BW jpegs on M8

[Skippy Sanchez]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Been poking around Santa Fe the past few days and am pleased to say I'm pretty impressed with the BW jpegs the camera produces.

 

I've got some here if you're interested: http://skippysanchez.blogspot.com/

 

In the past I've used the BW jpegs as a means for in-camera review but have made my BW finals from raw, which still gives more tonal control. But this week I've needed to expidite my computer time in posting pics on my blog, and have really been impressed with the qualiity of the jpegs. A minute of basic work in the midtones & I'm done.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[lars_bergquist]

There's some agitation for less-compressed fine jpegs (I second that) and this would remove most of the reasons for doing BW from DNG files.

 

The old man from the Age of Panchro

[norm_snyder]

Skippy,

 

I really enjoyed visiting your blog. San Miguel is a particular favorite of mine, with wonderful light, and not too overwhelmed with people during a good part of the year. Nice work!

 

As for the jpegs, I have been using them for editing since I got the M8, but shortly after I first began using it, I nearly ran out of card space during my brother in law's wedding [coerced photography], discovered I had no spare SD cards, and so switched to jpegs only. I was able to continue to shoot, and while the latitude is nowhere near the black and white conversions from DNG files, they are sometimes quite usable. The attachment is a crop to about 1/3 of the original frame, and the only other changes were a level adjustment and mild USM.

 

Regards,

 

Norman

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!

[Skippy Sanchez]

There's some agitation for less-compressed fine jpegs (I second that) and this would remove most of the reasons for doing BW from DNG files.

 

I would certanly appreciate less-compressed jpeg files as well, but i think making print-quality black and white images involves more than the artifact issue. Camera raw gives one much more control, especially in the mid tones, than Photoshop alone. At least that's my humble opinion.

[Skippy Sanchez]

Skippy,

 

I really enjoyed visiting your blog. San Miguel is a particular favorite of mine, with wonderful light, and not too overwhelmed with people during a good part of the year. Nice work!

 

As for the jpegs, I have been using them for editing since I got the M8, but shortly after I first began using it, I nearly ran out of card space during my brother in law's wedding [coerced photography], discovered I had no spare SD cards, and so switched to jpegs only. I was able to continue to shoot, and while the latitude is nowhere near the black and white conversions from DNG files, they are sometimes quite usable. The attachment is a crop to about 1/3 of the original frame, and the only other changes were a level adjustment and mild USM.

 

Regards,

 

Norman

 

Thanks for the compliment. Yes, card space and eventual storage space is an issue with DNG files. Especially if one (like me) makes a habit of archiving every frame from a project. For storage, I've begun sorting the JPGs into one folder and DNG in a second folder to expidite the building of thumbnails when browsing. I like Bridge, but it's sooooooo slow. I also use Photo Mechanic a lot, but Bridge has some features I really like.

[norm_snyder]

Skippy--

 

Exactly the workflow that I've evolved. I divide the files into two folders [DNG, JPEG], edit the latter in bridge, delete the files that don't jump off the screen when I look at them, match the numbers of the two folders, so that the files in the DNG folder match the ones in the JPEG folder, deleting those file numbers not saved in the JPEG folder. I take the additional step of making "contact" sheets [i know, they're digital files, but I think better when I hold them in my hand]. If I feel I've got what I need, I empty the trash, and archive what's left.

 

This is probably not a satisfactory workflow for working pros, but for my purposes, given that I always threw out most of my negs, and saved the six exposure strips that had "possibles", this works, for me.

 

As for the JPEGS themselves, I completely agree that they need to give us less compression, but when all else fails, at least I have something that will produce a usuable print [better for B&W].

 

Cheers,

Norm

[Skippy Sanchez]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Skippy--

 

Exactly the workflow that I've evolved. I divide the files into two folders [DNG, JPEG], edit the latter in bridge, delete the files that don't jump off the screen when I look at them, match the numbers of the two folders, so that the files in the DNG folder match the ones in the JPEG folder, deleting those file numbers not saved in the JPEG folder. I take the additional step of making "contact" sheets [i know, they're digital files, but I think better when I hold them in my hand]. If I feel I've got what I need, I empty the trash, and archive what's left.

 

This is probably not a satisfactory workflow for working pros, but for my purposes, given that I always threw out most of my negs, and saved the six exposure strips that had "possibles", this works, for me.

 

As for the JPEGS themselves, I completely agree that they need to give us less compression, but when all else fails, at least I have something that will produce a usuable print [better for B&W].

 

Cheers,

Norm

 

I've had too many times of going though old files and finding something I had overlooked the first time through, so i save everything now. Although storage could be considered an issue, I figure it's a small price to pay, considering what I'm saving on film, processing, darkroom chemistry, neg files, storage boxes, etc. etc. etc.

re: contact sheets-- me too. It's very handy to have proofs to peruse while away from the computer.

[jonoslack]

I would certanly appreciate less-compressed jpeg files as well, but i think making print-quality black and white images involves more than the artifact issue. Camera raw gives one much more control, especially in the mid tones, than Photoshop alone. At least that's my humble opinion.

 

Hi Skippy - I'm adding my voice to the clamour for less compressed jpg files.

As for shooting RAW - of course you are right, but there is something nice about having to take on board the camera's processing, rather like using a particular type of film stock, you start to be able to take advantage of shortcomings, and I think it can help in keeping to a particular style.

[russell]

Yes, we need a less compressed JPEG. Also we need some kind of option to "push" X stops when saving the JPEG. Why? Because we're learning that the best pictures on the M8 are made by underexposing by at least 2/3rds of a stop and then pushing the RAW file in Lightroom. Also many B&W situtations will be in low light where we'd want to dial in an underexpsoure of -1 to -1 1/2 stops and really make use of the long dynamic range in the M8.

I know Leica wanted to keep things simple for all the old men to make the switch to digital. But protecting us from ourselves is a thing of the past. It's easy to hide the functionality under a 2nd level menu if they want to keep a clean interface...

C'mon Leica, dont drop the ball

[norm_snyder]

I agree. The sample I posted was one of those photographs in which the large amount of dark area would have fooled the meter, and the highlights would have been pretty well blown out. In fact, perhaps because of years with an M6, I find I tend to use manual exposure, and do tend to underexpose at least a stop in most situations. In dark clubs, for example, where I do shoot regularly, I may underexpose up to 2 stops, also depending on how "wide" I'm shooting, and the size of the field the meter is reading. I own a Minolta spot meter, but feel like it is another piece of gear I'd rather not carry.

 

Decreased compression would, I agree allow the option of working within the parameters set in the menus,--yes,Jono, a lot like film. It also would provide the option, for example when shooting large quantities of material [e.g., weddings, which some here do] of not having to bother with much post-processing.

 

--Norm

[lars_bergquist]

I too am agitating for the option of biasing the exposures – like the way we could do when whe exposed Kodachrome 64 at EI 80 – without that infernal blinking in the finder. It would be simple to separate this from the (practically useless) compensation feature in the Set menu, putting this item in the Menu menu instead because this biasing is likely to be pretty permanent with each user. Hear me, ye Gnomes of Solms! The Lord of the Extension Rings is speaking!

 

The old man from the Age Before the Flashing Lights

[russell]

Yes. Meters dont work that well in low light. They want to make everything zone V grey. But the scene(or person's face) is really more like a zone IV or even III.

Hmm. Maybe some basic on-camera control that mimic some Lightroom development controls like exposure, recovery, blacks, etc... Leica should wake up on this for B&W. I'd guess most people shooting B&W would reach first for a Leica than other cameras. And B&W needs this ability to push -- even during in-camera JPEG time...