M10 color rendition

[MikeMyers]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

14 minutes ago, jdlaing said:

.......Leica doesn’t use a proprietary raw file. They use .dng for the “raw” file.

Other than the format of the data, what is the difference between the two?  Nikon saves in NEF format.  Fuji has their own raw format, as does Canon.  Aren't they all essentially raw format files that replicate the data from the sensor?

[adan]

44 minutes ago, MikeMyers said:

All this time I though the raw image contains an embedded jpg image.  If so, what you wrote doesn't seem to apply ??

The embedded jpg image is like a table of contents in a book, or a cover letter on a resume for a job application.

It is not "the" book or resume itself. Just a summary or placeholder to show or explain what is in the actual document.

Otherwise, you would have nothing to "chimp" on the camera screen.

Edited December 11, 2020 by adan

[adan]

1 hour ago, MikeMyers said:

Other than the format of the data, what is the difference between the two?  Nikon saves in NEF format.  Fuji has their own raw format, as does Canon.  Aren't they all essentially raw format files that replicate the data from the sensor?

Yes, and no.

A raw file is the per-pixel data from the sensor - PLUS metadata that describes how to interpret the per-pixel data. Is the top-left (i.e. first) pixel red, green or blue? Or are the colors stacked, as in the Foveon sensors? Are the pixels square or rectangular (or octagonal - with two parts - see some Fuji cameras)? Are the pixel filter colors RGB - or RGBE(merald - Minolta) or CMY (Nikon, in some P&Ss)? What are the pixel dimensions of the image (6000 x 4000? 3000 x 2000? 3916 x 2634?) What was the "as-shot" white balance used? As well as the housekeeping information: date/time, lens used,  aperture used, shutter speed used ISO used - the EXIF.

On top of that, "raw" has not really been "raw" for many years - some camera makers sharpen their raw files before saving them; Leica adds vignetting and color corrections to pictures made with M lenses (which do not always play well with digital sensor structure - but that's another story).

Keep in mind that 'raw" was not a thing at all for the first decade of commercial digital photography. I held my first Kodak/Nikon digital camera (DCS-100) about 1992, and it didn't even produce pictures internally - the data went to a tethered computer hanging from the photographer's shoulder. Which created and stored jpgs. Raw sensor data? Who needed that? Digital was supposed to be "instantaneous."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kodak_DCS_100

When the idea of "raw capture" became popular about 20 years ago, Nikon, Canon et al each developed their own in-house raw "packaging" according to their own ideas - and provided their own proprietary software to "interpret" their own proprietary formats.

For Adobe, once they added the ability to handle raw files (PS 7.0.1, 2002, via the Camera Raw plugin), this was a real headache (and still is). Adobe is constantly having to update their software to read and handle new proprietary formats from almost everyone. Therefore, in 2004, Adobe created an open raw format, which they called DNG (Digital NeGative) and made available for anyone to use. They hoped. All that metadata about pixel counts and shapes, and color filter types, were to be "cataloged" to be in the same place and format for any camera.

But most companies suffered from "not invented here" syndrome (and/or liked the idea that "only they" could read their own data correctly) and stayed with their proprietary formats/software.

Leica, Pentax, Ricoh and Hasselblad were the only camera makers to adopt DNG as their raw format (or at least an option with some cameras). Leica beginning with the DMR back for the R8/R9 in 2005.

Edited December 11, 2020 by adan

[MikeMyers]

Two things - first, I remember reading an ad for one of those early Nikons, but the listed price was around $40,000, in 1990ish dollars.  

Back to what we're discussing - I understand all these formats are different, Nikon, Fuji, Canon, Leica, but wasn't it true for all of them, that in their own way, they saved she sensor data for reach picture as a file?  Sort of like if this website were available both in English, and a translation to other language(s).  

 

Me?  I've got Nikon, Canon, Fuji, and Leica cameras that I often use.  I wish I had decided this long ago, but now I save in "raw" most of the time.  I just have to accept that PL4 doesn't work with all my camera gear.

Thanks for the detailed explanation.  I sort of thought I understood it, but after reading your post I have a much better understanding.  

 

[Stephen.s1]

Adan, a fine explanation.  I do recall the big wave to DNG.  LR gives you the option to save whatever comes off your chip to DNG as I recall. What is the benefit of that?

[adan]

2 hours ago, Stephen.s1 said:

LR gives you the option to save whatever comes off your chip to DNG as I recall. What is the benefit of that?

One reason is because any version of an Adobe product can read any .DNG (it is their format, after all).

Suppose you shoot a .NEF raw picture with the newest Nikon. And need to send a copy of the raw image data to, for example, me. Or anyone else without a Nikon.

I'm working with 7-year-old PSCS 6 on a 2013 computer, and my software cannot open an NEF file created today. My Adobe Camera Raw doesn't have that modern a "translator" (and is not upgradeable unless I upgrade my OS and all of my other software (time/$$$$$$) - and start "renting" my Photoshop from Adobe through the Cloud).

But you can send me the full 12 or 14 bit data converted or "saved as" into the .DNG format and I can open that. .DNG is designed to be forwards/backwards compatible.

(This is - BTW - a wonderful brake on GAS and the "new gear acquisition" rat race, as well as a marketing point for Leica. I can not shoot raw with cameras newer than about 2015 or so - unless they natively use the .DNG format. However, my antique software will quite happily open a picture made with "tomorrow's" SL2-S, SL3, or M11. )

__________

I also gather .DNG uses a lossless compression formula. Converting a proprietary raw file to .DNG can reduce the file size 15-20% without any quality loss. Times 10,000 pictures, that can make a difference.

Another feature to .DNG is more a housekeeping question.

When you make adjustments to a raw picture in "developing" it in Adobe products such as LR or Camera Raw, those adjustments do not affect the actual raw data. They are simply stored alongside the per-pixel data, so that they are still "remembered" the next time you open that picture. For example, "you set contrast to +25, and sharpening to 45 and WB to 6750/tint +20 for this picture."

With proprietary formats, those "temporary and revertable" adjustments have to be stored as a separate .xmp or sidecar file, alongside your raw file. Literally just an 8kb "list" for each picture, of all the LR settings when that picture was last opened or worked with.

With .DNG pictures, that sidecar list gets written right into a "pocket' of the .DNG file itself. Send someone a .DNG - and it will include the settings you preferred. Send me a CR2 or NEF raw file, and even if I can open it, it will open to "default" settings, not to the carefully-adjusted picture you created. Unless you send me your .xmp file as well.

Edited December 11, 2020 by adan

[Toastybunzz]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I don’t know if this is heresy, but I really don’t like the M10 DNG profile... The colors are garish and sometimes it puts odd color casts on things. Adobe standard looks way nicer as a starting off point.

[Anakronox]

On 12/12/2020 at 3:09 AM, Toastybunzz said:

I don’t know if this is heresy, but I really don’t like the M10 DNG profile... The colors are garish and sometimes it puts odd color casts on things. Adobe standard looks way nicer as a starting off point.

I’ve also been testing the M10 color profile and it tends to oversaturate yellows, reds, and blues.  Sometimes I like the punch, but have to go in and tone down those color channels before it works for me.  Adobe Vivid is a good, contrasty profile that takes less tweaking if I want that look. 

Edited December 16, 2020 by Anakronox