Do you use RAW files on your Digilux 2 ?

[Guest flatfour]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

After using my Digilux 2 for a couple of years I have stopped using RAW as I cannot discern any difference from my largest JPEG setting. I am using Rawshooter to convert my files. Am I missing something ?

[jaapv]

Same here. I started out with shooting RAW and quickly found out that the camera was better at RAW conversion than I was. Of couse I was using the bundled Silverfast at the time:o:mad:. But I think it still holds true.

[Advertisement]

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

[integrale]

Ditto. Also, the camera lock-up during writing the raw-file is really annoying.

[elgenper]

Well, I use raw in three situations:

 

When shooting in some strange lighting, and don´t have time to do manual WB, raw files are far easier to balance in PP.

 

Some orange and red flowers very easily cause clipping of one colour channel, leading to a posterized look. Again, easier to save when PP a raw.

 

When shooting ISO 400, the built-in NR in jpeg blurs the image in an unacceptable way. Raw isn´t affected, and can be NR´d in PP.

 

Otherwise, I shoot jpeg. No waiting for card write, and almost always excellent results that demand minimal PP.

[Ruhayat]

Same here... JPEG only from day one. But that's mainly cos I use it mostly with in-camera B&W, shooting colour only in good daylight at 100ISO.

[rjans]

I started with RAW but switched to jpeg because it is easier. Only in difficult light situations I use RAW. White balance is easier to correct. I have not yet used ISO 400, should give it a try.

 

Best

[daveleo]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

i shoot jpg only.

[Guest purpledot]

After using my Digilux 2 for a couple of years I have stopped using RAW as I cannot discern any difference from my largest JPEG setting. I am using Rawshooter to convert my files. Am I missing something ?

 

Nope. Best out of camera jpgs I have ever seen.

[prk60091]

Nope. Best out of camera jpgs I have ever seen.

the dlux4 jpgs are of the same quality as the d2's (i had a d2 and i have a dlux4

[ajthornbury]

I agree, I have tried RAW but find little difference between jpeg and Raw. So tend to shoot using jpeg only.

[elansprint72]

I too gave up RAW very quickly. Seems like a theme is developing here.

[martinvath]

Sometimes, as Per say for iso 400.

Another thing is You can actually get iso 800 (1600) if You shoot raw iso 400 and underexpose 1 stop.

Then adjust exposure and color noise Lightroom or Photoshop. Works best in bw I think, but give it a try:-)

See som samples in my old tread:

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/digital-forum/86783-d2-400-1600-iso.html

 

Kind regards

 

Martin

[wda]

Am I the only one out of step? I always shoot raw, mainly for the extra data recorded. Agreed, it isn't always needed but you can't 'undo' a jpeg file.

 

I do shoot jpeg when I need a quick burst of shots and agree results are generally good.

[rsolomon]

i shoot pretty much iso 100 and jpeg..... why mess with excellence !

[mark_a_h]

I tried RAW for a bit. I shoot 100 and jpegs now and am happy with everything.

[FinnPirat]

no, I d'ont. Only jpegs, 100 ISO and high resolution.

"Life is to short for RAW"

[MPerson]

RAW - I'm in no hurry. Plus I have a GRD so I am used to the wait.

[audidudi]

Am I the only one out of step? I always shoot raw, mainly for the extra data recorded. Agreed, it isn't always needed but you can't 'undo' a jpeg file.

 

I do shoot jpeg when I need a quick burst of shots and agree results are generally good.

 

Like you, I switch between the two depending upon the circumstances ... horses for courses, as the saying goes.

[koray]

I hope I am not hijacking this thread with my LC1 experience, we are brothers, right? :-)

 

I have been using RAW since I got my LC1 earlier this year. I prefer RAW just to be on the safe side when it comes to a tricky image (I saved a lot of images like that before with my previous cameras). I normally shoot for B&W conversion, so I keep the WB setting on B&W which helps me visualising the scenes. When I upload images to Lightroom I use the color information coming from RAW and convert it into B&W using Silverefex Pro. Since I shoot RAW I always have the chance to produce a color version. I know that Lightroom doesn't do a justice to LC1 images, but I have other cameras and this is how I manage my collection. Moreover, I don't do much for noise reduction since I only use ISO100 and Lightroom seems to eliminate them at default settings.

 

After reading this thread I wanted to compare the results from both in camera JPEG (picture settings at lowest) and Lightroom exported JPEG (only WB and curve settings changed to match the camera output, otherwise everything is at default values). The JPEG output from the camera is sharper, but noisier (I didn't try correcting it separately in Lightroom). Lightroom output is smoother to my taste, and I always have the chance to increase sharpness. Crops below tells the tale.

 

Now something odd: Lightroom output is 8 pixels narrower than the camera output (2552 vs 2560 pixels on long edge). Moreover, it is not a crop, but a shrunk image. Weird, isn't it?

 

Here are two sets of images to compare, feel free to de-noise, adjust the files (first ones are in camera JPEG, second ones are Lightroom JPEG export):

 

 

 

 

 

Cheers,

 

Koray.

Edited July 12, 2009 by koray
Mistype/grammar

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Overgaard]

Unfortunately that confirms what I suspected and feared as I did notice a difference in the beginning when I sent Digilux 2 files through Lightroom.

 

But the workflow with color adjustment, exposure and especially cropping have made me use Lightroom 2 for my Digilux 2 workflow whenever I use that camera along with a DNG camera (as the R9/DMR) so as to have the full series in one workflow and one folder.

 

Perhaps I will use Lightroom in the way that when I have selected my key shots, I will drag those to a new folder called "selected JPGs" and then finish them in PS. That way I should get keywords etc. into the files in Lightroom, but can make an uncorrupted copy in a folder for itself (I shoot many JPG's of the same subjects and select few to finalize).

 

Then again, perhaps keep Lightroom out of it. For some reason Lightroom does a slow job in previewing JPGs - it's actually faster with DNG files to make previews. So using Microsoft Expression Media (formerly known as iView MediaPro) mig perhaps be easier all in all. And then only use Lightroom for actual DNG and RAW workflow.

 

Hmm ... why can't somebody just make a perfect workflow machine with great looking profiles!

 

Your comparison surely speaks for itself.

Edited July 12, 2009 by overgaardcom