jonoslack Posted June 2, 2007 Author Share #21 Posted June 2, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) Jono, After the seeing your first post -- and after the ensuing out-of-body experience and the episode of dangerously elevated blood pressure -- I thought, OK I'm a man and can admit that I do that too and it works pretty well. Beautiful shots, by the way! Larry Hi Larry Your a REAL MAN and thank you! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted June 2, 2007 Posted June 2, 2007 Hi jonoslack, Take a look here Pssst - have you tried the jpgs.. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
elopezso Posted June 3, 2007 Share #22 Posted June 3, 2007 Jono, Just wanted to let you know how much I enjoy your photos as well as your thoughtful postings. Like you, I too shoot DNG about 80% of the time. There are times, however, when shooting JPEGs, just for fun and practice getting it right, is very liberating. Unlike you, I've never had the courage to say so in a public forum. Thanks for doing so and for uploading some very good photos. I know that while practicing in only JPEG, I've shot a couple of pics that I've printed at 36 by 24 that folks have loved and found artistically compelling. While I usually shoot DNG when seriously taking photos, I am not convinced it's the only way to go. Thanks again, Ed Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Roberts Posted June 3, 2007 Share #23 Posted June 3, 2007 Jono, My dirty secret is that I too now shoot RAW + JPEG on the M8--and I never did that before. One reason is speed of proofing; the JPEGs (um, when I nail the shot, that is) are plenty good for that! With the latest firmware, yes, the JPEGs are very good indeed. About half the shots I post here one way or another are from the JPEG, not the RAW file Shhhh!! Of course, for critical printing, etc... I prefer to make the JPEG myself. Fabulous shots, btw. Goes to show you it's not the format but the person pressing the shutter that counts! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonoslack Posted June 3, 2007 Author Share #24 Posted June 3, 2007 Jono, Shhhh!! Of course, for critical printing, etc... I prefer to make the JPEG myself. Fabulous shots, btw. Goes to show you it's not the format but the person pressing the shutter that counts! HI Jamie - and Edwin too. Thank you for your kind words - I was beginning to feel a little like I'd stuck my head out of the shell and had it laughed off by Guy! Your dirty secret is safe with me! Glad you liked the shots. Now all we need is some sunshine (grey and drab here) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guy_mancuso Posted June 3, 2007 Share #25 Posted June 3, 2007 All these closet jpeger's. LOL Okay maybe twice. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
elopezso Posted June 3, 2007 Share #26 Posted June 3, 2007 I did a photo shoot today in iffy weather (rainy with haziness mixed-in) and not wanting to take any chances shot the pics in DNG & JPEG. Boy was I glad I had shot in DNG as I needed to adjust the white balance fairly dramatically to get good pics! Thus, I have to admit that JPEGs are great in daylight (with sun) otherwise DNG & JPEG is the way to go! Great thread, by the way. Ed Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
norm_snyder Posted June 4, 2007 Share #27 Posted June 4, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) Jono-- Your photos, notwithstanding jpegs, are terrific. I guess I'll admit it, too, and attached is a shot from my brother in law's [third] wedding. I had nearly filled the SD card, and didn't want to take the time to go out to the car, so I just continued on. The results are encouraging. Level changes, and that's about it, save removing a few wrinkles [i mean smile lines] from around the bride's eyes. --Norm Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/25713-pssst-have-you-tried-the-jpgs/?do=findComment&comment=272440'>More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted June 4, 2007 Share #28 Posted June 4, 2007 JPGs ? Well, my personal situation is 1) NO experience at all with Digital Cameras 2) LITTLE and low level experience with shot film-and-scan (flatbed HP scanner/neg adapter) 3) My M8 arrived 12 days ago 4) I used it for (estimate) no more than 5 effective hours .... till now .... I shoot ONLY jpgs ... to me, a matter of "curve of learning"... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
elopezso Posted June 4, 2007 Share #29 Posted June 4, 2007 I hate to say this but Jono you've got me obsessing over the Raw v JPEG issue. As you know by now, from my post last night, when one is not sure about the white balance and shooting in color, one must shoot in DNG & JPEG. In fact, if one wants to be safe and nerd out, one could shoot in DNG & JPEG all the time. This however causes folks like me to process both and obsess endlessly on which has gotten better color reproduction. However, if one wants to have a life, one could shoot in JPEG only or DNG only when one is sure that they've got the white balance down! Today, I brought my expodisc with me, nailed the white balance but shot DNG & JPEG to check the color. To my surprise, damn you Jono, the color in the JPEG is definitely more accurate. I went back to the site with the prints and there is no doubt in my mind. The DNGs are slightly sharper, however, but the color though 98% of the way there is not as accurate as the color in the JPEG. Suffice it to say, that I'd be happy with either if I wasn't obsessively comparing. This makes me really want Leica to correct the AWB issue, makes me want to ask Leica to compress their JPEGS less and makes me want to carry my Expodisc with me wherever I go. Would be interested in the opinions of others and would encourage others to take pics in DNG & JPEG, process, print, compare the prints with the real thing and get back to us! Boy, I better get a life! See what you've created Jono. Ed Ed Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Roberts Posted June 4, 2007 Share #30 Posted June 4, 2007 {snipped}To my surprise, damn you Jono, the color in the JPEG is definitely more accurate. I went back to the site with the prints and there is no doubt in my mind. The DNGs are slightly sharper, however, but the color though 98% of the way there is not as accurate as the color in the JPEG. Suffice it to say, that I'd be happy with either if I wasn't obsessively comparing.{snipped} Now Ed, let's not get carried away here LOL!! I've never seen a JPEG where the colour is "more accurate" than a properly processed RAW file (because of course, the camera is just making a JPEG from the RAW information anyway!). You should always be able to make a better JPEG than the automated JPEG-maker in the camera. In truth, the learning curve there is pretty long and steep... Glad you liked the Expodisc, though. I shoot that all the time now (and I always shoot DNG + JPEG, well, except once, accidentally, and since that was mixed light it was the wrong time to be doing that!) Though I have a hankering to go out there and just shoot some personal stuff JPEG only now Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
elopezso Posted June 4, 2007 Share #31 Posted June 4, 2007 Jamie, You are absolutely right that I should be able to, with lots of hard work, to get the color absolutely perfect with DNG since the in camera conversion comes from a DNG. You are also absolutely right when you say that the learning curve, to be able to do this, is long and steep! I guess what I am admitting is that even with tons of work, when the white balance is spot on, I can only get to 98% of where the in-camera conversion gets. Will keep trying but damn the JPEG conversion is hard to beat when the white balance is correct. It's also alot less work than fiddling with the white balance in Capture 1 on each photo! Glad to hear you find the Expodisc helpful, like I do, and shoot with it all the time. Thanks for all you do for us Leica owners Jamie. Ed Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alberti Posted June 4, 2007 Share #32 Posted June 4, 2007 Hi ThereIn a final bid to destroy all credibitily, I thought I'd post a thread about using jpgs with the M8. I've recommended not using filters (for nature), shooting landscape without a tripod and hacking Aperture to support dng files, so this seemed to be the logical next step. I wonder how many of you have tried the M8 Jpgs? ] Sure it is possible that C1 postprocessing delivers better results, but just the JPEG together with the lab prints already give better prints than most negative I've been using. Second that with the remark that any medium has their chars and JPEG might have its distinction too. The attached pictures are handheld, elmar 90-Macro - 1/60th and 50 -cron 1/180 th; and both full aperature. It is a lot of work to beat that from manual handling in C1. I agree the C1 gives better shadows (Jonathan, I saw your lemon L1000353_dng on the table). But how much effort does it take? Yes the M8 has me rolling on the ground. With my mouth wide open in surprise. albert Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/25713-pssst-have-you-tried-the-jpgs/?do=findComment&comment=273221'>More sharing options...
Stevez4 Posted June 4, 2007 Share #33 Posted June 4, 2007 Great thread. Wonderful photographs. Thank you for sharing what the M8 can do so well. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonoslack Posted June 4, 2007 Author Share #34 Posted June 4, 2007 I hate to say this but Jono you've got me obsessing over the Raw v JPEG issue. As you know by now, from my post last night, when one is not sure about the white balance and shooting in color, one must shoot in DNG & JPEG. In fact, if one wants to be safe and nerd out, one could shoot in DNG & JPEG all the time. This however causes folks like me to process both and obsess endlessly on which has gotten better color reproduction. However, if one wants to have a life, one could shoot in JPEG only or DNG only when one is sure that they've got the white balance down! Today, I brought my expodisc with me, nailed the white balance but shot DNG & JPEG to check the color. To my surprise, damn you Jono, the color in the JPEG is definitely more accurate. I went back to the site with the prints and there is no doubt in my mind. The DNGs are slightly sharper, however, but the color though 98% of the way there is not as accurate as the color in the JPEG. Suffice it to say, that I'd be happy with either if I wasn't obsessively comparing. This makes me really want Leica to correct the AWB issue, makes me want to ask Leica to compress their JPEGS less and makes me want to carry my Expodisc with me wherever I go. Would be interested in the opinions of others and would encourage others to take pics in DNG & JPEG, process, print, compare the prints with the real thing and get back to us! Boy, I better get a life! See what you've created Jono. Ed Ed Sorry Ed - my fault I guess (and I do usually shoot DNG). But there is no doubt in my mind that the jpg colour is better (and I'll be answering Jamie on this in a minute). It doesn't sort out magenta on fibres - but the greens are excellent and nicely saturated - I've yet to see a RAW converter that does it as well on a consistent basis. Mind you, that isn't a reason for shooting jpg, but it IS a reason for trying to persuade Leica to produce less compressed jpg files, and it's worth bearing in mind. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonoslack Posted June 4, 2007 Author Share #35 Posted June 4, 2007 Now Ed, let's not get carried away here LOL!! I've never seen a JPEG where the colour is "more accurate" than a properly processed RAW file (because of course, the camera is just making a JPEG from the RAW information anyway!). You should always be able to make a better JPEG than the automated JPEG-maker in the camera. In truth, the learning curve there is pretty long and steep... Hi Jamie Should - absolutely - Can - . In my experience the Leica jpgs give consistently good greens in natural daylight for nature subjects. I can get greens nearly as good from any of the RAW converters - but not quite as good, and you have to process each file independently (or at least, each batch of files). The jpgs however do seem to get it right every time (in good daylight). I've spent a lot of time on this - natural greens is my little obsession! Mind you, I don't normally shoot jpg - I'll take the hit because I want the other advantages of RAW, but if Leica would produce less compressed jpgs, it would be more attractive. Incidentally, Anders Uschold in the British Journal of Photography did tests using C1, ACR and jpgs, and came to the conclusion that the detail wasn't good enough with the jpgs, but that the colour AND the dynamic range were better than anything which could be squeezed out of the RAW files. . . . . . . Go Figure! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonoslack Posted June 4, 2007 Author Share #36 Posted June 4, 2007 Sure it is possible that C1 postprocessing delivers better results, but just the JPEG together with the lab prints already give better prints than most negative I've been using. Second that with the remark that any medium has their chars and JPEG might have its distinction too. The attached pictures are handheld, elmar 90-Macro - 1/60th and 50 -cron 1/180 th; and both full aperature. It is a lot of work to beat that from manual handling in C1. I agree the C1 gives better shadows (Jonathan, I saw your lemon L1000353_dng on the table). But how much effort does it take? Yes the M8 has me rolling on the ground. With my mouth wide open in surprise. albert Hi Albert Lovely photograph of the lady - what a look! Thanks for posting, I'm feeling a bit better now, the minute I started this thread I though oh noooooo - why DID I do that! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.