The context is, I don't have time the time or equipment to spend a lot of time to individually optimize each image in Lightroom . But I could use Lightroom to perform batch conversions. Is it worth doing this over just using the in camera JPGs?
I am aware I'll expose an almost opposite position to all that was said up to now, but then again you'll make up your own opinion, maybe by counting the posters ;-)
Like you I just don't have the time to hand-correct all images.
I shoot with raw+jpeg by default.
I consider Leica definitely has an excellent process for creating jpegs (which, additionnally, you can adjust in multiple ways in the settings), and my position, for the kind of picture I take, is that in 90% of cases the autogenerated jpeg is not only perfectly fit, I even found cases where I tried to adjust some shadows or contrast, and after carefully playing with the raw, I had to painfully admit my result was not better than the default :-)
So, I consider the DNGs only if I'm really dissatisfied by the jpegs.
This only happens
- when I made a mistake, in which case the larger dynamics in the DNG just comes to compensate silliness
- when indeed there is a very large contrast in the scene and I want to still improve lights or shadows -but again, this is very rare indeed : even backlightings with the sun in the image are excellently processed by default : see for instance http://www.ipernity....erve_s/41905050 which is totally the standard generated jpeg
- when I am imaging artworks, where generally I'll reframe and correct the perspective to get 'the perfectly rectangle frame' with white balance validated by a grey card etc. : in this case, again I feel that working with a larger dynamics when 'moving pixels' should be better. But I wouldn't even say I demonstrated it on my pics.
Now, we come to the processing tools themselves.
Again, to the risk of shocking people here, I consider Adobe Lightroom is an extraordinarily complicated, costly, and personally intrusive software (just think that the default 'save' function proposes you to upload to Adobe...)
Having been a long, long-time photoshop user years ago, I installed LR anyhow, because when I bought the Q there was a free license coming along.
Well I just verified this was indeed complicated and intrusive, and I went back to the more efficient and compact software I'm used to.
GraphicConverter on MacOSX, Darktable (on any platform, open source and the best, hands down, when it comes to noise processing), RawTherapee (also open source). AutoPano pro for the occasional panorama making.
For each of them I have a preset that compensates the Q lens deformation, and there we go...
I personally consider LR is needed only when a professional photographer already inherits an existing process on Adobe -that's not my case.
And IMHO the only reason Leica offered LR licenses along with the Q was to damp the info that indeed the raw images are terribly barrel-deformed, in such a way that old (fossil?) photographers from the analog film era would have criticized. (because LR comes with a preset that autocompensate this, not even leaving you see the original geometry)
As I personally consider that in a digital world, this was a good tradeoff to rather favor color alignment and rendering, I am not shocked at all, I just 'debarrel them first' when I need raw, that's all ;-)
Go on with raw+jpeg shots, then just open the jpegs, then go DNG in the very few cases you'll be dissatisfied -and in these cases, don't waste time learning Adobe : choose simple tools...
Edited by Herve5, 07 January 2017 - 10:51.