Old 08-19-2015   #361
Godfrey
somewhat colored
 
Godfrey's Avatar
 
Godfrey is offline
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 7,847
Quote:
Originally Posted by shadowfox View Post
Just curious, why bother with raw?
The JPG is not good enough?
There's more image processing overhead to be had with raw files. In many cases, the JPEGs are good enough, but more overhead nets better results when you're working at the limits of the camera's capabilities.

G
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-20-2015   #362
SuperUJ
Registered User
 
SuperUJ is offline
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 318
Quote:
Originally Posted by shadowfox View Post
Just curious, why bother with raw?
The JPG is not good enough?
It probably is, as the files don't seem to need much post-processing. I meter mid-tone with center-weighted setting and the highlight & shadow seem to fall into place. My digital post-processing workflow follows my analog's. When working with films, I prefer to print from negatives than from another prints. But that's just me.

John
__________________
My Site
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-22-2015   #363
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
 
shadowfox's Avatar
 
shadowfox is offline
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 8,812
Quote:
Originally Posted by Godfrey View Post
There's more image processing overhead to be had with raw files. In many cases, the JPEGs are good enough, but more overhead nets better results when you're working at the limits of the camera's capabilities.

G
I understand the reasons why one would use RAW vs jpg.

I was asking specifically to those who use these latest digital M. How many times do you push the limitations of the camera that you need the extra room for post processing using RAW formats.

I'd think that a digital Leica M produces JPG that would exceed my expectations even if I shoot at night (I meant scenes with light, not shooting bats in a cave).
__________________
Have a good light,
Will


  Reply With Quote

Old 08-22-2015   #364
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
 
shadowfox's Avatar
 
shadowfox is offline
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 8,812
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperUJ View Post
When working with films, I prefer to print from negatives than from another prints. But that's just me.

John
John, to me, that's not an apt comparison.
I've been surprised at how good the JPG quality out of almost any new DSLR today. Unless you're going to print at super high resolution and size, or shooting at extreme light conditions, there is no need to use RAW.

In other words, I submit that for 90% of all purposes, today, the JPG from high-end cameras can be considered as the equivalent of the negative in film world.
__________________
Have a good light,
Will


  Reply With Quote

Old 08-23-2015   #365
SuperUJ
Registered User
 
SuperUJ is offline
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 318
Quote:
Originally Posted by shadowfox View Post
I submit that for 90% of all purposes, today, the JPG from high-end cameras can be considered as the equivalent of the negative in film world.
Hi Will,

Your estimate of 90% is probably right for good DSLRs. In addition to the 8-bit JPEG vs. 12-bit DNG files, I personally don't prefer the idea of uncompressing and recompressing image files (unless it uses lossless compression algorithm). The using of different RAW editors is similar to the use of different types of developer on film. This is how I drew the parallel between RAW files and negatives. As I have already gone down the M246 route, I would try to squeeze every bit out its output (instead of limiting myself from the get go and shoot JPEG). Hope this helps explain my choice of working practice and workflow. Thanks for sharing of your thought, though.

John
__________________
My Site
  Reply With Quote

High Speed Cards and Banding
Old 08-25-2015   #366
SuperUJ
Registered User
 
SuperUJ is offline
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 318
High Speed Cards and Banding

With a 95 MB/s card, the M246 startup time was brought down to less than two seconds now. However, the high speed card seems to introduce banding in the shadow on in DNG when images are pushed two or more stops in LR6 (& when I blow it up). I found at least one other user mentioned this phenomenon, when I googled it. It probably would not be a problem when I print the images, but thought that I should bring it up here.



John
__________________
My Site
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-25-2015   #367
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
 
shadowfox's Avatar
 
shadowfox is offline
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 8,812
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperUJ View Post
Hi Will,

Your estimate of 90% is probably right for good DSLRs. In addition to the 8-bit JPEG vs. 12-bit DNG files, I personally don't prefer the idea of uncompressing and recompressing image files (unless it uses lossless compression algorithm). The using of different RAW editors is similar to the use of different types of developer on film. This is how I drew the parallel between RAW files and negatives. As I have already gone down the M246 route, I would try to squeeze every bit out its output (instead of limiting myself from the get go and shoot JPEG). Hope this helps explain my choice of working practice and workflow. Thanks for sharing of your thought, though.

John
John,

It does explain it and I appreciate your answering my question.
__________________
Have a good light,
Will


  Reply With Quote

Old 09-01-2015   #368
SuperUJ
Registered User
 
SuperUJ is offline
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 318
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperUJ View Post
With a 95 MB/s card, the M246 startup time was brought down to less than two seconds now. However, the high speed card seems to introduce banding in the shadow on in DNG when images are pushed two or more stops in LR6 (& when I blow it up). I found at least one other user mentioned this phenomenon, when I googled it. It probably would not be a problem when I print the images, but thought that I should bring it up here.
Wanted to report back on the banding issue of my SanDisk 95 MB/s card. It did not get resolved by changing over to a Transcend 90 MB/s card (suggested by someone in another forum). 90% of the banding (pretty minor to begin with) go away after applying debanding using Dfine 2.0.

John
__________________
My Site
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 18:34.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.