Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'raw'.
Found 27 results
-
First time post, be gentle. I want to bring my raw files from Monochrom into silver efex. SEP. But it will only accept RGB. Will this lead to loss of quality ? When I scan my black and white negs I do so in greyscale and that’s perfect for printing to black and white paper at Metro. It seems to defeat the object of the Monochrom if I have to convert to RGB ? Am I missing a trick ? What say you ?
-
What is the benefit to shooting JPEG and RAW? I am starting to get overwhelmed by having doubles of all pictures, not to mention the additional space requirement. Does anyone shoot only JPEG? Why? Does anyone shoot only RAW? Why? Thanks!
-
Hello fellow M8 users, I am very happy to announce that I finished the tool mentioned in the thread M8 goes uncompressed DNG! It creates 16bit (acually 14bit in a 16bit container) DNG files from the M8 RAW files with slightly more pixels and much more discrete values compared to the 8bit standard DNG. I even set up a website with download, comment function, contact form and whatnot... even though I am really not familiar with web programming so please be lenient if it is not as polished as this site here for example. The command-line tool is available for Windows, Mac OS X and Linux, so I am now looking forward to getting some input after you tested it on your own files. You can find more information on m8raw2dng.de. I am trying to make the program as good as possible (because I am using it myself on a daily basis). To achieve this I thought it clever to share it with the community even though I had to create a completely new software from scratch in C++ even though I already have a running version in Matlab with more functionality. But I think that'll change as I focus now on the C++ version. I invite you to share this information with other M8 users on other forums, flickr groups, wherever you like. Have fun and good results, Arvid
-
Hallo liebe Leute, gibt es irgendwo eine Website wo ich mir Samples von RAW-Bildern einer M9 und vielleicht auch M240 downloaden kann? Am besten wäre natürlich, wenn es die gleichen Motive sind, damit ich ein wenig vergleichen kann. Vielen Dank und saludos Carsten
-
Hey guys! So last week I went to my local Leica Store to check out the M10 - which is wonderful - but a tad bit expensive. At the same time I played around with the Q which seriously impressed me. So the next day I bought one. Do I really need it?- probably not. I own an M9 which I use daily and an S 006 which I use for shoots with Models. On both cameras I basically stick to one lens. Now, I've added this to the list of stuff people want from the new Firmware, but wanted to address it separately and a little more in depth none the less. The Qs DNGs are fixed at 41.3 MB. Compared to the ca. 18MB of my M9 (18 megapixels), ca. 24 MB of M240 (24 megapixels) and S (006)'s 38 MB for 37 Megapixels. Basically all the other Leicas I have owned have file sizes comparable to the megapixels of the sensor. - so why is this different in the Q ? The M10 according to a recent interview has compressed DNGs which are lossless and smaller again. - so Leica does care about the file size apparently. My two questions now: Will Leica address this in the next FW update ? (I know this is a question no one will be able to answer for sure, but I'd love to see your educated guesses) Is there an option to realistically compress the files more or less lossless in Order to save disk space? - I know there will be comments telling me that disk space is cheap - an it is - but I find it mostly just annoying to have the amount of HDDs I already have and will have to continue to buy in order to save my files. Also it's quite annoying in terms of power my laptop needs to load and work on the images ...
-
Hello, I hope this is the right place for such a question. I happen to publish my pictures on ipernity.com, a reasonably-sized company who accepts full-format photos (of any size, up to gigantic panoramas) and basically any other format (DNG files, that even are previewable on site, but also texts etc.), allowing to view all fullsizes online while permitting their download only for those the author agrees on (a trick I didn't fully understand even now ;-) It happens IPernity just declared they are in financial difficulty, and may close in the coming months if they dont't 'find a solution'. As I don't expect they are going to double their ~3000 paying users, and various discussions about potential takeovers do not seem to converge, I have to face the idea that in a worst case things may indeed go wrong. So, what I am looking for is a hosting service that - must support any photo size (no '500pix' or those that seem to accept then resize) - allows various licenses, including 'Creative Commons' ones - does not belong to a planetary-sized company where I am a decimal within statistics in billions - doesn't impose me to exhaustively fill up 50 fields, including categories I didn't choose, before uploading a single picture (like Leica Fotopark ;-) - will not be free, which I accept. I think this sums it all. I have been registering on many sites for a couple of weeks -for nothing; indeed I didn't find yet a single site that'd feature just the first of the above points. So, I must say I'll welcome all your suggestion with the most extreme interest! Thank you, Hervé
-
I'm a bit of a newcomer here and on the Q; I'm interested in the idea that, at least in some cases, it'll be useful to get back the large unused part in the DNG originals (more than 100 pixels each side, although way less in the vertical direction, IIRC). I am not an user of Lightroom, but I tried installing the bundled version, just to discover its default processing of the DNG eliminates these "edges", but maybe an experienced user will tell me how to recover them... In the meanwhile I'm playing with Graphic Converter on OSX, RawTherapee and Darktable : each of them perfecly "see the edges", each one has its lens barrel compensation tricks... Which one do you use, or would you recommend? Below, two pics, the first one being the automated jpeg produced in-camera, the second a crop from the (even larger) DNG image when opened in Graphic Converter (and then barrel-compensated and curves-corrected -a very poor result indeed that you'll pardon me) OK, I couldn't attach both files within this post without significant loss (I'm probably not wise enough); here are two urls: the 'simple jpeg' the larger DNG, processed and cropped in GC TIA! Hervé
-
Hi, I know that Lightroom is supporting the Q's crop mode in DNG, meaning it will automatically crop to 35mm or 50mm aspect with the ability to recover the 28mm frame. I know that Capture One unfortunately do not support the crop modes and will just display the full 28mm. I'd like to test the feature on other RAW converter before purchasing my Q. Would anyone be kind to send me a DNG file which has been taken in 35 or 50mm mode? Thanks a lot! Romain
-
I found the access info for the hidden menu and now I have a new file format option in the quick menu. Anyone else have this? Also, if I select it and it's not there by default... will that cause an issue? So this RAW is what exactly? CR2?
-
I just downloaded the latest Apple Camera RAW update with the illusion that it would support the Leica MM. Sadly it does not, however, it does support the brand new Hasselblad Lunar. I have to wonder if the MM fell through the cracks in Cupertino and they just don't know that they do not yet support it...
-
Here are Raw files for a daylight photo I took with the same Noctilux lens on both cameras at 1/350s f8 fixed daylight white balance. Observations in LR 4.4RC: - M has much warmer tone than M9. Facing the real scene I would say that M9 is closer to reality than M is - M looks less prone to moiré - M has more resolution due to its 24Mpix sensor - M produces a smoother and cleaner image than M9 which shows more jaggy contours. But the best thing is that I let you check by yourself: Leica M Raw File Leica M9 Raw File -
On page 164, the M240 manual states : " The available compression for DNG format .... retains all of the post-editing performed on the image data ..... " I don't understand this ............ I thought RAW meant direct recording of the sensor readout without alteration. Does the M 240 process/edit the DNG files in some way before writing to the card ? Does anyone know what is done in-camera to the DNG files ? Hoping someone can enlighten me please .... Many Thanks. -
Dear M8 users, as a true fan of my little camera and an avid reader of M8 related discussions and reviews I have stumbled upon negative comments regarding the high ISO performance numerous times. Mostly they go along the lines of "don't go above 160/320/640, as it becomes really unusable", "looks like my webcam", "terrible ISO performance" etc. I think it is time to dedicate a thread showing those horrible images at higher ISO... So that people looking for a M8 know what they can expect (and others might finally stop shooting high ISO images, cause they won't get any good results at all) My rules: - I said HIGH ISO, so no images below 1250 (have a look at the flickr M8 mid to high iso group, haha) - noise reduction (luminance should be mentioned, color is OK) - used raw converter should be mentioned - ISO value readily visible would be really useful - motive doesn't have to be mindblowing, as this thread is really about ISO performance To evaluate the ISO values when pushing in post I suggest the following table: ISO | f-stops above ISO160 1250 | 3.0 1800 | 3.5 2500 | 4.0 3500 | 4.5 5000 | 5.0 I know that there will be some noise and some reduction of dynamic range and it might be problematic to print at 3 by 2 miles, but let's see what you come up with. To start with I show some images that were deliberately underexposed and then pushed in LR 5.7, no luminance noise reduction, color noise as necessary, slight sharpening, own color profile. All images were recorded at base ISO 160 with the 14bit RAW mode. PS: My monitors are crappy, ancient and uncalibrated, so have mercy if the colors are wonky Both don't even show the same colors. I prefer the left one... (Fujitsu Siemens B17-2 x 2)
-
Weil ständig unterschiedliche Ansichten in den Foren kursieren: Meiner Kenntnis nach ist die 6-BIT- Codierung nur bei JPEG- Aufnahmen sinnvoll, da hier der kamerainterne Prozess Objektivfehler korrigieren kann. Bei RAW- Aufnahmen dagegen werden die Daten eben nicht korrigiert, also macht die Codierung keinen Sinn. Der einzige Vorteil wäre lediglich, dass die EXIF- Dateien helfen, zB. bei der Bearbeitung in Lightroom das Objektiv erkennen zu lassen und so eine Objektiv- Korrektur nachträglich vorgenommen werden kann, sofern das spezifischen Objektiv-Profil in Lightroom aufzurufen ist. Ist das so korrekt?!
-
Hi there, I'm looking into picking up a M9 or M-E (and possibly an M 240, depending on cash flow). Right now I'm trying to determine if higher ISO shots from the M9 will be usable for me, and I haven't found any sample DNG's on the web anywhere at ISO 800+. I've read that shooting at ISO 640 and pushing in post is probably a better method for achieving quality low light images, so if anyone has an underexposed ISO 640 image that I could push that would be helpful as well. Does anyone have a few they could upload/share, or perhaps even point me to some existing samples with working links? Thanks.
-
Bitte Teilt mir doch eure Erfahrungen mit dieser Menueinstellung mit. 1.Habt Ihr sie eingeschaltet? 2.Oder entrauscht Ihr erst bei Bedarf und wenn ja mit welcher Software? 3.Und wie macht sie sich bei RAW + JPEG positiv oder negativ bemerkbar? 4.Ist sie sinnvoll bei höheren ISO Einstellungen? Ab 400? Danke -
I just installed Mac OSX update 10.6.5 and now I can open LX5 .RW2 files directly in Aperture and all other Mac apps that use the Apple system RAW decoder. I bet these same apps will now open D-Lux5 RAW files as well.
-
Greetings all, I'm tempted to upgrade from my fun but noisy little D-Lux 3 to either the LX-5 or the D-Lux 5. I know that Panasonic uses a proprietary RAW format, and that some few here have written that the D-Lux 5 saves its RAW files in DNG. If that is true, it might sway me to the D-Lux 5. But where did that knowledge come from? I can find it nowhere in the Leica literature. I do find that the X1 uses DNG, but not the D-Lux 5. Can someone enlighten me? Brent
-
My girlfriend wants a digital photo frame but the entire industry seems to be strange. Most of these digital photo frames are in 16:9 format . Stat sheets don't even list ratio as an item! I don't want to get one in 4:3 or 16:9 and be cropping every photo. Our X1 is all 3:2 of course. There are some that handle RAW but it doesn't seem to be a google-able quality either. Anyone know any nice quality 3:2 digital photo frames that can handle RAW? Thanks in advance.
-
I've set up my iMac with Lightroom and a mirrored external hard drive, and am good to go. I imported (with a few hiccups) my iPhoto library, and am ready to import photos from the SDHC card in my D-lux 4 for the first time. All the tutorials I've looked at so far talk about importing RAW files, and about importing jpeg files, but seem to use slightly different settings for the two different formats. How can I best import both the jpegs and the RAW files from my Leica? Is there a particular setting people use? Thanks in advance, J.
-
Hallo, ich nutze zur Bildbearbeitung C1 V4.8 und würde auf meinem NEC 26" Monitor die Bilder auch gern im DNG-Format als Dia-Show ansehen. Diese Funtion existiert aber wohl nicht, oder? Gibt es hierfür gute Programme, die die Qualität von C1 haben?
-
Liebe Mitglieder, ich habe gesucht, aber nicht wirklich was gefunden, daher der neue Beitrag... Ich dachte, dass eine RAW Datei nur die elektronischen Daten des Sensors speichert und alle anderen Informationen wie Farbe, Kontrast und auch Weißabgleich durch den Bildprozessor der Kamera nur in der JPG Datei ausgegeben werden. Nun habe ich in der M10 folgendes "Phänomen": der eingestellte Weißabgleich findet auch in der DNG Datei Verwendung, d.h. sowohl in der Apple Vorschau als auch in CaptureOnePro12 sehe ich den manuellen Weißabgleich und damit die unterschiedliche Farbgebung. Ein "Zurücksetzen" auf wie bei Aufnahme ist dann auch nicht mehr möglich. Ich habe nun einen Artikel dazu gefunden: https://www.pctipp.ch/itipp/artikel/fotografie-ein-dng-ist-kein-raw-86123/ Frage: Liege ich falsch, dass das RAW eigentlich keinen Weißabgleich speichern sollte? Ich schreibe gerade an einer Neufassung meiner Seminarunterlagen und wurde gerade in meinen Grundfesten erschüttert, den WB hatte ich so noch nie getestet, da ich davon überzeugt war, dass das RAW die Sensordaten speichert... Nachträglich FROHE WEIHNACHTEN und zukünftig: ALLES GUTE FÜR 2019 Michel -
Hallo erstmal, ich habe ein Problem mit Farben der DNG-Files in Lightroom und Capture One. Zurzeit habe ich eine Teststellung einer Leica SL (FW 3.3) mit dem 24-90mm und dem 50mm/1.4. Letzte Woche hatte ich Outdoor das erste Probe-Shooting. Unabhängig von der tollen Handhabung und allem anderen an der Kamera, war ich doch etwas überrascht, als ich mir die Bilder später in Lightroom (neueste Version LR Classic 2019) anschaute. Die JPEGS-Files klasse. Vom Farbtone sehr nah am Original (zumindest was mein Auge sah). In der Kamera alles auf Standardwerte gelassen. soweit so gut. Die RAW-Files (DNG). Alle einen leichten aber sehr auffälligen und unnatürlichen Farbstich ins Rot/Orange. Die (Leica) DNG habe ich direkt nach LR importiert, also keine Umwandlung in Adobe-DNG. Kein Filter oder anderes als das Adobe-Standard Preset. Geschaut ob es ein Leica-Kamera Preset gibt, wie z.B. bei Nikon oder Olympus. Gibt es nicht. Das Bild mal in Capture One überprüft. Selbes Phänomen. Wieder Farbstich beim DNG. Gut jetzt könnte ich selber nach regeln, aber es ist schon sehr auffällig, wie unnatürlich das RAW/DNG gegenüber den JPEG aussieht. Kenn ich von anderen Kamera her nicht. Wir haben ca. 500 Bilder an diesem Tag gemacht. Ist bei fast allen Bildern, das selbe Phänomen. Egal ob nun mit Schal um den Hals herum oder nicht. Auch der Weiss-Abglich stimmte m.E., denn die JPEGS sehen ja alle sehr harmonisch aus. Das Model ist eher der blasse Typ gewesen, aber nicht mit diesen oranger Teint, wie auf dem DNG. Nun habe ich schon mal in anderen Foren gesucht, und was über Color Problem bei den DNGs aus der Leica Q und S gelesen. Ist das hier das selbe Problem? Oder muss ich mich umstellen, dass alle Leica RAWs (DNG) einfach einen leichten Farbstich haben? Ich wollte eigentlich ein neues System kaufen, wo ich nicht erstmal auf Fehlersuche gehen muss. Oder gibt es einen Tipp von Euch, wo mein Denkfehler ist? Danke schon mal und viele Grüße aus dem Norden P.S. Die Beispielbilder sind unbearbeitet, auch nichts an der Helligkeit/Kontrast etc. geändert.
-
Hi, I have a question to all those who use the Q2 alongside with their Sony camera: How far can you go with those Q2 RAW files? [Taking the photos shakefree, deliberately underexpose the photos, increasing the exposure in post-processing etc. just to get the shot.] I would like to read your input in that regard. I own the Sony RX100V (RX100 MK5) & A7RIII (A7R MK3) with a bunch of Sony GM (85mm f/1.4), Sony Zeiss (35mm f/2.8 & 55mm f/1.8), Zeiss (Batis 85mm, Loxia 25mm, Loxia 50mm, Loxia 85mm) and adapted Contax Zeiss (28mm f/2.8, 50mm f/1.4, 50mm f/1.7, 85mm f/2.8, 135mm f/2.8) lenses. Currently I love using the Zeiss Loxia lenses and so far I like the Q2's lens rendering. I would like to replace most of those lenses and the RX100V, keep the Loxia & 85mm GM lenses and purchase the Q2. The intention is to simplify my gear and at least have only a few autofocus lenses in my repertoire. The 85mm GM can't go because of portrait photography where autofocus is critical (Sony Eye-AF huray!). For fun projects I like using the Loxia 85mm (that glas is ridiculous sharp and contrasty!). The Q2's purpose is for covering the the focal length 28mm[, 35mm and 50mm] with its autofocus lens. I often see myself using my Sony cameras (I had the A6000 & A7II [A7 MK2] before) on my travels in low light situations (www.instagram.com/ryan.lam.888) and I don't carry a full sized tripod with me. Sometimes I have a tabletop tripod and a clamp with me traveling to the destination just in case I need them. However after one or two outings I am able to evaluate whether or not I need them. Oftentimes many locations don't allow you to deploy a tripod on-location (Hello London & Italy! xD ). It is amazing how much I can get out of those Sony RAW files without much noise and banding issues. Can anyone provide RAW files from a Q2 and a Sony camera both shot at the same location with the same low light condition? Thank you!
-
Not sure whether to post here or M8 Forum, or both. Administrator advice? As we all know, the M8 RAW/DNG files are saved in 8-bit form using an algorithm. When opening an M8 file in Adobe Camera Raw (ACR), the files are default saved as 8-bit. Converting M8 files in Capture One (C1), they can be saved as full 16-bit TIFF. Is it possible to change the ACR default to save files in 16-bit?
.thumb.jpg.f34df1ead8e9be2c41e731fb53ce9e0b.jpg)
