Jump to content
ricky1981

Shooting RAW or JPG?

Recommended Posts

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.

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">

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 by prk60091

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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