What's with the JPG hate?

[Want-a-leica]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

One thing I've heard a lot is that to really get the best out of the M8, you absolutely have to shoot DNG because the JPEG engine is, y'know, like, the worst thing ever.

 

I don't see it though. I took a few shots today, all in JPEG (Fine), and they seem OK to me. One of them (a portrait shot of my better half) came out really, really nicely.

 

Maybe you have to really zoom in to see what the issue is, in which case I'm fine because I rarely look that closely. To me a good photograph grabs the viewer before the viewer has time to get all analytical and say "look, if you blow up that corner to 200 percent, there's an artifact".

 

I always thought that I'd rather hear a badly-produced, well-written song than a well-produced bad song, and I suppose I'm the same with photos. Of course you have to be in focus and so on, but once you have that sorted, then to me it's about making people go "wow", rather than getting out the analytical software and checking the photo for perfect sharpness, total lack of distortion, fringing, etc...

 

What think you?

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[andybarton]

For starters, jpgs are only recorded in 8 bit colour, so you have thrown away the other 8 bits of colour before you have even committed data to the card.

 

Secondly, they don't stand up well to post-processing

 

Thirdly, to really get the best out of any of your shots, you need to start with the RAW file to use the maximum amount of data.

 

Fourthly, adjusting slightly off white balance and exposure is much, much easier with a RAW than with a jpg

 

There are lots of reasons.

 

If you get the WB right and the exposure right, and the camera has a well written jpg routine, they can be very good. Often, they need some help.

 

YMMV.

[stunsworth]

DNG is more flexible. When you had films developed did you throw away the negatives and keep the prints?

 

Also it isn't a 'hate', it's a preference. Just because someone chooses an alternative doesn't mean they 'hate' Jpegs.

[lct]

Raw + jpeg. Jpeg for instant gratification if any. Raws will allow you to get the best results through your favorite raw converter and better ones coming out in the future. Happy to have shot raws many years ago and develop them again with Capture one for example.

[pgk]

For starters, jpgs are only recorded in 8 bit colour, so you have thrown away the other 8 bits of colour before you have even committed data to the card.

The M8 is an 8-bit camera! RAW included. However the RAW files are exceptionally flexible and I actually find them to be at least as versatile, most of theme, as my Canon 5D2 raw files when it come to post processing.

 

IMHO the most important reason (of many) not to shoot jpegs is that they have sharpening applied and degrade quickly if re-sized and resharpened. As Andy and others have pointed out, there are many other reasons too.

 

That said if in-camera jpegs suit your work-flow then its entirely up to you whether they are acceptable for your purposes or not.

[andybarton]

Silly me. I'd forgotten that M8s were only 8 bit, so sincere apologies.

 

Edit: according to this Link to Leica's Technical Data for M8/8.2, the files are only 6-bit. (Bottom of page 1)

[sandymc]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Edit: according to this Link to Leica's Technical Data for M8/8.2, the files are only 6-bit. (Bottom of page 1)

 

I think Leica are doing themselves a disservice on that one; by any normal measure, the files are 8-bit.

 

Sandy

[chris_livsey]

It depends I think on your shooting background. If you were (add in are for completeness) a B/W photographer who souped their own film then dodged and burned in the darkroom to get the end result ( see A Adams) or even for colour neg then RAW is the only game in town. If you come from a Kodachrome background and got it right in camera, composition, exposure ( choice of loose shadows or highlights) most/some of the time then jpeg will seem familiar territory.

Given shooting both in parallel is allowed, even with the abacus/slide rule like performance of the M8/8.2 internal processing, there is no issue. Print a jpeg then spend however long it takes to produce the result you want from the RAW and print that. Compare, don't ask us as on the web even the indifferent looks pretty good, yourself and decide. But then you need not decide as nothing stops you shooting both one of the wonders of digital. You can have a polaroid and a negative simultaneously.

 

If you are shooting across cameras and set all white balances the same you will/may see differences which will/may be an issue.

[01af]

One thing I've heard a lot is that to really get the best out of the M8, you absolutely have to shoot DNG ...

That's right basically. But in real life, the JPEG files usually are more than good enough for most practical intents and purposes.

 

 

... because the JPEG engine is, y'know, like, the worst thing ever.

The problem here is that too many people simply are unable to understand the difference between "not the best thing ever" and "the worst thing ever." As a matter of fact, the JPEG engine has one particular strength—it's fairly good (albeit not perfect) at removing moiré that sometimes will creep into the pictures due to the camera's lack of an anti-aliasing filter. However this moiré suppression comes at the price of a slightly reduced detail resolution—very much similar to what a hardware AA filter would do.

 

So get the best of both file formats, simply shoot with the camera set to DNG & JPG format. Use the JPEG file if you need/want ready-to-use files right out of the camera or when the subject is prone to moiré; use the DNG file if you need/want to exploit the ultimate dynamic range and detail resolution, e. g. for a real big print.

[pgk]

I think Leica are doing themselves a disservice on that one; by any normal measure, the files are 8-bit.

 

Sandy

However low their bit depth is, they are, IMHO, very flexible files indeed.

[pop]

Silly me. I'd forgotten that M8s were only 8 bit, so sincere apologies.

 

Edit: according to this Link to Leica's Technical Data for M8/8.2, the files are only 6-bit. (Bottom of page 1)

 

The German version of the same document mentions 16 bits.

 

Edit: The "system brochure" also mentions 16 bits. It also states that the in-camera image processing software removes moiré.

[k-hawinkler]

Maybe 6-bit is a typo?

 

K-H.

[lct]

Technical data from September 2006 say "16 bit-color resolution": Leica M8 Technical Data

[pgk]

Try: KammaGamma

[lct]

This was discussed here: 8-bit DNGs-how is this done? - Leica User Forum

[mjh]

Maybe 6-bit is a typo?

Obviously; it should be 16 bit in accordance with the figure given everywhere else in Leica’s documentation. On the other hand this implies little else but that a raw converter would convert the raw values into a 3 x 16 bit colour space.

 

But to return to the presumed ‘JPEG hate’: When Leica designed the M8 they took it for granted that the notoriously quality-conscious M photographer would go for a raw workflow. JPEGs were more like an added bonus, required only insofar as a preview image needed to be created. They hadn’t dreamt the M8 might ever be judged on the strength of its JPEGs. Since then the quality of the JPEGs has improved, by implementing a working AWB and other refinements, but there is only so much you can do within the limits imposed by the hardware. Even the M9’s JPEGs aren’t that great if compared to some other cameras.