Jump to content

DNG vs JPG-fine


Geolux

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

11-18-2015

 

I find the Monochrom-246 JPG fine files to be perfectly usable and easy to manipulate in Lightroom post processing.

 

From a practical standpoint, is there any real necessity or advantage in using a DNG file as compared to a JPG fine file in post processing?

 

The final results look much the same to me.

 

What, if anything, am I missing?

 

               Geolux

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The final results look much the same to me.
 
What, if anything, am I missing?
 

 

You are probably not missing very much on a superficial level looking at an average photograph.

 

But fundamentally you are missing a vast amount of potential information contained in the file that can be extracted from a RAW file. So for instance you will never get close to getting all the shadow and highlight detail, and tonal gradation, from a JPEG as you would from a RAW file. With a minor amount of post processing the JPEG histogram will start to show gaps of missing information, whereas a 16 bit TIFF file made from the .dng will still be a smooth transition from one tone to another. But this is all simple stuff, photography 101 as some call it, or the basic beginners course in digital photography. In terms specifically relating to your M246 using JPEG it is like entering a three legged horse in the Grand National or Kentucky Derby.

 

 

Steve

Link to post
Share on other sites

And those missing gaps Steve mentions can easily result in banding and posterization. For a no-important casual shot out of the camera that will get no further postprocessing but cropping  JPG is fine, but s soon s you want do some further work, even just Whitebalance corrections, those missing data will make themselves felt.

Ik doesn't make sense either, as the camera gives you the option of shooting DNG+JPG fine, giving you the best of two worlds.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

You are probably not missing very much on a superficial level looking at an average photograph.

 

But fundamentally you are missing a vast amount of potential information contained in the file that can be extracted from a RAW file. So for instance you will never get close to getting all the shadow and highlight detail, and tonal gradation, from a JPEG as you would from a RAW file. With a minor amount of post processing the JPEG histogram will start to show gaps of missing information, whereas a 16 bit TIFF file made from the .dng will still be a smooth transition from one tone to another. But this is all simple stuff, photography 101 as some call it, or the basic beginners course in digital photography. In terms specifically relating to your M246 using JPEG it is like entering a three legged horse in the Grand National or Kentucky Derby.

 

 

Steve

That depends upon what the final output is, and what the end-user's requirements are. Although I work only in .dng, the M246's .jpg files can be quite sufficient if it's for the interweb. If you're not seeing a significant difference, and the quality is sufficient for what you want it for, I don't think there's much to worry about.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That depends upon what the final output is,

 

No it doesn't depend on what the final output is, it depends on how much you value the images you are making.

 

I agree that all web stuff is by default JPEG, but I'm not going to drive or fly somewhere, spends hours taking pictures (and hopefully have a good one), then be satisfied that all I can do with it is minor post processing or have it at such a low quality it can only be consigned to the web. I don't understand the trivial way people say that 'JPEG is good enough' when they should have some pride in their work and strive for the best.

 

Next somebody will be saying they don't have the time to post process .dng files, well here's the thing, you are only supposed to post process the good ones, not all of them.

 

Steve

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

If you're happy with the images jpg produces, I'd use that.  The purists will always want to post-process.  I've seen some remarkable "poor quality" images and I think it really does depend on how you use your images.  If you only use web images or print small, then they are completely adequate. I'm willing to wager that used in this way, most photographers won't be able to discern the difference.  The big drawback is if you have an image that merits a substantial enlargement, you will lose out on the quality; and I believe if you have a great image, better quality adds to the greatness.    

Link to post
Share on other sites

11-19-2015

 

Thanks, everybody.   I appreciate the response.

 

 I bear the blame for this thread.  I neglected to include in my original post, that my images will rarely, if ever, be seen anywhere except on a computer monitor.   In such a limited situation, it is easy to be satisfied with less than optimal results.

 

I apologize, and appreciate the time and effort of all who responded.

 

        Geolux

Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if it is the case now, if you are ambitious in your photography (and your owning a Leica at least suggests that) it may well be that you aspire to prints in the future -quite apart from the development of computer screens- which will make you regret the lost data.

 

As I said, shoot DNG+JPG fine, use the JPGs if that makes you happy and keep the DNGs against the future.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I will just add that the fun and joy of this camera, for me, is in post processing and think someone is definitely missing out if they don't try to learn how to do it and there are some great resources.  And of course it's personal taste and all of that, but seems to me the 246 is all about post processing.  Otherwise, I would have just used the b/w JPG out of my 240 or the T if the dng was not useful to me.  I can't fault anyone that just wants to take b/w photos and wants a camera for that alone.  But you can do so much with the dng files, is amazing.  I encourage you to look up processing info and examples on line and give it a whirl.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that the DNG files offer a lot more in terms of post-processing potential, and only capture DNG's myself, but I also am surprised at how little post-processing I do with the M246 files. I can see that, if I wasn't printing, or shooting extremes of lighting, JEPG's could suffice for what I do.

Link to post
Share on other sites

But the Reuters decision is nothing to do with image quality but is about 'authenticity', a sore point for some news organisations recently, and JPEGS are equally fraught with problems.

 

As post processing of some sort has always been the mainstay of good photography from the day it was invented Reuters are simply allowing the post processing that goes on inside the camera to dictate the image. But they can then crop the image, which is an irony isn't it? As individual photographers and not news organisations it would be a mere fluke if we and the person who programmed the camera agreed exactly how we like our images to come out, unless we have no opinion and like to have somebody else decide for us.

 

So don't confuse the high quality of JPEG images with being about good photography, they are automatic representations of life and have no link at all with the reality of what we see and feel, indeed with modern camera functions they can tell a very different story to what was experienced. So if the scene was contre-jour and the sun blinding you, how accurate would an automatic HDR image be?

 

Steve

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

It is a bit like one person picking up the prints from the drugstore and will right away throw away the negatives.

The other person will have the film developed by a pro lab, paying double or triple the development fee, will archive the negatives carefully after having made great prints.

 

Both persons will have great enjoyment from the results from their photography.

Both persons even can have used photo gear worth ten-thousands of Euros and it is perfectly fine.

 

There are absolutely no rules of the use of what photographic gear MUST result in what workflow, results and aspirations in photographic genius.

If all a person loves to do with a McLaren P1 is riding it through a 30km/h zone down the street to the bakery on Sundays to pickup fresh bread to go with the 7min boiled eggs, that is absolutely fine. No person in the world has the right to criticize or "guide" that person to (what they think is ) a better use of the vehicle.

 

 

Use your JPGs, enjoy them. They are fine.

You could also save the DNGs and without even using them now, save them together on your hard drive.

Maybe someday in the future you would want to do something with those files you don't foresee today (hard drive space and backups are laughably inexpensive nowadays compared to the cameras and lenses we do like to use).

 

When I started to actively make pictures with digital cameras, those where grainy 2MP JPG files.

When I look through those files now from back then, I wish I had used a film camera instead or had a Leica MM back then already, as these tiny, old JPGs really print terribly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And those missing gaps Steve mentions can easily result in banding and posterization. For a no-important casual shot out of the camera that will get no further postprocessing but cropping  JPG is fine, but s soon s you want do some further work, even just Whitebalance corrections, those missing data will make themselves felt.

Ik doesn't make sense either, as the camera gives you the option of shooting DNG+JPG fine, giving you the best of two worlds.

There is no white balance on a Monochrom.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That depends upon what the final output is, and what the end-user's requirements are. Although I work only in .dng, the M246's .jpg files can be quite sufficient if it's for the interweb. If you're not seeing a significant difference, and the quality is sufficient for what you want it for, I don't think there's much to worry about.

They're not just good enough for the web. The M240's JPEGs have served me well for making exhibition prints. DNG files are mor malleable, but if your final result doesn't require much post-processing work, JPEGs are great and much faster to work with.  

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.

×
×
  • Create New...