Shooting DNG + JPEG Simultaneously

[Boxer 53]

When I set my M8.2 to record both DNG and JPEG Fine, only the JPEG shows up in the view screen when I review the shot I just took.

For example, I affix my settings to DNG and JPEG Fine (Black & White). When I review the picture only the B&W JPEG comes up for review. The info screen indicates a dual shot was taken but I can't seem to review both in the camera.

What am I doing wrong? It would seem that two sequential files would come up for review.

Please advise as I am a new user. THANKS.

Max Bowers

[Jager]

Nope, you're not doing anything wrong. When you take an image, even if you have two separate files (a JPEG and a DNG) being written, only the JPEG is displayed for review.

When you dump your images into your image editor, you'll see both versions, side by side.

All is well.

[chrism]

As far as I can see, the only advantage to some of us of shooting both DNG and JPEG is to get the B&W JPEG on the chimp-screen (when colour balance is set to B&W) - I find this a great help to deciding whether I have the shot I want when intending the final print to be B&W. The big drawback though, is the extra processing time that the camera takes for doing the extra work. I don't worry about the extra space on the SD card - I have yet to fill a card before downloading the images.

Chris

[Skippy Sanchez]

Originally Posted by Jager

....When you take an image, even if you have two separate files (a JPEG and a DNG) being written, only the JPEG is displayed for review.

However, if you shoot DNG only, the image is still displayed.

For what it's worth, I think the BW jpg produced by the M8 is usually pretty good. These pics were all BW jpgs in pretty low light (please forgive the watermarks):
I'll Take the Train

That said, I ALWAYS shoot DNG, whether with jpgs or not.

[lars_bergquist]

I know that real red-blooded macho males shoot DNG only. JPG is for wimps. But the fact is that JPG is all the quality most of us will ever need. Or want.

I have always restricted my macho shooting to magnum revolvers.

The old man from the Age of Tri-X

[Skippy Sanchez]

Originally Posted by lars_bergquist

I know that real red-blooded macho males shoot DNG only. JPG is for wimps. But the fact is that JPG is all the quality most of us will ever need. Or want.

I humbly disagree, amigo. JPG may be the quality most of the people on the L.Camera Forum need (judging from the posts I see in the Photo Forum), but I fail to see why these people will spend, literally, thousands of dollars on high-end cameras and lenses and yet be so willy-nilly on the quality of the end product. Unless, of course, the end product is only a computer screen.

It's like have a very high-end stereo system and playing eight-track tapes through it.

Most everyone evaluates pictures on computer screens, but how many of those "captures" (God, I hate that word, used 12,000 so far on this forum) result in high-quality prints? Almost any 72 DPI image can look pretty good on a computer screen. In darkroom (film) processing & printing, fifty percent of photography happens after the image is "captured." Well, it's still true. By whatever means, post-processing is the second half of a well-made photograph. Neglect that, settle for out-of-camera JPGS, and you get a Wallgreens image made with a very expensive camera. M8 jpgs are fine; I like the rendering of BW jpgs under most circumstances, but would never consider them the gold standard. Never.

If JPG is "good enough", why the hell shoot with Leica glass?

[Marquinius]

What I like about this discussion is that it combines two things: in camera processing and post processing. I know that part of the fun of using a Leica is the machine itself. It is just a beautiful toy. Fiddling with knobs and rings and whatever gives it that extra sense of doing something more wortwhile than shooting an SLR or smaller camera.

When you ask to see both the DNG and the Jpeg on the back of your camera: why would you want that? In best circumstances the screen depicts a humhum quality Jpg thumbnail that only tells you a few things: yes, you hit the subject, yes, the light's OK, etc. In fact, you see a Jpeg rendering of what the camera thinks the actual Jpg will look like. The DNG would show as a flat, bad off key COLOR picture and NOT as a B&W: raw format (as DNG is) is always all info included.

But shooting jpegs with an M8 is less logical period, unless you are in a hurry to get your photo's online/in print, etc. But then again there are better camera's to do that.

IMHO using an M8 is split in three stages: 1) fiddling, holding, watching, thinking what you want to achieve, pre fun 2) the actual shot(s) and check on screen if all is well and 3) post processing i.o.t. get the effect you wanted to achieve in the first place, more fun.

Jpegs are OK, but with DNG's you can go all the way and really get deeper effects.

I had a look at Skippy's B&W and they're very good! But I'm sure that with some attention a DNG conversion would make them excellent. And in print you would see the difference immediately.

Yes, I want to be out there a lot, shooting. But I also like turning back to the pictures in post processing. It gives me chance to look again, learn and of course work on a final image that's good in print.

Marco

[akiralx]

Originally Posted by Marquinius

What I like about this discussion is that it combines two things: in camera processing and post processing. I know that part of the fun of using a Leica is the machine itself. It is just a beautiful toy. Fiddling with knobs and rings and whatever gives it that extra sense of doing something more wortwhile than shooting an SLR or smaller camera.

When you ask to see both the DNG and the Jpeg on the back of your camera: why would you want that?
Marco

To see both a b/w and colour version?

FWIW I shoot RAW only but yesterday shot both and was appalled at how slow the camera became...

I've recently figured out (been bothered to figure out) how to record DNG+JPEG and chimp in B&W. I work better this way, it helps me visualize my finished work when out in the field. I was deleting the JPEGs before importing into Aperture but have not done this for a few sessions, figuring it's always a backup of sorts. A lot of effort to get the camera behaving as Canon's do, i.e. allowing you to still adjust the settings for the in-camera JPEG conversion to show on the screen without saving the JPEG. It does seem to slow the camera down a lot though, not too much of an issue but a minor annoyance when reviewing.

When I use the 40D now I get confused by all the buttons and this weird "auto" focus thing... ;-)

[gfspencer]

Originally Posted by Skippy Sanchez

If JPG is "good enough", why the hell shoot with Leica glass?

Because they can? Was that a trick question? Did I get the right answer?

Some people drive Porsches . . . even though a Toyota would get them where they are going.

Some people play Martin guitars . . . even though a Takamine would get them through the same song.

Some people wear a Tag Heuer . . . even though a Timex will tell the same time.

Some people just prefer the quality that they get from a Leica even though a Canon PowerShot would take the same picture.

[Skippy Sanchez]

Originally Posted by gfspencer

Because they can? Was that a trick question? Did I get the right answer?

It wasn't a trick question, compadre, it was a rhetorical question.

I agree with you about the appreciation for quality. I appreciate quality tools, and the M8, IMO, is a reasonably high-quality tool, and the lenses are the keystone of quality.

And therein lies the root of my contention: why it appears so many people appreciate the quality of the tool itself and yet settle for out-of-camera JPGs. Regardless of a person's post-processing skills, JPGs are pretty limited in what can be "developed" from an original file.

Certainly, learning to coax a fine image from a DNG file takes more effort, but as those skills are acquired, honed and repeated, I dare say one can post-process a DNG file in the same time it takes to post-process a JPG. And if it's a difficult file (mixed light/poor light/no light, etc) I can get a better result faster from a DNG than from a JPG.

The JPG vs DNG debate reminds me of the Kodak Brownie sales pitch, "You take the pictures, we'll do the rest!" No thanks; I'd rather not let the camera decide how my image should turn out.

More rhetorical questions:
Some people drive Porsches . . . to deliver pizzas?

Some people play Martin guitars . . . and use bailing wire for strings?

Some people wear a Tag Heuer . . . hmmm, because they can?.

[asmith]

I prefer to use JPGs because although I am an experienced Leica user (some 40 years) I am a complete computer novice and prefer to do as little post processing as possible. I am so computer illiterate that I have never discovered how to post an image nor even how to find out how to do it. Leica JPGs are very flexible and print very well. The onl thing I do in PSE is sharpen, having turned it off in the camera. I'd really like to know what I would gain by using raw that would justify the daunting prospect of learning to use the necessasry software.
Alwyn

[stunsworth]

Originally Posted by asmith

I'd really like to know what I would gain by using raw that would justify the daunting prospect of learning to use the necessasry software.

Alwyn, it's like the difference between having your own darkroom or dropping the films off at Boots in pre-digital days.

If you're happy with Jpeg then that's fine, personally I prefer the flexibility that RAW gives. Horses for courses.

[wparsonsgisnet]

Alwyn, I find some advantages:

1. More pixels -- jpg's throw away data
2. Ability to fix color cast and other profile-like image characteristics -- with no deterioration of the image
3. Ability to manipulate more and more of the picture in the digital domain. As indicated above, there is less (or no) deterioration of the image in the digital domain as compared to the analog (e.g., curves in PS)

I was also put off at first, but have come to feel that C1 at least is easy to use. I do very little in PS anymore.

I would suggest you get "Real World Camera Raw" by Scott Fraser and another guy. Get the one for PSCS3. This will make the raw module in PS trivial to use. You will be amazed at the ease with which you can add light to an image. It's a blessing.

C1 works in an analogous fashion to ACR (Adobe Camera Raw). I happen to prefer the way it works since I have learned to use it.

With "Read World" you can learn raw processing in a couple of hours. Then, with the manual, C1 in a few more hours. From my point of view it's the best few hours spent in digital photography.

I feel I am at the point now where the camera gets out of the way of my photography.


BTW, to stay with the nominal topic, when shooting dng + jpg (at least the hi-res one), it takes at least twice as long for the camera to write files. I suspect that part of the "slowness" is the jpg processing.

I shoot dng + jpg when I don't need to do a quick series of shots. When I will be shooting lots of action, usually dance, I shoot only dng and turn off the review. This makes the M8 a hotrod.

Regards,

[akiralx]

Originally Posted by asmith

The only thing I do in PSE is sharpen, having turned it off in the camera. I'd really like to know what I would gain by using raw that would justify the daunting prospect of learning to use the necessasry software.
Alwyn

Not sure which version of PSE you have but in Elements 6 you simply double click on the DNG file, it opens in Adobe Camera Raw, you make any adjustments, e.g. white balance (the main benefit for me), recover any lost highlights etc, then click 'open' and it opens just like a jpeg for sharpening etc. Very simple.

Seeing where you are I could divert from the A65/A590 for a demo on the laptop when next heading to the Lakes!

[pgk]

Originally Posted by asmith

I'd really like to know what I would gain by using raw that would justify the daunting prospect of learning to use the necessary software.
Alwyn

Its like buying a Porsce discussed above, and then only driving it at 30mph. You can do so, but why on earth would you want to?

But seriously, its quite easy to batch convert Raw files to jpegs if you want to in software - doing so at least allows the camera to run quicker as it doesn't have to process the Raw files to jpegs and this way you retain the original raw files for future use if you decide to utilise raw files and software in the future.

[asmith]

I use PSE2 because that came with my computer. When I bought the computer. the only instructions that came with it were to click on My Documentation. Since I didn't lnow how to click nor how to move the cursor this was not helpful. If it had not been for my friend and neighbour the late Bob Smithies. I think I would have abandoned digital right away. I have progresses somewhat since then but am daunted by the apparent illogicality of PCs _ epitomised by USM appearing uner filter, having to click on in box to get at out box and start to switch off. Although I was familiar with USM as a darkroom procedure the computer4 version bears no relation to it. As you can see, I am a vey poor key board operator- using only one finger.
In my mid eighties, learning to use any new software seems very threatening and I suspect many younger people feel very much the same.. Still, I'll have a go. I'll try to get the book that is recommended.
Thank you all for your patient sympathy an advice
Alwyn

[wda]

Originally Posted by asmith

I prefer to use JPGs because although I am an experienced Leica user (some 40 years) I am a complete computer novice and prefer to do as little post processing as possible. I am so computer illiterate that I have never discovered how to post an image nor even how to find out how to do it. Leica JPGs are very flexible and print very well. The onl thing I do in PSE is sharpen, having turned it off in the camera. I'd really like to know what I would gain by using raw that would justify the daunting prospect of learning to use the necessasry software.
Alwyn

Alwyn, it all depends on your desired end product. Small prints for personal memories can easily be produced from jpegs. But if your ambitions rise to dizzier heights, like large prints for exhibition or sale, or images for publication in quality media, then starting with a raw file is the better route to follow.

Yes, learning new techniques does take time and willingness. However there is a wealth of experience available to help you find a way through the jungle.

[akiralx]

Originally Posted by asmith

I use PSE2 because that came with my computer. When I bought the computer. the only instructions that came with it were to click on My Documentation. Since I didn't lnow how to click nor how to move the cursor this was not helpful. If it had not been for my friend and neighbour the late Bob Smithies. I think I would have abandoned digital right away. I have progresses somewhat since then but am daunted by the apparent illogicality of PCs _ epitomised by USM appearing uner filter, having to click on in box to get at out box and start to switch off. Although I was familiar with USM as a darkroom procedure the computer4 version bears no relation to it. As you can see, I am a vey poor key board operator- using only one finger.
In my mid eighties, learning to use any new software seems very threatening and I suspect many younger people feel very much the same.. Still, I'll have a go. I'll try to get the book that is recommended.
Thank you all for your patient sympathy an advice
Alwyn

Alwyn, I'm not sure PSE2 includes a RAW converter so all this may be a bit academic. You might have to upgrade to PSE6 which is very similar but slightly easier I think - and the USM appears more appropriately under the Enhance menu!

Best regards

[wparsonsgisnet]

I believe Elements handles raw ok. Alwyn may have to download the converter for his particular camera.

Alwyn, do a search on Adobe Camera Raw Download