JPG vs RAW at low ISO

[peterb]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

While I can certainly understand the need to process RAW at higher ISOs for optimum image quality with the least digital artifacts, with the lowest ISO setting on the M8 starting at a relatively high 160 and from Sean R's review indications that there are little digital artifacts until around ISO 800, is there any reason to avoid shooting jpgs with the M8 at lower ISOs to save the hassle of processing RAW?

 

With typical Leitz lenses going anywhere from f1.0 to f2.8, you have some pretty fast optics almost guaranteeing even with ISO 160 or 320, typically in daylight conditions which are what many people shoot and even some brightly lit indoor scenes, relatively fast shutter speeds and sharp images I would think you could get away with it for most general shots. Then convert all your shots to TIFF to avoid degradation.

 

Just curious.

 

Regards,

 

P

[Advertisement]

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

[Bob Ross]

Hi Peter,

You are a brave soul to even mention JPEG in this crowd...LOL

Your logic is good, but it will depend on how the camera processes things and that has to be tested all the way to the print. Some cameras just don't process JPEGs well, but a few do a fine job, so we'll have to see. The idea of throwing any data away or letting someone else decide on the processing is a "hot button", but printing will do that in the end. Comparing prints from the various work flows is the real answer to your question.

Bob

[robsteve]

Peter:

 

RAW is not as much of a hassel as it used to be. With the right programs, you can quickly zip through the raws and then tag the two or three you want to print or share with others and just process them.

 

I have been using Lightroom for a bit and it makes a huge diffrerence in the workflow. In its current beta version it still needs a computer with a fast processor and lots of memory, but it should get better once they finalize and fine tune it.

[Guest guy_mancuso]

Not sure I know what a jpeg is.

[petermcwerner]

Not sure I know what a jpeg is.

Not sure what an M8 is:D

BTW, When have you received yours?

Cheers, Peter

[fastdap@mac.com]

Hi Peter,

You are a brave soul to even mention JPEG in this crowd...LOL

Your logic is good, but it will depend on how the camera processes things and that has to be tested all the way to the print. Some cameras just don't process JPEGs well, but a few do a fine job, so we'll have to see. The idea of throwing any data away or letting someone else decide on the processing is a "hot button", but printing will do that in the end. Comparing prints from the various work flows is the real answer to your question.

Bob

Yes. Bob is correct. I have shot thousands of jpeg images with my DMR, which were the same on my camera's LCD screen as they were on my MAC screen, then the same out to print! This is a great flow, without the need for RAW processing. The most important elements are the quality of the image itself, the camera's ability to write the image, and the intended use of the image. Throughout my career, both in still and in cinema, my philosophy has always been "put it on the neg".

 

I spent the entire weekend testing the m8 to see if the same is true for the new camera,

so far the results are stellar! I have found that the AWB is not accurate for either camera. This, however, is not an issue for me because I determine the WB.

all best, mark

[rvaubel]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

For those of us RAW converts there is no going back. But by the same token, a camera should be capable of processing a JPEG from start to print or screen with aplob. Anything less than that, narrows the consumer market to the freaks that inhabit forums like this:rolleyes:

 

Rex

[john_r_smith]

I hate RAW processing, it drives me insane. There are so many options, so many possible ways to manipulate and fine-tune the image that I can never be certain that I have the best result. I don't want to have that much control (and indecision stress) after the event. I have always done my photographic work in-camera, and I want a great negative (or digital file) that just "prints itself". After all, with transparency film it was ever thus. However, JPEG compression degrades the image, even if only slightly, and I don't want that either. What I do want is to be able to shoot high quality 16-bit uncompressed TIFFs in camera, but no manufacturer seems to produce such a device.

 

John

[marknorton]

A D2X will shoot TIFFs, uncompressed, all 36Mb of them, per shot. Perhaps you don't class it as high quality...

 

I like to work with RAW+JPEG and even for the most hardened raw addict, I think it's worth fine tuning your in-camera processing to see if JPEGs are good enough for some type of work. On the M8, for example, I work with the saturation turned down a notch.

 

You can always fall back to RAW if you need to...

[john_r_smith]

Thank you, Mark. I should probably have re-phrased that remark to "very few manufacturers", shouldn't I The fact that you could only come up with one model does rather reinforce my point, though.

 

John

[c6gowin]

There was a discussion over on RFF that would indicate the M8 DNG files are compatible iwhith the TIFF format. I don't have my M8 yes so I can speak with any first-hand knowledge, You may want to check it out.

 

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=30774

[masjah]

John

 

The DMR will support saving as 16 bit TIFF though I understand that the resulting files are a bit on the large size. Still, with large capacity SD cards now available.....?