M8 should only be shot in raw mode?

[jimbobuk]

Hi folks.

I'm wondering what the consensus is on jpeg/raw for the M8.. I wonder if a lot of people are perhaps using jpeg mode as i try to find some 100% sized shots with the M8 that impress me with sharpness, and most that i come across in flickr usually look a bit unflattering at 100%.

After reading dpreview's M8 review they're very harsh on the M8's jpeg engine, it makes such a mess of the picture that if you wish to shoot jpeg, at the moment at least its probably not the right camera to do so.

For me i already only shoot raw now and would continue to do so if i had an M8, given that there is such a big jump, and the 100% shots on the M8 review page

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/leicam8/page18.asp

compare so favourably with the 5D which I already own and love for image quality, could anyone link me to some of their images that they're really impressed by at 100% and have online in this form.

Other than that I've also spotted a lot of blown highlights, but again the dp review seems to hint at a standard dynamic range performance, at least when shooting a grey wedge.

You're pics, pointers would be appreciated, and i'll throw in a poll to get an idea of how many folks are still using jpeg only.. if any!!

Cheers

Jim

 

[kbg32]

Jpeg makes no sense unless you need something really quickly. I would never trust any camera, 5D included, to give me a finished image/jpeg. RAW is the only way to go for me.

 

[furcafe]

Not that there are exactly a lot of M8 owners out there, & I've only met/corresponded w/a few, but my feeling is that most shoot raw, as I do. Personally, I don't see any reason why I would ever want to shoot jpgs, as I shoot in a lot of crappy, mixed lighting situations that always require post-processing, the memory/storage savings aren't a big deal for me, & I don't need a fast frame rate (which the M8 doesn't have anyway). The fact that files look bad on flickr, etc., usually has more to do w/users's level of photoshop skills (or lack thereof) & the default display settings that web sites force on the jpgs that are uploaded.

 

[jimbobuk]

I swear some of the guys who's photos i've seen on flickr must be doing jpeg, or perhaps very harsh raw conversions as they just very rarely had pleasing natural looking pixels when viewed at 100%. I'm expecting a boost of sharpness at 100% as it is on the R-D1 thanks to the lack of anti-aliasing filter.. at the same time I imagine i'll see the occasional aliasing in fine branches and the like but its a fair sacrifice.

I looked a little further into the dpreview review, and their samples gallery actually satisfies a lot of my requirements, they include all raw converted files that look very very nice at 100% most of the time.

http://www.dpreview.com/gallery/leicam8_samples/

Anyone got any better, or rather real shots done by themselves and not from a site like dpreview.. not that i dont trust them 🙂

 

[jimbobuk]

flickr takes a slight amount of persuading but is then happy to upload full resolution images up to around 10k wide, and up to 10meg, I always upload full versions of mine, just cause i know how nice it is to sometimes be able to peak at the sensor from time to time. Also serves as a backup should my originals get messed up.

The one thing with flickr is most view the default size, and then the one you get when clicking all_sizes... I think you have to do a lot of battering to your file to get it really popping at these lower resolutions.. if you have to go so far its probably not even worth uploading the full resolution shots anymore as they're only really meant to be viewed through the flickr filters at a lower resolution.

Cheers.

 

[furcafe]

Yes, I know that flickr does display full res files, but since I don't have broadband & have no desire to facilitate image thieves, I never upload any files that are more than a few hundred pixels, maximum of around 600x900 for a scanned 6x9 120 negative/slide.

flickr takes a slight amount of persuading but is then happy to upload full resolution images up to around 10k wide, and up to 10meg, I always upload full versions of mine, just cause i know how nice it is to sometimes be able to peak at the sensor from time to time. Also serves as a backup should my originals get messed up.

The one thing with flickr is most view the default size, and then the one you get when clicking all_sizes... I think you have to do a lot of battering to your file to get it really popping at these lower resolutions.. if you have to go so far its probably not even worth uploading the full resolution shots anymore as they're only really meant to be viewed through the flickr filters at a lower resolution.

Cheers.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

I shoot both RAW and JPEG: RAW for ISO 160-640 (sometimes 1200), and JPEG only when at ISO 2500.

 

[Bill Blackwell]

RAW only - I figured out the hard way that jpeg files from the M8 are completely worthless.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

RAW only - I figured out the hard way that jpeg files from the M8 are completely worthless.

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.

 

[Keith]

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.

Gabriel,

I use my M8 a fair bit in black and white mode so obviously jpegs. Looking at your black and white work in the gallery what is your process ... raw and desaturate or other?

🙂

 

[Richard Marks]

Only ever use RAW. JPEG might have been an issue when file sizes seemd big for the available storage media but hard disc / DVD storage and faster computer processors has largely taken care of this.

Jim if you are thinking about getting an M8 the only way to go is try one out, take the files home (RAW and JPEG) and see for yourself. Anything else is going to be less helpful.

Best wishes

Richard

 

[Benjamin Marks]

Both, but generally not together, unless shooting a special event like a friend's wedding. I went on a vacation this last week. Shot a lot of candids in B&W mode in an interior space with lots of windows. JPGs are no problem here. Also made pictures at an amusement park at night. Lots of mixed light sources, long exposures. Only RAW there. With an expo-disc for custom white balance, and careful metering you can get away with JPG more often as you don't have to do complex adjustments after the fact. Prints on 11x14 paper with a one inch boarder show acceptable results from both. In fact, I can't tell the difference. No doubt pixel peeping at 100% would show you a difference, I just can't see it in the prints (which in this case was the final product).

Ben Marks (no relation that I know of to the estimable Richard above).

 

[Richard Marks]

Hi Ben
I agree that good quality JPEGs can be achieved. I just feel one is sacrifing flexibility that you may wish to call on at a later date.
Richard

 

[Ben Z]

I've never shot anything but RAW on any digital camera (or on any film camera either 😀 ) . I thought the only reason to shoot .jpg's is to conserve memory? The interesting thing is that the M8's raw files seem to need a lot less "developing". I don't display anything on Flickr, all I can go on is prints, which look better (to me) than any image displayed on a computer screen. Maybe if I had a HDTV monitor, but I don't.

BTW I haven't tried it yet, but I have an old Minolta Color Meter II lying around and I'm going to see how the M8's Kelvin WB pans out. I wouldn't haul the meter along on travels (it's about 3/4 the size of the camera!) but if I shoot someone's indoor wedding or party sometime, it'd be useful if it works better than custom WB.

 

[bradhusick]

Don't spend $5000+ for a camera and lens and shoot JPEGs with it. Buy a point-and-shoot for $200 and use the money you saved to travel to interesting places to take photos. I am not trying to be funny here. I mean it. I know several pros who are using point-and-shoots to create wonderful photos. I am lucky enough to own both an M8 and a few point-and-shoots and use them both.

Remember, it's not really about the equipment. It's about you the photographer.

 

[jaapv]

Jpegs are just a stopgap imo, the modern day equivalent of Polaroid,or maybe Wallmart prints, raw the only serious way to go on any digital camera. But the times I accidentally used Jpeg on the M8, I did not find it as bad as it is sometimes made out to be.

 

[jimbobuk]

Thanks guys.

I guess i'm going with this page

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/leicam8/page15.asp

where the watch crops comparing raw to jpeg make the jpeg out to be a disaster.. canon are renowned for doing good looking jpegs out of camera, most others tend to have a slightly worser look in jpeg versus their raw but i believe the M8 has set a precedant with that result as being the worst difference.

No one has a few 100% shots taken on their M8 and done in raw that i could have a look at then?

Could you look at the dpreview ones i linked earlier, view them at 100% and say if you've found your results to be comparable.

Cheers

 

[bluepenguin]

All you guys are so seriouse and have a lot of time converting raw to jpeg.... and making people who use jpeg like someone from out of space.

I don't have a time converting 200 raw files to jpeg every time... unless it's really important. So I shoot jpeg all the time.

Yes, I'm not a professional photographer.
This is just my hobby.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

Gabriel,

I use my M8 a fair bit in black and white mode so obviously jpegs. Looking at your black and white work in the gallery what is your process ... raw and desaturate or other?

🙂

I don't desaturate, and I don't use the B&W mode, except on the 5D, very very rarely (because it allows "color filter" selection).

That hints into my next answer: I don't desaturate; to me, the look of desaturated color shots are often unacceptable. Notice I use the word "often": there are some cases when that produces the best image.

Now, what is the "best image"? Only your taste dictates that. And having had direct experience with darkroom techniques and methods, I know that more than one printing process is available at your disposal.

I use a B&W conversion filter which mimics B&W film response to color; it also allows for fine-tuning which color filter (i.e. "red", "yellow", but it's not labeled thus), I guess, in a sense, you would have used for that same shot for B&W film. It allows you to set your own color toning (i.e. "sepia") and the intensity of "paper exposure", "paper contrast" and "negative (i.e. film containing the image) exposure".

I spend an average of 10 minutes for each B&W conversion, often simulating multicontrast printing, and with difficult cases, proper dodging/burning (using the original image with the History Brush tool as source, never "adding" or "subtracting" with the overkill Dodge/Burn tools).

That's my short answer 😉

 

[Grober]

RAW? Of course.

BUT Capture One, supplied by Leica in the M8 box for use in processing RAW files, is not the easiest program to learn, there is little really useful help online and -- most importantly -- there is no literature one can purchase off the shelf to help in learning the program. I'll probably make the investment to get Photoshop CS2 (with an attendant upgrade to my photo computer too) and use its RAW converter, thus having less and less need to use C1. I think the addition of Bridge, which comes packaged with CS2, will be helpful to in keeping track of my growing cache of digital only photos.

-g