Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

What is the benefit to shooting JPEG and RAW?

I am starting to get overwhelmed by having doubles of all pictures, not to mention the additional space requirement.

 

Does anyone shoot only JPEG? Why?

Does anyone shoot only RAW? Why?

Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stick,

Welcome aboard!  We all hope you enjoy the comradeship in these parts.

I shoot only RAW.  Why?  I have more options and more control over the image in post processing.  RAW gives me more of an opportunity to fine tune my images for printmaking.  That is the main reason.

About the only benefit of shooting in JPEG that I know of is that you do not have to do much post processing; the camera software does it for you.  That, and JPEG will save you time in post processing. 

Photojournalists are shooting in JPEG more nowadays, as news outlets are of the opinion that it prevents or at least minimizes the possibility that the image has been manipulated in post processing,  therefore changing the content and rendering the image a falsehood from a journalistic and/or editorial perspective.

With JPEG files, you have data loss with each opening of the file, which erodes image quality over time.  JPEG works just fine for some photographers, though.  If you intend to make high quality exhibit prints, I would recommend shooting in RAW. 

If you want to make high quality exhibit prints, shooting in RAW is probably the way to go.  If you are a photojournalist, JPEG may be the best choice.  If you are a casual photographer who doesn't need exact control over your file for print making, JPEG will work well and save you some work and time in post processing.

Last thing:  If you read your camera's manual (I'm guessing you are using a Q2 since you started your thread on the Q2 page), there will (or should) be a page in the camera's menu system where you can turn off either RAW or JPEG image capture so that you do not have two of each file and eat up storage space needlessly on your memory cards and your computer's hard drive.

Hope this will help...

Edited by Herr Barnack

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Herr Barnack said:

Stick,

Welcome aboard!  We all hope you enjoy the comradeship in these parts.

I shoot only RAW.  Why?  I have more options and more control over the image in post processing.  RAW gives me more of an opportunity to fine tune my images for printmaking.  That is the main reason.

About the only benefit of shooting in JPEG that I know of is that you do not have to do much post processing; the camera software does it for you.  That, and JPEG will save you time in post processing. 

Photojournalists are shooting in JPEG more nowadays, as news outlets are of the opinion that it prevents or at least minimizes the possibility that the image has been manipulated in post processing,  therefore changing the content and rendering the image a falsehood from a journalistic and/or editorial perspective.

With JPEG files, you have data loss with each opening of the file, which erodes image quality over time.  JPEG works just fine for some photographers, though.  If you intend to make high quality exhibit prints, I would recommend shooting in RAW. 

If you want to make high quality exhibit prints, shooting in RAW is probably the way to go.  If you are a photojournalist, JPEG may be the best choice.  If you are a casual photographer who doesn't need exact control over your file for print making, JPEG will work well and save you some work and time in post processing.

Last thing:  If you read your camera's manual (I'm guessing you are using a Q2 since you started your thread on the Q2 page), there will (or should) be a page in the camera's menu system where you can turn off either RAW or JPEG image capture so that you do not have two of each file and eat up storage space needlessly on your memory cards and your computer's hard drive.

Hope this will help...

Super informative answer Herr Barnack. This would be excellent to add to a FAQ thread. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RAW only for me too. Whenever I shot RAW plus JPG at the same time (I did that a few years ago) it turned out to be a nightmare to evaluate wether the RAW or the JPG was the better base to start working on . Even though I always knew that RAWs contained much more data that JPGs I still wanted to know which one was better. Subsequently I came to the conclusion that only in very rare cases the initial JPG was the better source. But just to find that out took me such a long time. Finally I stopped taking JPGs at all. For a few years now I take RAWs only. And it is so easy to work with RAW files. This implies though to accept to work with a software system as Adobe Lightroom or others. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are a few situations where one would want to shoot JPG and RAW together.  If, for example, you have a client looking over your shoulder in a studio, or if you are a wedding photographer and want to show your client a digital contact sheet so they can pick the images they like (with little or no editing), then having JPG’s is really convenient and will speed up your workflow without sacrificing the flexibility you get from a RAW file.  Under these circumstances, shoot both.  Faster time to get photos out (JPG) while leaving you full 16 bit files for later.

Why shoot RAW?  Simply put, you can do more with the files without degrading image quality.  You’ve got more bits per pixel, you can choose your white balance based on how it looks in post, you can choose your sharpening amount based on whether you are making a large print or just sharing on Instagram.  The source data is simply better in a RAW file than in a JPG.  For maximum image quality, RAW is the way to go.  The down side is that virtually every picture will require at least some editing before you can share it.  At a minimum, you will need to convert it to JPG or TIFF before you send it, post it, or print it (unless you are printing at home).  For many, that’s a minor price to pay in order to maintain the highest possible image quality and the greatest flexibility in post processing.

If you want the easiest possible workflow and are a fan of the “get it right in capture” school of photography, then just shooting JPG’s might be right for you.  You aren’t really giving up much image quality if your only edits are cropping and maybe minor exposure tweaks.  They are still full resolution files that can be used as-is for even museum quality prints.  They just can’t handle as much adjustment as a RAW file before they start to break down and show noise and artifacts and limitations in colors.  If your edits are always simple and minor as is the case for photojournalists who mustn’t make major changes to a picture as part of the editorial policy), then JPG’s are great.  They are universally understood.  They save on drive space.  Nothing wrong with JPG’s if you don’t tend to do much post processing.  

I shoot exclusively in RAW.  95% of the time I could have shot a JPG instead and it would have been absolutely fine.  I wouldn’t be able to tell the difference.  The problem is the 5%.  The pictures of mine that get the most attention and the most post processing are the best one.  I make adjustments to white balance.  I adjust shadows and highlights.  I apply curves.  I make localized corrections using masks.  I might throw in some focus stacking.  Occasionally, even some HDR if it’s not overdone.  I choose the sharpening that I think is best for the particular output format.  The 5% are the images I care about.  And for those, I want RAW.  One other thing I find as, primarily, a landscape photographer... My best images are generally made under, shall we say, “challenging” lighting conditions.  Periods around dawn and dusk and even well into twilight.  That often means pushing the camera’s capabilities in terms of dynamic range and color depth in particular.  When you shoot JPG’s, the camera is deciding how to compress the 12 bits or so of usable dynamic range into an 8 bit file.  There is no turning back from that decision.  By shooting RAW, I can figure out in the computer at my leisure how I want to allocate those bits.  For me, RAW is really the only good choice.  If I were a sports photographer worried about getting four or five hundred images over to my editor in the next 15 minutes and weren’t thinking about post I would make a completely different decision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I shoot RAW only.  If I need a JPEG, I can get it from the RAW file (there is a "JPEG" image attached as a "sidecar")

The attached JPEG uses the JPEG parameters that you set on the Q.  I often have monochrome JPEGs contained in my RAW files.

Using Lightroom, you get the benefits of both file types...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking at some recent files, the Q2 DNG raw files are about 88MB, and the jpegs are usually around 15MB though I have several in the 22-24MB range. So raw+jpeg is over 100MB per photo, or fewer than 10 photos per gigabyte. 

In my normal work life in photography I shoot entirely raw, no exceptions. I prefer to have the extra room to fix any issues in post production (not that I would ever have any issues, no sir buddy.) At work I shoot Fujifilm GF-X medium format and X series APS-C cameras depending on the assignment. 

When I got the Q2 (as a gift from a generous benefactor), I used it with raw files to cover an assignment, and noticed that it slowed down dramatically when shooting raw files quickly. The buffer couldn't keep up. So I switched to jpeg-only and the end results were fine. Even at very high ISO values (up to 6400) the images were excellent, and I had a fair amount of room to edit them in post. 

(Here's a link to that project. It was a collaborative dance performance with a university facilities management team and a dance company that choreographs these dances. It was, honestly, wonderful. I spent four nights shooting it then went back with my family to watch a performance (and shoot from the p.o.v. of the crowd, of course.) Almost all the wide angle shots are with the Leica Q2, and every one of them is an in-camera jpeg, tweaked in Lightroom.)

I'm using the Q2 as a personal everyday carry camera, documenting whatever I find, and for that the jpegs are great, too. It really depends on what you need as an end result. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty much the only reason I shoot RAW and JPG these days is that I use an older piece of software (Nikon Image Transfer) to move files from cameras to my hard drive. I keep using it because I am used to the structure it imposes and it more or less works for me. But it is no longer supported by Nikon and so does not recognize more modern RAW file formats but of course will recognize JPG images and after I move them using the Nikon software which also sets up the folder  structure etc, I then manually move the RAW files to the same folder. Needless to say this is not an issue with DNG files as they are pretty much universally recognised. Which means I can get away with just saving files as DNG when shooting any Leica camera. But not so for my (say) Sony camera. Also I did shoot in dual formats for a time when shooting black and white in camera (which requires a JPG file to be saved). But I seldom do this now preferring to shoot in RAW and convert in post. 

If for some reason you still wish to shoot in both DNG and JPG format whay not tell the camera to only save JPGs at the highest compression (smallest files size).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I recently began shooting in RAW+JPEG, capturing the JPEG in B&W.  In the Q2 that means actually visualizing in B&W via the EVF, which has forced me to pay more attention to composition and the geometries within the frame.  The jury is still out whether I will continue with this strategy, but for now I quite like both the process and the effect since I immediately have two very different renderings of each image once I upload to LR.  BTW, when I first started shooting in RAW+JPEG I captured both in color and universally preferred the RAW versions over the JPEG, which prompted me to switch the JPEG to B&W.

I have also recently resurrected my M3 and began shooting B&W film again, so visualizing in B&W when using my Q2 has helped me 'think in B&W' when I switch over to my M3 and M10 rangefinders.

Good luck and have fun finding your own 'groove'!!

- Scott

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you have an iPad and you shoot RAW +JPEGs, you can import the JPEGs using the SD card adapter onto the iPad and tweak them with Photo, Snapseed or other simple app and send them out  quickly using email or social media apps. You can keep the shots on the SD card so that if you need any in better quality you can process the RAW later on your PC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My experience is similar to @M10 for me. Managing the RAW+JPG got to be too much of a burden and once I got used to processing RAW I started not even looking at the JPGs. 

When I was using Fuji I decided to give JPG another look. Fuji's JPGs look great and the film simulations are a lot of fun, but I quickly discovered that I didn't have the latitude to manage the highlights and shadows that I need. 

Of course, the problem with RAW-only is managing the ever increasing disk usage. Not so much of a problem for the local storage but certainly a concern for cloud storage and the backups (local and remote).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was very late switching to digital after years of shooting kodachrome slides.

Jpeg only for me as it allows me to carry as near as possible to how i always operated before.

There are some fair minded and balanced articles about the pros  and cons of raw v jpeg online to help with this subject.

Something i have noticed in recent years are lots of massively over edited images that look more like cartoons than photographs to my eyes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/17/2019 at 9:12 PM, KenBennett said:

Looking at some recent files, the Q2 DNG raw files are about 88MB, and the jpegs are usually around 15MB though I have several in the 22-24MB range. So raw+jpeg is over 100MB per photo, or fewer than 10 photos per gigabyte. 

In my normal work life in photography I shoot entirely raw, no exceptions. I prefer to have the extra room to fix any issues in post production (not that I would ever have any issues, no sir buddy.) At work I shoot Fujifilm GF-X medium format and X series APS-C cameras depending on the assignment. 

When I got the Q2 (as a gift from a generous benefactor), I used it with raw files to cover an assignment, and noticed that it slowed down dramatically when shooting raw files quickly. The buffer couldn't keep up. So I switched to jpeg-only and the end results were fine. Even at very high ISO values (up to 6400) the images were excellent, and I had a fair amount of room to edit them in post. 

(Here's a link to that project. It was a collaborative dance performance with a university facilities management team and a dance company that choreographs these dances. It was, honestly, wonderful. I spent four nights shooting it then went back with my family to watch a performance (and shoot from the p.o.v. of the crowd, of course.) Almost all the wide angle shots are with the Leica Q2, and every one of them is an in-camera jpeg, tweaked in Lightroom.)

I'm using the Q2 as a personal everyday carry camera, documenting whatever I find, and for that the jpegs are great, too. It really depends on what you need as an end result. 

Great photos Ken!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/18/2019 at 3:49 PM, Philip Freedman said:

If you have an iPad and you shoot RAW +JPEGs, you can import the JPEGs using the SD card adapter onto the iPad and tweak them with Photo, Snapseed or other simple app and send them out  quickly using email or social media apps. You can keep the shots on the SD card so that if you need any in better quality you can process the RAW later on your PC.

hello, that’s exactly the way I want to use my Q2 with iPad Pro / Photos but still want to keep the DNG in my NAS with structured folders by years/month/event 

 

BUT when importing with SD card reader on USB C, photos import BOTH DNG and JPEG.. then display a small R - for raw - or J - for jpeg - no the top left of the thumb.

if you edit on iPhone, the jpeg is edited, on iPad / Mac OS, the raw / DNG is edited.

the only way to split is to :

- export original + jpeg with photo on Mac OS, save the orignal on my NAS and import back the jpeg in photos which is awful cause you have to deal with iCloud storage (DNG and huge) and time consuming to do export.

- more recently I found that with Files app on iPad, I can open the SD Card like an USB key and with split view with photos on the right simply select drap and drop on photos the jpeg only, keep the DNG on the SD and when back home transfer the DNG on my NAS - or, mount the server on the Files app and store straight from the iPad the DNG in the NAS.

 

—-> do you have another trick to split from the photos iPad app importing process the DNG and the jpeg and only import jpeg in Photos library ??

 

sorry for thé long post but want to be precise and give details for some other people reading.

julien 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, W3SH said:

hello, that’s exactly the way I want to use my Q2 with iPad Pro / Photos but still want to keep the DNG in my NAS with structured folders by years/month/event 

 

BUT when importing with SD card reader on USB C, photos import BOTH DNG and JPEG.. then display a small R - for raw - or J - for jpeg - no the top left of the thumb.

if you edit on iPhone, the jpeg is edited, on iPad / Mac OS, the raw / DNG is edited.

 

 

sorry for thé long post but want to be precise and give details for some other people reading.

julien 

that is incorrect.

If you import a jpg or DNG into an iPad or iPhone both get imported.

Depending on the processor you use (my favorite it RAW POWER- the developer is the former  lead engineer for Aperture from Apple) you will edit (non-destructive edit w/RAW POWER and export as a jpg or  tiff.  Even Apple's Photos will edit the raw file.

There are macOS versions and iOS versions available for purchase (not subscription) on the app stores.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/28/2020 at 6:14 PM, BenSh said:

I use Jpeg when i take Pictures with a Phone. When i use a  real Camera meant to use for Photography, i use RAW.

 

 

Is it not photography when you take pictures with your phone?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
vor 5 Stunden schrieb steve 1959:

Is it not photography when you take pictures with your phone?

10 Years ago i would have written a whole Story about that.. But i just let it stay this way;-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Content

    • By 4peterse
      Moin Leude,
      ich bin eigentlich ein eingefleischter Farbfotograf, wollte mich aber mal an schwarzweiß versuchen. Praktischerweise gibt es ja zwei schwarzweiß Modi, die aber (natürlich) nur schwarzweiße JPEGs produzieren. Im L+RAW Modus werden dann noch zusätzliche RAW Files angelegt, die aber (natürlich) farbig sind. Insgeheim hatte ich gehofft, dass in die RAW Files schon ein schwarzweiß Profil eingebettet ist – ähnlich wie in den Crop Modi ja auch schon der Bildausschnitt im RAW File eingestellt ist.
      Da die Kamera das nicht erledigt, bin ich also auf der Suche nach einem Profil für Lightroom, das möglichst nah an den JPEGs dran ist. Das Adobe Monochrome ist leider nicht exakt passend. Natürlich kann man das einfach als Ausgangsbasis nutzen und dann an den Reglern rumschrauben, wie es einem gut passt.
      Daher gibt es vielleicht hier im Forum jemanden, der so in Profil schon hat, weiß wo man eines bekommen kann oder auch weiß, wie man eines anlegen kann (ohne allzuviel Rumgerate)?
      Danke!
    • By jonoslack
      Hi There
      Several people have asked me about this, and so it seemed to be worth doing it! 
      All the files were originally shot on DNG - the sharpening and noise reduction sliders in Lightroom were all zeroed. The SL2 files were opened in Photoshop and the Image size reduced without any noise reduction help. They were then exported as 100% jpg quality 12 jpg files. I've then done an XY comparison zoomed in to approximately 100% and taken a screen shot. I'll put this on to the Review thread as well, but I thought it was worth putting it up as a separate thread.
      As you would expect - downsizing the SL2 images does help with the noise - but even so, at higher ISO there is still at least a stop difference. In each case the SL2-S is on the left. To me this is a little like angels dancing on the heads of pins, and it's also open to methodology questions - and anyway, why would you not use noise reduction?) 
      First of all, the Scene:

      Hello guest! Please register or sign in to view the hidden content. Hallo Gast! Du willst die Bilder sehen? Einfach registrieren oder anmelden!  
      100 ISO: 

      Hello guest! Please register or sign in to view the hidden content. Hallo Gast! Du willst die Bilder sehen? Einfach registrieren oder anmelden! 400 ISO

      Hello guest! Please register or sign in to view the hidden content. Hallo Gast! Du willst die Bilder sehen? Einfach registrieren oder anmelden! 1600 ISO

      Hello guest! Please register or sign in to view the hidden content. Hallo Gast! Du willst die Bilder sehen? Einfach registrieren oder anmelden! 6,400 ISO

      Hello guest! Please register or sign in to view the hidden content. Hallo Gast! Du willst die Bilder sehen? Einfach registrieren oder anmelden! 12,500 ISO

      Hello guest! Please register or sign in to view the hidden content. Hallo Gast! Du willst die Bilder sehen? Einfach registrieren oder anmelden! 25,000 ISO

      Hello guest! Please register or sign in to view the hidden content. Hallo Gast! Du willst die Bilder sehen? Einfach registrieren oder anmelden! 50,000 ISO

      Hello guest! Please register or sign in to view the hidden content. Hallo Gast! Du willst die Bilder sehen? Einfach registrieren oder anmelden! Finally 100,000 on the SL2-S and 50,000 on the SL2

      Hello guest! Please register or sign in to view the hidden content. Hallo Gast! Du willst die Bilder sehen? Einfach registrieren oder anmelden!  
       
    • By onasj
      I obtained a customer-release—not pre-release/beta—M10-R and compared it side-by-side with the M10 Monochrom (hereafter referred to as the M10-M) on a test scene at high ISO values.  The firmware version for both was the latest firmware currently available to the public: 10.20.27.20 for the M10-R (upgraded from the initial released 10.20.23.49 firmware that was pre-installed in the new camera), and 2.12.8.0 for the M10-M. 
      Methodology: all shots were taken on a tripod with a 2-second delay to minimize vibration.  The same Leica 50 APO lens was used for all tests.  The aperture was set to f/5.6 for all tests, at which the resolving power of the 50 APO is about as high as possible among commercially available 35-mm format lenses.  The ISO value and shutter speeds were as follows:
      ISO 6400, 1/60 s
      ISO 12500, 1/125 s
      ISO 25000, 1/250 s
      ISO 50000, 1/500 s
      ISO 100000 (M10-M only), 1/1000 s
      To the best of my ability, the M10-R and the M10-M were treated equally.  The test shots were taken in one sitting, with the same tripod position 2.2 m from the target, and under the same lighting.  The images were focused by rangefinder and confirmed by live view for each camera.  The subject distance (2.2 m) was farther from the test scene than my earlier M10-R tests (1.3 m) because I anticipated that the M10-M might have no trouble resolving all the details of the scene from 1.3 m, even at absurdly high ISOs.
      To keep the test as pure as possible, all the test shots were taken as DNG files, then transferred and opened in Adobe Photoshop 2020 with Camera Raw 12.3 (which has native M10-R support) with no corrections or adjustments to the default image settings, other than clicking “B&W” to convert the M10-R images to monochrome.  Therefore, this test does not really answer the question of how the performance between the cameras compares if one were to bring the full power of modern post-processing, noise removal, AI-driven scaling and sharpening, etc. to bear on the images.  It also does not exploit the important ability of adjusting the levels of different colors when converting color files to monochrome files—arguably the largest advantage of using the M10-R to generate monochrome photos instead of the M10-M.  Instead, the purpose of this test is to compare the acuity and noise level of the two cameras at ISO 6400 to ISO 50000.
      Overall, both cameras take remarkably good monochrome photos, even at ISO levels such as 12500 that would previously be considered out-of-reach.  Here are 100% crops from a small portion of the center region of both cameras (M10-R on the left, M10-M on the right).  Click on the image below to view it at 100% to avoid scaling artifacts.  I would have no hesitation using ISO 12500 monochrome images from either camera for virtually any application.  But of course there are substantial performance differences.

      Hello guest! Please register or sign in to view the hidden content. Hallo Gast! Du willst die Bilder sehen? Einfach registrieren oder anmelden! Finding #1: The M10-M captures higher acuity levels than the M10-R across the ISO range tested (6400 to 50000).
      As expected, given the lack of a Bayer color filter array (CFA) and no need to de-mosaic the red-, green-, or blue-filtered pixels, the M10-M offers significantly higher acuity than the M10-R.  To my eye, the advantage persists even if you give the M10-R an advantage of one or two stops: compare the sharpness of the fine features of the scene as captured by the M10-M at ISO 25000 vs. the M10-R at ISO 6400, or the M10-R at ISO 25000 to the M10-M at ISO 100000—a remarkable testament to the M10-M’s ability to capture a scene down to the smallest details, even zooming in to 100%.  Notice also that at the same ISO level, aperture, and shutter speed (chosen by each camera’s auto-shutter speed setting to be the same at all ISO levels!), the M10-M images are only modestly brighter than the M10-R; I was surprised that the Bayer CFA didn’t dim the M10-R images more strongly.  Perhaps the M10-R firmware partially compensates for the loss of light due to the Bayer CFA.
      Finding #2: The M10-M offers about a 1- to 2-stop advantage in high-ISO noise levels over the M10-R.
      Compare the M10-M at ISO 50000 to the M10-R at ISO 12500, or the M10-M at ISO 25000 to the M10-R at ISO 6400. The M10-M continues to blow me away with its high-ISO performance.  Indeed, Bill Claff’s measurements at https://photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm rank the M10-M’s high ISO performance as fourth among all cameras tested to date, behind the Phase One IQ4, the Phase One IQ3, and the Fuji GFX-100—three current or recent top-of-the-line medium format cameras.
      Overall, Leica has created in the M10-M and the M10-R two current-generation sister cameras with outstanding overall performance.  If acuity or high-ISO performance is more important than color for your particular application, than the M10-M outperforms the M10-R and is among the very best cameras to my knowledge, even joining some medium-format monsters.  And if color is needed, either in the final image or to enable creative conversion to black and white images that allows easy sky darkening, face lightening, etc. during post-processing, the M10-R remains an option worthy of its current flagship status among Leica M cameras.
    • By Ian clegg
      First time post, be gentle. 
      I want to bring my raw files from Monochrom into silver efex. SEP. But it will only accept RGB. Will this lead to loss of quality ? When I scan my black and white negs I do so in greyscale and that’s  perfect for printing to black and white paper at Metro. 
      It seems to defeat the object of the Monochrom if I have to convert to RGB ?
      Am I missing a trick ? What say you ?
    • By maxsimkammerer
      Update 26. November 2019: Das hier ehemals verlinkte Forum existiert nicht mehr.
      Im Systemkamera-Forum gibt es aber jetzt ein eigenes deutsches Capture One Forum
×
×
  • Create New...