ECohen Posted October 11, 2016 Share #81 Posted October 11, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) Not to mention that you don't actually have to spend a second working on the photo, if you don't care to. If you shoot at base ISO, in good light all the time, you might feel you're not gaining all that much with dng over jpg. There is still some latitude in jpg for some corrections if need be. But if you work in variable conditions, low light, fog, golden hours, etc... DNG is mandatory. Its not a matter of making a bad photo good, it's a matter of making one at all. One doesn't buy some of the finest lenses and camera bodies known to humanity to make things easier, we do it to make difficult things possible and to squeeze every last drop of goodness out that we possibly can. More importantly, I'd argue strenuously that you reap from such pursuits in direct proportion to what you invest. Spending the time to understand and master the tools and techniques at your disposal on the back end inevitably has a significant impact on you approach the front. Failure to do so is tantamount to intentionally walking with a limp. If you fire and hope in less than ideal circumstance, there will inevitably be disappointment. If, OTOH, you work to understand more fully just how much you can pull from shadow, decrease luminance, alter contrast, etc you will develop a more refined sense of the end result before you ever release the shutter. You are then armed to get good, even great, results where others might have failed to get anything worthwhile at all. There is no doubt that as my skills have grown on the back end, they've markedly improved on the front end as well. Photography is not merely the act of capturing an image, it is nothing without the steps applied to developing it. Leaving all the decision making to the jpg photo lab embedded in silicon might be convenient and work well enough in general circumstance. But for many reasons, relying exclusively on it is a false economy. Wow! Well said!!!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 11, 2016 Posted October 11, 2016 Hi ECohen, Take a look here New M262 disappointing - exposure problems. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Herr Barnack Posted October 11, 2016 Share #82 Posted October 11, 2016 @jhluxton, I have not read all five pages of replies (life is too short), so someone may have already mentioned these points. I would suggest trying the following settings with your M262 - Light Metering Mode: Classic Film Mode: Smooth color film DNG Compression: On This is how my M-P is configured and I have had none of the issues which you have struggled with. When DNG files are imported into whatever processing program you use (Lightroom in my case), they will look pretty drab - after all, they are unprocessed. with a little judicious processing, they will look great. The key is in the processing. Regarding the storage space that DNG files consume, a 16 GB SD card in my M-P will hold 500 images; a 32 GB will hold 1000 and a 64 GB card will hold 2000. My Macbook currently has 28,000 and change DNG files stored and still has 25% memory capacity left. I use external hard drives ( https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1140711-REG/wd_wdbbkd0020bbk_nesn_2tb_my_passport_ultra.html ) for extra storage space and as a backup copy of my images; a 2 TB external drive goes for $89.00 which is an affordable storage solution. Just some food for thought - hope this helps. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted October 11, 2016 Share #83 Posted October 11, 2016 Not sure if raw files are more mandatory than they were 15 years ago. I used to work on tif files then and PS plus a couple of plug-ins were enough for my needs. Raw converters are certainly easier to use now but jpeg users have no reasons to worry about raw if they can master PS or even PS Elements. Better use a modern body though as earlier ones did not manage digital noise as efficiently as current raw converters. As for OOC jpegs, some of my Canon, Nikon and Sony files look acceptable as is but i find my Leica's so mediocre that i don't watch them anymore i must say. Must be the fault of the photographer... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjh Posted October 11, 2016 Share #84 Posted October 11, 2016 While the JPEGs saved by current Leica models are certainly usable, JPEGs have never been Leica’s strong suit. But I don’t care as I prefer a raw workflow anyway, with every camera, be it a Leica, Pentax, Fuji, Olympus, or whatever. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ECohen Posted October 11, 2016 Share #85 Posted October 11, 2016 While the JPEGs saved by current Leica models are certainly usable, JPEGs have never been Leica’s strong suit. But I don’t care as I prefer a raw workflow anyway, with every camera, be it a Leica, Pentax, Fuji, Olympus, or whatever. I never understood why the Leica Jpgs are so bad. I always thought it was a great opportunity for Leica to introduce their famous "Leica Look " of old, into the digital age? Shooting DNG is the only way to go with the M.....which is the best a practice for a digital photographer today. Now X2 jpgs are pretty great......Leica made very good decisions there IMHO?.....different camera, different user market....I guess? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
harmen Posted October 11, 2016 Share #86 Posted October 11, 2016 With raw developers improving, there is also the opportunity to get a better final out of an old raw file after a couple of years. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted October 11, 2016 Share #87 Posted October 11, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) The mistaken premise that is being advocated here is that there is actually a 'correct' exposure. There isn't ! It all depends on what you want to achieve . If you don't appreciate this viewpoint then you are stuck with what the camera gives you and 'getting it right' in camera is how you have to operate. But doing so fails to appreciate the benefits of fine tuning exposure to post processing in order to control the output more precisely. Metering is a guide. Determining where your shadows and highlights need to be to optimise an exposure to how you require the final image to appear is not a simple matter of pointing a meter at a mid-tone and assuming the exposure will then be all things to all people, because it won't be . I use both meter and histogram and experience to produce RAW files which can then be adjusted to give a final result as I wanted it to be. RAW digital files are surprising flexible, unlike JPEGs which soon show up faults if adjusted substantially. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmahto Posted October 11, 2016 Share #88 Posted October 11, 2016 The mistaken premise that is being advocated here is that there is actually a 'correct' exposure. There isn't ! It all depends on what you want to achieve . If you don't appreciate this viewpoint then you are stuck with what the camera gives you and 'getting it right' in camera is how you have to operate. But doing so fails to appreciate the benefits of fine tuning exposure to post processing in order to control the output more precisely. Metering is a guide. Determining where your shadows and highlights need to be to optimise an exposure to how you require the final image to appear is not a simple matter of pointing a meter at a mid-tone and assuming the exposure will then be all things to all people, because it won't be . I use both meter and histogram and experience to produce RAW files which can then be adjusted to give a final result as I wanted it to be. RAW digital files are surprising flexible, unlike JPEGs which soon show up faults if adjusted substantially. Correct. That's why most important thing in digital is not to shoot too dark a frame when more exposure would have been possible at the same time not blowing highlights (Expose To The Right). Rest is done in the post processing for best results. During the shoot I may not have time to think about low key/high key, final mood etc. Having said that, I know some people are deliberate shooters and they may want to spend extra time getting exposure close to what they want while shooting and it does work for them but it is not the only way or the best way in all cases. Somebody else also made a comment on Canikon doing better job using matrix metering compared to Leica's center weighted classic metering. I don't buy that. I never had an issue with Leica's (M9 and M240). However I must add that there are some characteristics of M metering which I am aware of. If there is bright point object (light bulb or candle light in dark room) then M's (both M9 and M240's classic metering) tend to underexpose. It is not a problem and in fact it is better since it preserves bright light blow out. The shadows can be lifted in PP. In normal scenes there is very little to no difference between Canikon's matrix metering and Leica's classic metering. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmahto Posted October 11, 2016 Share #89 Posted October 11, 2016 With raw developers improving, there is also the opportunity to get a better final out of an old raw file after a couple of years. Not only old raw files but also old jpegs can be processed better with newer processing engines. I have old jpegs from early CCD sony P&S and iPhone 3 and I can get better noise reduction (and overall better output) using the latest processing engine in LR5. Sometimes it is tempting to go back and re-process old pictures (raw and non-raw both) using latest engine but it is too much of a time commitment. I only re-process the most important ones and only when I don't have much else to do. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanJW Posted October 11, 2016 Share #90 Posted October 11, 2016 Correct. That's why most important thing in digital is not to shoot too dark a frame when more exposure would have been possible at the same time not blowing highlights (Expose To The Right). Rest is done in the post processing for best results. During the shoot I may not have time to think about low key/high key, final mood etc. Having said that, I know some people are deliberate shooters and they may want to spend extra time getting exposure close to what they want while shooting and it does work for them but it is not the only way or the best way in all cases. Somebody else also made a comment on Canikon doing better job using matrix metering compared to Leica's center weighted classic metering. I don't buy that. I never had an issue with Leica's (M9 and M240). However I must add that there are some characteristics of M metering which I am aware of. If there is bright point object (light bulb or candle light in dark room) then M's (both M9 and M240's classic metering) tend to underexpose. It is not a problem and in fact it is better since it preserves bright light blow out. The shadows can be lifted in PP. In normal scenes there is very little to no difference between Canikon's matrix metering and Leica's classic metering. Agree 100%. IMHO, in most circumstances, spot metering (or even center weighted) is more "accurate" than a matrix system because you can decide what area(s) are important and expose accordingly. More "accurate" thus means closer to what you are thinking about in the way of exposure rather than what the camera is thinking about. My only rule is never ever blow highlights that might be needed in the image and err on the side of underexposure rather than overexposure. The most accurate exposures I have been able to achieve (and the most swiftly) have been using the spot meter on the SL, but careful use of classic metering on the M works well too. To the OP: Please realize the M will not think for you. That is actually one of its great strengths, not a weakness. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
vhfreund Posted October 11, 2016 Share #91 Posted October 11, 2016 I fully understand the approach to get the right exposure nailed just from the beginning rather than doing much post processing. While I only shoot raw I don`t like to make too many adjustments later, thats why I sometimes prefer using an external light meter. Understanding how to correctly expose a digital file is another story though. The inbuilt meter of the M is also not always easy to handle because its so center weighted. It is generally feasible to achieve fairly decent results right in place , however, for a certain percentage of frames the dynamic range of the sensor (blown highlights) requires some post processing! Also white balance might need slight adjustment so that I never would shoot jpg. I have seen the allegedly poorly exposed files and some of them are indeed contrasty and tricky to expose. Thats the curse of a basically non integrally working inbuilt reflective meter. You will certainly achieve better results after a while of practicing. This is not only a matter of shooting JPG rather than raw ! Don`t give up so easily! Best Theodor Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
vhfreund Posted October 11, 2016 Share #92 Posted October 11, 2016 The mistaken premise that is being advocated here is that there is actually a 'correct' exposure. There isn't ! It all depends on what you want to achieve . If you don't appreciate this viewpoint then you are stuck with what the camera gives you and 'getting it right' in camera is how you have to operate. But doing so fails to appreciate the benefits of fine tuning exposure to post processing in order to control the output more precisely. Metering is a guide. Determining where your shadows and highlights need to be to optimise an exposure to how you require the final image to appear is not a simple matter of pointing a meter at a mid-tone and assuming the exposure will then be all things to all people, because it won't be . I use both meter and histogram and experience to produce RAW files which can then be adjusted to give a final result as I wanted it to be. RAW digital files are surprising flexible, unlike JPEGs which soon show up faults if adjusted substantially. I partly agree, there is indeed now correct exposure. It is however also a common misconception that a file should cover the full dynamic range, i.e. that highlights should not be blown out or that the picture should show all the shadow detail. Of course you have more creative freedom if the file contains all the data. Only in this regard the histogram helps. But stretching or squeezing the histogram can produce ugly pics which give you maximum freedom to play in post. However, fixing it right in place is a legitimate approach!!! Theodor Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted October 11, 2016 Share #93 Posted October 11, 2016 It is however also a common misconception that a file should cover the full dynamic range ..... Indeed! Many of my images are a compromise - I must lose something because the dynamic range is too high so its a balancing act between losses and unwanted characteristics due to having to stretch or compress tonality. Oddly enough I am not averse to some noise provided that it is not overly intrusive. Overly clean flies are not always the best either. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjh Posted October 11, 2016 Share #94 Posted October 11, 2016 I never understood why the Leica Jpgs are so bad. I always thought it was a great opportunity for Leica to introduce their famous "Leica Look " of old, into the digital age? Originally – in the era of the DMR and the M8 that is – Leica was convinced that nobody would use the JPEGs anyway. Obviously the notoriously quality-conscious Leica photographer would prefer a raw workflow to get the best out of their images, so the JPEGs were just for review purposes. In the following years it slowly transpired that this assumption wasn’t true in general – there was a large minority (and perhaps even a majority) of customers who couldn’t be bothered with raw file development. So something had to be done about JPEG quality, and it was; still, as I said, Leica has never been famous for their JPEGs. Now X2 jpgs are pretty great......Leica made very good decisions there IMHO?.....different camera, different user market....I guess? Different developers too, I presume. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted October 12, 2016 Share #95 Posted October 12, 2016 Somebody else also made a comment on Canikon doing better job using matrix metering compared to Leica's center weighted classic metering. Matrix/multi-segment/whatever evaluative metering is yet another type of 'automation' that assesses both light and contrast levels, which is fine, but relying on it is no better than relying on centre-weighted or spot metering unless you understand their inherent limitations and when to override their 'suggestions'. Image taking devices are very good these days but all rely on the equipment's technology deciding what you want in terms of settings, exposure and point of focus - given specific conditions they will always produce a similar result. IMO the point of my photography is that I decide what I want. Its a different mindset - I have to be prepared to live with the decisions that I take rather than those of an automated system. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cnick6 Posted October 13, 2016 Share #96 Posted October 13, 2016 Without being supercilious and smug, DNG is definitely the way to go with Leica M cameras but to be honest with every other digital camera that I have used I only ever shot JPEGs. This was primarily with Nikon DSLR,s that I used for press work and I know of nobody that would shoot in NEF format with them. JPEG,s were so good that it wasn't worth the extra time to PP in shooting NEF. Completely agree. It really does depend on the camera. My Sony A7R2 takes really terrific JPEG images straight from camera. Their firmware offers a lot of tweaks to adjust the output. I've compared JPEG to RAW (on the Sony) and yes, it only takes 5-10 minutes to develop the RAW image, but that time adds up with several dozen images. And those results are not necessarily better, IMHO. Let him shoot however he wants... but I think with respect the Leica M, shooting DNG and developing in Lightroom is the way to go. The JPEG engine in the Leica is OK but definitely not superior to Lightroom. There are quite a few good books on using Lightroom 6/CC and they help quite a bit. They provide sample images that you can follow along. BTW, I would like to take this time to point out how cheap Leica has become with respect to their software offering. Now, with new Leica M's, they are offering a silly 90-day TRIAL to Lightroom CC. Considering we're paying serious $$$ for the Leica body, you would think they could make a deal with Adobe and provide Lightroom as a free perk. Certainly not a deal-breaker but it would be a nice benefit. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
garysamson Posted October 13, 2016 Share #97 Posted October 13, 2016 SD card in the camera is 32MB when I switched from JPG Fine to DNG+JPG capacity dropped significantly. However, I am now beginning to wonder if this is the 'kick in the pants' I need to switch to DNG and cast my reluctance and excuses aside. I have just opened one of the few DNG files I took today in Photoshop Elements 14. Having played around with some of the adjustments possible with one of the poorly exposed images I have managed to correct it quite easily. I will download Lightroom from the Leica site in the morning, take some DNG photos and report back. John Hi John,Lightroom will unlock the full potential of the Leica DNG files allowing to create superb images that you will be happy with and proud of! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LocalHero1953 Posted October 13, 2016 Share #98 Posted October 13, 2016 Completely agree. It really does depend on the camera. My Sony A7R2 takes really terrific JPEG images straight from camera. Their firmware offers a lot of tweaks to adjust the output. I've compared JPEG to RAW (on the Sony) and yes, it only takes 5-10 minutes to develop the RAW image, but that time adds up with several dozen images. And those results are not necessarily better, IMHO. Let him shoot however he wants... but I think with respect the Leica M, shooting DNG and developing in Lightroom is the way to go. The JPEG engine in the Leica is OK but definitely not superior to Lightroom. There are quite a few good books on using Lightroom 6/CC and they help quite a bit. They provide sample images that you can follow along. BTW, I would like to take this time to point out how cheap Leica has become with respect to their software offering. Now, with new Leica M's, they are offering a silly 90-day TRIAL to Lightroom CC. Considering we're paying serious $$$ for the Leica body, you would think they could make a deal with Adobe and provide Lightroom as a free perk. Certainly not a deal-breaker but it would be a nice benefit. I agree a better deal than a 90 day trial would be good, but I wonder if Adobe refuse to supply standalone versions to Leica now, as part of their strategy to get everyone subscribing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exodies Posted October 13, 2016 Share #99 Posted October 13, 2016 If Leica gave away the free standing version there would be a lot of noise about them providing obsolete software. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cnick6 Posted October 13, 2016 Share #100 Posted October 13, 2016 If Leica gave away the free standing version there would be a lot of noise about them providing obsolete software. How so? Leica could simply provide a download link to the latest version of the software when you register the camera. I agree a better deal than a 90 day trial would be good, but I wonder if Adobe refuse to supply standalone versions to Leica now, as part of their strategy to get everyone subscribing. Well Adobe is certainly out to make profit and that's fine but I'm sure they could work out a deal with Leica. In fairness, I'm sure Leica may have tried but Adobe refused. You're probably right in that Leica didn't want a limited "LE" version and Adobe doesn't want to take on that extra work for no profit. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.