Jump to content
ricky1981

Shooting RAW or JPG?

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Ditto

 

 

Personally, unless storage is a problem, I would shoot with the highest JPEG and DNG to start, if you like the JPEG and time is limited, enjoy that. If you feel like you caught something particularly special, or more importantly, if you like the photo but there's problems with heavy shadows, exposure, blown highlights, etc. You can very possibly bring the photo back to where you envisioned it when taking the picture with the myriad of RAW adjustments.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry folks, but there is so much nonsense in the above post it suggests a complete lack of knowledge by the OP, or some desire to use the camera as a point and shoot. Leica users wouldn't really enjoy a machine that just produces pictures. There is no such thing as "best JPEG", because the JPEG straight from any camera is a massaged , consumer friendly, popular styled image. It can be edited to taste but not as much as the raw. The Raw however, is a larger untouched and unadulterated data file containing all the light values recorded by the sensor. Straight from the camera and rendered in the RAW converter it is flat and probably not to anyone's taste. It isn't supposed to be your final output. The camera does not add or remove anything from the raw file. It is unsharpened, uncorrected, and cannot be adjusted in the camera. Raw files must be processed. In fact, those sharpening, contrast, saturation settings in your Q have absolutely no effect on the raw image. Those settings only apply to the JPEG and once applied in camera, their effects cannot be removed. In theory, only the LARGER raw file is the complete and best representation of what the sensor captured via the lens. From that point on, the user adjusts the recorded data in a raw converter such as Lightroom and exports the image in the required format to suit the media you are using. All Lightroom adjusted raws can be readjusted or reset to original an unlimited number of times. Unlike JPEG processing, RAW processing is non-destructive and you can always return to the original raw and create multiple versions of an image

OOC JPEGS may look good but actually limit your freedom to interpret the pure data from the sensor. To be honest, if you like the JPEGS from your Fuji, you should go back to using it because the output from the Leica sensor has its own unique character which you are free to exploit to get the results you want. That's why you should shoot RAW.

Irrespective of available technology or brand, your best results will come by processing an unadjusted raw file and there is no such thing as "best image" . How can you define "best"? Is it best for screen, web, print? It's subjective. If you bought this Leica because it creates "best JPEG " images, without the need for post processing, then you aren't going to get the results that the camera and lens combination can deliver. If you are going to agree to post processing, then you should post process using the raw file.

 

I'm not clear what you mean by lack of quality. How do you expect Leica to build your idea of a quality image into a JPEG file. I can't see how Leica can configure it's JPEG images to suit you and to suit everyone else. You have to work at your files. The final results would then represent your personal, creative, interpretive and artistic skills. It most certainly doesn't depend on the camera alone. (Thank goodness!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excuse me but I totally disagree with you. I also do not spend USD4250 for a camera and -I dont mind if its a Leica q, to shoot Raw files only... There are a lot of cameras outhere which can shoot both, Raw files and excellent ooc jpegs, in my personal opinion. Leica, as a "fine" or special character camera, must, but must, shoot excellent jpegs ooc to keep them, on my computer if a want or just to print them ooc or make a present....That's the real pleasure of this art and hobby. ( I am not a novice..shooting for more than 30 years..and started with a Nikon EM...) and I am also thinking about to buy one...Many thanks.

Edited by fischmann1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I sometimes teach Lightroom for the oldtimers I often equate jpeg's to the final print and the RAW file to the original negative. with film you will always be able to get more info from the negative than form the print and when printing film we would have dodged or burnt in certain parts of an image etc etc. Hey it's fine by me if someone wants to shoot jpeg only that  they are throwing away so much detail that if they want to do any PP afterwards you are very limited in what you can do. For me the PP is as much part of the process of making an image as is the taking of it. This was just as true in the film age as is it isnow in the digital age

Edited by viramati

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry folks, but there is so much nonsense in the above post... ... (Thank goodness!)

 

Strong words from a RAW fanboy. In my opinion your introduction disqualifies you for a further discussion about the requirements of other Q owners. And many Leica ooc users don´t need a lecture about the advantages of RAW processing, they mostly know about that.

 

 

I agree that there can be big advantages for special purposes. But: What fishmann1 (I guess) and I would illustrate is, that there is another world in coexistence to RAW processing. For me its a "no go" that Leica with the Q did not give the possibility to me for a real choice between RAW developing and ooc-jpeg. (Leica X-series do it)

 

In german part of luf I tried to show the differences between ooc and RAW development. And there are not few who agreed with this problem although most of them only develop RAW. In forum quality its not as noticeable as in "reality":

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/245864-leica-q/page-22

 

RAW is better. Fact. But what me higly bothers is the absolutism of some RAW fans that the only acceptable output from a high quality camera like Q is RAW developing and that ooc users are crazy not using the maximum potential. With that attitute for example all Porsche drivers outside Germany (no speed limit on many freeways) must be crazy because most of them don´t practise everyday 20% of driving potencial of a car that could be used on a racingcourse. But is it only the possible upper limit that makes a Leica or a Porsche or other nice things interesting? Whats about building quality, design, behaviour, haptic, handling, configuration, salvage value, ... ?

Edited by bikedoll

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We can agree to differ on these points, because I realise that you have used Leica Raw files and have experience of processing the files.  Some new members have never used them and I really wanted to encourage them to do their own tests to discover the differences. I also own a M9-P Rangefinder which I think is a much better product but doesn't have some features that are important for some of my travel.  For me, the Q is a neccessay compromise.   .i won't accept that an internally pre-processed JPEG can ever be made to  reveal more data than a RAW File straight from the sensor.  

 

Since you mentioned the comparison, I am very proud and happy with all my Swiss and German engineered products.  My 50 Mechanical watches definitely don't tell the time more accurately than Quartz but I agree that the real pleasure also comes from the designs, the manufacturer's history, the tick-tock sound, engineering quality, reliability, resale value and feel.  I do own a Boxster S and have owned it for 10 years. Previously I owned a 911. . Of course  I can't drive it at its maximum speed here in the UK but it is a wonderful car to drive at any speed.  If it was limited in performance such as a JPEG I wouldn't have bought it and I don't think I've wasted £44000 .   It's also a very beautiful car so maybe I'm a Porsche fanboy as well. I clean it two or three times a year!  Being labelled a fanboy wouldn't bother me and people don't pick fights with me because they are jealous.  Generally , the fanboy tag attaches to many brands but not Leica.  In fact, many people recognise the Leica and the Boxster and love to talk to me about them.

 

I am not going to suggest that  anyone buys a Leica Q unless they need and understand its features and limitations.  I'll continue to use my M9-P with its CCD sensor and beautiful colour rendering, and Q. although the rangefinder does give me a greater thrill in use!   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Strong words from a RAW fanboy. In my opinion your introduction disqualifies you for a further discussion about the requirements of other Q owners. And many Leica ooc users don´t need a lecture about the advantages of RAW processing, they mostly know about that.

 

 

I agree that there can be big advantages for special purposes. But: What fishmann1 (I guess) and I would illustrate is, that there is another world in coexistence to RAW processing. For me its a "no go" that Leica with the Q did not give the possibility to me for a real choice between RAW developing and ooc-jpeg. (Leica X-series do it)

 

In german part of luf I tried to show the differences between ooc and RAW development. And there are not few who agreed with this problem although most of them only develop RAW. In forum quality its not as noticeable as in "reality":

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/245864-leica-q/page-22

 

RAW is better. Fact. But what me higly bothers is the absolutism of some RAW fans that the only acceptable output from a high quality camera like Q is RAW developing and that ooc users are crazy not using the maximum potential. With that attitute for example all Porsche drivers outside Germany (no speed limit on many freeways) must be crazy because most of them don´t practise everyday 20% of driving potencial of a car that could be used on a racingcourse. But is it only the possible upper limit that makes a Leica or a Porsche or other nice things interesting? Whats about building quality, design, behaviour, haptic, handling, configuration, salvage value, ... ?

 

Sorry, but you missed it again. You will not see the potential of the Porsche while driving 300 km/h on a boring highway and it is the same with the JPEG`s out of a prime camera.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In my opinion, purchasing the Q or any digital Leica and then avoiding  RAW to save time or to save space is the same as pouring money down the drain.   

 

I agree completely and I think this applies to any camera. As soon as the T files can be set to RAW only I will flick that switch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my opinion, purchasing the Q or any digital Leica and then avoiding RAW to save time or to save space is the same as pouring money down the drain.  

 

I agree completely and I think this applies to any camera. As soon as the T files can be set to RAW only I will flick that switch.

 

In my opinion, those who insist on only using RAW should shut up about it and stop insulting the rest of us. Seriously, it's like you break out the burning pitchforks.

 

The only use RAW has is if you have taken a disastrous picture in the first place. If you can take decent pictures out of the camera, and can use the far greater functionality in photoshop than you get in any raw converter, you can equal or exceed the results you will get with raw and you will save a lot of time.

 

It's just a fanboy thing - they're bigger files, and cheaper cameras don't produce them, so they must be better....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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..

 

/applications/core/interface/imageproxy/imageproxy.php?img=https://farm1.staticflickr.com/732/21978255960_cfd69965e5_b.jpg&key=69ca1a07ec083a1b228872b7ac954346599a7319d151036d0df40464f0f6651e">

 

/applications/core/interface/imageproxy/imageproxy.php?img=https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5675/21978501030_d62651310e_b.jpg&key=5e43157848d9537477826781954228ccc1446cb4dc144ddd64079867569042f5">

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Adam80, that's a very useful comparison and really appreciate it! Out of interest, could you post the jpg with the same LR adjustments?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The examples are quite similar, except that the color saturation of the processed raw image is greater. No doubt the jpeg could have been tweaked to increase the similarity, perhaps even by in camera settings. However, 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).

Edited by Trivette

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the jpeg :  what camera settings did you use (saturation and contrast)

Yes I would also like to know, did you use the middle ground default values for the jpeg? Also, is the jpeg right OOC or did you tweak it at all like you did the raw file? On the same note, is it not possible to tweak the jpeg to get it closer to the clearly more saturated raw one you posted? Yes, some will jump on me and say that if you're going to edit the jpeg, why not just use the raw file in the first place.

 

Answer: Because it is simpler to just keep the jpegs and not have to delete some files, provide extra storage etc. So - in the event that the jpeg right OOC isnt good enough, could the best tweak to it not come pretty close to the Lightroom result with the raw? So we get back to my original reply to the original post: not demanding perfection but "good enough" and valuing my time to not be chained to the damn computer anymore than necessary, arent the jpegs good enough? I spent a career in research using computers and now have to use them all the time for non research personal and business tasks. I'm sick of them. I want to appreciate my love of art and photography and not be a slave to the computer - to the extent this is possible. And I can see from some of the posts here, that I have company in this regard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The examples are quite similar, except that the color saturation of the processed raw image is greater. No doubt the jpeg could have been tweaked to increase the similarity, perhaps even by in camera settings. However, 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).

I did a little more then up the saturation, if that was all I did then I could def save time by telling the camera to do that when creating the jpeg. It's more about fixing the exposure, colour balance and tweeking highlights/shadows etc..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes I would also like to know, did you use the middle ground default values for the jpeg? Also, is the jpeg right OOC or did you tweak it at all like you did the raw file? On the same note, is it not possible to tweak the jpeg to get it closer to the clearly more saturated raw one you posted? Yes, some will jump on me and say that if you're going to edit the jpeg, why not just use the raw file in the first place.

 

Answer: Because it is simpler to just keep the jpegs and not have to delete some files, provide extra storage etc. So - in the event that the jpeg right OOC isnt good enough, could the best tweak to it not come pretty close to the Lightroom result with the raw? So we get back to my original reply to the original post: not demanding perfection but "good enough" and valuing my time to not be chained to the damn computer anymore than necessary, arent the jpegs good enough? I spent a career in research using computers and now have to use them all the time for non research personal and business tasks. I'm sick of them. I want to appreciate my love of art and photography and not be a slave to the computer - to the extent this is possible. And I can see from some of the posts here, that I have company in this regard.

In the comparison my jpeg settings are stock out of the box however they come. I haven't played with them because I don't use jpegs but I'm sure I would be able to get better results by doing so. Having said that, I process every picture differently, the fact that the camera would process all the jpegs with identical settings bothers me.

The jpeg I posted is completely unprocessed by me... To answer your question, yes I believe that I could manage to get the jpeg to look very close to the raw processed file but it would take much longer and would be harder and in the end it just wouldn't produce the exact same result. Since it would take longer and produce a lesser result I think it boils down to this,, if you can set the jpeg settings to look acceptable to you straight out of the camera, great, but if you can't you may as well use the raw files to process. The q seems to have been created for those who want to create just like other Leica cameras it takes a few extra mins to get the most out of them. Well worth the time

Edited by adam80

Share this post


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.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue., Read more about our Privacy Policy