Shooting RAW or JPG?

[acg69]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

DNG only in order to get the most out of the files in post processing. The only reason to shoot JPG imho is file size, if one has such limitations; otherwise shooting JPG clearly puts a ceiling to what one can do with the image in terms or corrections and creative processing.

[Viv]

DNG. Always.

[Advertisement]

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

[Stuart Richardson]

On 12/12/2021 at 10:49 AM, bigal74 said:

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. 

----------------------

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

------------------------

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. 

Jpegs are like polaroids. They are great if all you need is the look of the polaroid (jpeg), and you only need it in that size. The problem with both jpegs and polaroids is that adjusting them after the fact tends to damage them. If you are happy with the trade off and never make larger prints or edits, then by all means, enjoy them. But if there is a chance you may need to do those things, they are less than ideal.

As a printer, please let me disabuse you of the notion that the photos you mention would be equivalent to a badly processed 3 megapixel image. First of all, have you looked at these photos in person? I would encourage you to do so. "badly processed" would not be a characteristic. 35mm film also resolves much more than 3mp. How much depends on the film, but generally at least 16mp of detail information, but much more of tonal information. Resolution in film is quite different than digital. You have lower line pair discrimination information in film (it is fuzzier), but you have a ton of tonal information and color detail fidelity and you do not have past the extinction resolution of digital. The long and short of it is that digital is sharper and has more resolution, but film generally enlarges better if the files have to be stretched. Using film to defend your jpeg use is not a great look. Besides, there is plenty of good work shot on jpeg that are a better comparison (like most work shot on phones).

[jaapv]

But, after all is said and done, if you have to shoot JPG, the Leica to do it with is a Q. After all, the concept is a high-end carry-everywhere point and shoot, not really a fine-art camera.

[SrMi]

7 hours ago, jaapv said:

But, after all is said and done, if you have to shoot JPG, the Leica to do it with is a Q. After all, the concept is a high-end carry-everywhere point and shoot, not really a fine-art camera.

I believe that Q cameras are fine-art cameras. LFI has plenty of examples. For example, the image on the front page of the Leica site was done with a Q2 Monochrom. See also colorwork by Jesse Marlow.

[jaapv]

I’m not saying you cannot use them as such and well, but it is clearly not the use they were designed for. 

[huwm]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

8 hours ago, Stuart Richardson said:

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. 

Not sure what Mac and OS you have but my Mac handles whatever I throw at it. DNG from Q2 and CL and RAW from S5.

I don’t bother with JPEGs.

I feel Photos app editing is now near to Aperture standard, though I still miss it, and is all I use for the vast majority of my photos only seriously tweaking an increasingly small percentage.

[jaapv]

All my Macs have handled DNG (which is raw) since 2010...  🤓But I strongly dislike Photos - as I did Aperture   

[Guest]

8 hours ago, jaapv said:

But, after all is said and done, if you have to shoot JPG, the Leica to do it with is a Q. After all, the concept is a high-end carry-everywhere point and shoot, not really a fine-art camera.

What is fine art?  

And who decides what qualifies as fine art?

[Chun Chang]

Not as flexible with fixed focal length but I have several frames from Leica Q invited in gallery exhibition.  The quality of A0 gallery print is pleasing on close inspection.

[jaapv]

I never said anything the contrary, but it is not the use the concept is intended for. Which does not mean it cannot do it. Note the words "high end" in my post. Did you shoot jpg? As that is the topic of the thread. 

[rukez]

The last trigger to get Q was pulled after I watched dpreview's samples gallery with "SOOC vs edited" jpegs and in 100% shots I preferred SOOCs asking myself "why are they doing those crazy edits to perfect in-camera shots?"

I never used in-camera jpegs in any of my cameras including fuji's (known for reasonable jpegs) because I told myself that I should not rely on awb/sharper/color tones, but actually I just always preferred to "tune" picture after I push the button in post processing because it is much more easy (Photoshop user from 1998) 

With Q I find jpegs to be awesome because they provide me exact mood of the scene I was shooting and force me to tune picture BEFORE I release the shutter

It's a matter of taste but after some digging in DNGs compared to SOOC jpegs, I am really very pleased with how nice Q is compressing dynamic range (maybe not as pleasing as hassy x1d, that adds some "beyond what I have seen with my own eyes" expanding dr little bit further, but almost there and more "true to life"), handles skintones in crazy light situations and exactly keeps the whole light scheme of the scene. It's not a huge problem when light is bright and of nice quality, but I never ever was able to get "exact mood" in fog, mist, dull light and light with color reflexes so easy - it always was a pain with grey/yellow/magenta (guess camera brands 😆) tints, but Q's approach to color channels luminosity is so clever that it does not introduce neither hue shifts neither level shifts and all color tones behind fog/reflexes stays untouched.  

Every time I tried to replicate sooc jpeg in capture one from DNG I realized that I have to spend A LOT of time searching that tiny balance with black point, contrast, hue and saturation, that camera was able to find in milliseconds

Unfortunately, Q's old processor is just not on par with modern deBayer algorithms used in latest C1 when ISO is above 400, that can provide provide perfectly clean picture on much higher ISO values when sharper is set to 0, so yep, I use jpegs only when I can provide enough light for ISO 100-400 (to get good 400 you can set sharpness to first or second level (don't remember the namings, default is third) in camera's jpeg settings - this will prevent so-so sharper from generating noise and artifacts on 400, while both 100 and 200 will stay 100% perfect in 1:1 pixel peeping), but that, also, is some additional challenge preparing the scene before shoot.

And yes, Q have some light greenish tint when it can't find a perfect awb setting from scene curve, but it's just a limitation of awb algorithm in any camera, and any other camera will shift grey once a while (guys from marketing will call it "the look" like magenta shift in fujis) but if you don't like green you can shift it to more "generally pleasing" yellow aka "warming"

So, certainly there is no "sweet spot for everyone" in SOOC jpeg in any camera, and certainly many people like post processing very much, but luckily Q's jpegs are my personal sweet spot in terms of everything except resolution on iso above 400, and when I have to toggle higher sensitivity and process DNGs, I still try to replicate "the look" of recorded JPEG, finding its so sad that there is now "one click" solution for this like there is for fuji (with C1's embedded in-camera profiles)

[tom.w.bn]

Am 16.12.2021 um 19:59 schrieb SrMi:

. See also colorwork by Jesse Marlow.

Great photos. If you have the eye for these scenes, you can take them with every camera.

[_Michael]

I find myself mostly shooting DNG + JPEG.  Based on this thread, I went back and looked at a bunch of images. In many cases, I found the JPG to be quite good and quote usable. The image being usable or not is of course highly dependent on what that use is of course. 

The one thing I did strongly prefer was to have the in camera JPG setting to be +1 contrast, everything else to default. 

[tharsh]

DNG only.   storage devices are cheap now, upgraded laptop and it has no lag for the large files.  being able to pull details out dogging in PS helps with the finicky lighting conditions.