Q3 Jpg Noise Question

[John351]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hello all,

Aside from the .jpg Noise Reduction settings low, medium and high and also keeping your iso low, are there any other settings that help keep noise down in the jpg files?  I had it set to Medium and took an outside daylight photo at 800 iso and the result is quite noisy to me.  For those that like to use their jpg photos, do you find that setting Noise Reduction to high produces satisfactory results in most conditions or does setting it to high create some other unwanted issue in certain situations?  

Thanks

[Advertisement]

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

[jaapv]

Yes. Shoot raw and use for instance Lightroom. A computer is far more powerful than a camera in processing the image and the dedicated software far more sophisticated. Jpg is OK for quick and dirty but lacks the data for advanced processing and high quality results. Exposing liberally will also help to a certain extent. 

[aficionados]

1 hour ago, John351 said:

Hello all,

Aside from the .jpg Noise Reduction settings low, medium and high and also keeping your iso low, are there any other settings that help keep noise down in the jpg files?  I had it set to Medium and took an outside daylight photo at 800 iso and the result is quite noisy to me.  For those that like to use their jpg photos, do you find that setting Noise Reduction to high produces satisfactory results in most conditions or does setting it to high create some other unwanted issue in certain situations?  

Thanks

How noisy is considered noisy, this is a genuine question, and it's very subjective and personal.

To me ISO 6400 indoor is not even noisy. 

Outside ISO 800 is definitely considered smooth to me.

[LocalHero1953]

My guess is that in a jpg there are other processes that make noise more visible: sharpening, contrast, saturation. Shooting jpg really means surrendering control over your photo to the camera, which does not have your personal sensitivities in mind when making its choices. I have never shot only jpg with a Leica digital camera*, so I'm not familiar with the options, but I suggest reducing all those parameters to the lowest option, and noise reduction to maximum: you are likely to get a dull looking photo, but with no noise. If you have a specific idea of how your photos should look then raw is the way to go to achieve it.

 

*Except the first time I tried a digital Leica, a M9 I had rented for the weekend, and I had no notion of raw images. I bought that same M9 (and the rest is history......) and have shot only raw ever since. And ever since I have regretted that I cannot easily improve those original images I shot that weekend.

Edited December 19, 2024 by LocalHero1953

[boojum]

On 12/18/2024 at 4:47 PM, jaapv said:

Yes. Shoot raw and use for instance Lightroom. A computer is far more powerful than a camera in processing the image and the dedicated software far more sophisticated. Jpg is OK for quick and dirty but lacks the data for advanced processing and high quality results. Exposing liberally will also help to a certain extent. 

 

I have heard the "RAW' mantra for a long time now.  I shoot both on all my cameras but use the JPG's.  I have tried the RAW > JPG through post edit software and am still not impressed that it is better or better enough to warrant the PITA post edits.  But I understand that some are sure that this is a better way.  And it may be. 

 

The in-camera JPG's start as in camera RAW and are created in-camera by software written by the same engineers who wrote the color science software.  That may give them an edge, maybe.  I'd guess it does.  But you can never be sure.

[Kozonoh]

3 hours ago, boojum said:

 

I have heard the "RAW' mantra for a long time now.  I shoot both on all my cameras but use the JPG's.  I have tried the RAW > JPG through post edit software and am still not impressed that it is better or better enough to warrant the PITA post edits.  But I understand that some are sure that this is a better way.  And it may be. 

 

The in-camera JPG's start as in camera RAW and are created in-camera by software written by the same engineers who wrote the color science software.  That may give them an edge, maybe.  I'd guess it does.  But you can never be sure.

It is not a « mantra » it is a simple techical fact. But as you say the question is your own taste and expectations. 

[boojum]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

14 minutes ago, Kozonoh said:

It is not a « mantra » it is a simple techical fact. But as you say the question is your own taste and expectations. 

Mantra:  "A concept or fact that is mentioned repeatedly, especially in advocacy." Are we clear here?

As I laid it out, I have done it both ways.  Until I see some real proof otherwise I consider the differences as negligible.  Inasmuch as nearly all images show up as 8-bit JPG files starting as 16-bit or 14-bit seems lost in translation.  Of course, YMMV.  But if you are that sure show us the tests.  I'd really love to see them.  

[LocalHero1953]

Of course, if you think the in-camera jpg is your ideal, then you're unlikely to improve on it by shooting raw and doing the conversion yourself. I doubt I could reproduce an in-camera jpg starting in Lightroom with a raw.

But if you prefer a different, personal look for your images, or if you think you can make a better image, then a jpg, with its limited colour space and bit depth is not the best place to start - you can quickly find that editing a jpg beyond minor tweaks is difficult. Sure, you lose those extra bits in the final jpg output, but using them all in editing allows you to minimise unpleasant artefacts at edges or posterisation of tone gradients. Fundamentally, you are better getting rid of bits and colours you don't need after editing; doing it before leaves you short of data you might want to edit with.

The OP is seeing unacceptable noise in jpgs at ISO 800. While tolerance for noise is personal, I suggest he may have hit the limit of jpgs, and would be better off starting with raw.

Edited December 21, 2024 by LocalHero1953

[jaapv]

Postprocessing is a skill that takes a learning curve and depending on the level one wants to attain a long time. In the past the level of Leica’s JPGs could only be described as adequate, so many of us have developed our raw skills over the years. Nowadays they are better but certainly not the best one can attain . For one the camera hardware is not powerful enough to process data to a high level.  Even many older or lower specified computers cannot keep up.
 

However why would one go to the trouble if one is satisfied with the factory results and not inclined to invest time and effort, that is quite respectable. For most of us it is a hobby after all and even as professional we are free to choose our ambitions. 

In other words, if one shoots for pleasure there is no compulsion (not even a moral one 😉) to take it further than the level one is happy with, if one shoots for money there is no compulsion to waste time on anything beyond the level that the customer is happy with, but denying that postprocessing is half of the creative process and will outperform the limited results from an in-camera jpg is flat-eartherism. 
 

[boojum]

1 hour ago, jaapv said:

Postprocessing is a skill that takes a learning curve and depending on the level one wants to attain a long time. In the past the level of Leica’s JPGs could only be described as adequate, so many of us have developed our raw skills over the years. Nowadays they are better but certainly not the best one can attain . For one the camera hardware is not powerful enough to process data to a high level.  Even many older or lower specified computers cannot keep up.
 

However why would one go to the trouble if one is satisfied with the factory results and not inclined to invest time and effort, that is quite respectable. For most of us it is a hobby after all and even as professional we are free to choose our ambitions. 

In other words, if one shoots for pleasure there is no compulsion (not even a moral one 😉) to take it further than the level one is happy with, if one shoots for money there is no compulsion to waste time on anything beyond the level that the customer is happy with, but denying that postprocessing is half of the creative process and will outperform the limited results from an in-camera jpg is flat-eartherism. 
 

 

OK, show me the proof.  Let's see how much better a post-edited RAW to JPG is than an SOOC.  I would really like to see how they compare in someone else's hands as they sure do not shine when I do the conversions.  You are confident.  This should be a walk in the park for you.  And it would help support your case pretty well, wouldn't it?  I trust you to be honest.  Dutch ethics, a handshake seals the deal and a man's word is his bind.  Thanks for your efforts.  And would you let me submit files for your hands?

[jaapv]

As if I have time to prove the obvious... There is plenty for you to see in the postprocessing forum and indeed comparing the badly and non-processed images in the image threads to images processed by the more processing-inclined  photographers.

[keithlaban.co.uk]

Typically I'll shoot at a maximum of 12500 with the Q3 43.

Shooting RAW delivers all the available information allowing me to make my own unencumbered version of reality.

The only jpegs I've ever shot were on a dumb fone.

But hey, each to their own.

[LocalHero1953]

1 hour ago, boojum said:

 

OK, show me the proof.  Let's see how much better a post-edited RAW to JPG is than an SOOC.  I would really like to see how they compare in someone else's hands as they sure do not shine when I do the conversions.  You are confident.  This should be a walk in the park for you.  And it would help support your case pretty well, wouldn't it?  I trust you to be honest.  Dutch ethics, a handshake seals the deal and a man's word is his bind.  Thanks for your efforts.  And would you let me submit files for your hands?

I can assure you - all the 'proof' you need (or will get) - that I can make an image that is better in my eyes than a jpg straight out of the camera.

Compared to a camera jpg, I have a different notion of sharpness, contrast, cropping (a critical element when it comes to sharpening), shadow and highlight tonality, and white balance.

[Kozonoh]

5 hours ago, boojum said:

Mantra:  "A concept or fact that is mentioned repeatedly, especially in advocacy." Are we clear here?

As I laid it out, I have done it both ways.  Until I see some real proof otherwise I consider the differences as negligible.  Inasmuch as nearly all images show up as 8-bit JPG files starting as 16-bit or 14-bit seems lost in translation.  Of course, YMMV.  But if you are that sure show us the tests.  I'd really love to see them.  

Your définition of mantra is only the second derivated one. The first one is « sacred message, charm, spell ».

[boojum]

On 12/21/2024 at 5:02 AM, LocalHero1953 said:

I can assure you - all the 'proof' you need (or will get) - that I can make an image that is better in my eyes than a jpg straight out of the camera.

Compared to a camera jpg, I have a different notion of sharpness, contrast, cropping (a critical element when it comes to sharpening), shadow and highlight tonality, and white balance.

I do not doubt that you are right.  But from my former profession comes the adage, "One test is worth a thousand opinions."  Until it is demonstrated it is just talk, vaporware, a held belief.  I am asking only for a small thing.  A teensy-weensy little thing.

[boojum]

On 12/21/2024 at 5:09 AM, Kozonoh said:

Your définition of mantra is only the second derivated one. The first one is « sacred message, charm, spell ».

Your point is?

[Kozonoh]

11 minutes ago, boojum said:

Your point is?

That you don’t use the right definition and that you know it as your last post, qualifying a simple fact as «vaporware » shows. 

[boojum]

2 minutes ago, Kozonoh said:

That you don’t use the right definition and that you know it as your last post, qualifying a simple fact as «vaporware » shows. 

 

The second definition of a word is a valid definition.  That's why it is in the dictionary. 

Until it is proven that a RAW > JPG conversion is better than the in-camera conversion, also RAW > JPG, it is just talk. You may be unaware that vaporware is talk not do.  Software companies talk about all the things their product will do, without demonstration.  So until it is demonstrated the product is vaporware and when demonstrated it is software.  I'd say we have the same situation here.  

Prove me wrong.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica Q

[Kozonoh]

35 minutes ago, boojum said:

 

The second definition of a word is a valid definition.  That's why it is in the dictionary. 

Until it is proven that a RAW > JPG conversion is better than the in-camera conversion, also RAW > JPG, it is just talk. You may be unaware that vaporware is talk not do.  Software companies talk about all the things their product will do, without demonstration.  So until it is demonstrated the product is vaporware and when demonstrated it is software.  I'd say we have the same situation here.  

Prove me wrong.

« Prove me wrong » is the typical injonction of flatearthers and other deniers. Now what about stopping this pointless discussion which you seem enjoy so much, sounding more like Humpty Dumpty on his wall than a Boojum.

[LocalHero1953]

1 hour ago, boojum said:

I do not doubt that you are right.  But from my former profession comes the adage, "One test is worth a thousand opinions."  Until it is demonstrated it is just talk, vaporware, a held belief.  I am asking only for a small thing.  A teensy-weensy little thing.

One of the little disappointments in life that you'll learn when you grow up is that you don't always get what you want at Christmas. Frankly, I don't care what you conclude.