M8 should only be shot in raw mode?

[Cindy Flood]

I have never used a jpeg out of my M8 in 13 months of use. If I wanted auto everything, I wouldn't be using this precision camera body and lenses. I want total control of my photo taking experiece: manual exposure, manual focus, raw workflow.

 

[Way]

After shooting jpegs for most of the time I decided to use RAW and the difference is huge. Using C1 is fast and convenient. Good stuff.

 

[dont45]

Oops,
Last night I loaded my Christmas pictures into C1, only to find they were all jpeg. I think this was the cause: I usually shoot b&w DNG+JPEG with b&w preview. I have this set in profile 1. I got this idea from Sean Reed and like his idea of an all b&w workflow. For Christmas snapshots I knew everyone would want to take a peek at the camera previews so I wanted to switch saturation to color. Somehow in the process I selected profile 0. Little did I know that this switched to JPEG only. Since this is the default, you can't make any changes, so it seems there is no way to avoid this other than making sure you don't shoot under profile 0 (if you want RAW). Am I correct about this? Why would JPEG be the default mode for this camera? In any case, I 'm just glad I learned this on some family snapshots.

 

[Dogman]

I've been amused at the responses here.

Don't have an M8. I do have a Canon 30D and my experience agrees with peterm1. I have found no advantage whatsoever to shooting RAW over JPEG. RAW requires more post processing whereas I can almost always go with the JPEG as it is processed in the camera's software.

While someone made the comment about not wanting the camera to do everything automatically, when you think about it using JPEG is almost exactly what film cameras do with film. You choose the film characteristics you want (B&W or color) and the camera exposes it based on the settings you choose. I learned color photography with Kodachrome II and its narrow latitude so I learned how to expose properly. Since I can set the camera to the film-like characteristics I want, I don't really need to make many adjustments post exposure.

As for the "lossy" part of JPEG, I haven't found any useful differences in a camera processed JPEG and a Photoshop processed RAW. Maybe if you want to make huge prints. Maybe. Since the largest prints I've done in 30+ years has been 24x30 (and those were from 4x5 transparencies) and most of my photos are 8x10 or smaller, I see no benefit in what "might" be better.

I believe I read that W. Eugene Smith (a great photo manipulator) once wanted to write a book titled "Photography Made Difficult". Photography is easy, it's simple seeing. Doesn't require a lot of theories or deep thinking or great skills. I look at RAW and all the post processing it requires as a system to make it more involved and difficult than it needs to be.

 

[jimbobuk]

You've been amused at the responses? I created this thread and poll and can't believe i'm still getting emails about new replies appearing on here.

I was interested before buying an m8 and just wanted to get some responses from owners, perhaps with some 100% shots from the camera so i could finally judge the quality of the pixels out of the camera before buying one.

Well i brought one, and have owned it for 2-3 months. Always happy with it, just not getting many times to use it due to work pressures.

Anyways, this topic as is in all its 3 pages should contain everything anyone would want to know on the topic. I've taken my own shots with the m8 and have put 100% full jpegs online (converted from raw) should anyone else wish an inpartial look at the quality of the files possible out of the M8. To be honest my experiences have shown that of course the dpreview shots provide this as well, but if you wish to see them look at my flickr page.

Dogman, as for your comments about jpegs and your experience with Canon and their 30D, whilst your comments are correct about the differences between jpeg and raw there are a few caveats

i) the exposure advantage of raw is significant, it lets you get away with a badly exposed image when a jpeg wouldn't.
ii) the ability to correct white balance with raw is again significant.

These first two points are enough for me to shoot raw if ever i can do, as i don't consider myself an accomplished photographer i appreciate the ability to fix these potential mistakes after i've taken the pictures. Crucially though the following points are compounded when using an M8

iii) the m8's software-only camera functions are fairly immature and VERY bad at writing jpegs. For this reason alone its advisable to go with raws as otherwise the quality you get is no where near what is captured by the sensor. Your experiences Dogman are with canon and their own Nth generation prefab-ed hardware imaging solutions in their cameras. Quite simply canon's are quite capable of writing effectively the same quality jpegs as you could make out of raws, as Leica's first attempt at this kind of thing (remember their P&Ss are only rebadbged panasonics) the same does not apply.

iv) the M8's auto white balance functionality is very random leading to fairly inconsistent results that will require correction at the computer, correction that just isn't possible once you've written to jpeg only. Again this is as a result of their imature camera managing firmware, and also i guess that its a hard problem. Some of the dSLRs seem to be a little flacky at this white balancing as well, few are as bad as the M8 though.. bizarely most P&Ss do a much better job.

Anyways, just thought i'd chime in, shocked as my thread is still going on 4 months later!! 🙂

 

[jlancasterd]

I really can't see why anyone would pay the very large premium that a cutting-edge camera like the M8 commands and then cripple its output by shooting only JPEGs.

I shoot only RAW so that I always have the unblemished original to go back to, even if the image gets used as a JPEG after it has been developed in Lightroom.

 

[emraphoto]

what's with this "so much post processing" buis? i mean dealing with raw (dng) files out of the m8 isn't that difficult.
as a matter of fact it's pretty damn easy.
i am a little suprised at all the "no difference between jpeg and raw" comments... there are serious differences in appearance to my untrained eye. definately out of the m8!

 

[Holmz]

I understand Jpeg and compression...
Shooting RAW is a no brainer, unless you need the space that the compression yields.

I have no M8 - but I am considering one, so I have some questions...

Question-1:
Is the Leica C1 S/W usable on a Mac? (It is a fairly new Intel-chipped powerbook)
Or do I need to purchase some other digital S/W?
If so what? and how much?

Question-2:
There is a lot of hype about the 6-bit coding, which I don't understand.
The 6 bit coding on the lens - Does this work with the DNG, or only with the JPeg?
If it does work with the DNG - then how? only with the C1 S/W? - or with some other S/W?
Is the 6-bit code saved in the DNG header?

Thanks ~'olmz

 

[Magnus]

I disagree. I shoot JPEG when it's very sunny outside (ok, an exception to my "rule") or when it's very dim inside. I find RAW files of ISO 2500 less usable than JPEGs rendered in-camera.

I have always had the same impression, raw at 100-800 max and always indoors, Jpeg in predicatble sunny wheather and at high iso.

 

[Doug]

I have no M8 - but I am considering one, so I have some questions...

Question-1:
Is the Leica C1 S/W usable on a Mac?

Yes

Question-2:
There is a lot of hype about the 6-bit coding, which I don't understand.

I'm not so sure I understand 100% but in the absense of other input here, I'll give it a shot. With lens detection turned ON, the 6-bit coding "tells" the camera some information about the mounted lens, and the lens identification is recorded in the EXIF info attached to the file. The camera computer also uses the info to calculate compensation for cyan fringing caused by the IR filter and corner light fall-off, which are each different for different lenses. My understanding is that this correction is made to the data before it's written as either DNG or JPG.

 

[jimbobuk]

I have always had the same impression, raw at 100-800 max and always indoors, Jpeg in predicatble sunny wheather and at high iso.

Interesting, and something i've not looked into.. the horror stories of just how bad the M8 is at writing jpegs (compared to near perfect jpgs that come out of canon dSLRs) just puts me off full stop... i guess with firmware updates they COULD fix the mess of jpeg output, no idea if they're even trying down that route though.

For me it'll be raw all the way, even if the wierd jpeg output somehow flatters the higher ISO noise i'm more confident with a raw that i could use tools of my choice to achieve whatever noise reduction i required..

Dammit, i've just contributed to this thread continuing even longer 😉

 

[jaapv]

...as Leica's first attempt at this kind of thing (remember their P&Ss are only rebadbged panasonics) the same does not apply.

😕 The SP1 dates back to the early nineties... It records both Raw and jpeg...

iv) the M8's auto white balance functionality is very random leading to fairly inconsistent results that will require correction at the computer, correction that just isn't possible once you've written to jpeg only. Again this is as a result of their imature camera managing firmware, and also i guess that its a hard problem. Some of the dSLRs seem to be a little flacky at this white balancing as well, few are as bad as the M8 though.. bizarely most P&Ss do a much better job.

😕again. The AWB (inasmuch as it matters, as one converts from RAW anyway) is considered to be amongst the best in the industry....But only since the last firmware update. I strongly urge you to update your camera. Older firmwares are indeed dodgy on AWB.
P&S cameras are indeed sometimes better at AWB than expensive DSLR's. There are technical reasons for that.

 

[Joshua]

This thread is kinda silly.

People that use JPG are simply uneducated IMHO, and its kind of supported with all these comments like "I just don't see the difference" or "JPGs are easier to deal with."

I come from a graphic design background, so I learned Photoshop way before I ever learned photography, so I guess RAW always made sense to me in the digital land ... but I guess everyone just doesn't understand.

Why ANYONE would shoot JPG is beyond my comprehension (besides the aforementioned uneducated explanation).

 

[aniMal]

Lots of very strong statements here - but I guess it all comes down to working in different ways - and different perspectives.

I use both jpeg and DNG. I have a full time job in real-estate photography where I use jpeg exclusively. I then use a D300 which and there would never be any time for converting anything. All editing is done on jpeg - with a loss every time a file is saved. I do not do my own editing by the way - what counts is speed and proper setting of light. But the quality that is produced with a high turnaround is in fact quite impressive - jpeg or not!

With the M8 I shoot DNG - and convert. I have only had it for a week or so - but find the conversion to be quite OK to handle. Sometimes I convert to jpeg as I upload pictures of models to my own online delivery-system, and also it is sometimes going to be used on the web anyway. Of course I then keep the DNGs as a fall-back!

If I do some street-scenes or documentary stuff I tend to convert to TIFF - just tested the M8 on some shots out in nature just for the hell of it (normally it bores me immensely photographing nature).

Anyway, the sharpness, contrast and rendering of details is astonishing - and for me it is a given that I want the ability to pull out 16 bit, corrected TIFFs to keep 100% of that quality. On the other hand I have shot DNG+jpeg a few times too, just to be able to review quickly with preview on my mac. Then I can always just delete those jpegs afterwards!

Actually I find it quite natural that the M8 has a poor jpeg engine - it should be for previews only, or possible online or printed news with a very tight deadline. But then most people would not work with an M anyway?

 

[gavinlg]

People need to read very carefully - Here is my workflow for say 100 RAW images.

1. Shoot images
2. Put CF card into card reader
3. Adobe light room or Apple Aperture (i use both) opens automatically when it detects the memory card
4. Once application is open, it prompts you with a box asking to import photos off the card - you click "import"
5. You wait a few seconds while photos are imported, and they are saved in the aperture/lightroom library.

THATS IT! Now they are in there, both programs make copies of the files when you make adjustments to them, so they are NON DESTRUCTIVE to the original files themselves.


Say if you wanted to then convert 15 of them to JPEG for uploading on to the web - here is the workflow:

1. Click "File" up the top left
2. Click "Export"
3. Specify exported files as JPEGs
4. Define where you want the Resulting exported conversions to be sent
5. Click "export".


THATS IT!
When it comes down to it, when using a software like Adobe Lightroom or Apple Aperture, It's actually easier than just shooting jpeg and manipulating each one. Both programs store the file, back them up automatically, and provide ways of sorting through thousands of them like key-wording.


As been said before, to shoot JPEG only is like going backwards - anyone that purposefully shoots JPEG over RAW to "save time" or hard drive space is seriously misinformed. It's not about seeing the difference straight out of the camera (although there definitely are differences to be seen straight from the camera), it's about when you want to do something like increase the saturation slightly or do some burning or dodging of the picture, or manipulate it in ANY way.

 

[Joshua]

fdigital - Yeah that's exactly what I meant with the uneducated part .... I just don't get it ... all this talk about "converting" RAW images. Why would you ever convert a RAW image unless you need to upload it for the web or something is beyond me.

Most modern digital image software products, i.e., Bridge, Lightroom, iPhoto, Aperture, etc... handle RAW files just like any other image... you can browse, edit, export, etc... iPhoto comes FREE with every new Mac and the others aren't *that* expensive. On top of that, programs like Aperture and Lightroom even build JPG previews of the files that are heavily compressed so you can *browse* your files faster than you could with the JPGs the camera produces.

Something tells me all these people that shoot JPG simply just aren't using the right software and are using 5 year old workflows when RAW was just showing up on the scene.

 

[gavinlg]

Joshua - I get that same feeling about the outdated workflow....

Lets put it this way:

In your JPEG file, which is an 8 bit file - there are exactly 256 possible colors/tonal steps between absolute white, and absolute black.

As a RAW file, typically a 12 bit file - there are exactly 4096 possible colors/tonal steps between absolute white and absolute black.


See here, from popphoto magazine 2005:
the biggest advantage of RAW is that it gives you 12 bits of brightness data to work with, both in the RAW software itself and when you save the file to a 16-bit TIFF or PSD. Those 12 bits translate to 4,096 discrete levels of brightness -- 16 times the 256 levels available in a JPEG's limited eight-bit space. This is critical if you need to alter brightness in any significant way.

The two darkest exposure zones in a 12-bit RAW file contain 384 levels of brightness; in the eight-bit JPEG, only 47 levels. If you decide to open up those shadows in a JPEG, you'll end up with abrupt jumps between the brightness levels. These appear as visible gaps in the histogram display. But an identical adjustment to the RAW file will cause no problems, because there are more than enough levels to ensure smooth transitions.

 

[gavinlg]

For anyone that is a misinformed JPEG shooter, especially those with an M8, here is a webpage for you:

http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshoplightroom/

From there, download and install the 30 day trial of Lightroom, go and shoot as much as you can in RAW files in 30 days and see how you like it.

 

[Ororaro]

Joshua - I get that same feeling about the outdated workflow....

Lets put it this way:

In your JPEG file, which is an 8 bit file - there are exactly 256 possible colors/tonal steps between absolute white, and absolute black.

As a RAW file, typically a 12 bit file - there are exactly 4096 possible colors/tonal steps between absolute white and absolute black.

Plese explain to me, why is 256 possible color/tones such a bad thing when a computer screen or even a printer cannot resolve more? Even the human eye can't discern a tenth of the 4096 tones one gets when shooting in Raw (gets but can't be quite sure if relying on what's most important: eyes).

I like the sharpness, crispness and flexibility from Raw files, but 256 tones is enough for all applications, you name them. There is a thoeretical truth but there is the more important practical, real life truth.

 

[Ororaro]

fdigital,

You're a die-hard raw fan and that's cool. You advocate it so much but you seem forgetting that only 1 shot out of 10,000 is a masterpiece (and even that is probably a gross over estimation). So why do you really care if someone is losing time and energy by shooting Jpeg over raw?

I like Raw but I shoot all my weddings in Jpeg. A customer will have to pay at least a grand extra to have me shoot raw. I just hate post processing thousands of files only to have to convert them to Jpeg 8 bit and print them, in the end. Talk about working for nuthin.