M-9 and JPEG format

[kdriceman]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

You can't use your M lenses with a P&S... JPEG or DNG. Seems like a strong consideration to me.

[jaapv]

Well, I guess many micro 4/3rds cameras could qualify as P&S.

[Reds]

paulmac - curious. Why did you need to correct the JPEGs after you exported them from RAW files. Wouldn't you get the PP right in the RAW file and then just export the jpg.

 

What kind of corrections are reqd? Apologies if I'm missing something.

[jaapv]

Having used every pro Nikon from the D1 to D3X - I have YET to use any camera that can produce JPGs that are fully corrected straight out of the camera. I spend ages sorting JPGs out on the laptop screen. This isn't to say that JPG's aren't any good it's just fact that ALL digital camera files be they RAW or JPG's or any other format have to be corrected - period !! I accidentally shot some pics the other day as RAW when I needed JPG's but once the files were converted into JPG 's they still had to be corrected as per usual. RAW does however come in when you may be need to correct white balance etc after the pics have been shot - it's a lot more forgiving and allows lots of PP so for this reason I think that to really do the M digital files justice it's far better to shoot RAW. Also the amount of leeway on Leica DNG files is astounding - exposure can be well off and an excellent image can still be produced.

It is not very wise to edit on JPGs - normally one uses 16-bit TIFF Profoto RGB (or aRGB) files for that - JPG is a final output format - nothing else.The raw converter will produce those TIFFs for you.

[BerndReini]

I understand the desire of not wanting to be burdened by post-processing, but shooting JPEG only is equivalent to shooting film, getting it scanned as JPEGs and then telling the lab to throw away the negatives.

 

My suggestion is shoot both DNG and JPEG, download everythng separating the DNGs from the JPEGs and if there is an image you really like, only then go back to the DNG. After you look at your photographs, you can then throw out all the DNGs if you are so inclined.

 

Generally, I would say that while I only shoot RAW, the JPEGs from the M9 (as seen on the preview image on the screen) actually look very good. The colors pop and they are nice and contrasty, so on many occasions, you may be fine with the JPEG. I actually know a lot of set photographers that only shoot JPEG with their Canons because they need to deliver the images quickly to the client. If this is what you need, then the M9 may not be the best camera for you, otherwise I would not let the JPEG quality dictate my decision between a rangefinder and a DSLR.

[jaapv]

Ok That I can understand, but then again the quality requirement for a newspaper print is not the highest around.

[kdriceman]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The OP wants to do no post processing and go directly from the camera into his dvd machine with JPEGs. I have been looking at my M9 JPEGs the last few days and I think they are quite nice compared to those out of my 7D and why wouldn't they be. They are shot thru Leica glass onto a quallity full frame sensor. If I were shooting only JPEGs I would never choose my 7D or my old 5DII over the M9 for a shot unless it was going to be ISO 1250 or more (because of Canon's in-camera high ISO noise reduction) or I needed a long lens. I do not lug those things around anymore without good reason.

 

The real question is if I would spend $7,000 on a camera that I would only use for JPEGs on shots under 1250 ISO. Maybe the Sony NEX5 with Leica lenses???

[koala54]

Took me a long while to learn LR3, now I got it the rest is history. Shoot RAW!

[leicanut2]

JPEG I am one of those guys who hardly ever plays with his pictures, I hate sitting on the computer getting Asserritiss. I only do it now and then but not to the extent that most do. As you can tell my the number of post I have on here I have more important things to do in the time I have left in this world.

Not against PP but not really for it.

 

 

"What ever trips your shutter" Leicanut2 - 2003

[archi4]

The reason I don't shoot JPEG with the M9 is that I find the color rendering of the embedded profile much too red for skin tones. (You get the same effect if you use the alternative "embedded" profile instead of the "Adobe Standard" in the pull-down camera profile menu when developing DNG files.)

The quality of the jpeg's from the M9 look fine to me (I have made very good quality prints from jpeg's from a family member's point and shoot up to A3+ and even an A2 print) and if you don't need to make many adjustments there should be no faulting the results.

maurice

[adan]

People here so far talk about shooting JPEGS with no reference to the variations one can set in the camera - for white balance, saturation, contrast, sharpening.

 

If you are just shooting jpegs at the factory-default settings and "Auto" white balance - well, you'll get exactly what anyone who thinks good photography can be automated will get - c*@p.

 

If you carefully manually set the WB for each shot (just as a film photographer would pick daylight or tungsten film - or use correction filters over the lens) and have run tests with the various contrast/sat/sharp settings (just as a film photographer would try out K'chrome or E64 or Velvia or Astia before choosing a favorite) - then you can get very good jpegs.

 

Call it "Pre-processing."

 

I agree with archi4 (post #72) that the color profile the M9 uses is not very good.

 

I agree that jpegs are like shooting color slides. It does have to be very close to "right" before it ever leaves the camera.

 

One of the great Kodachrome photographers of the 20th century (Jay Maisel) had a conference table in his studio, the base of which was a huge wire trash basket labelled "love's labors lost" - filled with all the junk slides he'd edited out. So much for the "perfection" of slide film.

 

Me, I post-process regardless of whether I shoot jpeg (Digilux 2, R-D1) or RAW (every camera since).

 

Can anyone here name a significant photographer who did not either:

 

a) Do their own processing (Gene Smith, Ansel Adams, etc.)

 

Spend a signficant amount of consultation time with a dedicated lab person, getting the results they wanted by proxy (Cartier-Bresson and most other Magnum/LIFE/LOOK/Nat. Geo photographers)

 

c) Bracket the hell out of slide film (Maisel, Pete Turner, etc.) and end up with lots of outtakes, wasting film in lieu of time.

 

Ansel Adams said "The negative is the score. The print is the performance." For me, an image without some post-processing is like an unperformed score - so much waste paper with scribbles on it, its creative potential still unfulfilled.

[haroldp]

I have been following this thread and have some comments:

 

- I personally do not go to the trouble and expense of Leica M9's and Nikon D3x's and the best associated optics, to get 'usable' results, I want the best possible results, which today means shooting Raw and occasionally some post processing.

 

- The best possible results, means Raw and occasionally some post processing with Nikon, as well as Leica. I do not shoot Canon DSLR's, but the state of the programming, mathematics, and physics art is the same for them, and I presume the same holds true. In camera JPG can often produce very good results, particularly when shooting under very good conditions, but Raw has that extra margin.

 

- Post processing can be as simple as setting a batch (easy in CS-5 or Nikon Capture) and having an entire directory processed to the in camera settings while doing some other things ( Scotch and / or a good Capucino are proven to make this processing faster, I don't know why.). This is the moral equivalent of shooting Raw + jpg with less card space used.

I usually do this first and only individually adjust parameters for those shots that both need help, and that I plan to go further with.

 

- Processing software gets smarter over time, and I have been able to re-visit some older Raw frames and apply highlight / shadow recovery tools, and HDR techniques that were not available at the time.

 

- Jaap is absolutely correct, jpg uses a destructive form of compression and should never be edited since each save loses more data. This is true regardless of what changes are made since it is the re-compression at save that is destructive. I use jpg as the final form for printing or display (large tiffs occasionally make my printer drivers unhappy).

 

- It distresses me to see people who I know to usually be constructive members of this

forum, indulging in armchair psychology to disparage those whose priorities differ.

 

Technology can be discussed in definitive terms, the property's are what they are, but whether or not any individual considers the benefits of Raw and PP vs in-camera jpg to be worth their time and effort is a personal decision, and it is not constructive to justify ones own priorities by trying to impute the motivations of those those personal priorities differ.

 

The general press is full of such analysis ( the scientific term is BS) of all of us who can afford and would go to the expense of buying Leica.

 

Regards to all .... Harold