M8 should only be shot in raw mode?

[gavinlg]

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.

Mr Bojic

I'm not going to argue with you because you're portfolio/website is absolutely superb. Been looking through it for the last 20 minutes. JPEG shooting is quite obviously working well for you.

However if you haven't already I'd encourage you to have a go at adobe lightroom - especially for weddings it is pretty much irreplaceable. Using lightroom, it's no slower to shoot RAW than JPEG. With the tones thing - a RAW file isn't particularly advantageous straight out of the camera, but when you actually try to massage or manipulate the picture the RAW comes into it's own.

 

[bottley1]

Shooting in jpeg on an M8 is like using a Rolls-Royce to do the shopping.....

 

[Matt White]

J

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.

Files will always end up as 8 bit for output. But theoretically the 12 bit data is a benefit if you're manipulating files in post-processing because there are 4096 level of data from which to choose the final 256 - which means, for instance, less banding if you're stretching the data over a longer tonal range.

But, as far as I can gather, the M8 DNG files are actually only 8 bits'-worth of data in a 12 bit wrapper, which means that the great majority of the 4096 possible levels are probably empty. So the only benefit you get over normal 8 bit files is more accurate quantisization of the data when you change levels and curves (which you can achieve just as well in Photoshop by converting your files to 16 bit before manipulating them). Unlike true 12 or 16 bit files, You'll still get noticeable banding and colour shifts if you try and stretch out the data over a wider tonal range.

of course the supposedly poor JPEG engine of the M8 may be reason enough to work with DNG files. But you're not getting more levels of data to work with.

 

[jaapv]

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.

Do your clients end up with thousands of prints? Obviously you'd only convert those that end up in the final presentation.

 

[Ororaro]

Mr Bojic

I'm not going to argue with you because you're portfolio/website is absolutely superb. Been looking through it for the last 20 minutes. JPEG shooting is quite obviously working well for you.

However if you haven't already I'd encourage you to have a go at adobe lightroom - especially for weddings it is pretty much irreplaceable. Using lightroom, it's no slower to shoot RAW than JPEG. With the tones thing - a RAW file isn't particularly advantageous straight out of the camera, but when you actually try to massage or manipulate the picture the RAW comes into it's own.

Thanks Gavin.

I know Lightroom and the benefits of Raw, but in my own personal case, I lost so much time with raw files over time I just stopped altogether. A burnout kinda thing. I decided that doing it simple was best.

Product photography, highly paid fashion and wedding work and anything that needs ultra accurate white balance, Raw is a must. I was just trying to stir a cnversation that's all

 

[dof]

I'm Too Lazy To Shoot JPEGs

I'm Too Lazy To Shoot JPEGs

One can get very high quality imagery when shooting JPEG files only, but it requires that you make the effort to "pre-process" your files to suit each shooting situation. Personally, I'd rather not concentrate on setting white balance when there are opportunities for shooting - it simply adds another element to the usual suspects of exposure, focus and composition. One more thing to distract from being in the moment, one more thing to "go wrong".

Once upon a time I enjoyed making prints in a darkroom. Now I enjoy post-processing. I subscribe to Ansel Adams' notion of the negative (RAW file) being the score and the print a performance of it. The better the negative, the more options you'll have in realizing it as a print. The feedback loop of taking the image entirely through the process has always kept me the most engaged with my own output and more than anything else, helped me become a better photographer. JPEGs simply require too much up front decision making and create hard limits on the potential expressiveness of each image.

As a related aside, I dislike this term, "workflow". While there is certainly nothing wrong with being industrious, I enjoy these processes too much to inherently equate them with "work". Perhaps this is a luxury of being an amateur, but if so I'll take it. It also smacks a bit of ephemeral corporate jargon. Those quick shorthand phrases that come and go from the workplace lexicon with such regularity. Is anyone else "on the same page", here? <grin>

-J.

 

[Praxis Unitas]

Hi folks.

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

I've noticed a to of blown highlights, too. For that reason, I've keep all my user settings -1/3 or -2/3 EV less then the scene as a slight buffer.

This seems to make things more tolerable for me. I still try to expose for the shadows, but the blowout is harsh on my M8 under some circumstances.


Ciao!

-Christopher

 

[tgift]

Recommended reading for anyone interested in working with M8
RAW: "Solving the Lieca M8 DNG Riddle", http://kammagamma.com/articles/solving-the-leica-m8-dng-riddle.php

For the poll: I only shoot raw with the M8. I use Aperture and all the tools I use either have native support for DNG or are integrated with Aperture, so there is no conversion until I upload/export somewhere... at which point the conversion is just part of the upload process. So in my case, as with others posted here, my "workflow" would be no different if I was using jpegs. With no workflow advantage, I see no reason to use jpegs.

I would add that this hasn't always been the case, in earlier years with other cameras (Nikons) I mostly shot jpeg, mainly because I didn't have good software support for raw, and there was a definite jpeg "ease of use" advantage for the bulk of my shooting.

 

[mojobebop]

raw

raw

raw, better quality.
especially for post process.

i would shoot both raw & jpg if in doubt.

 

[JoeV]

I know this thread pertains to the M8, but for those shooting u4/3 cameras, not all modern software interprets Panasonic's RW2 format raw file without demosaicing artifacts; and not all software convert the lens correction metadata so as to properly compensate for field curvature and chromatic abberations of the kit lens.

So it's not as simple as thinking that all raw files are replacements for JPEGs; in the case of the G1 files the SilkyPix software (which does a good job with both demosaicing and lens correction metadata) doesn't provide for any of the normal post-production tools like channel mixer, or even levels. You end up "developing" the file to TIFF, then importing to another software app to do your manipulation.

I'm happy for you M8 users who've figured out an efficient and workable routine for your camera's files, but for us early adapters of new formats like u4/3rd's, it's still a hit and miss kludge; and in-camera JPEGs begin to look like a very attractive option.

~Joe

 

[Ronald M]

nonsense. JPEG has a place for those who do not want the ultimate control or any at all. These are the same who shot slides or bought consumer prints.

The real question is why buy a Leica if that is your goal.

I have a friend who ran a wedding photog business from 1955 to 1985 as a side line using nothing but Leicas.
When b&w was king, he developed 150 rolls a week on Sunday night and had a crew to print the 3x5`s Mon to Fri. Today he has a Canon P&S and is thinking of a Nikon D60.
He does JPEG and no computer editing.

 

[JNewell]

JPG is more or less the equivalent of shooting a Polaroid 30 years ago. It's fast, it's easy, but it is waht it is when it comes out of the camera and there's not a whole lot you can do about that. If you want to (pardon thhe pun develop the full potential of your exposures, you really need to shoot raw.

 

[downstairs]

Pray for an M9P with no jpeg, no hot-shoe automation, and no monkey-mode. Though I wouldn't be ashamed to pray for auto bracketing.

 

[JoeV]

JPG is more or less the equivalent of shooting a Polaroid 30 years ago. It's fast, it's easy, but it is waht it is when it comes out of the camera and there's not a whole lot you can do about that. If you want to (pardon thhe pun develop the full potential of your exposures, you really need to shoot raw.

I would argue that a JPEG is the equivalent of shooting an old film camera and letting the lab develop the film to their default settings, rather than you souping your own.

In that regard I wouldn't call it the equivalent of a Polaroid. Nor is it the same as shooting any old P&S camera. If that were the case then all those pro's in the good old days who were shooting chromes with their Nikon F1s or had a lab develop the film from their Leica M somehow, magically, had their cameras turn into P&S cameras. Nonsense. The characteristics of their lens still comes through, as does the quality of the camera's file size, and its other features that, as a tool, enable a skilled photographer to come through with the picture he or she wants. It ain't the same as merely saying an M8 is the equivalent of a P&S because you choose JPEG.

Ultimately, whatever you do with your fancy RAW files, they're going to get converted to JPEG for final output, be that to a printer, a printing service or online. Now where are you?

~Joe

 

[jaapv]

Joe, there is a vast difference between converting to Jpg for output and working on a Jpg file in the postprocessing! It is not that a jpg is bad for the use it is intended for, the problem is losing data when you still need them.

 

[downstairs]

Why have auto bracketing if you shoot RAW, as with RAW there is typically a couple of stops of latitude for under and at least one stop for over.

Need wider latitude for b&w hdr (probably wrong to use that bad word here). I've tried it with jpegs but they are no match at all for raw.

 

[MartinL]

I don't print that many of my shots, but if I decide to - it wouldn't be hard to start from scratch.

Indeed! A good example of letting one's practice determine the work flow. It's worth mentioning that the RAW adjustments can be saved (or remembered) so when returning to a RAW file at a later date, the last settings appear (and of course can be further modified or returned to default.)

 

[Doug]

Hmm, no PICT bummers here... I just opened a random selection of old PICT pics with GraphicConverter 6.4.2 while running OSX 10.5.8... Native MacDraw docs won't open though.

It's a bit distressing to find that there are different variations on the DNG format; I'd hoped it would be a more consistent standard than it seems to be.