jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Apple is notoriously lax with updating DNG file handling. The problem is that they do not incorporate the full DNG standard in their OS. The linear DNG of the original MM, although to Adobe specification, took them completely by surprise. It took them ages to adapt their OS.
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
Just curious, why bother with raw?
The JPG is not good enough?
The JPG is not good enough?
Godfrey
somewhat colored
There's more image processing overhead to be had with raw files. In many cases, the JPEGs are good enough, but more overhead nets better results when you're working at the limits of the camera's capabilities.
G
SuperUJ
Well-known
It probably is, as the files don't seem to need much post-processing. I meter mid-tone with center-weighted setting and the highlight & shadow seem to fall into place. My digital post-processing workflow follows my analog's. When working with films, I prefer to print from negatives than from another prints. But that's just me.
John
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
I understand the reasons why one would use RAW vs jpg.
I was asking specifically to those who use these latest digital M. How many times do you push the limitations of the camera that you need the extra room for post processing using RAW formats.
I'd think that a digital Leica M produces JPG that would exceed my expectations even if I shoot at night (I meant scenes with light, not shooting bats in a cave).
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
John, to me, that's not an apt comparison.
I've been surprised at how good the JPG quality out of almost any new DSLR today. Unless you're going to print at super high resolution and size, or shooting at extreme light conditions, there is no need to use RAW.
In other words, I submit that for 90% of all purposes, today, the JPG from high-end cameras can be considered as the equivalent of the negative in film world.
SuperUJ
Well-known
Hi Will,
Your estimate of 90% is probably right for good DSLRs. In addition to the 8-bit JPEG vs. 12-bit DNG files, I personally don't prefer the idea of uncompressing and recompressing image files (unless it uses lossless compression algorithm). The using of different RAW editors is similar to the use of different types of developer on film. This is how I drew the parallel between RAW files and negatives. As I have already gone down the M246 route, I would try to squeeze every bit out its output (instead of limiting myself from the get go and shoot JPEG). Hope this helps explain my choice of working practice and workflow. Thanks for sharing of your thought, though.
John
SuperUJ
Well-known
High Speed Cards and Banding
High Speed Cards and Banding
With a 95 MB/s card, the M246 startup time was brought down to less than two seconds now. However, the high speed card seems to introduce banding in the shadow on in DNG when images are pushed two or more stops in LR6 (& when I blow it up). I found at least one other user mentioned this phenomenon, when I googled it. It probably would not be a problem when I print the images, but thought that I should bring it up here.
John
High Speed Cards and Banding
With a 95 MB/s card, the M246 startup time was brought down to less than two seconds now. However, the high speed card seems to introduce banding in the shadow on in DNG when images are pushed two or more stops in LR6 (& when I blow it up). I found at least one other user mentioned this phenomenon, when I googled it. It probably would not be a problem when I print the images, but thought that I should bring it up here.
John
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
SuperUJ
Well-known
Wanted to report back on the banding issue of my SanDisk 95 MB/s card. It did not get resolved by changing over to a Transcend 90 MB/s card (suggested by someone in another forum). 90% of the banding (pretty minor to begin with) go away after applying debanding using Dfine 2.0.
John