JPG

[.HorsesRear]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have been enjoying photography as a hobby for many years.  My first real camera was a Cannon AE-1 Program.  I was fortunate enough to have a job before I retired that took me all over the world and have taken thousands of photo's.  Close to a year ago I sold my Fujifilm XT4 and collection of lenses and bought a slightly used Leica Q2 in pristine condition.  I must say I do not ever remember enjoying and being more impressed with a camera than I have with my Q2.  It is such a pleasure to hold and look at.  I have read every article I can get my hands on about the camera and watched many YouTube videos.  The biggest thing I have learned is that almost everyone shoots raw files and processes them in "post" or with something like Lightroom.  I guess I have more of a comment than a question and it is that I really like the images that I have taken straight out of the camera.  I have tried using Lightroom but do not see any big advantage to it.  I think the JPG files are marvelous and see no reason for post processing.  But yet every article and YouTube video says I must use software to enhance my photos.  Perhaps it is because I am not a professional and just enjoy photography as a hobby.  Anyway I love my Q2 and have learned a lot in this forum.  Thanks for listening .

[Luke_Miller]

If the settings you use produce an image you like, jpegs are fine.  But if the lighting conditions "fool" the metering, or your exposure settings are incorrect you may find that you are unable to salvage the jpeg image.  The raw or DNG file has much more latitude for editing.

[JNK100]

Raw file processing will enable better highlight detail as well as reducing noise at high iso of course too.

[Le Chef]

3 hours ago, .HorsesRear said:

 I think the JPG files are marvelous and see no reason for post processing.  But yet every article and YouTube video says I must use software to enhance my photos.

It's not about enhancing per se but about being able to see more of what's already there. Ask someone to share "before and after" images and you should be able to see the difference fairly easily. If after that you say you don't need to see that extra detail that was in shadows etc. then you don't need to.

[mholeica]

4 hours ago, .HorsesRear said:

I have been enjoying photography as a hobby for many years.  My first real camera was a Cannon AE-1 Program.  I was fortunate enough to have a job before I retired that took me all over the world and have taken thousands of photo's.  Close to a year ago I sold my Fujifilm XT4 and collection of lenses and bought a slightly used Leica Q2 in pristine condition.  I must say I do not ever remember enjoying and being more impressed with a camera than I have with my Q2.  It is such a pleasure to hold and look at.  I have read every article I can get my hands on about the camera and watched many YouTube videos.  The biggest thing I have learned is that almost everyone shoots raw files and processes them in "post" or with something like Lightroom.  I guess I have more of a comment than a question and it is that I really like the images that I have taken straight out of the camera.  I have tried using Lightroom but do not see any big advantage to it.  I think the JPG files are marvelous and see no reason for post processing.  But yet every article and YouTube video says I must use software to enhance my photos.  Perhaps it is because I am not a professional and just enjoy photography as a hobby.  Anyway I love my Q2 and have learned a lot in this forum.  Thanks for listening .

I am also very happy with the JPEGs that come straight out the camera and mainly use them for sharing. If I print out a photo then I would post process, or if the iso is high, I post process to de noise. I’ve found that having auto iso at the right setting for me allows me to shoot and not need to worry too much about anything else and get a great jpeg. I guess it also depends upon if you have time to post process afterwards too.

[.HorsesRear]

All great points and apparently most folks are a lot better than I am at determining what a good photo is.  I have no doubt that if I knew what I was doing I could improve my pictures considerably with post processing.  But I am really pleased with what the camera does.  Thanks for the comments and advice.

[Mikep996]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Funny, I prefer the DNG image "look" over the Jpegs straight out of the Q3.  I admit I don't understand that but the DNGs seem to have more "life" than the Jpegs.  It makes me think that Q3 DNGs are not really "raw images" but have some sort of processing in camera.

Post processing cannot make a good picture out of a bad one.  My general view is that if I don't like the pic out of the camera after reviewing at home, I toss it.  I don't waste my time trying in what I have found to be a fruitless effort to "create" a keeper.

I shoot DNG/Jpeg and for review I look at the Jpegs.  If/when I see one I like, I download the DNG and do minimal adjustments if necessary.  If I can't get it like I want it in a minute or two of "work," then it goes in the trash along with the already trashed pics.  

[Jskywalker]

I'm lazy. I'm a JPEG shooter. am currently using a Q2.

 I usually use the VIV or STD mode. In VIV mode, I changed the following :

Saturation +1

Contrast +1

Shadow -1

I use STD as is. 

Go play with it.

[.HorsesRear]

Thank you.  Glad to hear I am not the only one that uses JPEG.  I use VIV mode with basically the same settings, never tried STD mode.  It is not because I am lazy or do not have time I just like the way the JPEG's look.  But then photography is just a hobby with me and the only ones that look at my pictures are me and my wife.  I really enjoy my Q2.

[Dazzajl]

JPG and Raw serve different purposes but one isn’t inherently better than the other. Shooting RAW all the time without thought (as I mostly do) can often be nothing more than a waste of your time and effort. Engineers at *insert your camera brand here* will have worked tirelessly and spent millions creating fabulous looking files for you straight out of the camera and it’s pretty smart to use them if you like them. 

[Tarekith]

On 4/27/2025 at 3:35 PM, .HorsesRear said:

  I have no doubt that if I knew what I was doing I could improve my pictures considerably with post processing.  But I am really pleased with what the camera does.  Thanks for the comments and advice.

I wouldn't make that assumption myself, if you're happy with the JPGs then they are more than good enough already.

[jaapv]

1 hour ago, Dazzajl said:

JPG and Raw serve different purposes but one isn’t inherently better than the other. Shooting RAW all the time without thought (as I mostly do) can often be nothing more than a waste of your time and effort. Engineers at *insert your camera brand here* will have worked tirelessly and spent millions creating fabulous looking files for you straight out of the camera and it’s pretty smart to use them if you like them. 

I se very little gain in time and effort in editing a jpg over a DNG converted. Not more than two clicks. 

[.HorsesRear]

That is a beautiful place where you live “jaapv”. You are very fortunate. 

[Dazzajl]

50 minutes ago, jaapv said:

I see very little gain in time and effort in editing a jpg over a DNG converted. Not more than two clicks. 

There is more room to edit in a good jpeg file than most people tend to think but for me at least, shooting jpeg is a decision to outsource the processing stage. Photography is such a varied pastime and there are almost endless ways to find personal joy from it.

[.HorsesRear]

Very true indeed.