Q3 Jpg Noise Question

[boojum]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Funny that you cannot back up your beliefs.  You can talk the talk but I have not seen you walk the walk.  You are ducking.  If you had any proof you would have posted it by now.

Prove me wrong or just be quiet.  It is so simple.  Just show that what you say is true.  Ad hominems are tacit admission of argument loss.

[Kozonoh]

27 minutes ago, boojum said:

Funny that you cannot back up your beliefs.  You can talk the talk but I have not seen you walk the walk.  You are ducking.  If you had any proof you would have posted it by now.

Prove me wrong or just be quiet.  It is so simple.  Just show that what you say is true.  Ad hominems are tacit admission of argument loss.

You sound more and more like a simple troll. 

[Le Chef]

On 12/21/2024 at 5:41 AM, boojum said:

OK, show me the proof.  Let's see how much better a post-edited RAW to JPG is than an SOOC. 

Why not do it for yourself? If you can’t see the improvement with RAW and post, then just shoot jpeg. If you don’t like the jpeg output, buy another camera. We can’t do the work for you: you have to make an effort if you want better images.

[boojum]

On 12/23/2024 at 8:04 AM, Le Chef said:

Why not do it for yourself? If you can’t see the improvement with RAW and post, then just shoot jpeg. If you don’t like the jpeg output, buy another camera. We can’t do the work for you: you have to make an effort if you want better images.

 

Nice try.  You sidestepped almost glibly the question.  I say that SOOC JPG is about as good as it can be and that taking a RAW on the computer and editing it to JPG will not be noticeably better.  You and others say I am wrong.  Prove it.  In either case you wind up with an 8-bit file.  One is made in-camera by the same software engineers who designed the software that captures the image and processes it.  You say the average Joe can do better with his computer. I am not convinced.  Convince me that you are right.  I will be happy to offer up a RAW file for anyone to edit.  I'll keep the JPG to later be used to compare.  The timestamp on he JPG will prove its authenticity.  Any takers?

 

I have my file, the finished SOOC JPG.  Your duty is to show how much better you are editing a RAW file.  ;o)  This is a really simple deal.  All you aces should be jumping allover this to show how wrong I am.  Just demonstrate how much better your JPG is than the SOOC.  Simple.

[boojum]

On 12/23/2024 at 1:25 AM, Kozonoh said:

You sound more and more like a simple troll. 

No doubt.  OTOH we are at the same place: prove me wrong.

[costa43]

On 12/19/2024 at 1:00 AM, 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

I tested out the JPEGs when I first picked up my camera and with a well exposed shot, I found them a little noisier when compared to the raw files I edited, I think it was due to them being over sharpened, they just felt a bit crunchy to me.

I only shoot dng and tend to reduce things like clarity, dehaze and contrast on a lot of my pics to soften the image to taste, so I guess I am quite anti sharp!. If I do sharpen then it’s rarely across the whole Image. It does help at times when it’s selective, I find it can add depth to the end result but I also find it can accentuate the noise that is already present, especially if it’s overdone and global across the file. I think this is what could be happening with the JPEGs you are seeing. 

My advice would be to shoot both formats together and see what you prefer after tinkering around a bit. With the Leica Looks thing I’m sure you can get some really nice edits but ultimately, shooting raw gives you much more data to play with should you not be happy with the output from the camera’s built in engine. It takes time to find your groove but at least your edit will be unique to you.

 

 

Edited January 16 by costa43

[Le Chef]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

3 hours ago, boojum said:

Nice try.  You sidestepped almost glibly the question. 

In other words you can't be bothered to make the effort.

[boojum]

20 hours ago, Le Chef said:

In other words you can't be bothered to make the effort.

 

You keep reframing the question.  I have been told that taking a RAW file and processing it in a computer with some editing software will yield a better JPG image than what the camera produces.  OK, prove it.  If you could instead of quibbling you would have done it.  I am waiting to see the convincing demonstration.  You can't do it or you would have done it.  Case closed.  ;o)  

[Le Chef]

43 minutes ago, boojum said:

 

You keep reframing the question.  I have been told that taking a RAW file and processing it in a computer with some editing software will yield a better JPG image than what the camera produces.  OK, prove it.  If you could instead of quibbling you would have done it.  I am waiting to see the convincing demonstration.  You can't do it or you would have done it.  Case closed.  ;o)  

I'm not doing your work for you, if you're simply too lazy to do it yourself. If you're happy with JPG's and throwing away $2,500 worth of camera that's your choice.

[JNK100]

12 hours ago, boojum said:

 

You keep reframing the question.  I have been told that taking a RAW file and processing it in a computer with some editing software will yield a better JPG image than what the camera produces.  OK, prove it.  If you could instead of quibbling you would have done it.  I am waiting to see the convincing demonstration.  You can't do it or you would have done it.  Case closed.  ;o)  

 

[JNK100]

I don't think there will be many people in this forum using jpeg..

It is accepted universally within the photographic world that raw will yield much better results and there are lots of comparisons online if you need convincing.

 

[Kozonoh]

On 1/16/2025 at 9:48 PM, boojum said:

No doubt.  OTOH we are at the same place: prove me wrong.

Ok. What do you mean by «  prove me wrong »? What kind of proof do you precisely need? And why don’t you start by « proving » you are right? 

[Roy88]

I don't think it's a better or worse argument. It's about flexibility and freedom. The equivalent in the film world would be to take the print as the final product with no say in how it's printed. The DNG is the negative. From there you can interpret in any manner you desire. With the print you are stuck with someone else's interpretation.

[ianforber]

It’s a hard comparison to make. I tend to shoot DNG+jpeg and sometimes use the jpeg because I like it. Sometimes I process the DNG to see if I can improve on it. Sometimes I can, sometimes I can’t. It all depends what I’m looking for though. If I was taking a picture with the intention of making a high contrast final image I’ll probably have taken it differently than if I’d wanted a more evenly exposed picture. The jpeg process in the camera won’t know that. I confess though that even so, sometimes I like the jpeg for what it is. I’d say I use the jpeg about 10% of the time. 

[Kozonoh]

On 1/16/2025 at 9:48 PM, boojum said:

No doubt.  OTOH we are at the same place: prove me wrong.

And to get back to the op question about noise and jpegs it is very easy to see the spectacular difference between, lets say, dxo prime applied to raw and the in camera reduction. Unless you don’t want to see it. But in that case, who cares?

[JTLeica]

On 12/19/2024 at 12:00 AM, 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

I think personally what you are seeing is the slightly strong sharpening applied to the JPG files not just noise. Sharpening details globally results in grain and is only accentuated if there is noise in the images

If there’s a sharpening setting for JPG output sent to low or none. The lens is sharp enough.

[boojum]

We keep wandering off my argument.  I said and still say that for all practical purposes the camera generated JPG is just as good as the one generated from the DNG on a computer.  That's my argument.  In each case the end result is an 8 bit file.  If people think that they can take a DNG and generate a JPG from it that is significantly better than the one automatically generated in the camera show me.

 

I am, not arguing that JPG is better than RAW.  Let me say this one last time so that everybody can understand it:  the in camera generated JPG is as good as the one generated on a computer from a RAW file for all practical purposes.  I do not think this is ambiguous.  But if anyone is having trouble grasping this please say so and I will try to explain it more clearly.

 

Cheers

[Kozonoh]

« For all practical purposes » ? What does it mean? Anything ie nothing.

[Le Chef]

5 hours ago, boojum said:

for all practical purposes

What do you mean by that? How are you defining practical?

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica Q

[shopaholic]

IMO,  the processed DNG file should reflects how the scene was when the image was captured- the light, shadows, colors in the sky or landscape etc., etc., whereas the in camera process simply applies a standard set of pre programmed adjustments per the camera manufacturer. If you are happy with in camera processing, fine. I for one and am sure most photographers enjoy the post processing or editing images as much as capturing them as a hobby.