Camera JPEGs a bit iffy?

[lonegroover]

Hi,

I'm enjoying my recently acquired E-M10II with 15mm Leica f1.7 DG Summilux lens. But I'm having a spot of bother with the JPEGS that the camera produces.

I hope the following comparison will show what I mean. The first image is a resized (but otherwise unmodified) version of a JPEG, straight from the SD card.

The second is a resized JPEG that was converted, without adjustments or tweaks, from the ORF (using Shotwell, a Linux photo manager).



The image was taken in P mode.



Ah! Unfortunately I'm not going to be able to post the images as my post count is inadequate. I'll describe them then: The camera's JPEG is overexposed and slightly cropped. The ORF is considerably nicer - nicely exposed. And furthermore (I can only assume that) some sort of lens distortion compensation has happened in the ORF, because there's a roof overhang that is angled differently from the on-card JPEG.


There will be times when it's more convenient for me just to have JPEGS straight off the card than convert them all - is there a way to get the camera's own JPEGs to have a similar quality?


Thanks for any advice.

[Walti]

Re: Camera JPEGs a bit iffy?

At the risk of teaching you to suck eggs....

The .ORF file is the RAW sensor output and is the full file, at a ratio of 4:3

The JPEG files are processed within the camera to give the corrections needed to allow for the best output. Including cropping the output to the selected shape in the output menu, I don't have an OM10, but the choices vary from 4:3, the same as the sensor to 19:6 - wide angle TV shape, with several in-between, so the first check is "do you have the JPEG set to the same shape output as the .ORF?"
The .ORF file includes the Olympus lens correction algorithms so the JPEG "should" be the same shape.
As for the exposure this could be due to a number of factors, including the mode you've asked the photo to be rendered in, there are a series of choices - including muted, vivid and so on, so again check you have the camera set to "Natural" or there will be a difference.

If you've checked all the above and all is in order then come back and we'll try and help!

[lonegroover]

Re: Camera JPEGs a bit iffy?

Thanks a lot for the prompt reply.


The mode was set to "natural" originally; I set it to "muted" to see if that would help, but it didn't. The aspect ratio is the same; the JPEG is cropped slightly on all four sides.



I can only assume that Shotwell made use of the lens correction information whereas whatever on-camera software that writes the JPEGS to the card doesn't.


If necessary I can batch-convert the raw image files (and I've just tested one, the ensuing JPEG looks fine). But I'm still puzzled that the on-card JPEG is quite poor. Perhaps I need to read the manual more carefully, to be fair.

[Bikie John]

Re: Camera JPEGs a bit iffy?

I can only assume that Shotwell made use of the lens correction information whereas whatever on-camera software that writes the JPEGS to the card doesn't.

An interesting thought - you say you are using a Panasonic/Leica lens so that might be the case. I'm not sure, but I would imagine that with an Olympus lens the camera might well apply corrections to the JPEGs.

John

[Phill D]

Re: Camera JPEGs a bit iffy?

Interesting issue, i'm afraid I can't help as I've always been very happy with my jpgs but i'm sure that there is a lot more learning to come from others replying to this thread. I dont have an em10 only an em1 but I'm in Derby if you want compare some images at some point if you think that would help.

[lonegroover]

Re: Camera JPEGs a bit iffy?

Appreciate the replies, thank-you! It's not a big problem for me to be fair as big memory cards make raw mode very doable, and I can soon knock up a BASH script to churn through them and create the JPEGS if necessary.


Good in-camera JPEGs would be nice to have, though.

[MikeOxon]

Re: Camera JPEGs a bit iffy?

Quite a lot of image 'manipulation' takes place with Olympus image files, when they are processed in software.



Some lenses, such as the Olympus 17mm f/1.8, have quite severe barrel distortion but any 'lens aware' RAW converter (and the in-camera JPEG converter) correct this automatically. If you use a 'generic' RAW converter the images can look very different.

[Dave in Wales]

Re: Camera JPEGs a bit iffy?

Interesting issue, i'm afraid I can't help as I've always been very happy with my jpgs but i'm sure that there is a lot more learning to come from others replying to this thread. I dont have an em10 only an em1 but I'm in Derby if you want compare some images at some point if you think that would help.

Do you not shoot RAW at all Phill ?
A lightly tweaked RAW is far superior to a SOOC JPEG even LSF....IMVHO, and my wife's to, come to that.
I resisted RAW for yonks until I saw the error of my ways, acquired a stand-alone LR6 and have not looked back.
Playing about with LR6 is akin to playing about in the darkroom of years gone by.

[lonegroover]

Re: Camera JPEGs a bit iffy?

SOOC - I had to look it up, but I have learned a useful acronym, so thanks.


I've started to think that the SOOC JPEG must have been adjusted for lens distortion, since it would explain the cropping on all four sides. But not the exposure.


To my mind the SOOC JPEG does look quite rough, whereas I am entirely happy with the image as depicted in the ORF.


I hope to be able to post resized versions later.

[lonegroover]

Re: Camera JPEGs a bit iffy?

OK, so here they are. The first is a resized version of the SOOC JPEG, the second converted to JPEG directly from the ORF using Shotwell; no tweaking save the resize.

[Phill D]

Re: Camera JPEGs a bit iffy?

Dave actually yes I do shoot raw now. Like you I used to shoot only jpgs only up to about two years ago until a couple of friends showed me the joys of Lightroom. now I shoot raw+jpg and just use the jpgs to sort through quickly and pick out the raw files to tweak further. If I'm doing anything fast moving then I'll just shoot raw.

[Phill D]

Re: Camera JPEGs a bit iffy?

Lonegroover I probably don't get quite the contrast differences in my files as I tend to shoot generally -0.3/0.7EV compensation out of habit coming from an old E510 that blew out the highlights easily. I also have my jpg setting on vivid as well to just give that bit more colour pop. Because of this for me just looking at the raw files they tend to a bit flat and boring in comparison until I tweak them in Lightroom.

[Zuiko]

Re: Camera JPEGs a bit iffy?

Neither processing is the optimum for this exposure, which surprises me because Olympus JPEGs are usually excellent and this is not a particularly challenging situation. The JPEG is clipping a lot of detail from the highlights, whilst the raw is under exposing quite significantly, how strange. It may mean that when shooting JPEGs you might need to apply a little in-camera exposure compensation, or for raw you will need to make a few simple adjustments when processing.

[AMc]

Re: Camera JPEGs a bit iffy?

FWIW I shoot JPG+RAW and process with Lightroom. The JPG for convenience the RAW if I feel the need to fiddle with something good.


Have you checked the camera and lens firmware are up to date?


I've just checked my E-M10 Mkii with Panasonic 25mm f1.7 and both have 0.1 updates. As I understand if the lens correction stuff is stored in the files coming from the firmware so there might be an issue there.