Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Cameras / Gear / Photography > Leicas and other Leica Mount Cameras > Leica Q / CL/ T / X Series

Leica Q / CL/ T / X Series For the Leica Q, CL, T, X series digital cameras

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

Q and JPEG
Old 04-03-2017   #1
hrryxgg
Registered User
 
hrryxgg is offline
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 102
Q and JPEG

i have read that using the Q the best form of the photos is the RAW vs the JPEG.

what are folks finding?

what are the comparative size of the files, RAW vs JPEG?

thanks...
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-03-2017   #2
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
 
Rob-F's Avatar
 
Rob-F is offline
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: The Show Me state
Age: 79
Posts: 6,263
That is very likely, because the same is true of practically any digital camera. A JPEG file loses some of the information coming off the sensor. But good JPEGs can still be very good! If not, few would use them . . .

The statement that RAW is better than JPEG is what in psychology we call an "aunt Fanny statement"; something true of everyone and their "aunt Fanny." Like, "the patient's judgment deteriorates under stress."
__________________
May the light be with you.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-03-2017   #3
x-ray
Registered User
 
x-ray's Avatar
 
x-ray is offline
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Tennessee USA
Age: 71
Posts: 4,624
Look at the histogram of a raw file after making levels and curves adjustments and then a jpg after doing the same. You'll see the histogram of the raw smooth with no voids. The jpg will have lines missing. This is information that's lost and can never be recovered. 8 bit tif will have voids too. I don't use a Q but all of my work is shot in raw and edited in Lightroom and converted to 16 bit tif for further tweets in Photoshop. I then convert to 8 bit and send those to my clients.

For best results you should produce custom profiles and dmbed them in Lightroom. They make a big difference in color with any camera.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-03-2017   #4
hrryxgg
Registered User
 
hrryxgg is offline
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 102
my concern is the file sizes.

any ideas on this?
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-03-2017   #5
Bill Clark
Registered User
 
Bill Clark's Avatar
 
Bill Clark is offline
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Minnetonka, Minnesota
Age: 71
Posts: 2,583
In my mind, I equate digital files like this:

RAW capture is like using film.

JPEG is like using Polaroid instant film.

When in camera JPEG is made, the camera computer/software is processing the RAW file, then writing to the card.

With RAW files I control the files using my iMac and CS-4. Process doesn't change the RAW file but a sidecar file is created wih changes I may make telling how the RAW file to present the image. I can then process as a JPEG. The RAW files stays as created when the exposure was made.

More information is available on a RAW file to work with in ACR on my computer than a JPEG.

File sizes depend on many ingredients, sensor size, image contents, camera software to name a few.

There are applications where certain size JPEG files are important. Where loading the image via the internet, jpeg is usually used such as web pages, email and others.

Some info maybe helpful:

http://sixrevisions.com/graphics-des...guide-on-jpeg/

https://photographyconcentrate.com/1...-shooting-raw/
__________________
Predictions are hard, especially about the future.
-Yogi Berra
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-03-2017   #6
Godfrey
somewhat colored
 
Godfrey's Avatar
 
Godfrey is offline
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Silly Valley, California, USA
Posts: 9,340
Quote:
Originally Posted by hrryxgg View Post
my concern is the file sizes.
any ideas on this?
What is your concern with the file sizes? Raw files are generally always much bigger than JPEGs, but storage capacity today is very inexpensive. Fit the Q with a 128G card and you'll have space for about 2000 plus JPEG+Raw file pairs. A high-quality 128G card wil cost you on the order of $50. A four terabyte hard drive to archive those exposures onto will cost you on the order of $120; that will archive many thousands of exposures.

With storage like that available and inexpensive, file sizes shouldn't be any worry at all.

G
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-03-2017   #7
redsky
Registered User
 
redsky is offline
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: SLC, UT
Posts: 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by Godfrey View Post
What is your concern with the file sizes? Raw files are generally always much bigger than JPEGs, but storage capacity today is very inexpensive. Fit the Q with a 128G card and you'll have space for about 2000 plus JPEG+Raw file pairs. A high-quality 128G card wil cost you on the order of $50. A four terabyte hard drive to archive those exposures onto will cost you on the order of $120; that will archive many thousands of exposures.

With storage like that available and inexpensive, file sizes shouldn't be any worry at all.

G
You forgot that memory is not as cheap and cannot be expanded as easily. Large files have a huge impact in your runtime when editing files.

But I agree that size is not an issue when comparing RAW vs JPG, even if the file is 100 times bigger.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-03-2017   #8
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Santiago, Chile
Age: 46
Posts: 20,175
Leicas has never been known to have great jpegs.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-03-2017   #9
icebear
Registered User
 
icebear's Avatar
 
icebear is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: back in the woods
Posts: 3,022
I shoot raw only, don't care about jpg. I make the decisions on my particular image in post processing and not some average algorithm. I almost never like the result of "auto" processing.

For what it's worth you can choose the jpg resolution of the Q in the following groups:
24 / 15 / 8 M
12 / 8 / 4M
6 / 4 / 2M
1.7/ 1.1 / 0.5M
__________________
Klaus
You have to see the light.
M9, MM & a bunch of glass, Q

my gallery:http://www.rangefinderforum.com/rffg...d=6650&showall
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-03-2017   #10
benlees
Registered User
 
benlees is offline
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Edmonton, AB
Age: 47
Posts: 1,614
DNG's are around 43mb, JPEG's around 10mb. Straight from google. Files sizes are not that big; shouldn't slow your computer down unless it is 10 years old or you keep too much up.

Shoot both, use the JPEG if you like them, play with the DNG if you don't. Like others have said, storage is relatively cheap these days, unless you're breaking the bank to get the Q
__________________
flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-03-2017   #11
damonsong
Registered User
 
damonsong is offline
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 115
One of the camera reviewer said you can reduce the DNG size from Q, simple copy and paste the same file and it will reduce in half. It doesn't make sense but since I don't have a Q so I can't test it.
__________________
leica_dad
YouTube
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-04-2017   #12
MCTuomey
Registered User
 
MCTuomey's Avatar
 
MCTuomey is offline
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: U.S.
Age: 65
Posts: 3,312
Quote:
Originally Posted by hrryxgg View Post
i have read that using the Q the best form of the photos is the RAW vs the JPEG.

what are folks finding?

what are the comparative size of the files, RAW vs JPEG?

thanks...
I haven't been using my Q for long, actually shot jpgs only for several exposures when I first got it. Raws are about 2-4x larger, depending on the size jpg you choose.

Only reason to use jpgs imho is if you're using wifi.
__________________
--Mike

My Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-30-2017   #13
kkdanamatt
Registered User
 
kkdanamatt's Avatar
 
kkdanamatt is offline
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 286
I have been shooting with the Q for the last seven months.
Almost all my images are JPEGS, sent directly to the magazines with zero post processing.
What a pleasure!
When necessary, the editors can crop an image to about a 90mm FOV as an 8x10 when shot at ISO 800 or lower.
It would be sweet if Leica introduced a second version Q with a short zoom, like the Tri-Elmar 28-50, but with an f/2.8 maximum aperture, not f/4.0.
  Reply With Quote

No practical difference in my use case, but faster
Old 06-30-2017   #14
djonesii
Registered User
 
djonesii is offline
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 385
No practical difference in my use case, but faster

For the work I do, JPEG is fine. Never print bigger than 16x20 with minimal crop, and over 80% go-to web.

If I'm doing something more serious, using the fuji
Anyway
Burst mode is better with jpeg.
  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 21:39.


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.