By accident i shot jpeg with my M8 instead of DNG

[wparsonsgisnet]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Patrick, there is another thread here about upsizing images.

 

I found that I liked the upsizing that PSCS2 did all on its own, with bicubic smoother. When you have your file in memory, you can do this with the Image menu choice.

 

Convert to percent and choose the size you need to enable a large print, for example 300%, 500%, whatever. Continue to save these as tiff's. Upsized files get r-e-a-l-l-y big!

 

If you missed the recommendation -- don't touch the original jpg's. They are now your negatives.

 

And with regard to the other, very helpful recommendation, if you feel the need I have some film in the freezer and your M8 lenses will fit that old M6 in your closet.

 

When I made this mistake, I said, "Dng it all!"

[ho_co]

When I made this mistake, I said, "Dng it all!"

Bad, bad, bad, Bill!

 

By the way, thanks for the note in the Firmware 1.102 thread that the M6 switches off its battery when set to B! I've been using one since 1985 and never knew that.

 

--HC

[Skippy Sanchez]

No, with each opening and re-saving. You can open and close as many times as you want

 

Oops.Yes, that's what I ment.

[hamey]

Don't feed the troll.

 

 

Hay Sol, he is only speaking the truth.

 

It takes a brilliant mind to create something simply, but only an idiot to make it difficult.

 

So which one is you.

 

I shoot with slide Film, then I scan some of my images for my friends around the world.

To me it's fantastic scan in TIFF then converted to JPEG.

And the most IMPORTANT THING I have the real thing in my hands and not some ELECTRONIC IMAGE created by your Computer softwere.

 

Such is life.

[Guest sirvine]

Hay Sol, he is only speaking the truth.

 

It takes a brilliant mind to create something simply, but only an idiot to make it difficult.

 

So which one is you.

 

I shoot with slide Film, then I scan some of my images for my friends around the world.

To me it's fantastic scan in TIFF then converted to JPEG.

And the most IMPORTANT THING I have the real thing in my hands and not some ELECTRONIC IMAGE created by your Computer softwere.

 

Such is life.

 

Yeeeeeah. Slides to TIFF to JPEG sure beats RAW to print. (BTW, I think your caps lock is broken. Maybe it's a "Computer softwere" problem.)

[Laki]

Hay Sol, he is only speaking the truth.

 

It takes a brilliant mind to create something simply, but only an idiot to make it difficult.

 

So which one is you.

 

I shoot with slide Film, then I scan some of my images for my friends around the world.

To me it's fantastic scan in TIFF then converted to JPEG.

And the most IMPORTANT THING I have the real thing in my hands and not some ELECTRONIC IMAGE created by your Computer softwere.

 

Such is life.

 

cool, i bet you also still use a carriage drawn by four horses instead of a car (remember, cars also have that bad electronic ghosts inside) and for sure you print all your emails and hang them on the wall, oh, btw, why do you use a computer than? after you press send you wont have anything "real" in your hand as well.

 

demonizing the digital m is really way cool and shows much of ignorance of todays technology and possibilites.

[waterlenz]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

By accident i shot jpeg fine res 10 MP with my M8 instead of DNG , i as wanted to make big enlargments of theses pictures i would like to know if i am going to loose quality compare to raw files or have the same result ?

Do i have to transform the pictures to DMG first before enlarging them ?

May i use a program like genuine fractal to expand the jpeg files , if yes does the result will be as good as with a raw file converted to tiff ?

Or do i have to reshoot the pictures in Raw ?

 

Thanks

 

Patrick Mimran

 

It is possible to convert jpg to DNG in Lightroom and then work with the DNG. It is best not to save as jpeg, then save again, and again, etc. as quality goes down with each jpeg save. A camera original jpeg may not be too shabby.

Tom

[lars_bergquist]

Depends on how large you want. Usually a jpeg will be limited to 8 x 10 ......

 

Now listen ... 8x10' or 18x24 cm IS ENOUGH.

 

Some basics. The closest focusing of young normal eyes (or normal reading glasses) is c. 25 cm. Closest comfortable is c. 30 cm or 12'. This is normal reading distance. All print in books or papers is predicated on this. I should know; I have been in that business for half a century now.

 

At that distance, an A4 (or roughly 8x10 or 18x24) is the largest picture area that can be seen and perceived as a complete image *simultaneously*. Larger pictures have to be laboriously pieced together from successive scans (saccades). So, as pictures get larger, we try to hold them on outstretched arms, first; then we frame them and hang them so that we can view them at a distance (now listen) where they subtend the same angle as that A4 etc. above.

 

You can of course make a two by three meter print and then assault it with a magnifier, or why not a microscope. Sooner or later, resolution and contrast will start to fail. And then we hear the wailing: 4x5' cut film in a wiew camera is not enough ... The wailers are in it for the wailing, not for the photography. If we are in it for the photography, we want to see the picture as a picture, and work to that 'maximum viewing angle'. The resolution sniffers and pixel sniffers of the digital age are no different however from the grain sniffers of youre, that decorated exhibition prints with greasy patches from their noses.

 

Note: If your intention is not a picture to look at, but a record of a scientific or technical specimen to be evaluated, then you do want the absolute maximum of resolution and detail, of course. But then we are no longer talking of photography in the sense of image-making for the perception of normal human beings.

 

In perspective: what is a 24x36 mm piece of film good for? It took me years, and chemical and optical machinations not in the books of either Kodak or Ilford, to learn to produce a grainless 18x24. I mean *grainless*, not just 'with grain that I personally don't find too disturbing', which is the usual meaning. And that was the maximum. Large prints, including a 15x20 INCH coastal landscape, do nevertheless hang on my studio wall. I know that greasy smears would appear on the glass if I started to 'sniff', but why should I do that? That landscape is not for sniffing but for looking at; and at that distance, it is grainless. In other words: Enough is enough.

 

The old man from the Age of 35 mm Photography

[hamey]

cool, i bet you also still use a carriage drawn by four horses instead of a car (remember, cars also have that bad electronic ghosts inside) and for sure you print all your emails and hang them on the wall, oh, btw, why do you use a computer than? after you press send you wont have anything "real" in your hand as well.

 

demonizing the digital m is really way cool and shows much of ignorance of todays technology and possibilites.

 

 

1.. E mails like my Newspapers, I read them and then discard them, never print them.

 

2.. I have never made a Digital print from my own or others, simply not interested in paper photos, except family pictures.

3.... I am not anti Electronics, I work with them all the time, after all my two R7's R8/9 and

the M7 are Electronic and they have never let me down.

 

4...NO..I don't drive horse drawn carriages but What I do drive is BIG LOCOMOTIVES,

and thats Electric, Diesel and some time ago Steam.

 

5...Over the last 35 years I have spent a lot of money on Leica gear to which I Love, and I am not going to trust my Photografic images to a medium which is plagued with problems

My Film slides go back to the 60's, some of the early AGFA's have lost some colour but the Kodachromes, Ectachromes, Fujichromes and Elitechromes are still as good as the day I took them.

I hope that all your Electronic Images will be ok in 35 years from now.

 

6.... Why do I use a Computer, like my telephone mostly for communication with Friends

and to get some comedy relief, reading the Leica Digital forum.

 

Cheers.

 

Cheers.

[larry]

Back to size - my only experience with this is my Panasonic LX-1 which automatically creates a jpeg and RAW of the same image. The jpeg just falls apart when you try to enlarge it - crappy color, sharpness and individual pixels exposed. The RAW is fine. I don't know if the jpeg is also 8 mp, perhaps it's meant for web use only. Just enough of a lesson that I, personally, don't care to do the same with the M8.

 

John,

 

What you describe is typical for small-sensor cameras. Most of them over-process and compress the files to a point that make them unusable for critical viewing. I think you'll find that the M8's much larger sensor produces very usable JPEGs. Of course, the exposure and color balance must be spot on. Clearly, the M8's auto white balance isn't up to the task yet, so I typically set the Kelvin temperature when shooting JPEGs.

 

Larry

[siralevine]

Patrick,

 

1. If you have access to Lightroom, you can import the JPEG file and process it in the Lightroom environment. Lightroom is a "Metadata" processor, which means that every adjustment to the image is stored as an instruction rather than actually changing the image data. When you want to print or export the image it renders it by taking the orginal JPEG file and applying the adjustment instructions to the image. The original JPEG is never changed. This is also how Adobe Camera Raw 4.0 works in the Photoshop CS3 Beta.

 

2. If the image is properly exposed Lightroom or ACR 4.0 provides great flexibility in adjusting white balance, tone, color, contrast, etc. even to a JPEG image. You can then export the processed image as a PSD or Tiff File for submission to a lab .

 

3. Alternatively, you can print directly from Lightroom to any size you specify and LR will uprez the image data to fit tha specified format, again, without affecting the original image.

[davidada]

Using a good film in a real camera doesn´t give you problems like this.It is so easy,

why do poeple like things to become so complicated?

 

Jo

Complicated like setting the wrong ISO or having monochrome instead of color loaded or the classic the film did not engage the sprocket and you shoot nothing all day - different strokes for different folks!

[lars_bergquist]

One thing about the supposedly crappy jpgs. Some people seem to think that 'a jpg is a jpg is a jpg'. This is certainly not the case. First, main variable no. 1 is the rate of compression. The more you compress, the more image information you lose.

 

Second, the amount of image information you started out with. Third, the quality of that info. In most compacts, the 'engine' does an amount of image processing that is not necessary in the case of the M8, in order to fight noise and various other problems, and this does leave traces.

 

So don't sell fine Jpgs from the M8 short. They are good. They are not only useable, but useful.

 

The old man who cannot keep his mouth shut

[Laki]

1.. E mails like my Newspapers, I read them and then discard them, never print them.

 

2.. I have never made a Digital print from my own or others, simply not interested in paper photos, except family pictures.

3.... I am not anti Electronics, I work with them all the time, after all my two R7's R8/9 and

the M7 are Electronic and they have never let me down.

 

4...NO..I don't drive horse drawn carriages but What I do drive is BIG LOCOMOTIVES,

and thats Electric, Diesel and some time ago Steam.

 

5...Over the last 35 years I have spent a lot of money on Leica gear to which I Love, and I am not going to trust my Photografic images to a medium which is plagued with problems

My Film slides go back to the 60's, some of the early AGFA's have lost some colour but the Kodachromes, Ectachromes, Fujichromes and Elitechromes are still as good as the day I took them.

I hope that all your Electronic Images will be ok in 35 years from now.

 

6.... Why do I use a Computer, like my telephone mostly for communication with Friends

and to get some comedy relief, reading the Leica Digital forum.

 

Cheers.

 

Cheers.

 

wow what an hero you are

 

but still i'm sorry, your attitude towards digital is just antique and way out of reality. saying this i still use film as well and different systems, i might not drive big locomotives because i prefer to fly and drive cars and maybe i dont close my eyes towards todays developments like you do. .

[smokysun]

one thing to consider: how many pictures actually get printed? most are seen on the web. last week before showing a movie i projected some manipulated pics on a screen. they were probably 8 by 10 feet and much more effective than in print. when you get that screen glow you're stepping into the new/old age of slides.

 

and it's easy to get lost in the details. how many people look at a photo for more than ten seconds? the over-all effect is usually all that matters. all the old b&w images have plenty of power with grain.

 

waterdance 2 Photo Gallery by wayne pease at pbase.com

[jacksparrow]

If you want to save those jpegs you better transform then to tiff.

jpeg is not looseless, so every time you save the file it will lose some details as a result of the compression of the data, tiffs on the other hand should preserve all the information.

[Michael Jones]

Mr. Lars Bergquist,

 

Thank you for your thoughtful post on the image size issue. I think it is an accurate observation and one that many "sniffers" (I love that term) would do well to think about.

 

I have an early 4 megapixel digital SLR that shoots beautiful JPEG files straight out of the camera and at 8 X 10 with normal viewing distance, the images are quite beautiful to look at.

 

I am also reminded of an exhibit I attended where an apparently mural size photographic image of an elderly woman in black and white extended floor to ceiling. On closer (snifer) inspection, the image was entirely composed of the artists thumb prints !

 

Regards,

 

Michael