M-9 and JPEG format

[kdriceman]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Wait....what??? Are we comparing JPEGs from the M9 to JPEGs from Canon or Nikon or are we comparing post processing of digital to pp of film? It sounds as if you are deciding whether to buy an M9 based on its JPEG output quality compared to a DSLR JPEG. That's like basing a decision to buy a Ferrari on how its gas mileage compares to that of a Porsche Cayenne. They're not really comparable and although both are awesome vehicles, mileage doesn't really matter at that level of performance.

 

My JPEGs from M9/Lightroom are noticeably better than my JPEGs from my Canon/Lightroom even if I do nothing other than import the RAW file, apply a preset profile to it and convert it. You have to take it out of the camera sooner or later and Lightroom conversion is nothing. If you don't want to spend time on pp, then don't. You are not always going to like the un-tweaked result, but that happens with my Canon Images also. For me the main reason (although not the only reason) to shoot RAW is to make sure I get white balance correct... I don't trust Canon to get it right all the time either.

 

As for pp of digital compared to film... Well that is what brought me back to serious photography after a long absence. I can get a very nice image out of my M9 and onto print in 5 minutes if I want... Including post processing. More importantly I can get 100 images out of the M9 and into an organized, viewable, manageable database in 5 minutes.

[Advertisement]

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

[mattcaplin]

I am the other side of this decision. Shooting the M9 in DNG mode and PP with the bundled LR 3 software is about as difficult as shooting in Jpeg mode and uploading with any other software. Post processing for me is mostly a case of a couple of minutes work looking at the histogram and a crop if necessary, after I've done my cull to find the keepers.

 

I went back to film a few years ago because I got fed up with having to do so much work in photoshop to get a usable digital image. The newer sensors and software we have now are so much better that in reality I will henceforth only be shooting film out of sentimentality and an excuse to fondle my M3.

[denoir]

In my experience the files that the M9 produces follows the general philosophy of the camera - few 'automagical' corrections and full user control.

 

Without any PP on my side, my Canons tend to produce better images. It's because they do all sorts of in-camera adjustments and to a large degree do the PP for you through the use of picture profiles. However, with a bit of PP work you can easily get the M9 files to look better.

 

I'm not talking about advanced Photoshop operations. Simply a bit of black level/contrast adjustments will take you a very long way.

[t024484]

When going digital, you will have to import your digital shots into a computer anyhow.

Also you will probably want to organize your digital pictures in some way for future ease of retrieval.

So will need a tool with at least these two functions and that is were Lightroom comes in.

 

When you are not yet ready to do any form of PP, all you have to do in Lightroom is to press the 'Import' button and let all the pictures automatically be stored in subfolders named with the date that the pictures were taken.

 

Directly after all pictures have been downloaded select all relevant images, press the 'Export' button, chose a name for a subfolder, and all pictures will be converted to JPEG and stored in another library.

 

If in future you feel the need to do some PP on a picture that was taken in the past, you can go back to the original RAW picture, adjust whatever you like and export it again as JPEG.

 

Hans

[Xmas]

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

 

No the thread has gone delinquent and the OP may well be struggling, if you want proof or small prints then JPEG is ok, if you want 20x16 prints then you need to have collected and kept the RAW, the JPEG will have lost detail in the compression.

 

This is no different than with film where you would have had to picked a slow film processed it carefully perhaps with an actuance dev, contacted printed all 36 on a 10x8 bromide and burnt and dodged two exposures differentially on VC paper, for the 20x16.

 

So I cannot understand the thread at all.

 

fine art printing eqivalent to photoshoping, hey and photoshop is easier IMHO...

 

Noel

[lars_bergquist]

All right. Real men (ladies need not apply) with hair on their chest dress in hairshirts and shoot DNG only – un-compressed, natch. And they print, by Gum, and never smaller than 40x50cm. But ...

 

I was born in the same year as Kodachrome was – 1936. And though I did learn all the darkroom tricks and shenanigans, I also did learn to expose Kodachrome and other slide films. I learned that the hard way. And when I botched the exposure, the fault was mine.

 

If you have learned that, and the rest of the stuff, then you can also produce JPEG files that look good on a monitor subtending about the same angle as the dear old projections screen that we showed our chromes on. And the quality is better than the chromes.

 

Black and white does look good printed, if printed professionally (I did learn that too). But colour prints look flat. Much of the problem has to do with contrast range. A paper print holds a range that is far, far smaller than a projected slide – or a picture on a decent monitor. Colour prints simply aren't worth the trouble.

 

Oh yes, oh yes. Real men etc. make huge prints and then they don't give a damn about vision, content, impact – they just rub their noses in them. But no boring picture ever got less boring by being printed larger. Yes Bill, I'm with you there.

 

But of course, if you cannot control exposure (because you don't understand exposure) or don't understand colour temperature or composition or whatever, just blast away in Raw and fix it all in PP. I want to get it right because I know the craft. That's why I prefer Leica lenses. Else, I might as well shoot Canon or Hasselblad and fix it all in PP. It's a matter of pride, the one unforgivable deadly sin. And I confess to it.

 

Leica M JPEGs are damn good. They are better than Kodachromes. There were always those people who were so fascinated by the technicalities of photography that they seldom took any pictures. They just produced technical specimens. That can be a fascinating hobby, I understand. But I was relieved when I could crawl out of the darkroom and go out in the daylight (or any damn light) and take pictures. There, I have stuck my neck out and you can chop it off. Have fun.

 

The old man who has seen it all. Well, nearly.

[denoir]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Interesting Lars, but getting the exposure right is just one setting and a rather trivial one. Colors, contrast dynamic range etc you can't do anything about until you start post processing.

 

If you'd like an analogy, using camera produced JPEGs as the end output is like getting your film developed and printed in a supermarket. For some types of photography where image quality in the output is of little concern that can work, but for other types it won't.

[bill]

If you'd like an analogy, using camera produced JPEGs as the end output is like getting your film developed and printed in a supermarket.

 

I don't think anyone is disputing that. The point I was trying to get to is best illustrated thus:

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

- what I'm postulating is the green blob in the top right.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[Xmas]

Hmmmm

 

We are not helping the OP...

 

A JPEG has a lossy compression? It is degraded already out of the camera, it is like a contact print not usefull for critical work, like post processing.

 

It is normal for me to have to use a SC lens on a high contrast day to precompress the contrast, even with XP2.

 

And only a very small % of my negatves would straight print.

 

Most DSLR anti alias in the camera for RAW and JPEG the M9 does not, the anti alias reduces micro contrast, but eliminates moire, so do you like moire when it occurs?

 

Answer are not necessary an M9 is a useful tool if you know its limitations, a film M is a useful tool if you know its limitations.

 

Noel

[robert blu]

I do not own (yet?) an m-9 but very interested in learning the various experiences. My only digital camera is the x-1, since a few months. I'making experience with it. Therefore I'm not really expert in digital workflow, even if I postprocess the scans from film of my m7 in order to inkjet print on cotton paper. I was told by some expert when following a digital printing course that in good (not tricky) light condition a jpeg (later converted in TIFF) is more than enough (but probably still need some minor PP adjustement). In tricky light condition RAW files (DNG in leica cases) still offers more quality and flexibility. Can this be valid with an m9 according to your experience?

thanks, robert

PS: @ tappan: excellent photo.

[Peter H]

I don't think anyone is disputing that. The point I was trying to get to is best illustrated thus:

 

[ATTACH]258569[/ATTACH]

 

- what I'm postulating is the green blob in the top right.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

 

Bill (and Lars)

 

Is it not possible to get one's RAWs right first time and cut out the need for lengthy PP?

[Xmas]

Bill (and Lars)

 

Is it not possible to get one's RAWs right first time and cut out the need for lengthy PP?

 

Yes, but if the shot you want to enlarge, print or email is not perfect you need to PP.

 

In a studio where you control the lighting expect 100% eventually, out in street expect a lesser %.

 

Noel

[Xmas]

I do not own (yet?) an m-9 but very interested in learning the various experiences. My only digital camera is the x-1, since a few months. I'making experience with it. Therefore I'm not really expert in digital workflow, even if I postprocess the scans from film of my m7 in order to inkjet print on cotton paper. I was told by some expert when following a digital printing course that in good (not tricky) light condition a jpeg (later converted in TIFF) is more than enough (but probably still need some minor PP adjustement). In tricky light condition RAW files (DNG in leica cases) still offers more quality and flexibility. Can this be valid with an m9 according to your experience?

thanks, robert

PS: @ tappan: excellent photo.

 

The JPEG compression in storing the picture as a JPEG will have reduced the quality of your picture already, it is a lossy compression. Converting it to a TIFF and processing the TIFF is good, compared with processing it as a JPEG, every time you save a JPEG a part of your picture quality is discarded.

 

A JPEG is not like a zipped file.

 

It is better to start with the RAW and convert it to a TIFF, you have kept more of the original picture.

 

The RAW file will be larger, cause it has all your picture.

 

If post processing is not required the RAW file has all the picture data the JPEG less.

 

It is like putting your auto in a crusher it will not be the same afterwards...

 

Noel

[Peter H]

Yes, but if the shot you want to enlarge, print or email is not perfect you need to PP.

 

In a studio where you control the lighting expect 100% eventually, out in street expect a lesser %.

 

Noel

 

Thanks Noel. But I was trying to draw an analogy between RAW files and slide film.

 

Of course there are significant differences, and it will also depend on the final use of the image, but there are parallels too aren't there?

[Xmas]

Thanks Noel. But I was trying to draw an analogy between RAW files and slide film.

 

Of course there are significant differences, and it will also depend on the final use of the image, but there are parallels too aren't there?

 

It is a good analogy, and post processing is like castor oil as a treatement for constipation, not something you want to need to ever have to use.

 

If you want the ultimate in quality you need to start with RAW and not use JPEG until the final save, becuase of the JPEG compression algorithm.

 

With slide film I will use a single coated lens to precompress the image range if the sceane is too contrasty, digital is similarly limited in dynamic range, I carry two lenses at need, (frequently).

 

But only a (very) small % of my shots dont need post processing, even with mono film, Weston and Ansell Adams relied on careful exposure (zone) and variable development for their perfect negatives, they were a lot better than me.

 

Noel

[povlj]

All right. Real men (ladies need not apply) with hair on their chest dress in hairshirts and shoot DNG only – un-compressed, natch. And they print, by Gum, and never smaller than 40x50cm. But ...

 

I was born in the same year as Kodachrome was – 1936. And though I did learn all the darkroom tricks and shenanigans, I also did learn to expose Kodachrome and other slide films. I learned that the hard way. And when I botched the exposure, the fault was mine.

 

If you have learned that, and the rest of the stuff, then you can also produce JPEG files that look good on a monitor subtending about the same angle as the dear old projections screen that we showed our chromes on. And the quality is better than the chromes.

 

Black and white does look good printed, if printed professionally (I did learn that too). But colour prints look flat. Much of the problem has to do with contrast range. A paper print holds a range that is far, far smaller than a projected slide – or a picture on a decent monitor. Colour prints simply aren't worth the trouble.

 

Oh yes, oh yes. Real men etc. make huge prints and then they don't give a damn about vision, content, impact – they just rub their noses in them. But no boring picture ever got less boring by being printed larger. Yes Bill, I'm with you there.

 

But of course, if you cannot control exposure (because you don't understand exposure) or don't understand colour temperature or composition or whatever, just blast away in Raw and fix it all in PP. I want to get it right because I know the craft. That's why I prefer Leica lenses. Else, I might as well shoot Canon or Hasselblad and fix it all in PP. It's a matter of pride, the one unforgivable deadly sin. And I confess to it.

 

Leica M JPEGs are damn good. They are better than Kodachromes. There were always those people who were so fascinated by the technicalities of photography that they seldom took any pictures. They just produced technical specimens. That can be a fascinating hobby, I understand. But I was relieved when I could crawl out of the darkroom and go out in the daylight (or any damn light) and take pictures. There, I have stuck my neck out and you can chop it off. Have fun.

 

The old man who has seen it all. Well, nearly.

Lars, I would agree with your point of view.

Also, I am now shooting exclusively in JPEG Fine mode, and find pp in LR3 to be very effective.

Have not printed large prints, but judging from loupe views in LR that should not be a problem.

 

Povl

[Xmas]

Leica M JPEGs are damn good. They are better than Kodachromes.

 

a query Lars

 

do you understand that the M JPEG will have a lossy compression algoritm applied to it?

 

an aside

 

When Kchrome 25 was available I used to use it for lens testing, cause I did not trust MTF diagrams. Kchrome was the film that might separated lenses of similar performance, heavy tripod long release cable, film under a microscope, looking at how the grain structure was presented by the lens.

 

Some of my lenses would not work on M9 (for fringing) so how is the M9 file better than Kchrome?

 

Noel

[RoySmith]

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

 

There is a reason the M9 comes with Lightroom, but PP need not be extensive nor time consuming. One difference between film and digital M's is that if you change lenses, you will need to remove the occ'l sensor dust spot from the images. Also some sharpening of RAW(DNG) images is needed, the camera does sharpening of the JPEG files.

 

 

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.

 

For clarification - DNG is like RAW or CR2 - a digital negative not meant to be PPed in photo editors like Lightroom, Photoshop, Aperture etc. TIFF is a lossless format to save images after PP. JPEG is a compressed (lossy) format to save images after PP. JPEG images can be produced by (nearly?) all digital cameras but the compression causes some data loss. The data loss is cumulative if one opens, edits, and save a JPEG file repeatedly, so a lossless format like TIFF or PSD is preferred.

 

 

Cheers,

Roy

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[jbirdjaf]

HI all, This is quite a response to my inquiry. Remember i do not enjoy sitting at a computer but i passionately enjoy taking fotos with my film Leicas. It appears most would not shoot in JPEG mode and to enjoy full benefit of Leica glass one needs pp. It also appears that M-9 JPEGS are not up to slide film quality but there are some that say if you get the right exposure and focus correctly the JPEGS do equal or exceed that of Canon or Nikon. Thanks again for all of your advice, Jay

[prk60091]

pardon me for a moment- i lurk here in the m9 forum but i am an x1 shooter.....(my finance chief will not approve the funds for the m9 )

 

i understand that there is a difference between the x1 crop sensor and the m9 ff sensor, however i have performed a great deal of experimentation using the x1 (and before that the D2) taking images RAW+jpg and post processing the RAW.... I will be the 1st to admit that my PP skills suck (i am self taught and probably could use a formal class or 3 in learning LR or aperture- I have both- LR came for free with the X1 and I purchased Aperture in the hopes of enhancing my images....

 

My limited experience is that I cannot PP the RAW files to make them look better than out of camera jpg's... to me the time investment of 15-20 minutes per image isn't worth the result.

 

 

I have blown up my jpg x1's to 20"x30" and hanging on my wall they look terrific. I have an image from my D2 blown up to the same size- and it is my wife's favorite image of mine- also looking great both were from jpg's.

 

Getting it right in the camera helps alot....

 

my suggestion to the OP is to go to his Leica shop take an SD card take some jpg's and see if you like the quality....

 

Bill- I think Leica's jpg engine is "good enough" to get to the green of your chart= they include DNG/RAW because "every serious" photographer requires it.