M8 DNG vs JPG

[aka5ha]

Hello All,

I just got an M8 (loving it) and had read a lot of bad press on the M8 jpg engine. My first dozen or so shots comparing DNG to JPG are showing me that the JPGs look better. They look better with respect to chroma noise and also colors. I just upgraded to the latest firmware, maybe there are JPG improvements there? Also, my comparisons are at ISO 640. I tried also converting DNG to JPG in Photoshop, but the M8 generated JPGs look better than the Photoshop DNG to JPG conversion. I did not do any tweaking at all in Photoshop. My point is, if the M8 can produce JPG files that look better than DNG when properly exposed, isn't it OK to use JPGs for the convenience? I don't have time to play with every DNG file I produce if the JPGs look great out of my M8.

Anyone else have opinions to share on DNG vs JPG?

 

[johnastovall]

With a jpeg you are throwing away information from the original image and saving in a lossy format.

Why use an M8 and save in a cheap point and shoot format?

See the Raw Truth and JPEG follies.

 

[Cindy Flood]

DNG files are digital negatives. Jpgs have noise reduction, contrast adjustments, color adjustments, sharpening etc. performed on them by the camera's software. Jpgs right out of the camera are OK if your scene does not have too much dynamic range and you nail the shot, but DNG's give you flexibility to adjust, dodge and burn, sharpen selectively, etc. to taste. They put you in control of the photo, not a computer.

You can not expect the converted DNG to look like the JPG out of the camera, if you do not make any adjustments to it. It is the starting point, not the finished product.

Good luck and congratulations on the new M8.

 

[Roger Hicks]

DNG files are digital negatives. Jpgs have noise reduction, contrast adjustments, color adjustments, sharpening etc. performed on them by the camera's software. Jpgs right out of the camera are OK if your scene does not have too much dynamic range and you nail the shot, but DNG's give you flexibility to adjust, dodge and burn, sharpen selectively, etc. to taste. They put you in control of the photo, not a computer.

You can not expect the converted DNG to look like the JPG out of the camera, if you do not make any adjustments to it. It is the starting point, not the finished product.

Dear Cindy,

Beautifully summarized.

And here's a further thought. After 18 months with an M8 I shoot almost exclusively DNG. If I can't be assed to process it, maybe I shouldn't shoot it.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[DwF]

I just got my M8 last week. I am shooting/processing DNG now with this camera. I was shooting RAW with my R D1 but stopped after a while. The JPEG engine in that camera suited me fine most of the time. I don't yet have IR filters and the magenta cast is a distraction with the M8. Here is a study that I did processing in photoshop. It is cropped and just a study to working on color to B&W, and tonality.

My M8 came with Capture One but that was included without a product key so I am waiting for that to get sorted out.

 

[Cindy Flood]

Dear Cindy,

Beautifully summarized.

Thank you, Roger. I appreciate that coming from you.

I just got my M8 last week. I am shooting/processing DNG now with this camera. I was shooting RAW with my R D1 but stopped after a while. The JPEG engine in that camera suited me fine most of the time. I don't yet have IR filters and the magenta cast is a distraction with the M8. Here is a study that I did processing in photoshop. It is cropped and just a study to working on color to B&W, and tonality.

My M8 came with Capture One but that was included without a product key so I am waiting for that to get sorted out.
View attachment 56387

DwF, It looks like you are on your way! Congratulations on the new M8 and the nice photo.

 

[sunsworth]

And here's a further thought. After 18 months with an M8 I shoot almost exclusively DNG. If I can't be assed to process it, maybe I shouldn't shoot it

Couldn't agree more. 13,000 frames or so with my M8 and I haven't shot a single Jpeg. If you want the best learn how to process the DNG files and shoot those - advice you are free to ignore.

 

[pukupi]

I shoot mostly low light and have found M8 DNGs give much better results than JPEGs. I post process in Aperture 2.0.

 

[kuzano]

Many very good responses to your question

Many very good responses to your question

Every answer I see has value to the discussion. In my digital classes I boil it down this way:

"The RAW file is complete insofar as the camera saw the scene. A JPEG is not the complete scene the camera saw, as it's been processed down by the camera. Digital information has been discarded."

If you plan to Post Process in an image editing program, JPEG is crippling your options.

Frankly, If I bought a camera and there were not visual differences between RAW and JPEG, I'd worry about the money spent. In fact, I wouldn't necessarily be concerned about which one was better, but that there were differences. That's the reason a JPEG is 4-5 Mb, and a RAW (dng) is 15-20 Mb. Think how much data you are discarding with the JPEG.

That information is valuable in Post Processing with any sophisticated editor, and unavailable from the JPEG.

The camera may appear to produce a nicer JPEG image, with certain camera settings. However, the RAW (dng) file gives you far more latitude to improve the image than the JPEG ever will.

So, perhaps you made the right choice, if you only want to shoot JPEG images, and never post process for higher quality.

Even that comment is a little unfair, as you may learn to hit a perfect exposure in RAW (dng), but having options in Post Processing is the biggest reason for capturing and keeping all the data, and bypassing reduction of the file within the camera.

 

[kuzano]

Excellent image....!!!!

Excellent image....!!!!

I just got my M8 last week. I am shooting/processing DNG now with this camera. I was shooting RAW with my R D1 but stopped after a while. The JPEG engine in that camera suited me fine most of the time. I don't yet have IR filters and the magenta cast is a distraction with the M8. Here is a study that I did processing in photoshop. It is cropped and just a study to working on color to B&W, and tonality.

My M8 came with Capture One but that was included without a product key so I am waiting for that to get sorted out.
View attachment 56387

Wow, great example of your early mastery of your camera. Keep up the learning curve. Super!

 

[DwF]

Thanks!

Thanks!

Thank you Cindy and Kuzano.

Kuzano,

I have been at photography and rangefinders for along time, but the digital process is slow for me. I suppose I said the same about the silver darkroom where progress was slow over the years.

Here (link below) is another from the same session where my daughter was drawing and patient with me

http://www.pbase.com/image/93437814

Cheers,
David

 

[cme4brain]

Hello All,

I just got an M8 (loving it) and had read a lot of bad press on the M8 jpg engine. My first dozen or so shots comparing DNG to JPG are showing me that the JPGs look better. They look better with respect to chroma noise and also colors. I just upgraded to the latest firmware, maybe there are JPG improvements there? Also, my comparisons are at ISO 640. I tried also converting DNG to JPG in Photoshop, but the M8 generated JPGs look better than the Photoshop DNG to JPG conversion. I did not do any tweaking at all in Photoshop. My point is, if the M8 can produce JPG files that look better than DNG when properly exposed, isn't it OK to use JPGs for the convenience? I don't have time to play with every DNG file I produce if the JPGs look great out of my M8.

Anyone else have opinions to share on DNG vs JPG?

There are several websites, DPREVIEW.com as one, that demonstrate a 300lp/mm difference between RAW and jpeg, which I see myself.