DL4 raw processing Lightroom/CaptureOne/JPEG

[gtravis]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'm the first to admit that I'm a raw processing/workflow newbie and am very possibly doing something wrong, but I'm having a hard time getting as good quality JPEGs from raw files as I can just get from the DL4 itself.

 

The attached image is of a picture I shot today. I set the camera to record both the raw image as well as a jpeg of the image. I then took the raw image and ran it through both Lightroom and CaptureOne, using their automatic settings to set exposure and white balance. I then had them create a JPEG at maximum quality and with sharpness turned on.

 

The images are of a portion (upper right corner) of the image, at 100% zoom. What you can notice is the difference in barrel distortion correction performed by the different processes (the camera and lightroom perform identical barrel distortion correction while CaptureOne performs more aggressive barrel distortion correction -- as you can tell by the blue street sign at the right edge and the significant loss of detail in the CaptureOne image).

 

There is less detail in the JPEGs made from the raw image data by either CaptureOne or Lightroom than in the JPEG produced by the DL4 itself. Note that the size of the JPEGs were 6.3MB from Lightroom, 7MB from CaptureOne, and 4MB from the DL4.

 

I don't think the forum will let me upload the image (it's too tall), but you can see it at:

 

http://www.littlebear.com/LRCODL.png

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!

[Advertisement]

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

[behhl]

It is only demonstrating the different way the camera is processing for jpegs and the way LR and C1 is processing 'standard'. The only way is to learn how to use the LR and C1 a little more to bring up the quality of the processed images.

 

ie: at the moment, the DLUX-4 acting as a defacto raw processor is - in your opinion - doing a better job compared to LR and C1 'standard' format!

 

I can see why many are saying the Leica DLUX-4 jpegs are 'good enough' to avoid shooting raw!

[robbi@laurenson.com]

Try C1's auto feature on for size - select an image and hit CTRL-F. More saturation than I'd like, but otherwise not bad at all.

 

Note, I am a noob too .

[ken_tanaka]

I am not a "noob" when it comes to post-processing raw image files. Not having seen the full image you posted nobody can say whether or not you might be able to get "better' results from one of your converters. I've enjoyed pretty good results with Lightroom /ACR when working with D-Lux 4 RWL files.

 

I know that this will read as heretical to the devoted rawsters, But the D-Lux 4 has some of the finest in-camera JPG processing I've ever seen. Frankly, I'm more often inclined to shoot JPGs with it than raw images. That little camera has some extremely good processing firmware that manages to hold quite a bit of shadow detail as well as highlights -- witness your example. The camera knows the lens and seems to handle it's various corrections very well.

 

I really do believe that in-camera color (NOT b&w) JPGs will produce the best results for the vast majority of images that the vast majority of owners take with this little snapper. Don't be mindlessly shamed into raw. Remember, in-camera image processing is where the majority of development investment was made on this camera. You paid a $200 premium to get Leica's "proprietary" processing, most (perhaps all) of which is discarded each time you pull a raw from the camera.

[gtravis]

I've posted the entire picture at:

 

http://www.littlebear.com/DL4.JPG

 

and

 

http://www.littlebear.com/DL4.RWL

 

(first file is the 4MB JPEG from the camera second is the 11MB RAW image, also from the camera)

 

I'd be interested if anyone took the bait and could make a better JPEG (better detail, etc.) from the RAW image data than the camera made. I do agree that the DL4's native JPEGS are excellent -- so much so that, in my experience, they're better than what you can get out of a RAW image.

[elgenper]

I am not a "noob" when it comes to post-processing raw image files....

I know that this will read as heretical to the devoted rawsters, But the D-Lux 4 has some of the finest in-camera JPG processing I've ever seen. Frankly, I'm more often inclined to shoot JPGs with it than raw images. That little camera has some extremely good processing firmware that manages to hold quite a bit of shadow detail as well as highlights -- witness your example. The camera knows the lens and seems to handle it's various corrections very well.

 

I really do believe that in-camera color (NOT b&w) JPGs will produce the best results for the vast majority of images that the vast majority of owners take with this little snapper....

 

OK, Ken, I´ve seen your results before, so I can attest you´re certainly not a "noob" . Of course, that makes your opinions all the more interesting.

 

I don´t consider myself a "noob" either; I normally shoot raw with all my cameras (process in LR) except for my Digilux 2, whose jpg is outstanding. But I´ve owned my DL4 for just over 2 weeks, so I´ve still lots to learn using it. It does come far closer to the unique Digilux 2 look than any other camera I´ve used so far.

 

But I do shoot raw with it whenever anticipating a final result in colour; haven´t really had time to test jpg colour. However, I´ve tried B/W jpg (I have a custom setting that shoots all three B/W settings in a quick burst until I learn more about its tonal curve) and am quite happy with the results.

 

And now you come and say youre preferences are the exact opposite.... I would be very happy if you´d be kind enough to explain why you´ve reached that opinion. I want to stress that I´m in no way attempting to start an argument or to troll you; I sincerely want to learn more. I´m quite familiar with the theoretical advantages of starting with raw when shooting B/W (after-the-fact colour filtering, zone system-like tone control & c). Is that what you´re after, or is there something more?

[ken_tanaka]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hello Per,

The salient point I wanted to make with my earlier post was to keep one's mind, and eyes, open to possibilities and potentialities. The original poster's reaction to his results was, "What am I doing wrong with my raw processing?" rather than, "Look how well the D-Lux 4 handles in-camera JPG processing.". That's certainly understandable; amateur camera chatter is over-saturated with the common wisdom of RAWness.

 

But "common wisdom" often produces sclerotic dogma, a most insidious and confining effect. The notion that the promised elasticity of a raw image file will always produce a better final product for every shooting situation and from every camera is simply nonsense. But photographers convince each other that in-camera JPGs are categorically inferior.

 

I've found the D-Lux 4 to produce outstanding JPGs, better than the Canon G10. So I suggest that others drop their prejudices and try them for themselves.

 

I do, however, avoid in-camera b&w processing. My reason is simple. Conversion of a color image to a black-and-white image is an aesthetic process involving taste and many decisions on an image-by-image basis. Many of these decisions are compromises by nature. I am not comfortable with, or satisfied that, any digital camera's logic can make these decisions as well as I can. So I prefer to get a good color image from a camera, any camera, and take time to make b&w conversions individually. Once the color data is stripped from an image file it's gone forever.

 

But if you like in-cam b&w it's fine with me.

[robbi@laurenson.com]

I shoot RAW and JPEG together. I work on the RAW and use the JPEG as reference. As far as my taste is concerned I get a result I prefer in C1 over the in-camera jpeg. I may, however be violating all sorts of aesthetic rules along the way but as long as I like it and I'm learning on the way it's fine by me. I treat wine the same way.

 

I like RAW for two other reasons:

 

1) I hate throwing out perfectly good data. Disk is cheap.

 

2) I invest my time in developing skills in RAW editing that span cameras. I can shoot several different cameras in RAW and use the same adjustment tools rather than learning all the different modes on each different camera with their advantages and drawbacks. I reduce the camera to its essential function and get to focus on light and composition without other distractions.

[gtravis]

The original poster's reaction to his results was, "What am I doing wrong with my raw processing?" rather than, "Look how well the D-Lux 4 handles in-camera JPG processing.". That's certainly understandable; amateur camera chatter is over-saturated with the common wisdom of RAWness.

 

Absolutely dead-on correct. I've been inculcated totally by the high priests of RAWness to believe that you either shoot RAW, or you shoot sh*t. A good friend and colleague of mine simply shakes his head when I tell him that I'm even just shooting RAW+JPEG. He sees absolutely no point in having the camera make JPEGs.

 

And it was in that mindset that I went down my journey, fully expecting to be able to get better JPEG results by processing a JPEG from the RAW data through external-to-the-camera software.

 

But I do not appear to be able to do this, which I attributed to my lack of skill and sophistication turning the manifold sliders, wheels, and corrections in the processing software for CERTAINLY it couldn't be that the camera was going to be making a better JPEG than anything else. Certainly.

 

Believe me, my eyes are now wide open at the titillating possibility that the DL4 inverts the RAW, superior, all else inferior mantra of the High Priests of RAWness. And since the end of the journey for 99% of the photos I take is inevitably a container called JPEG it may mean that the highest image quality, at least for the DL4, is had at the hands of the camera's own JPEG processing and not through the door marked "HPOR" (High Priests Of RAWness)

 

Thank you all for sending this monk on his journey of enlightenment!

[elgenper]

Hello Per,

The salient point I wanted to make with my earlier post was to keep one's mind, and eyes, open to possibilities and potentialities. The original poster's reaction to his results was, "What am I doing wrong with my raw processing?" rather than, "Look how well the D-Lux 4 handles in-camera JPG processing.". That's certainly understandable; amateur camera chatter is over-saturated with the common wisdom of RAWness.

 

But "common wisdom" often produces sclerotic dogma, a most insidious and confining effect. The notion that the promised elasticity of a raw image file will always produce a better final product for every shooting situation and from every camera is simply nonsense. But photographers convince each other that in-camera JPGs are categorically inferior.

 

I've found the D-Lux 4 to produce outstanding JPGs, better than the Canon G10. So I suggest that others drop their prejudices and try them for themselves.

 

I do, however, avoid in-camera b&w processing. My reason is simple. Conversion of a color image to a black-and-white image is an aesthetic process involving taste and many decisions on an image-by-image basis. Many of these decisions are compromises by nature. I am not comfortable with, or satisfied that, any digital camera's logic can make these decisions as well as I can. So I prefer to get a good color image from a camera, any camera, and take time to make b&w conversions individually. Once the color data is stripped from an image file it's gone forever.

 

But if you like in-cam b&w it's fine with me.

 

OK, Ken, quite illuminating, and largely I agree. The Digilux 2 (which I have 4 years´ experience with) does indeed do such a good job with its jpg that most of the time I´m hard put to do it better in LR from a raw file. But in the minority cases when the camera (or me) goofs it up, there is often a chance to salvage a raw file, while a jpg might be beyond hope, and with lesser cameras the jpg´s are less perfect, too. So, shooting raw is a kind of insurance.

 

Now, colour balance is one major area of possible goofery in colour, but not in b/w, and that´s the reason I felt the need for that insurance is somewhat less in b/w; that´s why I was a bit surprised by your statement.

 

But I can see the point in wanting more creative freedom in b/w; after all it is a more abstract medium, and so more conducive to personal interpretation. I´m quite intrigued, however, by the three b/w film modes in the DL4: they seem to differ not just in contrast range, but in curve shape as well. So they remind me a bit of the zone system, where different development changed not only the steepness of the curve, but the shadow-highlight distribution of the total range as well. I´m trying to learn what the camera actually does, just like I tried to learn, say, how Tri-X and T-Max differed. I´m aware that with raw, I can shape the curve very much the way I want, but....

 

Anyhow, it has been interesting to get your views on the subject. I need to shoot a lot more with that DL4 to begin to come to grips with the possibilities and pitfalls....

[gtravis]

Just as a small update, I've been playing around in Capture One a bit and I find that if I play with the sharpening Threshold, specifically turning it down, the RAW image pops out with detail similar to that coming from the camera JPEG. For example, right now the Threshold defaults to 3.0, which makes the white brick wall appear blurry and lacking in detail.

 

If I reduce it to 0.9, the wall looks similar to the camera JPEG in detail. Unfortunately, this also screws up the appearance of flat monochrome surfaces such as automotive engine hoods which take on a mottled appearance (similar to what bumping up the ISO does).