ianman Posted October 13, 2016 Share #101 Posted October 13, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) I never understood why the Leica Jpgs are so bad. They are not. It is perfectly possible to obtain really good jpegs. Sure the Leica M does not have the in-camera film simulations of the latest Fujis - which are pretty good ! - but to say that they are "bad" ? Although I always shoot RAW, I obtain many very usable SOOC jpegs with my M9. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 13, 2016 Posted October 13, 2016 Hi ianman, Take a look here New M262 disappointing - exposure problems. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
mjh Posted October 13, 2016 Share #102 Posted October 13, 2016 How so? Leica could simply provide a download link to the latest version of the software when you register the camera. The latest version with all the features is only available to subscribers. Buyers of the boxed version only get bug fixes and support for new camera models. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom0511 Posted October 13, 2016 Share #103 Posted October 13, 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. The metering of the M is tricky when you have a bright sky and a dark forground. I know to point the camera more on the foreground to not just meter the bright sky, but a snall change in angle can make a big difference. If yo are not carefull you will get strong overexposure of sky, or strong underexposure of forground. A Nikon matrixmetering a small change of angle wont make any difference. Thats what I meant. With a rangefinder you can not exactly see where you meter like when using a DSLR, this might have an influence as well.I dont see it as a problem, but I believe under certan light situations I need to check my M exposure more carefull compared when using other cameras. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianman Posted October 13, 2016 Share #104 Posted October 13, 2016 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! Or you could use cheaper, just as goo if not (IMHO) better software like Iridient Developer. It works really well with M9 .dng files. You'll have to check if type 240 or 262 are supported but I guess they are. Only downside is that it's MacOS only at the moment but a Windows version is coming. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ECohen Posted October 13, 2016 Share #105 Posted October 13, 2016 They are not. It is perfectly possible to obtain really good jpegs. Sure the Leica M does not have the in-camera film simulations of the latest Fujis - which are pretty good ! - but to say that they are "bad" ? Although I always shoot RAW, I obtain many very usable SOOC jpegs with my M9. Sure they are usable ....but compared to other manufactures cameras and even other Leica's IE X2 .....they are a poor representation. Even where the project could use a down and dirty JPG you have to shoot DNG if your using the M240, side by side to Canon, Nikon or Sony,the Leica M240 JPG is embarrassing. I'm not sure how the M9 is with Jpgs maybe I wasn't clear I'm talking about the M240 with its CMOS sensor. I think Leica could have put in more effort or simply done a better job .......IMHO I should add it was a sore subject when I first started with the 240.......I'm over it now The M has a superb DNG and I have a fast easy workflow. Like I said I think the Jpg is a missed opportunity for Leica to show off .....but I guess Leica sees the OOC Jpg as an unnecessary "feature" for the high end user? and maybe they are right? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
edwardkaraa Posted October 13, 2016 Share #106 Posted October 13, 2016 May I repeat myself and say that the Jpgs of the M262 are actually very nice and noticeably better than those from the M240. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BerndReini Posted October 13, 2016 Share #107 Posted October 13, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) Always shoot the most uncompressed format available to you (RAW). Hard drive space really isn't an issue. Organization is the issue. I firmly believe that photographers need to be more determined with their editing. In the days of film, there were very few photographers who shot 7,000 negatives in a year. Everything has changed with digital photography and I encourage you to keep shooting 7,000 photos a year or more, but do you really have to keep them all. Nobody including yourself will ever want to look at all those photographs, and I am sure that you could probably delete half of them as soon as you load them onto your computer, and probably another half of them after a week or so when you are done working with the files. Again, even in the days of digital where some professionals shoot tens of thousand of images a year, there are very few photographers who shoot 7,000 photographs worth keeping. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted October 13, 2016 Share #108 Posted October 13, 2016 ..... there are very few photographers who shoot 7,000 photographs worth keeping. Many years ago I shot some images on film which were slightly underexposed. Last year one of them revealed a species from a location which it had not been recorded in before. Depends on what you do but given the cost of storage space for files, keeping all of them is not a big deal now. I have two crates of transparencies (unmounted) in the attic which I will shortly start going through - just in case . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndrewDD Posted October 13, 2016 Share #109 Posted October 13, 2016 I have shot a lot more than 7,000 images in the last year - more like 100,000. The disk space would be crazy if I shot DNG, the time it takes to develop them would destroy my work flow, and the time the camera takes to write DNGs would trip me up when shooting. Look, I have no problem at all with people shooting DNG. What gets my goat is the kind of comment earlier in this thread where someone said you shouldn't even be using an M if you shoot JPG. That arrogance isn't the way to win friends and influence people. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ECohen Posted October 13, 2016 Share #110 Posted October 13, 2016 May I repeat myself and say that the Jpgs of the M262 are actually very nice and noticeably better than those from the M240. You may ....Sorry about that. On this forum I always forget the 240MP is an old camera....I wish a new Jpg profile would have been part of the update. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted October 13, 2016 Share #111 Posted October 13, 2016 ..... more like 100,000. The disk space would be crazy if I shot DNG ..... Look, I have no problem at all with people shooting DNG. What gets my goat is the kind of comment earlier in this thread where someone said you shouldn't even be using an M if you shoot JPG. That arrogance isn't the way to win friends and influence people. About 1-2TB by my drive's reckoning - not so bad. DNG vs. JPEG is about horses for courses. Personally I wouldn't buy or recommend buying a Leica M digital to shoot JPEGs because I can get an awful lot better images from shooting RAW files with Leicas, as I can with my Canons come to that. But that said, processing RAW files does take time and if you shoot vast quantities it is a daunting prospect for sure. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ECohen Posted October 13, 2016 Share #112 Posted October 13, 2016 Always shoot the most uncompressed format available to you (RAW). Hard drive space really isn't an issue. Organization is the issue. I firmly believe that photographers need to be more determined with their editing. In the days of film, there were very few photographers who shot 7,000 negatives in a year. Everything has changed with digital photography and I encourage you to keep shooting 7,000 photos a year or more, but do you really have to keep them all. Nobody including yourself will ever want to look at all those photographs, and I am sure that you could probably delete half of them as soon as you load them onto your computer, and probably another half of them after a week or so when you are done working with the files. Again, even in the days of digital where some professionals shoot tens of thousand of images a year, there are very few photographers who shoot 7,000 photographs worth keeping. It's part of my workflow is to make a conscience effort to throw out shots I don't care about or need ....and try never to shoot in bursts. Digital has changed everything....well not everything;-) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
edwardkaraa Posted October 13, 2016 Share #113 Posted October 13, 2016 You may ....Sorry about that. On this forum I always forget the 240MP is an old camera....I wish a new Jpg profile would have been part of the update. It's a bit surprising actually that the M240 jpg profile hasn't been updated to match that of the M262, being basically the same camera. I can see not only better color, but also better noise reduction that preserves detail and removes chroma noise more effectively. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmahto Posted October 13, 2016 Share #114 Posted October 13, 2016 About 1-2TB by my drive's reckoning - not so bad. DNG vs. JPEG is about horses for courses. Personally I wouldn't buy or recommend buying a Leica M digital to shoot JPEGs because I can get an awful lot better images from shooting RAW files with Leicas, as I can with my Canons come to that. But that said, processing RAW files does take time and if you shoot vast quantities it is a daunting prospect for sure. I disagree on the effort needed to process DNG. The results similar to out of the camera JPEG can be achieved by simply applying saved preset to all pictures in one go, leaving open the possibility of careful processing of selective few later on. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marchyman Posted October 14, 2016 Share #115 Posted October 14, 2016 ... not just meter the bright sky... I dunno. The blue sky (not including the sun) is pretty close to to an 18% grey card and can give you a good exposure, especially when shooting sunny landscapes. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted October 14, 2016 Share #116 Posted October 14, 2016 Yes, but if the subject is not in direct sunlight, it will be quite underexposed Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manoleica Posted October 14, 2016 Share #117 Posted October 14, 2016 Yes, but if the subject is not in direct sunlight, it will be quite underexposed That's when EV Bracketing is useful! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
otto.f Posted October 14, 2016 Share #118 Posted October 14, 2016 I disagree on the effort needed to process DNG. The results similar to out of the camera JPEG can be achieved by simply applying saved preset to all pictures in one go, leaving open the possibility of careful processing of selective few later on. Especially when we see that OP is still postprocessing his jpegs which is harder to do Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted October 14, 2016 Share #119 Posted October 14, 2016 That's when EV Bracketing is useful!And/or an understanding of exposure technique. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted October 14, 2016 Share #120 Posted October 14, 2016 I disagree on the effort needed to process DNG. The results similar to out of the camera JPEG can be achieved by simply applying saved preset to all pictures in one go, leaving open the possibility of careful processing of selective few later on. I disagree on the effort needed to process DNG. The results similar to out of the camera JPEG can be achieved by simply applying saved preset to all pictures in one go, leaving open the possibility of careful processing of selective few later on. So do I. I am hard pressed to see any difference between the controls offered by postprocessing program's for JPG files and raw files opened in those program's. What I do notice is the data loss in JPG files making them a PITA to work on. Shooting JPG to "save time and work" is putting the horse behind the cart. It is the other way around... A raw file is far easier. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.