X2d jpg's

[Plancton06]

What type of corrections are baked into the X2D's jpgs in-camera ?

The colors are great, but can't really tell if distortion and vignetting are corrected in-camera for the jpgs.
Anyone with technical knowledge with opinions also on Hasselblad's approach to sharpening, compression and other adjustments applied to the jpgs in-camera?  I like the simplicity of the Hasselblad's menu interface, and enjoy that there isn't a way to adjust corrections to the jpgs, however, it makes me curios about Hasselblad's standard adjustments.
Thanks.

[tenmangu81]

Well, IMO, it's a pity to shoot jpeg's with an X2D.... I'd shoot RAW and use Phocus instead !

[MGrayson]

I just tried it and, to my surprise, no corrections were applied to the jpg. The RAW also came in with no corrections, but they could be applied easily in either Phocus or LR. I couldn't find settings for this, nor did I check the manuals, so I can't be sure.

[tenmangu81]

I just tried it and, to my surprise, no corrections were applied to the jpg. The RAW also came in with no corrections, but they could be applied easily in either Phocus or LR. I couldn't find settings for this, nor did I check the manuals, so I can't be sure.

That's a good news ! I always prefer to apply corrections by myself, using a dedicated software (Phocus, for instance), rather than knowing nothing about what has been done by and inside the camera.

[Plancton06]

Well, IMO, it's a pity to shoot jpeg's with an X2D.... I'd shoot RAW and use Phocus instead !

I have always liked how good cameras with good lenses are able to output jpgs ready to use (as long as color science, compression and white balance are ok). There is an immediacy to it that I enjoy, also more pressure to nail exposure. It would be nice if at least vignetting correction would be applied in camera to jpgs (some hasselblad lenses vignette like a pinhole)

[Hareb]

Distortions are also not corrected. The 30mm has a strong barrel without correction. It's a shame that this distortion and the strong vignetting that occurs when the aperture is open are not corrected. JPG and the awkward use of phocus don't fit JPG. These have very good colors and could be used directly if you want to work without image editing.

[flash]

Hasselblad don't want you using the jpegs. they never have. With the original X1D you didn't even get a full sized jpeg at all as HB consider the jpeg only for in camera file review. They introduced a full sized jpeg in firmware after many people brought it up who were new to the HB digital ecosystem.

That's why you get the bare minimum. Fine for me as I think a 100MP camera should mostly be a raw shooter. But I would like a b&w preview. I know I'm not getting one though...

Gordon

[MGrayson]

PSA: If you mess with the RAW/JPG settings in your X2D, remember to RETURN them to RAW before you go out on your next shoot. Just saying... (none of them would have been good pictures anyway.... )

[Bob Foster]

But I would like a b&w preview. I know I'm not getting one though...

Gordon, you are not alone in wishing for this.

[boojum]

I shoot both formats.  I store both formats on two HD's and on Flickr.  I use just JPEG's. 

After you correct the RAW file and convert it to JPEG so it can be viewed in the real world you have about what you would have had if you just went with the JPEG to start with. 

There are pros making a living with M9 JPEG's, 18MB IIRC.  If 100MB does not do it for you, well, I guess 100MB does not do it for you.  The HB color science is so good that unless you are doing huge billboards who will know the difference?

[flash]

I shoot both formats.  I store both formats on two HD's and on Flickr.  I use just JPEG's. 

After you correct the RAW file and convert it to JPEG so it can be viewed in the real world you have about what you would have had if you just went with the JPEG to start with. 

There are pros making a living with M9 JPEG's, 18MB IIRC.  If 100MB does not do it for you, well, I guess 100MB does not do it for you.  The HB color science is so good that unless you are doing huge billboards who will know the difference?

No. Not really. If you're shooting on an X2D in raw and then using the default settings in Phocus to output for viewing on an iPad, then sure it is. But you could just shoot on your phone and save some time. jpegs are fine for those with zero interest in post processing, but that's about it.

I *start* at 60cm prints on the short side and often print up to 2 meters or longer. When you output like I do the difference between 256 colour graduations (jpeg 8 bit) and 65,536 colour graduations (16 bit raw), per colour is huge and immediately obvious. Not only that the raw file is vastly more robust, so if you want to do any sort of shadow recovery or advanced colour work then you're much better off with a 16 bit file. It's far less about the number of pixels than the number of discreet colours available for transitions and manipulation.

Gordon

p.s. I shot a pair of M9's (and nothing else) professionally for nearly 3 years. Maybe 120 weddings and 100's of commercial jobs. The jpegs were truly woeful and the auto white balance completely unreliable. As were the cameras. The only way this would have worked for me was if I only outputted b&w. Also, there are pros still shooting film, shooting large format, shooting vintage lenses and shooting 150MP Phase One backs.. So what? We all have to limit ourselves because someone thinks an M9 is the pinnacle of camera evolution? It means nothing as to what someone else is doing versus what I want/need from my gear.

[tenmangu81]

I shoot both formats.  I store both formats on two HD's and on Flickr.  I use just JPEG's. 

After you correct the RAW file and convert it to JPEG so it can be viewed in the real world you have about what you would have had if you just went with the JPEG to start with. 

There are pros making a living with M9 JPEG's, 18MB IIRC.  If 100MB does not do it for you, well, I guess 100MB does not do it for you.  The HB color science is so good that unless you are doing huge billboards who will know the difference?

I disagree completely, and totally agree with Gordon's post. For sure, I know professional photographers working in photojournalism or sports using JPEGs in difficult situations where they have no time to process their images and/or where they want to send them asap to their editorial board. But, as stated by Gordon, JPEGs can't be comparable to processed RAWs. First, the 8 bits instead of 16, and second the colour space, more often restricted to sRGB,  by far smaller by comparison with larger ones such as Prophoto or Prostar. In my opinion, Hasselblad HNCS is no more kept when using OOC JPEGs. And I always prefer processing my images by myself rather than letting the camera doing it. It's my choice, of course, and I understand that other people won't agree, and process in a different way.

[Whitten]

Processing a raw file usually takes me less than five minutes. Check the exposure, maybe add a bit of contrast and clarity.
Of course you can spend significant time adjusting every aspect of a raw file, maybe I would for a print, but for me a few quick adjustments trump using jpegs every time.

[MGrayson]

The jpeg does not have distortion or vignetting correction. You may WANT that processing, but if you do any off-center cropping, then you have a difficult post-processing job. To say nothing of shadow noise in the corners if you try to lift them.

[boojum]

<snip>


p.s. I shot a pair of M9's (and nothing else) professionally for nearly 3 years. Maybe 120 weddings and 100's of commercial jobs. The jpegs were truly woeful and the auto white balance completely unreliable. As were the cameras. The only way this would have worked for me was if I only outputted b&w. Also, there are pros still shooting film, shooting large format, shooting vintage lenses and shooting 150MP Phase One backs.. So what? We all have to limit ourselves because someone thinks an M9 is the pinnacle of camera evolution? It means nothing as to what someone else is doing versus what I want/need from my gear.


I am surprised at your M9 failures.  I have had one now for about the same length of time with the opposite experience.  And I checked with some folks over on RFF and their experience is the same as mine.  Now you did what you did but had it been me with a camera failing like that, I would have had it repaired.  Of course YMMV