Q2 - Raw or Jpeg?

[Guest]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi, not strictly a Q2 question, but one that I hope the folk in the forum can help me with.

Ive been using Raw only for the last few months but I find myself spending too much time in Lightroom rather than improving my understanding of exposure and composition. I know that with Raws I can make anything look half decent, but I think I might be better sticking to OOC jpegs and not assuming I'll be able to correct crops, exposure etc later.

It seems that most folk use Raw, but are there SOC jpeg photographers out there? Is my idea of going jpeg only for a while reasonable?

Thanks for any and all help!

 

[stuny]

I shoot a lot and don't really have time to do RAW processing, so I stick with the highest resolution jpegs for my Q (not the newer Q2), my Vlux114, and if I pull it out, my Dlux109.  I very seldom make prints, using my photos on our site, on the Internet, and transferred to my smart phone.  I do not doubt that I can get better results via RAW, but I haven't the time.  I am no doubt in the minority.

[Viv]

The jpgs from the Q2 are pretty good.

[liggy]

8 minutes ago, stuny said:

I shoot a lot and don't really have time to do RAW processing, so I stick with the highest resolution jpegs for my Q (not the newer Q2), my Vlux114, and if I pull it out, my Dlux109.  I very seldom make prints, using my photos on our site, on the Internet, and transferred to my smart phone.  I do not doubt that I can get better results via RAW, but I haven't the time.  I am no doubt in the minority.

Funny - I was about to post nearly the same thing.  I only print a small fraction of what I shoot.  The full size Q2 jpegs are pretty good and have some malleability. 
To the OP’s point “getting it right” in camera by shooting jpegs was helpful to me personally.

And shooting raw+jpeg and culling via the iPad app is really fast and easy.  Fotos is actually the best app imo for that job out of Leica, Fuji and Sony. 

[iRandom]

I shoot RAW and pass everything from the Q2 through a simple preset. That's all the processing that most of the photos get. I do all my culling, sorting and sharing from my Mac where processing power and storage aren't a concern.

I find this gives me the simplicity I'd have with JPG but still retains the latitude for editing if I'm lucky and get a photo that is really special.

I can see how using JPG would be more optimal if you share from Fotos. RAW with Fotos is slow.

[Siriusone59]

There is nothing wrong with shooting jpg only if it gives you the results you need.  Most of my OOC jpgs are good enough as is for sharing or printing within reasonable size.  I have in recent years started saving Raw + jpg just in case there is an image that I really want to work up in LR then I'll use the raw file.  Many times I'll set it for raw + monochrome jpg just to give myself a choice to see which way the image looks the best without having to convert it.

Pay little attention to those saying you must do this or that, it's your choice.

[marchyman]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

5 hours ago, Corius said:

Is my idea of going jpeg only for a while reasonable?

If it will help you get where you want to be it is reasonable.

I find that editing raw output helps me get where I'd like to be.  It helps me concentrate on what I could have done better.  But I won't pretend that what works for me is right for everyone.   I'd say shoot jpeg for a while and see if it makes a difference for you.

And of course you don't need to process every image, only those you think you can make better.

[Mikep996]

I shoot raw+Jpeg but seldom process/use the raw files.  

Pretty much the only thing I do with an image is crop a bit and/or bring up the shadows. The Jpegs allow that sufficiently for my taste in most cases.  Additionally the new firmware for the Q2 I recently purchased on Ebay, provides (IMO) good internal adjustment for Jpegs as far as light/shadow areas.  

SO...my experience is that I don't need to shoot raw BUT I still do because I'm concerned I MIGHT regret not having it on some future great photo...if I ever take one.   

 

 

[M11 for me]

My experience that I made a few years ago already is that RAW files in general bring the better results than JPGs. I found only few cases where I could not process the RAW so that it looked as good as the JPG (ooc or processed). I must add that for quite a few years I shot RAW/JPG simultanously. In post then I used to compare each time the 2 versions and I had to take the decision  on which of the 2 to keep. That got more and more annoying or unnecessary work the more pictures I created over time (nowadays I am out with my camera almost every day). Some day I took the decision: RAW only. 

I can actually not fully understand the arguments that people think it takes a long time in Lightroom to process the RAWs compared to JPGs. I have a specific import profile for the Q2 that I like. The Q2 images OOC look now very similar to the ones from the M11. I had big difficulties at the beginning when my Q2 was new; I was very disappointed with the rendering of the Q2. But as so many people in the forum were most pleased with the Q2 and I got lots of contradictions eventually I came to the conclusion that the fault has to be with me . . . Today its different: most pictures in Lightroom are almost fine directly OOC as DNGs. What I like to correct in first place are highlights and dark areas (I use the brush or the new Luminance tools a lot). Very often there is no need for more to do. But it happens that it takes me a long time with some pictures. I have to agree to that. But I must say that I belong to the group of users that like to work with Lightroom as much as I like to take pictures. Very often I work on photographs for several days: When I like something today I have my doubts tomorrow.

[Guest]

Great comments and advice everyone. Thanks!

I think I'll go for the middle road and shoot JPG and RAW. That will tell me how good my original exposure and composition is, but still give me the option of fixing things in raw if necessary.

[RWood]

I find that I can always improve the photo using raw so I shoot in both. I view the jpegs separately and if I see something that I want to work on I'll go back to the raw file. 

I usually always convert to black and white in post. 

[tharsh]

only RAW, after post edit bulk convert to jpg for use....

 

[Viv]

RAW.

[ravinj]

Always RAW and only RAW. I use my smartphone if I want jpgs only. 

Like some other RAW shooters have noted - I do not process every file and even the ones I do process don't take a lot of time. In my case, I like results from RAWs a lot better than OOC jpgs, part of the reason is that I use ETTR a lot and without processing the files look washed out. On the flip side, in some situations I dial down the exposure to protect the highlights and boost shadows, etc later during processing. While there is Highlight Weighted Metering, I don't like it as it can be too aggressive in protecting highlights where I may be ok blowing them up. Etc. So it is about control. YMMV.

I used to keep RAW files forever. Now I delete them after processing, except the ones that I feel are special for me and keep the full size exported jpgs only. The processed files are on my local hard drive + backed up on Google cloud. I realized that I don't need to keep RAW files for every flower picture and every sunset that I have captured.

I do keep RAWs from shoots that are either places or events that I cannot easily replicate. Trips to Iceland, Glacier National Park, Alaska, daughter's graduation, etc. 

I use Capture One for processing. 

There is nothing unreasonable about going OOC jpg only route - if it works for you, why not. 

Edited June 25, 2022 by ravinj

[Stuart Richardson]

Another thing to try if you want to shoot raw but have lightroom look closer to the camera profile, especially for black and white shooters, is to just set Lightroom to honor the camera profiles on import instead of its own profiles. Then if you are shooting in a B&W jpeg color setting, when you bring the files into Lightroom they will remain black and white. With companies that have more profiles, Lightroom will choose the one closest (so if you choose camera natural in camera, it will automatically select camera natural on import to lightroom. They are not the same profiles, but they are abobe's effort to get as close as they can.

Edited June 25, 2022 by Stuart Richardson

[Guest]

6 hours ago, Stuart Richardson said:

Another thing to try if you want to shoot raw but have lightroom look closer to the camera profile, especially for black and white shooters, is to just set Lightroom to honor the camera profiles on import instead of its own profiles. Then if you are shooting in a B&W jpeg color setting, when you bring the files into Lightroom they will remain black and white. With companies that have more profiles, Lightroom will choose the one closest (so if you choose camera natural in camera, it will automatically select camera natural on import to lightroom. They are not the same profiles, but they are abobe's effort to get as close as they can.

As far as I can see this is not correct for the Q2. (It is correct for my Nikon Z 6ii)

Using Exiftool there appears to be no "Camera Profile" set in the DNG metadata. Lightroom Classic always applies the Adobe Color profile on import even if "Camera Settings" is set in preferences.

This is very evident if you import a DNG taken with the in camera B&W jpg setting. On import the image shows as B&W as it's using the embedded jpg, but as soon as you go to Edit mode the image is rendered in Adobe Color.

I wish this were not the case, so please correct me if I'm wrong here.

Edited June 25, 2022 by Corius

[Mikep996]

FWIW, I've been doing some comparisons the past couple of days, looking at Q2 raw vs Jpeg images.  Frankly, even at the maximum "enlargement" on the computer screen - doing serious pixel peeping - I can see virtually no difference in detail out of the camera between the two.  I have also done shadow enhancement and, again when pulled an equal amount I just don't see any useful difference between raw and jpeg.

Admittedly, this is shooting in light conditions that don't require high ISO.  I'm not much of an "available darkness" shooter so I don't use extreme ISO capability.  I assume there would be a much more noticeable difference between Raw/Jpeg at higher ISO levels.

I'm not trying to convince anyone NOT to shoot raw.  Heck, I can't even convince myself of that but I am impressed at the quality of Jpegs, at least at the ISO levels I use - seldom above 1600.  

Also, I use Apple Photos.  Maybe there would be a more noticeable difference using some other processing program.  IOW, maybe the raws would be more detailed if opened with, say, Lightroom as opposed to "Photos."  Any thoughts re that?

 

Edited June 25, 2022 by Mikep996

[clasami]

Never understood why some people are so obsessed with JPEG OOC - to show how well they expose and compose. Reminds me to the folks back in time who printed a tiny bit more to show the frame with perforation of an image. Me, I have yet to shoot an image that can't be improved somehow in post. And for that, RAW is simply the most flexible format. Of course, if someone is shooting hundreds of images at a time (events and so on) post processing all of them is not an option. Fortunately, that normally isn't the case for me. So RAW it is.

[Mikep996]

Well - answered my own question by downloading LR classic as a trial and there is no visible difference between the Raws from LR or Photos.

 

 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica Q