Huge difference between jpg and DNG

[hammam]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I just acquired a very nice M8.2 to replace the M8 I sold a few months ago (always think twice before selling a Leica) and I am dumbfounded by the difference between the jpeg (basic) and the DNG files in terms of colour. I can understand a slight difference, but this is huge?. The jpeg is darker and way greener. I had never seen that in my M8, nor in any of my digital cameras. I have checked the menu, and everything (sharpening, color saturantion and contrat) is set to «standard». Is there anything else I should check, or is this «normal»?

 

Thanks.

[erl]

My recollection, and that is all it is, that when I got my 1st M8, I compared it with several that the dealer had and they were ALL different wrt to colour display. Whether that was an LCD thing or a camera thing I don't know. maybe it was an early firmware thing? I think the critical thing is, "can you consistently get it right" on the computer?

[Don Morley]

I have had two new M8's, one from near enough the first batch made, the other only bought about five months ago, and even with both updated to the latest firmware, each displyes exactly the same 'False Green' rendition problem.

 

When shooting DNG and large jpeg's simultaniously for instance the results mght as well have come out of a different camera system, for the M8's DNG greens err almost to yellow whereas the JPEG's greens go dark and vastly over emphasised, indeed even blue skies err towards green in the jpegs.

 

BUT its still not a massive problem for although it causes extra work and certainly is annoying, it is in fact easy enough to corect either file type in photoshop.

 

Be interesting to know if the M9 displays the same failings? Don.

[john_newell]

Is the firmware up to date? Did your M8 have the same firmware version that your M8.2 has?

[hammam]

Is the firmware up to date? Did your M8 have the same firmware version that your M8.2 has?

This M8.2 has 2.004. My older M8 had firmware 2.000. Now, I have just checked in LR 2.5, and there was a difference between jpgs and DNGs, but slight. A tad darker, and a tiny bit greener. But never to that extent. Is this a problem with firm. 2.004?

[hammam]

Here is what I mean. First is DNG exported in LR 2.5 as jpg, no adustment (profile ACR 4.4). Second is Jpeg (basic) of same. Shot with IR filter on a Summarit 75, color space Adobe RGB.

 

This looks absolutely not normal to me. The DNG is too yellow, the jpg is too green. What do you think?

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!

[chris_livsey]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Shouldn't you be shooting macbeth colour charts under controlled conditions? This is not being facetious, we have no way of knowing what is "correct" for that scene. I note you use lightroom, nothing against it but surely the software profile is important here, the same DNG is going to look different in say Capture One. Wasn't there a thread recently which concluded it was virtually impossible to match a camera jpeg with a processed DNG whatever the software?

The "false green" is an IR effect isn't it which will vary with the IR properties of both the light and the subject ? I certainly get some "interesting" greens with my uncoated Summar without an IR filter.

[hammam]

Shouldn't you be shooting macbeth colour charts under controlled conditions? This is not being facetious, we have no way of knowing what is "correct" for that scene. I note you use lightroom, nothing against it but surely the software profile is important here, the same DNG is going to look different in say Capture One. Wasn't there a thread recently which concluded it was virtually impossible to match a camera jpeg with a processed DNG whatever the software?

The "false green" is an IR effect isn't it which will vary with the IR properties of both the light and the subject ? I certainly get some "interesting" greens with my uncoated Summar without an IR filter.

 

What is correct for the scene is that the DNG should show less yellow, and that the Jpeg should show less green. I know that because I have seen the scene (obviously.) Also, my problem lies not as much with the ABSOLUTE rendering of the DNG or Jpeg, as with the DIFFERENCE between the DNG and the Jpeg. When I look at my files from the M8 (with IR filter), or from my Nikon D700, or Lumix LX-3, for that matter, in the same LR 2.5, the Jpeg and the Raw files are very close. Not exactly the same, of course, but very close. But here...

[sbelyaev]

I have the same problem with the original M8. It appears that it is a fault of the latest firmware. Hopefully, Leica with address this issue along with other problems.

[john_newell]

Are you using a Mac? Adobe very recently disclosed a bug in LR2.5 that affects Macs.

[hammam]

Are you using a Mac? Adobe very recently disclosed a bug in LR2.5 that affects Macs.

 

Yes, and I think there is a thread right here on the LUF, regarding this issue. But tthe problem is color fringing on high contrast edges. Not this green cast.

[hammam]

I have the same problem with the original M8. It appears that it is a fault of the latest firmware. Hopefully, Leica with address this issue along with other problems.

Do you mean they still didn't get it right after all these years? Will disappointments ever end with Leia digital? I mean, okay, I usually shoot Raw and convert in LR, but it generally doesn't involve such hassle adjusting. And I will, sometimes, use jpegs right out of the box. But these are unusable. Oh, and BTW, the problem is exactly the same in C1. So, i'm afraid the problem IS with the camera, not with external converter software.

[erl]

I am definitely no expert, but frankly I think the problem at least twofold.

1. Expecting a high performance of the M9's (or M8's) caliber to reproduce a brilliant jpeg is a mistake. My take on them is that they are purpose built for shooting RAW, perhaps unlike Canon's and Nikons where speed is often more important than accuracy (read press etc). For them, jpegs need to to be "pretty good".

 

2. Shooting RAW has nothing to do with 'out of the camera' colour. RAW is specifically designed to allow you to "process to your own recipe". Same as in film. How good your filmic images look before you chose your developer and push/pull method etc.

 

Yesterday I shot some beach and cliff shots for a publication I service. I forgot to change the white balance from 3200 (for the previous evenings shoot) to auto. The RAW's looked terrible of course. ONe click on 'A' in the colour tab and I was within a smidgen of correct. After my normal 'correction by eye', eveything was spot on as far as I, and the client is concerned.

 

You must remember the RAW is UNPROCESSED and you must make a decision on which one. I definitely prefer C1, even if some may say it involves mor 'hands on' correction. Frankly, I think all processors need this, at least for my taste. Whatever, out of camera is irrelevant IMHO until you have processed it to 'taste'.

[Big T]

I am definitely no expert, but frankly I think the problem at least twofold.

1. Expecting a high performance of the M9's (or M8's) caliber to reproduce a brilliant jpeg is a mistake. My take on them is that they are purpose built for shooting RAW, perhaps unlike Canon's and Nikons where speed is often more important than accuracy (read press etc). For them, jpegs need to to be "pretty good".

 

2. Shooting RAW has nothing to do with 'out of the camera' colour. RAW is specifically designed to allow you to "process to your own recipe". Same as in film. How good your filmic images look before you chose your developer and push/pull method etc.

 

Yesterday I shot some beach and cliff shots for a publication I service. I forgot to change the white balance from 3200 (for the previous evenings shoot) to auto. The RAW's looked terrible of course. ONe click on 'A' in the colour tab and I was within a smidgen of correct. After my normal 'correction by eye', eveything was spot on as far as I, and the client is concerned.

 

You must remember the RAW is UNPROCESSED and you must make a decision on which one. I definitely prefer C1, even if some may say it involves mor 'hands on' correction. Frankly, I think all processors need this, at least for my taste. Whatever, out of camera is irrelevant IMHO until you have processed it to 'taste'.

 

Totally agree with you erl.........

 

RAW is RAW... To be processed by you anyway you may wish....... Regardless of what cam it comes from.....

[hammam]

I am definitely no expert, but frankly I think the problem at least twofold.

1. Expecting a high performance of the M9's (or M8's) caliber to reproduce a brilliant jpeg is a mistake. My take on them is that they are purpose built for shooting RAW, perhaps unlike Canon's and Nikons where speed is often more important than accuracy (read press etc). For them, jpegs need to to be "pretty good".

 

2. Shooting RAW has nothing to do with 'out of the camera' colour. RAW is specifically designed to allow you to "process to your own recipe". Same as in film. How good your filmic images look before you chose your developer and push/pull method etc.

 

Yesterday I shot some beach and cliff shots for a publication I service. I forgot to change the white balance from 3200 (for the previous evenings shoot) to auto. The RAW's looked terrible of course. ONe click on 'A' in the colour tab and I was within a smidgen of correct. After my normal 'correction by eye', eveything was spot on as far as I, and the client is concerned.

 

You must remember the RAW is UNPROCESSED and you must make a decision on which one. I definitely prefer C1, even if some may say it involves mor 'hands on' correction. Frankly, I think all processors need this, at least for my taste. Whatever, out of camera is irrelevant IMHO until you have processed it to 'taste'.

 

Thank you. Of course, I know all that. Like I said I usually shoot Raw (DNG in M8 case) and convert in LR 2.5. I am still stunned by the terrible look of the jpeg files, and the very approximate rendering of the WB presets in DNGs. Also, C1 gives me the same approximate rendering as LR.

 

Again, I don't have this with my older M8 files, nor my Nikon files. I know I can get it right in a Raw converter, and that monitors vary, and all that stuff, but all I can say is that the DNGs in firm. 2.004 will demand much more work converting than the older M8 files or the Nikon files, or the LX-3 files, or any other Raw files I've worked with over the almost ten years I've been shooting digital. Hence the surprise and disappointment.

 

Now, if only Nikon made a digital F3HP.

 

Thanks again.

[Jamie Roberts]

{snipped} I know I can get it right in a Raw converter, and that monitors vary, and all that stuff, but all I can say is that the DNGs in firm. 2.004 will demand much more work converting than the older M8 files or the Nikon files, or the LX-3 files, or any other Raw files I've worked with over the almost ten years I've been shooting digital. Hence the surprise and disappointment.

{snipped}

 

LR has always had too much magenta in their M8 straight conversions. Always. That you're only seeing this now surprises me somewhat.

 

Go back to your "ok" shots with your previous level M8 and look at the amount of magenta (easy to see / measure in skin, BTW). Unless you're processing it out, this is an completely normal "feature" of LR and the way it handles M8 (and other CCD) colour, in my experience.

 

All you need to do is come up with a recipe in LR that will dial out the overwhelming amount of magenta / red in the rendition. I didn't want to be bothered, which is why I use C1, though in truth you need to understand the relationships between wb and the magenta / green axis there.

 

IOW, unless you did a custom wb on the JPG, it's probably just off a point or two (it's not like there's anything near neutral for the camera to figure out in the shot). But the LR rendition is typical.

 

The other option for you is that you messed up your system somewhat. There is absolutely no difference in processing the DNG files from the latest firmware that I can see. Have you ruled out a color issue on your system?

[geoffreyg]

I've noticed a difference between raw and jpg colors, but nothing a s much as this post. When opened (!) in Iphoto (don't flame me....), there is a bit more saturation in the jpg (to be expected). For the casual snap, the jpg color rendition is fine, not as far off as this.

 

Of course, the raw happily goes into C1, for fine tuning.

 

In short, something seems off here - but like Jamie wrote, might be in the color setup, not the camera?

[MikeMyers]

There are times when someone might want to shoot 'jpg' because they're in a hurry to give someone copies of their photos, and they don't have a computer with which to process the 'dng' files. That being the case, is there any way to get green colors to look better, since sometimes they tend to look too yellow? I'm thinking of trees and grass lawns.