me the incamera jpeg is worthless.

[jaapv]

This forum is interesting - we also get posts that claim the opposite 😉

[pop]

vor 12 Stunden schrieb David Wien:

The jpeg settings in the Q3 were STANDARD, with all the parameters set to zero.

I don't know about the Q3, but every digital camera I've owned so far had default values for compression and contrast and so on which produced quite noticeable artefacts in the image. Try and set those settings to their mininal values.

[bobtodrick]

3 hours ago, jaapv said:

This forum is interesting - we also get posts that claim the opposite 😉

I’m quite happy with the JPEGs from my Q, and the two people I know with Q3’s are as well. 
But then none of us are pixel peepers 😬

[Kozonoh]

8I had the same feeling with shooting Ldng + Ljpeg. The difference between the Ljpeg from the camera and the jpeg from the dng in pp is so strong that for me the incamera jpeg is worthless.

10 minutes ago, bobtodrick said:

I’m quite happy with the JPEGs from my Q, and the two people I know with Q3’s are as well. 
But then none of us are pixel peepers 😬

Thanks for the compliment. The point is not being happy or being a pixel peeper. I personally shoot only in raw. But when you have a large jpeg and you try to crop it the result is quite ugly. If it makes you happy so be it but then maybe it would be better that you use your iPhone rather than a Q3. Cheaper and lighter.

Edited May 18, 2024 by Kozonoh
Correction

[SLamb]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I use L-DNG + L-JPG. I use the JPGs if I want to post pictures to social media or send via WhatsApp to friends or family, such as when on a trip.  That said, for social media use, I get equally as good pictures out of my Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra. They are sufficient for such use, and lots of social media apps ruin pictures through the compression that is applied when posting anyway so no point in using a high quality picture. 

For prints and my own library of pictures I use the DNGs and process as I wish. 

 

Edited May 18, 2024 by SLamb

[bobtodrick]

2 hours ago, Kozonoh said:

8I had the same feeling with shooting Ldng + Ljpeg. The difference between the Ljpeg from the camera and the jpeg from the dng in pp is so strong that for me the incamera jpeg is worthless.

Thanks for the compliment. The point is not being happy or being a pixel peeper. I personally shoot only in raw. But when you have a large jpeg and you try to crop it the result is quite ugly. If it makes you happy so be it but then maybe it would be better that you use your iPhone rather than a Q3. Cheaper and lighter.

All I know is that I’m the past six months I’ve had two gallery showings and sold a number of framed 16x20 prints…from JPEGs.

I care more about people who walk away  happy with a print they will hang than I care about scrutinizing a magnified image on my monitor.

But as the saying goes…different strokes…

Edited May 18, 2024 by bobtodrick

[Kozonoh]

Good for you and your buyers. But you don’t need to be dismissive. I don’t scrutinize magnified images. I crop them to my taste in post prod. And with a 28 lens it is often useful. And last but not the least: I prefer to develop my dng myself instead of letting the camera do it in my place. The old way.

[Corius]

1 hour ago, Kozonoh said:

Good for you and your buyers. But you don’t need to be dismissive. I don’t scrutinize magnified images. I crop them to my taste in post prod. And with a 28 lens it is often useful. And last but not the least: I prefer to develop my dng myself instead of letting the camera do it in my place. The old way.

What do you mean by “The old way”? Raw files have only existed since around 2000. What did you do before that? Did you process your own film and then dodge and burn while creating and printing your enlargements?

And it’s you who is being dismissive. If people enjoy the simplicity of capturing jpegs then that’s their choice. A great photo has very little to do with it being raw or JPEG.

[Kozonoh]

I have no problem with your choices, your taste and your pleasure. But it is dismissive to call someone pixel peeper just because he points to the poor quality of jpegs in an otherwise fantastic camera. I would add that a good photo doesn’t depend on a camera, be it a Leica, nor on the joy of those taking it. And there was a life before digital, which produced much less images but probably more important for people than these in which we are drowned today. 

Edited May 18, 2024 by Kozonoh

[bobtodrick]

2 hours ago, Kozonoh said:

Good for you and your buyers. But you don’t need to be dismissive. I don’t scrutinize magnified images. I crop them to my taste in post prod. And with a 28 lens it is often useful. And last but not the least: I prefer to develop my dng myself instead of letting the camera do it in my place. The old way.

Uhhh, to quote you:

”But when you have a large jpeg and you try to crop it the result is quite ugly. If it makes you happy so be it but then maybe it would be better that you use your iPhone rather than a Q3. Cheaper and lighter.”

Isn’t dismissive???

[Trankster]

Would like to see some constructive comments and answers to OP's original question about jpeg settings.  Thanks.

[jaapv]

Because there is no answer. The jpg settings in the camera are fixed to the options in the menu. shooting JPG will always be inferior to shooting DNG in postprocessing, through lack of data.If you are pleased with the JPGs just use them - that is what they are for. and they are meant as a final product.  If you can or want to do better on raw, which is normally the case,  use DNG. 

[David Wien]

I have not had a chance to do any "scientific" controlled experiments; but of the five options for -2 <-> +2 settings in the STD film style (Contrast, Highlight, Shadow, Sharpness, and Saturation) only the last would appear to be relevant. The effect I noticed is that setting Sharpness to -2 does produce an improvement on jpg files; but it is not enormous.

As Jaap and others have pointed out, one is dealing with 8-bit data, whereas the raw files are 14-bit or so, which is a significant improvement.

I also looked at some L-JPG files of photos that I took outdoors recently in excellent light: the jpeg compression is easily discerned in blue skies when viewed at 100%, though absent from the DNG files.

I have to agree with others than my Canon R6 produces better jpegs out of the camera, though its 20MP sensor does require me to choose a lens of appropriate focal length to take full advantage of the lower sensor resolution of that camera.

As I also said in my opening post, I normally process the DNG files from my Q3 and am quite happy to continue to do so. But I was somewhat shocked when I looked at the jpegs. 😀

David

 

[David Wien]

Correction: In my preceding post, please substitute for the first paragraph:

I have not had a chance to do any "scientific" controlled experiments; but of the five options for -2 <-> +2 settings in the STD film style (Contrast, Highlight, Shadow, Saturation, and Sharpness) only the last would appear to be relevant to improving jpg files. I notice that setting Sharpness to -2 does produce an improvement; but it is not enormous.

With apologies for my error!

David

[bobtodrick]

I’ll go out on a real (philosophical) bent here…an opinion that you can take or leave.

I learned the craft of photography in the film days…have had a well equipped darkroom since the 80’s.  In ‘those’ days you worked around the deficiencies of the medium.  35mm, especially in lo light had grain…but you weren’t going to do street photography with a 4x5…or pack that on your vacation (well most didn’t).

But one still strived for an arresting image.

With digital though too often striving to make the technically ‘perfect’ image has become of paramount importance…AND YES I KNOW THIS DOESN’T APPLY TO EVERYONE WORKING IN THE MEDIUM!!!

But I’d rather look at a captivating image, whether shot on grainy 35mm, JPEG, RAW, or 4x5 chrome with some imperfections than a boring technically ‘perfect’ image.

Edited May 18, 2024 by bobtodrick

[Kozonoh]

Sure but the question is how do you produce a captivating image. There are many answers, one for instance is to make as few images as possible. But then is the question of the tool . If you decide to buy a Q3 ( when you can have very good cameras for one sixth of the price) it is because you want to push further certain limits in post production. Otherwise what is the point? So it is perfectly normal to discuss these limits in this forum and it has no relationship with the question of what is a captivating image . And as you surely know the best one is the one you don’t take.

ps: I absolutely don’t know what a «  perfect image » would be, and I don’t care. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica Q

[jjroroek]

hmm not quit sure about the statement of Kozonoh. i shoot with an expensive Leica not only because of the image quality but also because of the build concept of the Leica. shooting with leica is 5 times a joy. unpacking it, using it, feeling it , looking at it en enjoying the results. The only moment that is not pleasant is the moment you pay  for it.

[LarsOtium]

1 hour ago, jjroroek said:

 The only moment that is not pleasant is the moment you pay  for it.

A universal truth! 🙂