Shooting RAW or JPG?

[prk60091]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The examples are quite similar, . . . . . the primary advantages of raw probably are in correcting exposure issues and being able to save all of the information contained in the original image (analogous to a film negative).

If you are able to *get* the exposure "right" as you expose the image....then the "advantage" of RAW (DNG) diminishes. 

 

It may be desireable to retain the RAW/DNG file as your "negative" but *if* properly exposed then the "advantage" tips to the ooc jpg.  

 

Until now I have shot and processed the DNG files on my Q (I am still learning this camera after about 100 days with the camera) and when I go on vacation I will continue to process the DNG files (just to be sure) but as I learn the camera more and more the processed DNG files and the ooc jpg's (tweeking some settings) begin to *look* the same (at a significant time and personal energy savings).

 

To suggest as others have in this thread to not process the DNG files is a waste of money-- is pure "bs". 

 

 

Inasmuch as photography is a visual art... all that matters is what is seen NOT HOW IT IS CREATED.

[prk60091]

I went outside to shoot a picture of colourful leaves, I think people are visual and so a comparison might help. Jpeg first, raw processed in lightroom second

 

I could have had a better jpeg if I had taken my time, but a lot of the time I have to snap and move on which is why processing raw for all of my pics makes sense for me. Even when I do have time to get really good shots the processed raw files are even better so..

 

 

which one is "closest" to "real life"?????  and which one  pleases " you" the most? to my eye on my calibrated monitor-- the 2nd one is a bit oversaturated (which means I would not have developed the image this way-- the photographer has his/her own vision and they have the right to present the image the way they want-- I do not mean to say anything negative towards the photographer-- but rather mean only that to my taste it looks oversaturated)--YMMV....

Edited October 15, 2015 by prk60091

[Advertisement]

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

[prk60091]

one final thought for the lunch hour....

 

back in the beginning of time when digital photography was in its infancy and sensors and the accompanying software were primitive and digital post processing was required to make an acceptable image  RAW was a way to get that image...we can all agree that OOC Jpegs from those early sensors were cr@p.

 

Now in 2015 we have a most advanced sensor on the Q and the state of the art in-camera processing engine (you can argue whose in camera engine is better sony/leica/pansonic/? -- but we can agree that the Q's is among the best if not the best today)

 

how necessary is DNG/RAW?-- just asking the question which is what I interpreted the OP's question to be.

[adam80]

which one is "closest" to "real life"????? and which one pleases " you" the most? to my eye on my calibrated monitor-- the 2nd one is a bit oversaturated (which means I would not have developed the image this way-- the photographer has his/her own vision and they have the right to present the image the way they want-- I do not mean to say anything negative towards the photographer-- but rather mean only that to my taste it looks oversaturated)--YMMV....

The second (not including the over saturation) is closest to real life. The white balance is off and the grey and white bricks in the upper left corner can be clearly seen in real life, I could have done better with a better exposure and wb right off the bat but I don't always have the time to get it dead on for every shot. The raw files are obv more forgiving. I do like over saturation but that's just one thing I did, I can lower it and the second image will still look better for me because of the other changes I made in Lightroom.

[CharlesL]

The JPG is the interpretation of the raw file that color professionals,  presumably,  programmed into the camera, altered by your menu modifications of gross parameters for saturation, sharpening, etc. There is an intermediate workflow when you like the JPG except for minor changes such as darkening a background area, adding a touch of sharpening to the subject, even shifting the white balance a bit. Work on the JPG, being sure to save intermediate steps in a lossless format like TIF.

Some shots work with this treatment. Other shots reward work on the raw file. The problem with the latter is that you need considerable skill to get from the raw data to something as good as the JPG overall.

Examining a few sample Q shots I was able to make, the JPG is at 98% quality per the FastStone image viewer. It would be good to have a choice of a 100% JPG or even a lossless format in the camera.
 

[sturkel]

It is funny how this topic comes up on just about every forum I attend. Nikon, Sony, Leica all the same questions.  My feeling is it is a matter of taste.  Some want to have complete control of the final image, other's are content with what they get out of the camera.  I love using a super bridge camera, Nikon P900 for birds.  This camera does not offer any raw images.  I have learned to enjoy what I get out of the camera and to be honest most is very appealing.

 

For work I only shoot raw as I know I have the ability to add to any image should the need arise.  But I also shoot Jpeg and raw together and for a good 70% of my wedding images the Jpegs are all that is needed.  

 

Shooting 15-20 K images a month I like the choice to pick from.

[algrove]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

DNG. 

[ropo54]

Why does it have to be one or the other formats? Why not both?

 

Why would Leica not develop the software for quality Jpegs?  Let the users choose how much post processing they want to engage in.

 

Or, is it just a matter of time before there is a firmware upgrade that allows for 'better' quality jpegs ooc?

[ricky1981]

I've had my Q for a month now and you need to shoot DNG to get the best from the camera, the JPGs are pretty poor. Fuji and Sony do a much better job so it's a shame Leica is behind but the DNG files are crackers so it's only a minor blemish.

[jut81]

As a newcomer, I am curious whether there are JPEG settings that approximate DNG output on the Q. (Unfortunately) I seem to favour the Q's unprocessed DNG output over it's JPEGs. I have not encountered similar sentiment, nor can I yet say whether I will feel the same way in all situations.  

 

I am not partial to the chunky files which demand an external drive. All the arguments in favour of DNG seem rooted in the greater scope for post processing.

In these early days, I want to work on compositional skills rather than spending a great deal of time making my mediocre images prettier. 

 

I also find a great deal of YouTube content focussed on post processing but very little on taking better photographs. It's almost as if 90% of photography today is about post processing. I believe good photography pre-dates editing software. I would appreciate suggestions on instructive content.  

[jaapv]

No there are not.  The essence of DNG is that your file contains all the data the camera can provide. The JPG file will contain approx. one third of those data, s the camera will have pre-processed and compressed the file.

There is no DNG output to be shown. The image you see on your screen will always be the result of the processing by your raw developer program. If you would want to look at the output, all you would see would be a very long row of ones and zeroes, Compare it to trying to see an image on an undeveloped film.

9that must be a limited one)

As for an external drive, you need more than one to ensure your back-ups anyway. If you have computer with a small internal drive, just replace it.  Either the drive or the computer.

 

Content - much more difficult to instruct. However, there are loads of books out there, showing the works of famous photographers, on composition, subject choice, etc. There are even more on painting,  The same on the Internet, you only need to google the right words.  If  you use "composition in photography" you will get 574.000.000 results. Do the same for "Leica CL review" and it will be "just" 4.070.000.

 

Not really Q territory, but just as an example: this link arrived in my mailbox just now:

 

https://luminous-landscape.com/seeing-wildlife-as-compositional-elements/

[bags27]

As a newcomer, I am curious whether there are JPEG settings that approximate DNG output on the Q. (Unfortunately) I seem to favour the Q's unprocessed DNG output over it's JPEGs. I have not encountered similar sentiment, nor can I yet say whether I will feel the same way in all situations.  

 

I am not partial to the chunky files which demand an external drive. All the arguments in favour of DNG seem rooted in the greater scope for post processing.

In these early days, I want to work on compositional skills rather than spending a great deal of time making my mediocre images prettier. 

 

I also find a great deal of YouTube content focussed on post processing but very little on taking better photographs. It's almost as if 90% of photography today is about post processing. I believe good photography pre-dates editing software. I would appreciate suggestions on instructive content.

 

Or just run all your dngs through post processing where they can be converted to far better jpegs than any competitor camera can produce and save them in that format.

[Ari Kfir]

I use the jpgs exclusively. Yes, I read that working with the DNG files in Lightroom will give you the best results - but I cant be bothered. I dont want to spend any more time than I have to working on the computer. I then do tweak a select few somewhat in the Photos program (Edit mode) on my MacBook Pro and this does improve them somewhat. Particularly for the underexposed shots which I find are very common (presumably Leica does this to "preserve the highlights?"). I'd be interested in comments on this: am I really losing much quality by not using Lightroom/DNGs?

 

 

Absolutely! if you are a decent photographer who, before pressing the camera shot button, knows what result he wants to achieve.

[prk60091]

I see this topic has been revived. I re-read my responses from 2 ½ years ago and today my responses are different.

 

I now know that I prefer my processing of the DNG’s over the Leica version. So to get the most out of this digital camera post processing the DNG’s is essential.

[jut81]

No there are not.  The essence of DNG is that your file contains all the data the camera can provide. The JPG file will contain approx. one third of those data, as the camera will have pre-processed and compressed the file.

There is no DNG output to be shown. The image you see on your screen will always be the result of the processing by your raw developer program. If you would want to look at the output, all you would see would be a very long row of ones and zeroes, Compare it to trying to see an image on an undeveloped film.

9that must be a limited one)

As for an external drive, you need more than one to ensure your back-ups anyway. If you have computer with a small internal drive, just replace it.  Either the drive or the computer.

 

Content - much more difficult to instruct. However, there are loads of books out there, showing the works of famous photographers, on composition, subject choice, etc. There are even more on painting,  The same on the Internet, you only need to google the right words.  If  you use "composition in photography" you will get 574.000.000 results. Do the same for "Leica CL review" and it will be "just" 4.070.000.

 

Not really Q territory, but just as an example: this link arrived in my mailbox just now:

 

https://luminous-landscape.com/seeing-wildlife-as-compositional-elements/

 

 

 

Many thanks jaapv.

 

Re content: I have in fact consumed a number of books. The article you provided is helpful. Other content considered good by members of this forum would also be welcome.

 

Re Q JPG settings that approximate DNG: Perhaps I should have said un-manipulated rather than unprocessed, but I take it that there are none.

[bigal74]

I save the DNG and JPG on the memory card but only ever really use the JPG in photos app on Mac as it doesn't support raw or dng. I'll be brutally honest - I did have adobe software for 3 months but its expensive for what it is... and if you already have apple photos it does most of what I need. 

I loaded DNG's into my Mac for first month and had a fettle with photoshop and Lightroom but I filled a 500GB drive on one machine and a 2TB drive on another pretty quickly. The time to load and transfer them around is a pain - takes longer to open and save etc. and yeah I do have an extra drive plugged in too, its still annoying. 

Looking at most photos out of the Leica Q2M at 48 megapixel the jpeg from iso 100 through to about 6400 is hardly discernible in Difference from the DNG. if you zoom to the max; there is a tiny loss of texture in the jpeg but it looks more like grainy / pixels sections have been anti-aliased rather than much real loss of quality. At normal viewing - for 6x4" prints up to 12"x8"'s you'd be hard pressed to know the difference. I would expect posters or wall prints - yeah you'd maybe want that extra definition and quality where it's more like to be noticed. 

In my humble opinion the saved space and speed massively outweigh the tiny difference in quality. 

When you go to iso 12500 , 50000, and 100,000 noise becomes a factor. I'd say the 50k ISO images for example look better in DNG - the clash of noise less noticeable versus the extra definition but I only ever shoot above 6400 in the rarest of circumstances. In most of those I could get a better image at lower iso and simply open the aperture or run a longer shutter to compensate and end up with a better image anyway - without the need for the space and extra time burning. 

Let's not forget award winning photos, like the HCB's and winogrands and meyerowitz's of this world original b&w on Tri-X would be more like a badly processed 3 megapixel image. It's the subject matter and story that makes it a good picture not the science. ;-) happy shooting. 

[jaapv]

Welcome to the forum.
I see where you are coming from, but actually the Adobe subscription is cheap for the vast range of tools and development that Adobe is offering. However, if you don't edit to any significant extent and don't see much difference between your raw edis and JPGs I guess you make a fair point. I am just an amateur, but I tried dozens of editing programs, some are quite good but I cannot be without Photoshop.
As for Photos - the only thing I hold against it is that it is a space-waster in my Mac that cannot be deleted.

Quote

Let's not forget award winning photos, like the HCB's and winogrands and meyerowitz's of this world original b&w on Tri-X would be more like a badly processed 3 megapixel image.

This is absolute bollocks. Although I agree that content trumps image quality, even now there is no way to mimic the rendering of film perfectly in the digital world. There is a good reason that film photography is still doing well, albeit on a reduced scale.

[RWood]

I never owned a hight quality digital camera before the Q2. The first day I took it out and downloaded my pictures I found that I had the Jpegs and DNG Files. 

It didn't take long to realize that the RAW files were far superior to the JPEGs and I had far more information to improve the phots in photo shop or light room.

So why not get the best quality available. I now use RAW exclusively.   

 

 

 

 

 

[PhotoCruiser]

 

Am 12.12.2021 um 11:49 schrieb bigal74:

In my humble opinion the saved space and speed massively outweigh the tiny difference in quality. 

 

This is not absolute true as it depend on the JPG Processor in the camera. some cameras do this well, others not so well.
The main difference is that JPG files are already in-camera processed raw files while raw files need to be processed as they are basically the raw information from the sensor.
The color rendering of RAW files is done in your computer and it is influenced by the raw processor and eventual import presets who will often automatically applied.

Lightroom is a excellent program and much easier to use than CaptureOne due C1's broader choice of image editing possibilities who can be overwhelming.
However, both programs apply by default import filters and they can worsen the RAW image if the wrong import settings are active or switched on.
Both programs can apply correct image rendering filters/settings to create the image you wish to have and consider "the right one" 

As long the JPG files need only a small amount of correction and the user is happy with the in-camera rendering then JPG are fine to use.
But as there should be any kind of editing involved the final quality of a properly edited RAW image will be far superior than applying the same editing on a JPG file.

There are two kind of photographers and there will be always those two ways to enjoy photography:
some are taking photos and is happy with the result out of the camera (film or digital)
others are shooting and then enjoy the time editing them, either in the dark room or nowadays on the computer

Absolutely no "one is better than the other",
i am just the second type and after almost 30 years of computer graphics I still enjoy editing photos like I enjoyed long hours in the cold, smelly dark room almost 50  years ago editing and blowing-up B/W photos.

Regarding the size issue, yes true RAW photos need considerable more space to store and more memory and processor power to edit them.
but today with a few years old laptop it`s possible to edit them and store them on a external drive and from where they can be edited from.
That's the way I do it from when I have a MacBook Pro M1 and I am fine with this solution ( even if I have to admit that my XEON Processor Lenovo with 4TB SSD was more practical to use as no external disk was needed and so to carry)

Chris

P.S. For a Non-Notebook i suggest you to check the MacMini with M1 Processor, probably the cheapest way to have a very fast computer able to handle also 4K video.
That would be my choice if I would need a "desktop" computer and I still could drop it in my luggage when moving from one place to another where I have a monitor standing there ready to connect

 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica Q

[Le Chef]

I would argue that there are many ways to enjoy photography but you are creating a weighted false equivalency. It’s not “either or”, it’s “and and”. For those who wish to learn and use the development programs available there’s a challenge that can lead to optimized images.
I’m not touching on composition as frankly that does not depend on the equipment but on the eye of the photographer.