DNG? JPG? Snapshot mode

[dwind]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Does everyone use dng or do some use snapshot and or jpg?

Thanks

Dennis

[jaapv]

I havent used Jpg since 18 January 2001...

[blatent liar]

Dennis

JPG's -- Nope. If I had to provide quick copious images for a job, I'd be tempted, but... No.

(I like the idea of the DNG, and JPG (B&W) option, but the write speed is abysmal.)

 

Snapshot Mode -- No.

 

-Max

[lars_bergquist]

Real Men with hair on their chests use DNG only. JPG is for cissies.

 

Real Men with hair on their chests use film only. Digital is for cissies.

 

Real Men with hair on their chests use glass plates only. Film is for cissies.

 

Real Men with hair on their chests use no damn cameras. They make their pictures inside caves.

 

But lots of working pros do use JPGs because this fits their workflow and because the quality loss would be pretty theoretical in their work. M9 JPG files are really very good. Jonathan Slack (a.k.a. Jonoslack) in LFI 7, p. 30 (translated from the German translation):

 

"The Jpeg quality of the M9 is really remarkable, given correct exposure it is really difficult to get better results in the Raw format."

 

If you print to a realistic size, JPG may be all you want -- especially if you learned exposure and light by training on Kodachrome! But you may want DNG if you routinely print to two-by-three meter size and insist on viewing prints at normal reading distance, 30cm. And also if you are a sloppy worker and expect to fix everything later in Photoshop or Lightroom or whatever. You know what? You can't, most of the time.

 

The old man from the Age of Roll Film

[d2mini]

Plan on using your pics straight out of camera or with only minor tweaks? Shoot jpg for the smaller file sizes.

Want the ability to do a lot of post processing, requiring the most amount of pixel information causing the least amount of destruction at the same time you are trying to make improvements? Shoot raw.

[dwind]

Thanks for the replies.

I was shooting dng but tried jpgs and thought it was good quality straight out of the camera and very little jiggling required.

Then I tried snapshot mode and it worked well also.

Note these are under good conditions, out doors cloudy days, little contrast and shadows.

My ideal camera is one that only a 'shoot' button and no other controls. I'd rather learn to get a correct shot than machine gun shoot and post process everything.

Dennis

[milyovsky]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Actually, the DNG files are pretty good straight out of the camera, too. Very little "jiggling."

[chrism]

My ideal camera is one that only a 'shoot' button and no other controls. I'd rather learn to get a correct shot than machine gun shoot and post process everything.

Dennis

 

Dennis,

If you think about it, there is a contradiction in these two sentences.

 

Chris

[Guest BigSplash]

When I first started using my M8 I only used JPEG fine and the results were excellent. On advice from many people on the forum I started using DNG and immediately found that I had sizing issues when viewed on ACD software (which likes JPEG), however I also found that lightroom loves DNG files and I use this to grade and select my best images which I then correct if required and export as JPEG files. The benefit is that I can always go back and adjust the images if I want to and with a 1000Gig HDD storage is not an issue. I therefore now shoot in DNG exclusively and I cannot see any reason why I would go back to JPEG unless I wanted to ship an image via my cellphone to a news desk.....something I have yet to do.

[logaandm]

The JPG advantage is speed, and I suppose it also forces one to think more about the photograph. This fits in well with the range-finder philosphy and forcing one to think about the photograph is no small advantage.

 

RAW advanages are:

- fix white balance much better than attempting to fix a JPG

- fix non-ideal exposure (assuming you haven't over exposed too much). There is surprising lattitude in RAW.

- can change a B+W picture into colour

- Optimize conversion to JPG (although cameras are much better than before)

- Optimize noise reduction for the content rather than generic processing

- alter contrast with minimal posterization effects

- take advantage of improvements in RAW processing technology. This is no small thing. I've been shooting RAW for five years and my old photographs just keep getting better.

 

I now shoot B+W RAW+JPG. I then use the free Adobe DNG converter to "shrink" the Leica DNG files. This is a simple batch program and can convert 100's of files in a short time on a fast computer. The final size of the JPG and new DNG file is smaller than the original uncompressed Leica DNG. This also converts the DNG to colour. Then I can quickly check both a B+W and colour verion of my photograph using FASTSTONE free image viewer. I am not a very good phographer so it surprises me how often a B+W looks better in colour and visa-versa.

 

For me the RAW means I think less some aspects of operating the camera and concentrate more on composition and timing. That said if I were a pro I would own a Nikon and tweek the hell out of the camera to get exactly what I want so I don't have to do post-processing.

[Nicoleica]

I use DNG plus JPG-fine, as I find the JPG files are fine for printing on the little portable printer that I take with me when away from home. (A Canon ES-1 printer. Great for making your own postcards. ) And I have the DNG files for later use too.

 

The extra write time is not an issue for me, as I rarely take several photographs in quick succession, and the benefits of having the JPG files available outweighs any small delay needed.

[jaapv]

Even if one is a hard-pressed photojournalist, what is there against running DNG+JPG, or even mass-converting on your laptop within minutes? Even if the end result will normally only be shown on TV or newpaper resolution, what are you going to do if your shot wins the World Press Photo or Pulitzer and you have only a dubious JPG to use for large display prints?

[atlfoto]

[quote=dwind;1146981 My ideal camera is one that only a 'shoot' button and no other controls. I'd rather learn to get a correct shot than machine gun shoot and post process everything.

Dennis

 

Film well exposed is the answer to your dreams....

Regards,

 

Alejandro

[nhabedi]

First of all, to make things clear, I usually shoot RAW for the same reasons others have mentioned. But I really don't want to and here's why:

 

Don't real men with hair on their chest set the exposure and WB manually and nail it? Why do they need to tweak the image afterwards?

 

If the image was exposed correctly and no tweaking is necessary, will the print for my World Press Photo exhibition be any worse if done from a JPG with the highest quality settings?

 

This is of course assuming that the in-camera JPG processing is good enough. I don't have any experience with the top-notch Nikon/Canon dSLRs, but from what I hear they are almost there. Of course, people can pixel-peep and bitch endlessly, but isn't it really the case that you could take a well-exposed in-camera JPG from, say, a Nikon D3 and simply print it? (Or from the M9 as Jonathan Slack said.)

 

And about the fear of losing information because of JPG compression - is that really an issue with the highest quality settings assuming you take the resulting JPG as your original file and save modifications (if any) in a lossless format?

 

This is phrased in a somewhat provocative way because I'd like to question the common "wisdom" that you have to sit at your PC and work on your files after you took a picture. I'd rather spend the time shooting more pictures. In an ideal world, I'd set the parameters (exposure, WB, ISO, ...) and shoot and that'd be it - like in the film days.

 

Maybe "going the RAW way" is just a temporary kludge until the in-camera JPG engines are good enough and not how God intended digital photography to be? And maybe we're there already but nobody noticed because we've worked with RAW forever now?

[jaapv]

Maybe your World Press Photo was taken inder circumstances and pressures that made it impossible to get your technically perfect shot? Maybe you had just tried out your new body shaver on your chest and slightly missed exposure or WB? In that caseyou would be happy with your RAW file, especially as you had sent the extra JPG to your editor within minutes..

[nhabedi]

Maybe your World Press Photo was taken inder circumstances and pressures that made it impossible to get your technically perfect shot? Maybe you had just tried out your new body shaver on your chest and slightly missed exposure or WB?

 

Either the photo was good enough to win the first prize even though the exposure was slightly off (and there are lots examples for world-famous photos which were far less than perfect technically) or someone else deserves to be the winner. Hell, how could anybody win the World Press Photo award before they invented digital and RAW?

[jaapv]

That one is simple- it was a level playing field - nobody had it.

[nhabedi]

That one is simple- it was a level playing field - nobody had it.

 

Yeah, but the last World Press Photo award was won by Anthony Suau with a film Leica while everybody else was probably shooting digital (and RAW)...

[jaapv]

And justly so - Great satisfaction for all fans of photography over gear.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[sm23221]

If enough care is taken initially to set WB, exposure and composition correctly, JPEG files from my M9 produces printed photos as good as post-processed DNG files. DNG simply offers you the ability to correct errors. I always use the JPEG setting if I want to shoot exclusively B&W. If you can get good photos from JPEG, you've mastered WB and exposure and will save yourself a lot of post-processing time.