M Color

[kidigital]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

It seems to me rather humorous that many of the reviewers of the M, in a hurry to be first or to strap the camera on a cube, pull out gray cards and perform exacting side by side comparisons failed to simply take the camera out of the box and use the camera as many M users would use the camera ... with features like AWB engaged. If they did, they would have observed that both the AWB setting and the color profile need work. I'm amazed at how little this has been discussed on this forum.

 

Personally, I know two friends who have used the M for several months who have recently sold their copies. They've deemed it safer to re-enter the water for an M swim sometime in the future when the color is more accurate.

 

I recently spent a half day shooting with the camera and came away feeling that the color misrepresents the colors and skin tones of what I see on the street everyday. Will it get there, most likely. But it's simply not there yet. I write this not as a troll, fanboy or apologist but as someone who has and uses many Leica digital products.

Edited April 20, 2013 by kidigital

[Guest borge]

It seems Leica has left the "Kodak look and colors" that was apparent in the M9/M9-P/M-E and gone for a Fujifilm look, which always had a warmer and more saturated look in their films compared to Kodak films.

 

Personally I have always preferred Fujfilm (Provia, Velvia, Astia, 400h, and so on) to Kodak's films... So I would maybe like the M240's colors?

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Guest malland]

...I'm amazed at how little this has been discussed on this forum...

But the color rendition of the M240 has been discussed extensively in many threads here. Indeed, in one thread some people have even pointed out that the pictures shown in the new 71-page Leica brochure for this camera have the same problems with yellows and reds that have been discussed extensively on the forum. Others have also referred to magenta issues, while still others have written extensively about the need for better raw developer profiles and/or a firmware fix. It seems to me that the issues are well known by now.

 

—Mitch/Potomac, MD

Paris au rythme de Basquiat and Other Poems [download link for book project]

[Ecar]

Personally, I know two friends who have used the M for several months who have recently sold their copies. They've deemed it safer to re-enter the water for an M swim sometime in the future when the color is more accurate.

 

Several months? They must have been beta testers, then...

[erl]

The precedent of the M8 and M9 clearly demonstrate that Leica send out a new camera a bit like the penguins that push the first one off the iceberg to test if there are any Leopard seals around. Almost invariably that penguin gets taken and the rest wait until the leopard seal is satisfied and then they brave the waters, hoping all will be well. Eventually it is.

 

So, the first penguins have their new M's and are testing the colours and who knows what else. The beta testers have gone and the first wave of protagonists are swimming bravely. Eventually it will all come together and we will be happy little campers after a few firmware upgrades, probably based on complaints and observations made on the forum, and elsewhere.

 

Anyone surprised by all this? I'm not. Very predictable.

Hold your breath, the good stuff is coming.

Edited April 20, 2013 by erl

[kidigital]

Mitch, I thought it worthy of its own thread. If no one wishes to read any more about it then the thread will die a rapid death.

 

My humble opinion is that others expecting usable, no-fuss color right out of the box ought to know what they are getting until the issue of color is properly addressed.

 

But the color rendition of the M240 has been discussed extensively in many threads here. Indeed, in one thread some people have even pointed out that the pictures shown in the new 71-page Leica brochure for this camera have the same problems with yellows and reds that have been discussed extensively on the forum. Others have also referred to magenta issues, while still others have written extensively about the need for better raw developer profiles and/or a firmware fix. It seems to me that the issues are well known by now.

 

—Mitch/Potomac, MD

Paris au rythme de Basquiat and Other Poems [download link for book project]

[kidigital]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

It seems Leica has left the "Kodak look and colors" that was apparent in the M9/M9-P/M-E and gone for a Fujifilm look, which always had a warmer and more saturated look in their films compared to Kodak films.

 

Personally I have always preferred Fujfilm (Provia, Velvia, Astia, 400h, and so on) to Kodak's films... So I would maybe like the M240's colors?

 

It's more than a warmer color and a more saturated look ... skin tones are an issue at the moment. Again, I'm certain that it will eventually be resolved but it's difficult to get Asian skin tones to look like they should.

[jaapv]

Have you tried the skin colour whitebalance eyedropper tool on Capture One Pro, Kurt?

[D&A]

It's more than a warmer color and a more saturated look ... skin tones are an issue at the moment. Again, I'm certain that it will eventually be resolved but it's difficult to get Asian skin tones to look like they should.

 

Kurt, I've come to pretty much the same conclusion as you have by having the opportunity to work on some comparative full rez "raw" files from both cameras (the new M and the M9). The issues I observed were often most prominent with skin tones and certain colors, often with a strong bias towards red and warmth. What also concerned me was with certain subjec'ts skin, it looked leathery and most un-natural. It's not that I don't think the M240 is a fine camera and capable of quite exceptional imagery, but I've come to the conclusion that for certain subjects whereby this sort of color reproduction is important, it's not there yet, at least without additional and careful steps taken by the users.

 

Hopefully with a combination of firmware upgrades,color profiles and careful adjustment of the files in post processing, these issues will be addressed both now and in the near future. Hard though to predict how it will eventually turn out and whether this is simply teething pains and issues that for the most part will come to pass or some of these issues will simply remain by virtue of it's sensor and associated electronics as related to output.

 

Dave (D&A)

Edited April 20, 2013 by D&A

[elmars]

I did not like (as others) the colors and the color balance of the M9: too much green an magenta. What did I do instead of waiting? I made a color profile of my own. Very easy with SpydrCheckr. You ca find it here:

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/forum-zur-leica-m9/181902-mein-kameraprofil-fuer-die-m9.html

 

After this I was satisfied. You can do the same with the M 240 and I suppose strongly that those, who now complain, will be satisfied.

 

The only thing, I do not understand is: Why is the profile (M9 and M) in LR so bad? Leica does not talk to us or offers a profile for download.

 

Elmar

[sandymc]

Well, be aware that there are two different situations here:

 

1. For out-of-the-camera JPEGs, Leica may well be able to make changes to the color response.

 

2. For raws, the color rendering is essentially set by physics of the sensor and the profile(s) in the raw developer you're using. While in theory possible, it's highly unlikely that Leica would do anything in firmware to change color rendering - anything Leica could do would be better and more easily done in the raw developer. And changing the sensor is basically the same as making a new camera.

 

So if you have issue with color rendering from raw, you really need to be either building your own profiles, or speaking with whoever built the raw developer.

 

Sandy

[Guest malland]

Kurt, I take your point that it's worthwhile to have a specific thread on this subject.

 

Sandy, I think we're talking about raw files, not JPGS. I'm not sure the solution is for the user to make his own profiles and, if it's a sensor issue, which I think is highly unlikely, then many people simply will not want the camera at all. My feeling is that the issues will be solved by a combination of firmware updates and better profiles.

 

Jaap, it seems to me that people should not have to go to C1, a program that I, for one, don't care for, but should be able to use LR4 as that is the software that comes with the camera. At this stage, I simply am not interested in being an early adaptor.

 

—Mitch/Potomac

Bangkok Hysteria (download link for book project)

[daure]

I am sure that nobody complain about Jpeg color rendition here.

Who make jpeg with digital M ?

I have little problem since i made my "own" profile with xrite or Monaco/xrite tools.

But not 100% good.

And never use the awd (too subject relativ with a camera without an external sensor for that)

My main problem with my M is to get the same colors in the center, on the left side (or corners) and on the right side (or corners)

Edit : I say "my M" because it seems that all the M don't react on the same way

Edited April 20, 2013 by daure

[daure]

And i forget to say that i start (again ....) to use UV/IR all the time ....

[Jager]

I guess I operate under the philosophy that there is no one "true" color. Color hues change for a lot of reasons, not least of which is where the sun happens to be in the sky. Or what it is reflected off of. Or whatever other light source might be involved.

 

Different films always had their own color palette - typically their most distinctive quality.

 

The digital realm, with its host of post processing options, greatly expands a photographer's options in that regard.

 

I find the M240 colors to be a perfectly good starting point. Something a bit north of Kodachrome. A way bit south of Velvia.

Edited April 20, 2013 by Jager

[D&A]

I guess I operate under the philosophy that there is no one "true" color. Color hues change for a lot of reasons, not least of which is where the sun happens to be in the sky. Or what it is reflected off of. Or whatever other light source might be involved.

 

Different films always had their own color palette - typically their most distinctive quality.

 

The digital realm, with its host of post processing options, greatly expands a photographers options in that regard.

 

I find the M240 colors to be a perfectly good starting point. Something a bit north of Kodachrome. A way bit south of Velvia.

 

Jeff, for the most part I agree with you....color can often at times be subjective and very much dependent on light. Thats why we had such a great variety of choices in color film all these years. The prominant color issue I have seen with the new M in terms of possibly being problematic, is with certain types of skin tones and also as I previously mentioned, the actual reproduction of the apparent texture of the skin (which may be partially related to the predominant and often times excessive reddish bias I am seeing).

 

With subjects that don't include people, I feel the new M then becomes a somewhat more workable photographic tool in it's present form.

 

Dave (D&A)

[rfunnell]

I have an M on order and have also been watching this issue with more interest in the last few weeks as it has developed.

 

Watching some early adoptors who have sold their new M's and returned back to M9P's.

 

It would seem that it's the elephant in the room that not many people are talking about.

 

I certainly hope it can be addressed with firmware however it may be that it is related to the sensor and is the new default for color for the M.

 

I have decided that I am more than happy with my M9P and if my new M arrives I will have to pass until this is resolved.

[sandymc]

I am sure that nobody complain about Jpeg color rendition here.

Who make jpeg with digital M ?

 

Quite a few people make JPEGs with M's, actually, although probably not very many of them on this forum. But not everybody understands the distinction between color rendition of raws and JPEGs, and sooner or later someone that doesn't will read this thread. Which is why I wanted to be precise.

 

At the risk of confusing people further, I should add, that in some raw developers you can select to use the color profile that Leica build into the DNG - e.g., in LR by selecting "Embedded". In that case, Leica could change raw color rendition by changing the embedded profile.

 

Sandy

Edited April 20, 2013 by sandymc
Clarity

[luigi bertolotti]

And i forget to say that i start (again ....) to use UV/IR all the time ....

 

Really ? Have you a solid feeling that the UVIR filters have a general positive effect on color rendering ? Or have they have an effect on the "usual" subjects as in M8 (fabrics, foliage etc...)? That's interesting... I seem not to have read of this elsewhere.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Guest malland]

..With subjects that don't include people, I feel the new M then becomes a somewhat more workable photographic tool in it's present form...

That's not particularly helpful. Neither are some of the other postings above that seem to pretend that there is no issue on color rendition that can't be fixed by the user twiddling the file.

 

I think what Kurt has stated is a real issue, and it would be better for Leica to deal with this earlier rather than later — and I do believe it will be dealt with.

 

—Mitch/Potomac, MD

Paris au rythme de Basquiat and Other Poems [download link for book project]