Jump to content

Recommended Posts

vor 12 Minuten schrieb fotografr:

I went out a few minutes ago and shot one frame with the camera set for DNG + JPG. I used identical post processing with each image and I'm hard pressed to see any difference in the result, except that for some reason one is slightly brighter. The first image below is the DNG after processing. The second is the JPG after the same processing.

 

 

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!

Nice

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, fotografr said:

I went out a few minutes ago and shot one frame with the camera set for DNG + JPG. I used identical post processing with each image and I'm hard pressed to see any difference in the result, except that for some reason one is slightly brighter. The first image below is the DNG after processing. The second is the JPG after the same processing.

 

 

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!

thank you and .. I agree

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see any difference in the DNG and JPEG you posted, aside from some minor tonality... but I still can't help but wonder why you don't just set it to LOW RES JPEG + DNG, then when you import into LR, just automatically change the files to BW on import. You'd be staying in a BW frame of mind and wouldn't lose whatever mystery info the DNG holds.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Chaemono said:

Maybe because M10 JPEGs are so malleable. 

Regarding malleability isn't it interesting how up until this point in photography the photographers mind was malleable enough to imagine an image in monochrome without the added crutch of having to see it on an LCD screen? How were all those images made by photographers working with B&W film? A digital .dng colour original would be even more malleable than a JPEG (use of B&W filters etc. in post) if the malleable human component hadn't mysteriously de-evolved. Is this the start of a worrying trend? What next, drivers can't use a manual shift anymore?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, jaapv said:

Plenty of drivers that can’t actually.  In some places using a stick shift is considered an esoteric skill. Can you drive a crash gearbox? I can :p 

You are younger than I thought, I imagined your memories of making a vehicle to go faster would be shouting 'giddy-up'. 🤣

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I do - but these modern contraptions won't listen!

 

Drive British sports cars all your life and you'll soon learn how to change gears with a non-functional clutch. :lol:

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 6/20/2019 at 11:17 AM, jaapv said:

Plenty of drivers that can’t actually.  In some places using a stick shift is considered an esoteric skill. Can you drive a crash gearbox? I can :p 

Yep....I was taught to drive in the 60's on a 1929 41/2 litre open tourer Bentley, ( not ours but my father was restoring it so we had it for nearly a year ). RHD vehicle, handbrake outside, crash box to the driver's right on the floor and a cone clutch that you had to double de-clutch if you valued your wrist. Fifty miles in that car was like a marathon work-out.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My first commercial job was to drive a 1936 Studebaker truck. Syncho was unheard of. I still use double-clutching with manual transmissions. So did my little-old-lady mother. Father just crashed gears, but he was an academic.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 6/20/2019 at 4:17 AM, jaapv said:

Plenty of drivers that can’t actually.  In some places using a stick shift is considered an esoteric skill. Can you drive a crash gearbox? I can :p 

My stick shift car practically guarantees it won't be stolen because most people wouldn't know how to drive it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 6/19/2019 at 11:11 PM, ChicagoMatthew said:

I still can't help but wonder why you don't just set it to LOW RES JPEG + DNG, then when you import into LR, just automatically change the files to BW on import. You'd be staying in a BW frame of mind and wouldn't lose whatever mystery info the DNG holds.

Well, as I pointed out in the initial post, I'm shooting JPG for b&w in one body because I've been unable to discern any qualitative difference in the end results.  The fringe benefits are that write times are faster, the card doesn't fill up, downloading to my desktop is instantaneous and I'm taking up less disk space on my hard drives.

When I'm shooting color with my other M10, I do shoot DNG only because I can get more accurate color. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 6/20/2019 at 1:54 AM, 250swb said:

Regarding malleability isn't it interesting how up until this point in photography the photographers mind was malleable enough to imagine an image in monochrome without the added crutch of having to see it on an LCD screen? How were all those images made by photographers working with B&W film? A digital .dng colour original would be even more malleable than a JPEG (use of B&W filters etc. in post) if the malleable human component hadn't mysteriously de-evolved. Is this the start of a worrying trend? What next, drivers can't use a manual shift anymore?

Now how can you expect a lil ol country boy like me who's at the forefront of human devolution to follow this logic?

Link to post
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, fotografr said:

Well, as I pointed out in the initial post, I'm shooting JPG for b&w in one body because I've been unable to discern any qualitative difference in the end results.  The fringe benefits are that write times are faster, the card doesn't fill up, downloading to my desktop is instantaneous and I'm taking up less disk space on my hard drives.

When I'm shooting color with my other M10, I do shoot DNG only because I can get more accurate color. 

Those are some pretty nice fringe benefits... I guess I never thought of the real world quality difference between JPG and DNG when shooting BW only. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 6/19/2019 at 11:21 PM, Mark II said:

If you set the M10 to record RAW-only, but also configure it for B&W JPEGs, you will see B&W on the LCD/EVF while the RAW files are of course unchanged. I sometimes do this when shooting monochrome digital in live-view to help make the focus peaking more easily visible.

I do not see any advantage in shooting JPEG with these cameras, particularly now that even iOS will automatically handle Leica RAW files.

I shoot this way - I see B&W and the preview embedded jpg is B&W - but the DNG is obviously colour (M10-P)

I can do anything I want (am able to) in C1, but I "see" in B&W


Helping me with exposure... the rest of it still needs work :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...