hrryxgg
Established
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...
what are folks finding?
what are the comparative size of the files, RAW vs JPEG?
thanks...
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
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."
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."
x-ray
Mentor
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.
For best results you should produce custom profiles and dmbed them in Lightroom. They make a big difference in color with any camera.
hrryxgg
Established
my concern is the file sizes.
any ideas on this?
any ideas on this?
Bill Clark
Mentor
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-design/jpeg-101-a-crash-course-guide-on-jpeg/
https://photographyconcentrate.com/10-reasons-why-you-should-be-shooting-raw/
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-design/jpeg-101-a-crash-course-guide-on-jpeg/
https://photographyconcentrate.com/10-reasons-why-you-should-be-shooting-raw/
Godfrey
somewhat colored
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
redsky
Established
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.
Leicas has never been known to have great jpegs.
icebear
Mentor
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
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
benlees
Well-known
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
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
damonsong
Established
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.
MCTuomey
Mentor
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.
kkdanamatt
Well-known
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.
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.
djonesii
Well-known
No practical difference in my use case, but faster
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.
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.