peterm1
Veteran
Hmmmm maybe this is the problem. You see, I mainly use Photoshop Elements 2 which I have had for years. It does not list RAW as a file type that it supports nor, from memory, does it list DNG. So maybe I need to upgrade to a later version. If I do, I would prefer not to go to the full pro version. Personally I prefer Photoshop Elements over the full pro version. Not only is it MUCH cheaper, it does most of what I want it to do in a much simpler way.
Ben Z
Veteran
I found very quickly that with the M8, shooting RAW (DNG) is mandatory if you use the auto-White Balance. The results are so unpredictable and far off-course that they're impossible to correct in JPEG but easy as a click in RAW. Even in manual WB, I find the DNG conversions look better than the high JPEG setting in terms of sharpness and artifacts. With my 20D I don't see a whole lot of difference between the highest JPEG and RAW, but that doesn't imply the Canon is a better camera. It's a CMOS with a strong AA-filter vs the M8 with a CCD and weak or no AA filter. For casual party snapshots that other people want me to burn them CD's with JPEG's I would grab the 20D anyway, for the zoom and AF, so I don't have any reason to ever shoot JPEG's with my M8.
dee
Well-known
Why on earth did I indulge in an M 8 !!?? There is just so much to learn !
Frankly , I intend to become accustomed to Emma 8's smile before I attempt to travel on past jpeg - but it seems that the effort will be rewarded ....
format dee's lexia
Frankly , I intend to become accustomed to Emma 8's smile before I attempt to travel on past jpeg - but it seems that the effort will be rewarded ....
format dee's lexia
MartinL
MartinL
I shoot RAW only, but I can't really say it's because I demand the "quality" for all my shots. However, I do like the quality for an occasional shot, and I sometimes don't know what that shot will be until weeks/months or more later.
There are some controls in CS3 conversion (probably Lightroom also, ---don't know that program) that I like a lot. Depending on your establish workflow and willingness to "grow" with digital, RAW is no less convenient than JPEG. Even if your main output is Flickr or snapshots.
Used to be that previewing RAW was a pain. Slow and cumbersome. Then for a time my good and dedicated preview programs (Never PS, and even newest Bridge feels awkward) started getting cluttered with editing "features."
But now there are a few free downloads that are super convenient and fast. The one I use is FastStone Maxview.
There are some controls in CS3 conversion (probably Lightroom also, ---don't know that program) that I like a lot. Depending on your establish workflow and willingness to "grow" with digital, RAW is no less convenient than JPEG. Even if your main output is Flickr or snapshots.
Used to be that previewing RAW was a pain. Slow and cumbersome. Then for a time my good and dedicated preview programs (Never PS, and even newest Bridge feels awkward) started getting cluttered with editing "features."
But now there are a few free downloads that are super convenient and fast. The one I use is FastStone Maxview.
kuzano
Veteran
User your camera as a camera, not computer
User your camera as a camera, not computer
This thread interests me because I work with computers and software. It does not surprise me that the M8 is not a great Jpeg camera. It appears to be designed for discriminating photographers. No discriminating photographer would ever use Jpeg for anything but web pictures, email and publishing in periodicals.
Jpeg is a "lossy" compression routine, designed by a group called Joint Photographers Expert Group, to do only one thing well. Compressing file byte size is managed by Jpeg compression. The only quality factor in Jpeg is setting the ratio or percentage of compression. However, even a picture that is run through the Jpeg algorythm involves the deletion of some information in the file.
An oversimplified explanation of what the Jpeg process does is to imagine a sky scene. The Jpeg process looks all the similar pixels in color and makes a determination that many pixels can be stored as one and mapped to a large area, cutting file byte size. This is done in similarly colored areas in the image. The premise is that changes made in the picture indistinquishable to the naked eye. All the data identified and marked for removal by this process is thrown out of the file and never available thereafter.
Furthermore, each time you modify or edit a Jpeg and save it to the drive again, the image deteriorates more. After about ten edits and saves utilizing Jpeg reduction, you can compare the first and last saves and see differences.
The Jpeg processing in camera is final. Once the date is discarded by the process, it will never be in the image in your computer. The processing is further destructive to the images by some of the setting you use in the camera. In fact this is one of the reasons the cameras are so confusing. You are doing things in the camera that should be done in post processing. In fact, the things you do in the camera make certain functions that could be done in post processing unavailable.
There is an intermediate file format called TIF that is largely uncompressed and allows layers in the editors. (BTW Jpeg is not a layer product in photoshop. If you edit in Photoshop, and use layers, in order to save a file in Jpeg, the layers have to be flattened. They are not retained, and that image cannot be separated into layers in the future). TIF is much like RAW, but does allow more in-camera processing. Some DSLRs offer Jpeg, TIF and RAW. It sounds like the M8 is Jpeg and DNG (RAW) only.
Camera Raw, as it is called across camera platforms, is a raw, unprocessed image, with all the file information the image sensor sees. That's one of the reasons that using high performance image editors, like C1 and Photoshop, plus Aperture and Lightroom offer an immense degree of latitude in the computer. The Raw format delivers ALL the information that the camera captures, much like film...Aha!
So, all the fancy features in the digital cameras simply discards a lot of the data in the race to deliver "high quality" images immediately out of the camera.
I suspect that the M8 will never be a great Jpeg devices because Leica is not attempting to deliver this camera to a snapshot market, but rather to demanding photographers.
Camera Raw (whatever it is called for each manufacturer... DNG for the M8) is for discriminating photographers. Camera Raw does not demand that you learn every function built into your digital camera, because Camera Raw does not use every "snapshot" feature of your camera. Camera Raw is like a well exposed sheet of film. Your computer and the software you choose to edit with is like the lab you used to have in the basement, or that you sent your work out to.
If you are going to try to produce quick results, solely with your camera, then accept the Jpeg function and the results your camera delivers on that basis. If you are going to ask the camera to do all the image processing, the DNG is not useful to you.
Furthermore, it sound to me as if you are going to go the quick results route using Jpeg compression, then the M8 at it's current level is not the camera to use. Go buy a Nikon D40 or a Canon Rebel XTi.
I submit that you keep your M8, shoot RAW, and plan on a lot of time at the keyboard and mouse, just like you did with your wet labs and enlargers. BTDT
Pick on platform, pick one editor suite and learn it well.
User your camera as a camera, not computer
This thread interests me because I work with computers and software. It does not surprise me that the M8 is not a great Jpeg camera. It appears to be designed for discriminating photographers. No discriminating photographer would ever use Jpeg for anything but web pictures, email and publishing in periodicals.
Jpeg is a "lossy" compression routine, designed by a group called Joint Photographers Expert Group, to do only one thing well. Compressing file byte size is managed by Jpeg compression. The only quality factor in Jpeg is setting the ratio or percentage of compression. However, even a picture that is run through the Jpeg algorythm involves the deletion of some information in the file.
An oversimplified explanation of what the Jpeg process does is to imagine a sky scene. The Jpeg process looks all the similar pixels in color and makes a determination that many pixels can be stored as one and mapped to a large area, cutting file byte size. This is done in similarly colored areas in the image. The premise is that changes made in the picture indistinquishable to the naked eye. All the data identified and marked for removal by this process is thrown out of the file and never available thereafter.
Furthermore, each time you modify or edit a Jpeg and save it to the drive again, the image deteriorates more. After about ten edits and saves utilizing Jpeg reduction, you can compare the first and last saves and see differences.
The Jpeg processing in camera is final. Once the date is discarded by the process, it will never be in the image in your computer. The processing is further destructive to the images by some of the setting you use in the camera. In fact this is one of the reasons the cameras are so confusing. You are doing things in the camera that should be done in post processing. In fact, the things you do in the camera make certain functions that could be done in post processing unavailable.
There is an intermediate file format called TIF that is largely uncompressed and allows layers in the editors. (BTW Jpeg is not a layer product in photoshop. If you edit in Photoshop, and use layers, in order to save a file in Jpeg, the layers have to be flattened. They are not retained, and that image cannot be separated into layers in the future). TIF is much like RAW, but does allow more in-camera processing. Some DSLRs offer Jpeg, TIF and RAW. It sounds like the M8 is Jpeg and DNG (RAW) only.
Camera Raw, as it is called across camera platforms, is a raw, unprocessed image, with all the file information the image sensor sees. That's one of the reasons that using high performance image editors, like C1 and Photoshop, plus Aperture and Lightroom offer an immense degree of latitude in the computer. The Raw format delivers ALL the information that the camera captures, much like film...Aha!
So, all the fancy features in the digital cameras simply discards a lot of the data in the race to deliver "high quality" images immediately out of the camera.
I suspect that the M8 will never be a great Jpeg devices because Leica is not attempting to deliver this camera to a snapshot market, but rather to demanding photographers.
Camera Raw (whatever it is called for each manufacturer... DNG for the M8) is for discriminating photographers. Camera Raw does not demand that you learn every function built into your digital camera, because Camera Raw does not use every "snapshot" feature of your camera. Camera Raw is like a well exposed sheet of film. Your computer and the software you choose to edit with is like the lab you used to have in the basement, or that you sent your work out to.
If you are going to try to produce quick results, solely with your camera, then accept the Jpeg function and the results your camera delivers on that basis. If you are going to ask the camera to do all the image processing, the DNG is not useful to you.
Furthermore, it sound to me as if you are going to go the quick results route using Jpeg compression, then the M8 at it's current level is not the camera to use. Go buy a Nikon D40 or a Canon Rebel XTi.
I submit that you keep your M8, shoot RAW, and plan on a lot of time at the keyboard and mouse, just like you did with your wet labs and enlargers. BTDT
Pick on platform, pick one editor suite and learn it well.
kuzano
Veteran
Correction on one line......
Correction on one line......
The line that was posted as:
[FONT="]However, even a picture that is run through the Jpeg algorythm involves the deletion of some information in the file.
Should have read:
[/FONT][FONT="]However, even a picture that is run through the Jpeg algorythm at 100% image quality involves the deletion of some information in the file. [/FONT]
Correction on one line......
The line that was posted as:
[FONT="]However, even a picture that is run through the Jpeg algorythm involves the deletion of some information in the file.
Should have read:
[/FONT][FONT="]However, even a picture that is run through the Jpeg algorythm at 100% image quality involves the deletion of some information in the file. [/FONT]
kuzano
Veteran
And why, why, why.......
And why, why, why.......
One more point...
If you're laying out the kind of money it takes to buy an M8, what is the big concern with file size? 700 Gb hard drives are a tiny fraction of the cost of your camera, as is 2 to 4 Gigabytes of RAM. Think of the price of the right computer, lots of storage space and as much RAM as possible as the investment you make in a lab. If that's what it takes to outfit your system to handle RAW files, then divert some of the GAS money into the computer equipment and software. Do the unmentionable if necessary. Sell a few cameras.
And why, why, why.......
One more point...
If you're laying out the kind of money it takes to buy an M8, what is the big concern with file size? 700 Gb hard drives are a tiny fraction of the cost of your camera, as is 2 to 4 Gigabytes of RAM. Think of the price of the right computer, lots of storage space and as much RAM as possible as the investment you make in a lab. If that's what it takes to outfit your system to handle RAW files, then divert some of the GAS money into the computer equipment and software. Do the unmentionable if necessary. Sell a few cameras.
kuzano
Veteran
dee said:
Ultimately, RAW (DNG) will be simpler. Read my huge diatribe above.
M. Valdemar
Well-known
Well, there are a huge number of people who do not understand the nature of their cameras and equipment, particularly digital cameras.
They want the mystique and status of using their Leica M8 as a fetish-totem, but are baffled by the computing stage of image processing. They attribute mystical properties to the camera and lenses.
Honestly, those people would be FAR better served by using a point and shoot, but their vanity does not allow them to use an inexpensive camera.
They want the mystique and status of using their Leica M8 as a fetish-totem, but are baffled by the computing stage of image processing. They attribute mystical properties to the camera and lenses.
Honestly, those people would be FAR better served by using a point and shoot, but their vanity does not allow them to use an inexpensive camera.
MartinL
MartinL
Some serious character judgements in above post about "huge numbers" of "these people": vain, hungry for status, taken with the mystique of branding, attributing fetish-totem qualities to a consumer item---in no small part because they spent a bunch of money on it.M. Valdemar said:
That pretty much covers nearly any automobile newer than ten years with more than 125 horsepower; and everything one might buy outside of Walmart, and half of what's in it.
And as far as those point and shoot cameras that would "FAR better" serve these people, maybe that's too generous. Perhaps specify that they buy nothing that goes beyond "A" mode.
peterm1
Veteran
I cannot comment on the M8 as I do not own one. I have tried RAW on my digital camera (Nikon D70s) but in general have found that the difference is so small in most shots as to be not noticeable. The camera handles JPGs pretty well. The extra work involved in processing RAW shots is a bit of a pain so having shot RAW for a few weeks I went back to JPGs. But I will try again from time to time especially when I am shooting something special. I realise that the M8s handling of RAW is said to be much more competent than its JPG handling so those of you lucky enough to own one may have no choice in practice.
Tuolumne
Veteran
I too find no big difference between raw and jpg with my R-D1. In fact, the colors are usually much better as jpgs than as raw. I just started using the Epson raw software, so we'll see if that makes a difference.
/T
/T
MartinL
MartinL
Regarding comments such as "the difference is small," and "no big difference." This may be true enough for the intended purpose (as it's true for nearly all of my shots). However, so much of what goes on in this and other forums is centered on the advanced amateur and pro's quest for identifying and exploiting small quality and workflow benefits.
I find these comments akin to "a little softness on the corners isn't a big deal." Or even, "what's the point of RF if it's so much more trouble?"
IMO, RAW takes fractionally more download time, but a RAW workflow is worth pursuing even if benefits only show up in the occasional shot. Memory and data storage are no longer issues. If one's work requires rapid display or sharing of low res shots, shoot in both RAW and JPEG. Use the most updated software and file previewing (not the same). Big shift from film is a change of approach----going from assumption that the best prints result from shots that get no or the least editing (including---- or especially---- cropping), to assuming that all shots benefit from careful examination and at least a modest editing tweak. This isn't a cavalier position, others argue forcefully that software such as CS3 and others simply do a better job than any in-camera adjusting allows.
From time to time I reminisce about the old pre-Mac/pre-windows mouseless days when I could rip through a document using DOS and nothing but keystrokes. But that's why they call it nostalgia instead of progress.
I find these comments akin to "a little softness on the corners isn't a big deal." Or even, "what's the point of RF if it's so much more trouble?"
IMO, RAW takes fractionally more download time, but a RAW workflow is worth pursuing even if benefits only show up in the occasional shot. Memory and data storage are no longer issues. If one's work requires rapid display or sharing of low res shots, shoot in both RAW and JPEG. Use the most updated software and file previewing (not the same). Big shift from film is a change of approach----going from assumption that the best prints result from shots that get no or the least editing (including---- or especially---- cropping), to assuming that all shots benefit from careful examination and at least a modest editing tweak. This isn't a cavalier position, others argue forcefully that software such as CS3 and others simply do a better job than any in-camera adjusting allows.
From time to time I reminisce about the old pre-Mac/pre-windows mouseless days when I could rip through a document using DOS and nothing but keystrokes. But that's why they call it nostalgia instead of progress.
kuzano
Veteran
OK... clearly I wrote far too much in my post
OK... clearly I wrote far too much in my post
I agree, my post was large enough to deter reading.
Boiled down....:
Jpeg is a Lossy Compression routine, solely designed to compress file byte size. To do that, it has to discard (Throw Away) data that can never be recovered.
RAW is a compression-LESS process that retains all the date in a capture. ALL of it.
No data is lost.
Jpeg is so well designed that the naked eye will rarely see the loss in the 1st generation image. Subsequent images will degrade... I guarantee it.
So, if you bought that $5000 Leica to simply toss data as the image is written to the memory card.... Shoot On!
I know professionals that will only shoot RAW, even if the goal is B&W. Their logic, "Why would I throw out ANY data, when the final image is a result of Photoshop. The camera is just an extremely capable capture device. Keep all the data."
OK... clearly I wrote far too much in my post
I agree, my post was large enough to deter reading.
Boiled down....:
Jpeg is a Lossy Compression routine, solely designed to compress file byte size. To do that, it has to discard (Throw Away) data that can never be recovered.
RAW is a compression-LESS process that retains all the date in a capture. ALL of it.
No data is lost.
Jpeg is so well designed that the naked eye will rarely see the loss in the 1st generation image. Subsequent images will degrade... I guarantee it.
So, if you bought that $5000 Leica to simply toss data as the image is written to the memory card.... Shoot On!
I know professionals that will only shoot RAW, even if the goal is B&W. Their logic, "Why would I throw out ANY data, when the final image is a result of Photoshop. The camera is just an extremely capable capture device. Keep all the data."
emraphoto
Veteran
yeah!!! like martinL said...
fgianni
Trainee Amateur
As a general rule the only cameras that should be shot in jpeg mode are the ones that don't support RAW.
With RAW you can easily fix even 1 stop of underexposure, and sometimes up to 1/3 stop of overexposure, and you have at least 12 bits to play with when post processing instead of 8 (per colour)
Additionally JPEG is a lossy format, and compression artefacts have the nasty habit of showing up with no warning.
Also remember that even the best firmware can't compete with a good off-line RAW processing software.
With RAW you can easily fix even 1 stop of underexposure, and sometimes up to 1/3 stop of overexposure, and you have at least 12 bits to play with when post processing instead of 8 (per colour)
Additionally JPEG is a lossy format, and compression artefacts have the nasty habit of showing up with no warning.
Also remember that even the best firmware can't compete with a good off-line RAW processing software.
kuzano
Veteran
A summary of RAW for me-- think Analog (film)
A summary of RAW for me-- think Analog (film)
A digital camera in RAW is like a film camera... a capture device capable pretty much of the settings you had in your film camera's. The emulsion and ASA were imposed by the film.
Photoshop is the lab...... with a lot more control (taking a hell of a lot more time both to learn and to use-until you establish the work flow that is best for you). No chemicals, but much computer involved.
Shooting in Jpeg, degrades what the camera does in RAW. It also attempts to meld features of traditional camera settings with the work previously done in a lab. The controls in the camera with Jpeg become a first stage of lab work. For some, that stage precludes ever using the lab (Photoshop).
Beating a dead horse, the Jpeg shortcut may yield a usable image and/or print. However the image file is vastly inferior when used in the lab (photoshop) and cannot produce functions in that lab that can be done with the RAW image.
The grey area, or overlap of functions between what you do in the camera with Jpeg and in photoshop become very confusing. If you shoot RAW, what you do in the lab (photoshop) is much more clear and rewarding, if you know the program well.
Jpeg is imminently usable, but RAW is the choice that provide the highest quality files for image editing, all other things being equal. Unfortunately all the other choices in equipment are virtually impossible to equate.
A summary of RAW for me-- think Analog (film)
A digital camera in RAW is like a film camera... a capture device capable pretty much of the settings you had in your film camera's. The emulsion and ASA were imposed by the film.
Photoshop is the lab...... with a lot more control (taking a hell of a lot more time both to learn and to use-until you establish the work flow that is best for you). No chemicals, but much computer involved.
Shooting in Jpeg, degrades what the camera does in RAW. It also attempts to meld features of traditional camera settings with the work previously done in a lab. The controls in the camera with Jpeg become a first stage of lab work. For some, that stage precludes ever using the lab (Photoshop).
Beating a dead horse, the Jpeg shortcut may yield a usable image and/or print. However the image file is vastly inferior when used in the lab (photoshop) and cannot produce functions in that lab that can be done with the RAW image.
The grey area, or overlap of functions between what you do in the camera with Jpeg and in photoshop become very confusing. If you shoot RAW, what you do in the lab (photoshop) is much more clear and rewarding, if you know the program well.
Jpeg is imminently usable, but RAW is the choice that provide the highest quality files for image editing, all other things being equal. Unfortunately all the other choices in equipment are virtually impossible to equate.
fotografr
No, that avatar is not me
bluepenguin said:
Actually, once you nail your workflow you can process, tweak, rename and save RAW files to jpegs faster than if you just start with jpegs. Both Lightroom and Bridge allow very fast batching and when you get the hang of it and shoot with batch processing in mind (consistent exposure and color balance settings) you can really fly through it.
chuckcars
Member
Agree with fotografr, plus C1 is made for batch processing. Shoot RAW and you have ALL the data.
dee
Well-known
Hmmm ... it seems like the difference between recording music onto a good quality digital recorder / Pro Walman tape - or an I-pod .
One old adage about hi fi was / is ;
Rubbish in = rubbish out - if the recording is compromised , then it will always be
compromised .
Having said that , I do record onto an i-pod for convenience , and onto my Pro-Walkman analogue to analogue -
i now record raw and jpeg - pending finding out how to use photoshop - so i have instant coffee [ copies ] to share , and real coffee for me !
dee
One old adage about hi fi was / is ;
Rubbish in = rubbish out - if the recording is compromised , then it will always be
compromised .
Having said that , I do record onto an i-pod for convenience , and onto my Pro-Walkman analogue to analogue -
i now record raw and jpeg - pending finding out how to use photoshop - so i have instant coffee [ copies ] to share , and real coffee for me !
dee