Do you shoot RAW or jpg with your M9?

[ka7197]

While there might be a few good reasons to shoot JPEG only (as opposed to Raw or Raw+JPEG), just saving disk space isn't one of them. So don't do that!

If you're concerned with the huge size of the Leica M9's 35 MB DNG files then switch to compressed DNG which will cut the file sizes in half. Furthermore, shove the DNG files through Adobe DNG Converter—you may think that's silly but actually it does make sense because it will convert the files from DNG 1.0 format to DNG 1.3 format which includes lossless compression which will reduce the DNG file sizes even further. A doubly compressed DNG file will be only slightly larger (if at all) than a file in JPEG Fine format but will preserve much more depth and latitude for subsequent post processing than JPEG.

 

[menos]

While there might be a few good reasons to shoot JPEG only (as opposed to Raw or Raw+JPEG), just saving disk space isn't one of them. So don't do that!

If you're concerned with the huge size of the Leica M9's 35 MB DNG files then switch to compressed DNG which will cut the file sizes in half. Furthermore, shove the DNG files through Adobe DNG Converter—you may think that's silly but actually it does make sense because it will convert the files from DNG 1.0 format to DNG 1.3 format which includes lossless compression which will reduce the DNG file sizes even further. A doubly compressed DNG file will be only slightly larger (if at all) than a file in JPEG Fine format but will preserve much more depth and latitude for subsequent post processing than JPEG.

Thanks for the tip, I have to try this out (uncompressed M9 DNG through Lightroom DNG conversion vs compressed DNG vs compressed DNG through Lightroom DNG conversion).

Disk space and computer performance is a concern, but image quality comes first, which is why JPG is no option.

 

[Archiver]

I always shoot in compressed DNG format. I once forgot to set my M9 back to DNG after it had been in for service, and I was shocked at how much less malleable the jpegs are compared with the raw files. Huge amounts of shadow and highlight information were lost, and the colours were all over the shop. It confirmed why I only shoot in DNG.

 

[abumac]

Is there any jpeg on the M9 ;-)

 

[Ronald M]

You paid multi thousands for the best digital RF and you worry over Disk space.

Buy a few external hard drives and keep the photos there. I have three La Cie drives, one terabite ea ,and they are $100.

Clogging up your computer drive with file storage is not good practice in any case.

 

[downstairs]

Menus make me screw up.
So always raw on M9, always b&w jpg on M8.2.

 

[furcafe]

Always raw. With a reasonably up-to-date computer & storage, I see no real reason to use JPG unless I were doing some type of sports photography, etc., where I needed to shoot a huge # of exposures @ high fps, & that's not what anyone in their right mind would be using an M9 for.

 

[Vickko]

Hmmm, hear you, loud and clear.

Vick

You paid multi thousands for the best digital RF and you worry over Disk space.

Buy a few external hard drives and keep the photos there. I have three La Cie drives, one terabite ea ,and they are $100.

Clogging up your computer drive with file storage is not good practice in any case.

 

[arnulf]

Always shoot RAW, compressed is totally fine. I like to shoot jpeg also. They look pretty good on the M9, I think. But imagine how annoying it must be if you've underexposed an otherwise great picture and have to throw it away because you can't get back the detail in the jpeg. Ouch!....

 

[ramosa]

Raw, Raw, Raw.

+3 😉 😉 😉 ...

 

[jaapv]

I'm not convinced compressed DNG is a good idea. Storage space and SD cards are cheap nowadays. Although one has to push a file really hard in postprocessing to see an advantage for uncompressed it is certainly there. - less posterization, better color transitions. But the real argument is the future. Who can tell what Adobe will come up with in a few years? And what amount of information will be needed to exploit the new features?

 

[arnulf]

Hmm, ok Jaap, I find your argument intriguing.. I'll shoot uncompressed for a while and see how it is. Although one thing that concerns me a bit is whether such a large file size will slow down the post processing even more. Even when uncompressed I think it takes quite a bit of time some times.

 

[jaapv]

I have no problem. But then I use a MacPro quad with 16 Gb RAM...😛

I found out about the "pushability" of uncompressed files when comparing my M8 files to my DMR. I tested the M9 compressed against uncompressed, but I admit you really have to torture the file to see the difference.

 

[Roger Hicks]

DNG. Switching to JPEG for 'happy snaps' simply means that I forget to switch back to DNG for 'real' pics. Better 'happy snaps' with too much quality than 'real' pics with too little.

The only time I switch to JPEG (and immediately switch back again) is for slowly-shot sets of pics for stitched panoramas. Otherwise, file sizes for the whol panoram really do get big enough to slow down even quite powerful computers.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Bike Tourist]

DNG. Switching to JPEG for 'happy snaps' simply means that I forget to switch back to DNG for 'real' pics. Better 'happy snaps' with too much quality than 'real' pics with too little./QUOTE]

I disagree, Roger. I don't have an M9 and never will (failing some sort of lottery win) but have shot both raw and jpg with many cameras over many years. I have always balanced my spending on photography with some commercial applications to pay for my otherwise unaffordable passion.

It wasn't always so, but the imaging chips and the jpeg engines are so good these days that, for most people, jpeg should be fine for any application they are likely to need, including reasonably large prints. The stock agencies are notably very picky when it comes to artifacts, yet I routinely have third generation jpegs processed with CS5 accepted.

Maybe I don't value my work to the extent some people do. Out of my 70,000 transparencies, negatives and digital files, I wouldn't be too upset at the loss of any one of them, with a few rare exceptions.

So, let those who will shoot raw, make multiple DVDs to insure that their images endure through any major conflagration and rest easy knowing that their unique work will be preserved for posterity.

I'll just mess around shooting jpegs.