Jump to content

M-9 and JPEG format


jbirdjaf

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I've read alot about shooting in raw and pp creating incredible photos, but i don't pp at all. I love my M-7 and M-P and want to move up to the M-9. Can somebody comment on quality of JPEG's compared to JPEG's produced by their Canon or Nikon cameras? Thanks. I've been enjoying all of your posts for quite some time. Thank you all. Best regards, Jay

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've read alot about shooting in raw and pp creating incredible photos, but i don't pp at all. I love my M-7 and M-P and want to move up to the M-9. Can somebody comment on quality of JPEG's compared to JPEG's produced by their Canon or Nikon cameras? Thanks. I've been enjoying all of your posts for quite some time. Thank you all. Best regards, Jay

 

To make a statement about comparing the quality of M9 JPEG's against Canon or Nikon JPEG's in general would be meaningless.

To make full use of the M9 you will have to use RAW. JPEG's from the M9 are not as good.

When you buy an M9, you will get Lightroom for free to do the RAW conversion in the best possible way.

 

Hans

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Jay

 

When you say you want to move up from film to an M9, the only way this can be an upward move is if you embrace a bit of PP. Otherwise, I'd say there's very little point at all in even considering a digital M camera.

 

Are you opposed to PP in principle, or is it a question of preferring not to spend the time in front of a computer? Or perhaps just unfamiliarity?

 

Whatever your reasons, I'd suggest its a shame because the M9 can offer so much, but if you do prefer to stay away from the computer as much as possible (though its not necessary to spend a lot of time on RAW images in Lightroom to make them look beautiful), I'd stick with the perfectly wonderful film cameras you already have. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jay, welcome to the forum! :)

 

I'm going to be a fourth voice saying that's not the way to go with the M9.

 

I have both an M8 and a crop-sensor Nikon, and never use either for JPG, so my advice isn't based on experience.

 

If you use the M9 solely for its JPG engine:

  • It takes longer for the camera to process and store a JPG than a DNG, so you're wasting valuable time.
  • There have been complaints that the M9's JPG capabilities aren't up to those of Nikon and Canon. I haven't seen proof of the contention, just expressions of disappointment.

 

For some of us, post-processing is just part of the creative process. And I will say that in general, I do much less of it with the M8 than I need to do with the Nikon to get what I want. Your results may differ, of course.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

 

The RAW out of the M9 should be better then the DSLR raw, except when using high ISO with a top of range DSLR.

 

The M9 is designed for post processing for optimium results and if you want a big print you only need to give the RAW files on card or email file to lab, they should do the rest. e.g. you may get bad moire with the M9 cause leica have not smeared the resolution with an anti aliasing filter.

 

The DSLR are designed for P&S people with too much money, the M9 is for the anaracks with more money.

 

Noel

Link to post
Share on other sites

The JPEGs that come out of the M9 don't really do justice to the camera's capabilities. Just my opinion, but I am not the only one who has reached this conclusion. It really isn't a big deal to take the RAW files and run them through Lightroom and export the ones you want. You need to catalog your images anyways...

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I am genuinely interested in seeing how this thread develops. The received wisdom is of course that RAW is the only way to get the best out of the M9. But why should that be?

 

Jonathan Eastland was crucified on this very forum just a few months ago for daring to suggest that the M9 should produce usable out-of-camera jpgs. At the time I drew parallels between those who like to twiddle with sliders to get the best out of their RAW files with those who used to get their kicks spending hours in a darkroom.

 

I for one have better things to do with my life. I find sitting in front of a screen fiddling with RAW files excruciatingly boring. Okay, so jpgs are looked down on by the image-quality-over-content mavens as the digital equivalent of the Boots' one hour D&P service, but they should be usable.

 

Perhaps more to the point, where is the "digital slide"? - the high quality, get-it-right-in-camera file output that offers the convenience of a jpg with the image quality of a RAW file? This would appeal to those, like me, who would rather spend their time looking at life in the raw than trying to breathe life into a RAW.

 

I cannot help but feel that in a few years time those who consider themselves "serious photographers" will have progressed beyond their spotty-adolescent "RAW phase" to using something that requires a minimum of anorak-satisfying tweaking to achieve an end result; something better than jpg and less fiddly than RAW. A skilled photographer could get it right in-camera and produce an excellent result. An image exposed at 1/125 should not have to require the rest of the hour to make it usable.:D

 

Problem is, then they would have to find another excuse not to speak to their wives for evening after evening... :rolleyes:

 

Regards,

 

Bill

Edited by bill
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Bill

 

Your condescending tone does you no credit and really isn't warranted.

 

What's the point of paying five grand for an M9 and at least another couple on a lens or two, and then accepting the output that someone at Jenoptik thinks is right for your photographs? Why wouldn't you want to get the best from your photography? Presumably, you accept the in-store Cd scans for your film shots as being sufficiently good for you to justify paying Leica prices for the hardware?

Edited by andybarton
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I cannot help but feel that in a few years time "serious photographers" will have progressed beyond the spotty-adolescent "RAW phase" to using something that requires a minimum of anorak-satisfying tweaking to achieve an end result. An image exposed at 1/125 should not have to require the rest of the hour to make it usable.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

 

Bill,

 

Perhaps in a few years' time your and my hope will be fulfilled. But at the moment I don't think jpegs offer the same quality as RAW files, do you? And sometimes, quality seems important.

 

And may I ask, why so dismissive about people who try to improve their images? I'm glad for you that you have better things to do than sit in front of a computer screen, engaging with the real world instead of this one, but can't you find it in your heart to respect those who may enjoy it from time to time?

 

Whilst many of us would agree that content should take precedence over image quality, quality is not always entirely irrelevant is it?

 

Goodness me, such are the challenges to normal tolerance thrown down in your message, one might almost imagine you are being deliberately provocative!

 

:)

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

In the old days (I go back 50+ years with photography) if you didn't at least develop your own film, if not print also, you were considered by some to be a "dabbler". I'm not sure that is correct but I see using a raw converter as akin to doing your own film processing and using jpegs as akin to having someone else ( the drugstore?) do the orocessing for you.

 

Just as an example, push developing because you really needed a higher film speed (ASA or DIN in those pre-ISO days) was not considered bad form; it was actually something you needed to learn. Why treat digital "developing" any different?

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

What's the point of paying five grand for an M9 and at least another couple on a lens or two, and then accepting the output that someone at Jenoptik thinks is right for your photographs? Why wouldn't you want to get the best from your photography? Presumably, you accept the in-store Cd scans for your film shots as being sufficiently good for you to justify paying Leica prices for the hardware?

 

Andy, that's my point in a nutshell.

 

Why should I pay thousands for camera and lens and then have to - there being no viable alternative at present - faff and fiddle with the resultant file myself to achieve a worthwhile result? For the money I am paying, why can I not have a "digital positive" in the same way as, today, I can buy slide film?

 

I believe we are at the stage of technological development that performance cars were at in the 1920s and 1930s. The Bugatti driver spent his weekends under the bonnet fettling his engine to get the best out of it.

 

Ettore Bugatti once said, in response to a criticism that his cars were hard to start when cold and damp that a Gentleman should keep his car in a heated motorhome and live at the top of a hill. Cars today are far higher performance, but I bet the Veyron driver never opens his bonnet, and there are not that many hills in Cheshire ;)

 

Think it through - slide is far less tolerant than print - the skill lies in getting it right in camera. I am postulating a digital equivalent.

 

You well know that I get my films processed professionally, complete with large scans, and then rescan myself anything I consider particularly worthwhile. Procesing bores me. What I am suggesting is something that rewards the skill of the photographer not the processor. I do not see why that should be regarded as heresy. Jpg is not good enough, RAW is too labour-intensive.

I may be wrong of course. Let's see what happens when the technology matures...

 

Regards,

 

Bill

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is a full-frame JPEG from an M9 set to the lowest quality. 596 KB

 

And at highest quality. 10.2 MB

 

I don't see how one can go wrong going with anything in between.

 

(The release of ashes from Mother's funeral ceremony. I should have removed the smudged UV filter.)

Edited by pico
Link to post
Share on other sites

[...]

I cannot help but feel that in a few years time those who consider themselves "serious photographers" will have progressed beyond their spotty-adolescent "RAW phase" to using something that requires a minimum of anorak-satisfying tweaking to achieve an end result; something better than jpg and less fiddly than RAW. A skilled photographer could get it right in-camera and produce an excellent result. An image exposed at 1/125 should not have to require the rest of the hour to make it usable.:D

 

That made me smile. DNG is an extension of TIFF, and I like it. I prefer to batch the files to high quality TIFF or JPEG. Start the action and have some coffee. The defaults (or one's preferred options) are good enough. Twiddle the few, if any, keepers later.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

 

Leica are offering you the freedom to do what you want (sic with the M8 or M9).

You can print the JPEG, or process the RAW, if you want.

This is not different from film, where you can project, wet print or scan.

Grumbling about this is like asking them to remove the baseplate and have a swinging door to load film...

 

Noel

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you all for your responses. It would seem that unless i'm ready to pp my fotos i should stick with film. best regards, jay

 

That's not what I read. I think that most of the respondents said that to get the best out of your digital M, PP work is necessary; and they meant it kindly, not pejoratively. That doesn't mean that you would not be satisfied with out-of-camera JPEGs. It's your camera and you can shoot as you please. There are many advantages to shooting with a digital M that don't require always getting the maximum image quality (handling, instant review, exposure confirmation, etc.).

 

That said, I don't see a problem with shooting RAW + JPEG and only using the RAW files for those times/images that merit investment in PP time, if that is what pleases you.

 

Regards, Jim

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...