Do you shoot RAW or jpg with your M9?
Old 07-02-2011   #1
Vickko
Registered User
 
Vickko is offline
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Canada
Age: 60
Posts: 2,822
Do you shoot RAW or jpg with your M9?

Do you shoot RAW or jpg with your M9?

I'm thinking of switching over to jpg for "happy snaps" - the 35 meg files don't really appeal to me, in terms of disk space usage.

...Vick
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-02-2011   #2
PaulW128
Registered User
 
PaulW128 is offline
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: New York
Age: 66
Posts: 200
Vick;

I'm very interested to read the responses to your question. I do not shoot with an M9 but i'm facing the same thing with my D7000.

I never realized that the M9 could produce 35meg files!!! And I was complaining about 15meg ones!!

Best
Paul
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-02-2011   #3
swoop
Registered User
 
swoop is offline
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: New York City
Age: 37
Posts: 1,707
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulW128 View Post
Vick;

I'm very interested to read the responses to your question. I do not shoot with an M9 but i'm facing the same thing with my D7000.

I never realized that the M9 could produce 35meg files!!! And I was complaining about 15meg ones!!

Best
Paul
oh yeah. M9 has two bit rate settings. One is ok at about 15MB a photo. The other is obscene. I have a 5D mk2 also and the RAW's are about 25MB a piece it's getting out of control.

I shoot RAW when working. For sports I shoot JPG with the 5D. There are just so many photos and they're all the same, there's no point in shooting RAW for the extra control. Also when I'm just out and about I bring the M9 and I shoot JPG. It's also a lot easier to deal with as I have an Eye-Fi card and just send the pics to my phone to share them.

JPG's are quick and easy but you can't do too much editing with them. And the only thing I strongly dislike about JPG's is that they are noticeably softer than RAW images. Which sucks but most of the time it's still decent.

Last edited by swoop : 07-02-2011 at 05:43.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-02-2011   #4
gdmcclintock
Registered User
 
gdmcclintock's Avatar
 
gdmcclintock is offline
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: New York
Posts: 479
I always shoot only RAW with the M9 and RAW with small JPGs when shooting with the Canon 5D MkII.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-02-2011   #5
Brian Sweeney
Registered User
 
Brian Sweeney's Avatar
 
Brian Sweeney is offline
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 14,907
Lightroom 3 makes batch conversion of Raw into JPEG so easy, been shooting RAW on the M9 and M8 since getting it.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-02-2011   #6
luuca
Registered User
 
luuca's Avatar
 
luuca is offline
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: italy
Age: 44
Posts: 441
I have shoot 5.000 photos since I have the M9 and I still haven't tried the jpeg
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-02-2011   #7
Renzsu
Registered User
 
Renzsu is offline
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 635
raw + 1 mp b/w jpg. I wish it was possible to shoot the dng's with the same b/w conversion settings applied to them somehow For now I'll have to replicate them myself.
__________________
site | Flickr |
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-02-2011   #8
Phil_F_NM
Camera hacker
 
Phil_F_NM's Avatar
 
Phil_F_NM is online now
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Age: 43
Posts: 4,100
I shoot only raw with M9 and M8. I treat them as negatives and back them up between 5 separate drives (one is a 4TB RAID-5).
I used to shoot raw + jpg but found that I really wanted the control of the raw file in post so now I save a tiny bit more space. The write times are also a bit better with raw over raw + jpg.
I haven't shot too much with the dng set to uncompressed but now that I have that 4TB array, I think I may try it. I just don't know if I'll see that much more quality in the image. Guess I'll have to start printing really big...

Phil Forrest
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-02-2011   #9
seakayaker1
Registered User
 
seakayaker1's Avatar
 
seakayaker1 is offline
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 1,913
. . . . . DNG files . . . . . have converted raw files into other formats with Aperture and Adobe.
__________________
______________________

Life is Grand! ~~~ Dan
M Monochrom ~ M-P (240), M6 TTL & MP ~ Mamiya 7 II ~ GF1 ~ K5IIs
~ Rolleiflex f3.5 with Carl Zeiss 75mm Planar (type 4) ~
The hardest part of starting a new project is starting it ~ Keith Carter
Flickr Sets: http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/sets/
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-02-2011   #10
250swb
-
 
250swb is offline
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: The Peak District, United Kingdom
Posts: 857
It never even crossed my mind to shoot JPEG with my M9. Why would anybody do that?

The world is moving on and software and computers are developing fast. The M9 has a small brain to process its JPEG files, while Photoshop has the vast brain of your PC to process DNG files. It seems obvious to shoot uncompressed DNG's, who knows what tomorrows software can do with a larger unadulterated file compared to a neutered compressed file. Its happened with software sharpening and noise reduction to the extent that you can now gain far more from a five year old RAW file than you could then. You may not see a vast difference between compressed DNG or a good JPEG today, but if you shoot uncompressed DNG you may well see a difference tomorrow.

And storage continues to get bigger and cheaper so there can hardly be an excuse that disk space is at a premium, just buy external hard drives and do proper backups, leapfrogging your drives so you always have a duplicate copy on another drive.

Steve
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-02-2011   #11
Olsen
Registered User
 
Olsen's Avatar
 
Olsen is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Norway
Posts: 1,842
The camera computer of M9 is a drag. I shoot DNG all the time. Whish I could shoot raw and jpg at the same time. As I do with my 1Ds III. But the M9's capacity to handle large files is not there. The camera locks up and all kinds of strange things happen.

But storing the files is not a problem. I handle all my files with a PC with a 250mb capacity. It is too small, but I have two aux. 1,5TB hard disks onto which I keep two seperate files of all keeper-files. Then that problem is solved.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-02-2011   #12
slantface
Jordan Dickinson
 
slantface is offline
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Denver, CO
Age: 38
Posts: 670
Only RAW! I find it much better than the JPEG files of the M9, and the adjustments available with RAW are indispensable.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-02-2011   #13
jamato8
Corroding tank M9 35 ASPH
 
jamato8's Avatar
 
jamato8 is offline
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Palmer, Alaska
Posts: 356
RAW. I am not going to spend 7 thousand for a camera and a like amount for lenses and then shoot jpeg and loose some of the data I am trying for in the first place. I shoot RAW with my other cameras as well. As noted above, it is easy to convert but I go to TIFF and then jpeg and keep the TIFF as I do publishing. I also keep the DATA on two separate hard drives. What to do when the hard drives don't work so fine. Digital is great but it has some major drawbacks with regards to long term storage. I still have chromes from the late 1960's that are fine.
__________________
www.pbase.com/jamato8

M2 (got as NOS in 1974), M9, Biogon 25mm 2.8, 35 ASPH and 50 Summicron, 50 DR, 90 Elmarit (1st model), 90 Elmarit-M, 90 Summicron Pre ASPH, Elmar 135, Thumbs-Up (great finally my camera feels solid in my hand). Leica user since 1969 (IIIC 50 Summitar, still have)
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-02-2011   #14
fates
Registered User
 
fates's Avatar
 
fates is offline
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 76
Yeah, RAW all the way. If the shot is a keeper (and a lot of them are), I want full control over the image and max print capabilities. Even just for fun stuff I shoot is at full rez. A 2 or 3 TB drive is cheap these days. What does that hold 50,000+ images at full rez? Get two for back up. Not having the post processing leeway of raw data is crazy in my mind for any pro camera.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-02-2011   #15
kbg32
neo-romanticist
 
kbg32's Avatar
 
kbg32 is offline
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: New York, New York
Posts: 5,592
Raw, Raw, Raw.
__________________
Keith

http://keithgoldstein.me/
Keith痴 Gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-03-2011   #16
Ben Z
Registered User
 
Ben Z is offline
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 2,552
I shoot at the smaller, compressed DNG setting. The files are about the same size as the M8 DNG files. I've spoken to about a dozen professionals so far who shoot the M9 regularly and none said they have ever been able to detect any degradation comparing the compressed and uncompressed DNG.
__________________
MY GALLERY
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-03-2011   #17
barnwulf
Registered User
 
barnwulf's Avatar
 
barnwulf is offline
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Ankeny, Iowa
Age: 81
Posts: 1,406
I always shoot RAW (DNG & jpg) with my M8.2. I did the same with my D300 and D700 Nikons. There is just so much more on the file that allows a lot of adjustments. I convert DNGs to Tiffs in Lightroom. I only shoot black and white with my M8.2. It does a nice job. Jim
__________________
"Basically, I no longer work for anything but the sensation I have while working."
- Alberto Giacometti (sculptor)
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-03-2011   #18
sevres_babylone
Registered User
 
sevres_babylone is offline
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Canada
Posts: 2,132
I shoot raw+jpegs. I do shoot compressed DNG in that combination. A friend, who is a professional photographer, recommended uncompressed, and says he does see better tonal gradation in the highlights. Since a lot of my shooting is of bands in dimly lit environments where I often let the highlights blow out anyway, I haven't switched back.
__________________
Visit me at Pbase
and at Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-03-2011   #19
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
 
jaapv's Avatar
 
jaapv is offline
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Hellevoetsluis, Netherlands
Posts: 8,382
Quote:
Originally Posted by Olsen View Post
The camera computer of M9 is a drag. I shoot DNG all the time. Whish I could shoot raw and jpg at the same time. As I do with my 1Ds III. But the M9's capacity to handle large files is not there. The camera locks up and all kinds of strange things happen.

But storing the files is not a problem. I handle all my files with a PC with a 250mb capacity. It is too small, but I have two aux. 1,5TB hard disks onto which I keep two seperate files of all keeper-files. Then that problem is solved.
Umm..try setting the camera to "DNG+JPG fine"
__________________
Jaap

jaapvphotography
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-04-2011   #20
menos
Registered User
 
menos's Avatar
 
menos is offline
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 2,644
Compressed DNG only - acceptable (but not great, compared to the slim 10MB files of the M8).
__________________
Dirk | teknopunk.com | 500px | flickr | instagram | facebook
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-04-2011   #21
ka7197
Registered User
 
ka7197 is offline
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 90
While there might be a few good reasons to shoot JPEG only (as opposed to Raw or Raw+JPEG), just saving disk space isn't one of them. So don't do that!

If you're concerned with the huge size of the Leica M9's 35 MB DNG files then switch to compressed DNG which will cut the file sizes in half. Furthermore, shove the DNG files through Adobe DNG Converter—you may think that's silly but actually it does make sense because it will convert the files from DNG 1.0 format to DNG 1.3 format which includes lossless compression which will reduce the DNG file sizes even further. A doubly compressed DNG file will be only slightly larger (if at all) than a file in JPEG Fine format but will preserve much more depth and latitude for subsequent post processing than JPEG.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-04-2011   #22
menos
Registered User
 
menos's Avatar
 
menos is offline
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 2,644
Quote:
Originally Posted by ka7197 View Post
While there might be a few good reasons to shoot JPEG only (as opposed to Raw or Raw+JPEG), just saving disk space isn't one of them. So don't do that!

If you're concerned with the huge size of the Leica M9's 35 MB DNG files then switch to compressed DNG which will cut the file sizes in half. Furthermore, shove the DNG files through Adobe DNG Converter遥ou may think that's silly but actually it does make sense because it will convert the files from DNG 1.0 format to DNG 1.3 format which includes lossless compression which will reduce the DNG file sizes even further. A doubly compressed DNG file will be only slightly larger (if at all) than a file in JPEG Fine format but will preserve much more depth and latitude for subsequent post processing than JPEG.
Thanks for the tip, I have to try this out (uncompressed M9 DNG through Lightroom DNG conversion vs compressed DNG vs compressed DNG through Lightroom DNG conversion).

Disk space and computer performance is a concern, but image quality comes first, which is why JPG is no option.
__________________
Dirk | teknopunk.com | 500px | flickr | instagram | facebook
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-04-2011   #23
Archiver
Registered User
 
Archiver is offline
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 1,471
I always shoot in compressed DNG format. I once forgot to set my M9 back to DNG after it had been in for service, and I was shocked at how much less malleable the jpegs are compared with the raw files. Huge amounts of shadow and highlight information were lost, and the colours were all over the shop. It confirmed why I only shoot in DNG.
__________________
~Loving Every Image Captured Always~
Archiver on flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-06-2011   #24
abumac
Registered User
 
abumac's Avatar
 
abumac is offline
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 362
Is there any jpeg on the M9 ;-)
__________________
Regards

rw

http://blog.reiner-wandler.de
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-06-2011   #25
Ronald M
Registered User
 
Ronald M is offline
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 4,556
You paid multi thousands for the best digital RF and you worry over Disk space.

Buy a few external hard drives and keep the photos there. I have three La Cie drives, one terabite ea ,and they are $100.

Clogging up your computer drive with file storage is not good practice in any case.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-07-2011   #26
downstairs
downstairs
 
downstairs is offline
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: europe
Posts: 116
Menus make me screw up.
So always raw on M9, always b&w jpg on M8.2.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-07-2011   #27
furcafe
Registered User
 
furcafe's Avatar
 
furcafe is offline
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Washington, DC, USA
Age: 53
Posts: 4,310
Always raw. With a reasonably up-to-date computer & storage, I see no real reason to use JPG unless I were doing some type of sports photography, etc., where I needed to shoot a huge # of exposures @ high fps, & that's not what anyone in their right mind would be using an M9 for.
__________________
Five a Second. Chicago's Bell & Howell Co. (cameras) announced that it would put on sale this fall the world's most expensive still camera. Its "Foton" will take five 35-mm. pictures a second, sell for $700. Bell & Howell, which has found that "families of both low and high incomes now spend over $550" for movie equipment, hopes to sell 20,000 Fotons a year.
--Facts And Figures, Time magazine, Monday, October 4, 1948
My Photoblog

My Flickr stream

My RFF Gallery

My Instagram
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-07-2011   #28
Vickko
Registered User
 
Vickko is offline
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Canada
Age: 60
Posts: 2,822
Hmmm, hear you, loud and clear.

Vick


Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronald M View Post
You paid multi thousands for the best digital RF and you worry over Disk space.

Buy a few external hard drives and keep the photos there. I have three La Cie drives, one terabite ea ,and they are $100.

Clogging up your computer drive with file storage is not good practice in any case.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-07-2011   #29
arnulf
Registered User
 
arnulf's Avatar
 
arnulf is offline
Join Date: Jul 2007
Age: 50
Posts: 164
Always shoot RAW, compressed is totally fine. I like to shoot jpeg also. They look pretty good on the M9, I think. But imagine how annoying it must be if you've underexposed an otherwise great picture and have to throw it away because you can't get back the detail in the jpeg. Ouch!....
__________________
m6
m9
summilux 35mm
summilux 50mm
Fuji x100
http://www.arnulfjohansen.net
My Smugmug
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-11-2011   #30
ramosa
B&W
 
ramosa is offline
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,025
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbg32 View Post
Raw, Raw, Raw.
+3 ...
__________________
覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧
Leica MM1, Cron 35, Cron 50mm
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-12-2011   #31
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
 
jaapv's Avatar
 
jaapv is offline
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Hellevoetsluis, Netherlands
Posts: 8,382
I'm not convinced compressed DNG is a good idea. Storage space and SD cards are cheap nowadays. Although one has to push a file really hard in postprocessing to see an advantage for uncompressed it is certainly there. - less posterization, better color transitions. But the real argument is the future. Who can tell what Adobe will come up with in a few years? And what amount of information will be needed to exploit the new features?
__________________
Jaap

jaapvphotography
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-12-2011   #32
arnulf
Registered User
 
arnulf's Avatar
 
arnulf is offline
Join Date: Jul 2007
Age: 50
Posts: 164
Hmm, ok Jaap, I find your argument intriguing.. I'll shoot uncompressed for a while and see how it is. Although one thing that concerns me a bit is whether such a large file size will slow down the post processing even more. Even when uncompressed I think it takes quite a bit of time some times.
__________________
m6
m9
summilux 35mm
summilux 50mm
Fuji x100
http://www.arnulfjohansen.net
My Smugmug
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-12-2011   #33
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
 
jaapv's Avatar
 
jaapv is offline
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Hellevoetsluis, Netherlands
Posts: 8,382
I have no problem. But then I use a MacPro quad with 16 Gb RAM...

I found out about the "pushability" of uncompressed files when comparing my M8 files to my DMR. I tested the M9 compressed against uncompressed, but I admit you really have to torture the file to see the difference.
__________________
Jaap

jaapvphotography

Last edited by jaapv : 07-12-2011 at 05:46.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-12-2011   #34
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 23,943
DNG. Switching to JPEG for 'happy snaps' simply means that I forget to switch back to DNG for 'real' pics. Better 'happy snaps' with too much quality than 'real' pics with too little.

The only time I switch to JPEG (and immediately switch back again) is for slowly-shot sets of pics for stitched panoramas. Otherwise, file sizes for the whol panoram really do get big enough to slow down even quite powerful computers.

Cheers,

R.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-12-2011   #35
Bike Tourist
Registered User
 
Bike Tourist's Avatar
 
Bike Tourist is offline
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Central California
Age: 83
Posts: 1,250
[quote=Roger Hicks;1663717]DNG. Switching to JPEG for 'happy snaps' simply means that I forget to switch back to DNG for 'real' pics. Better 'happy snaps' with too much quality than 'real' pics with too little./QUOTE]

I disagree, Roger. I don't have an M9 and never will (failing some sort of lottery win) but have shot both raw and jpg with many cameras over many years. I have always balanced my spending on photography with some commercial applications to pay for my otherwise unaffordable passion.

It wasn't always so, but the imaging chips and the jpeg engines are so good these days that, for most people, jpeg should be fine for any application they are likely to need, including reasonably large prints. The stock agencies are notably very picky when it comes to artifacts, yet I routinely have third generation jpegs processed with CS5 accepted.

Maybe I don't value my work to the extent some people do. Out of my 70,000 transparencies, negatives and digital files, I wouldn't be too upset at the loss of any one of them, with a few rare exceptions.

So, let those who will shoot raw, make multiple DVDs to insure that their images endure through any major conflagration and rest easy knowing that their unique work will be preserved for posterity.

I'll just mess around shooting jpegs.
__________________
Dick Thornton

Stock Portfolio:
http://www.shutterstock.com/g/biketourist
  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 21:53.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, 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.