k-hawinkler Posted January 2, 2010 Share #1 Posted January 2, 2010 Advertisement (gone after registration) I am new to rangefinders in general and Leica in particular. My M9 finally arrived on December 29. Here are a couple quick shots from the M9 and Summilux-M 50mm f/1.4 ASPH: http://winklers.smugmug.com/KHW/Pics-by-Date/2009-12-31-NM-Lnd-of-Enchntmnt/2009-12-3117-09-08-M9-50mm-f14/754592774_VpWRq-X3.jpg http://winklers.smugmug.com/KHW/Pics-by-Date/2009-12-31-NM-Lnd-of-Enchntmnt/2009-12-3117-14-07-M9-50mm-f14/754592852_oDn3Q-X3.jpg The following shows the Bright/Dark Boundary of the second image in more detail: http://winklers.smugmug.com/KHW/Pics-by-Date/2009-12-31-NM-Lnd-of-Enchntmnt/2009-12-3117-14-07-M9-50mm-f14/755184588_AgY4r-O.jpg Question: What causes the seemingly one pixel wide, white boundary line between the orange area and the rest of the image - as if outlined with a pen? The last image was shot wide open, with infinity focus, and at ISO 160. The dark area seems also considerably underexposed, judging from the noise level there. The DNG files show the same artifact as the JPGs. Thanks for your help. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 2, 2010 Posted January 2, 2010 Hi k-hawinkler, Take a look here Bright/Dark Boundary Artifact in M9 image. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Googaliser Posted January 2, 2010 Share #2 Posted January 2, 2010 I'm also keen to hear thoughts on this. Have noticed it across focal lengths. Is there a processing etiology... or is it simple diffraction? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted January 2, 2010 Share #3 Posted January 2, 2010 Are you using a non-Intel Mac and Lightroom? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
carlmuck Posted January 2, 2010 Share #4 Posted January 2, 2010 I am new to rangefinders in general and Leica in particular. My M9 finally arrived on December 29. Here are a couple quick shots from the M9 and Summilux-M 50mm f/1.4 ASPH: http://winklers.smugmug.com/KHW/Pics-by-Date/2009-12-31-NM-Lnd-of-Enchntmnt/2009-12-3117-09-08-M9-50mm-f14/754592774_VpWRq-X3.jpg http://winklers.smugmug.com/KHW/Pics-by-Date/2009-12-31-NM-Lnd-of-Enchntmnt/2009-12-3117-14-07-M9-50mm-f14/754592852_oDn3Q-X3.jpg The following shows the Bright/Dark Boundary of the second image in more detail: http://winklers.smugmug.com/KHW/Pics-by-Date/2009-12-31-NM-Lnd-of-Enchntmnt/2009-12-3117-14-07-M9-50mm-f14/755184588_AgY4r-O.jpg Question: What causes the seemingly one pixel wide, white boundary line between the orange area and the rest of the image - as if outlined with a pen? The last image was shot wide open, with infinity focus, and at ISO 160. The dark area seems also considerably underexposed, judging from the noise level there. The DNG files show the same artifact as the JPGs. Thanks for your help. What is your processing workflow? There are several things here that I've not seen out of Lightroom, for example, the sky shows posterization (banding) and the boundary looks like overly aggressive JPG processing (50-60%) (which could also account for the banding). I'm surprised that the DNG shows this artifact (most likely it is the processing, not the file). Download Raw Photo Processor or Capture One and see if it shows the same artifact. (RPP is free, you can use the Capture One trial.) c. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
vdb Posted January 2, 2010 Share #5 Posted January 2, 2010 I have never seen this with my M9 and 50 1.4 asph on Aperture LR or CS4. No doubt a processing issue. Can you describe your workflow? I use an Intel based Mac... BTW, looks like Northern, NM...my favorite place on Earth:) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted January 2, 2010 Share #6 Posted January 2, 2010 I've never run across this. If it is showing up in both dngs and jpgs, then I don't see that it can be a raw developer problem. What level of sharpening are you using, either as set in the camera (for jpgs), or in your RAW development (for dngs), or in Photoshop after the fact (for either/both)? It does look like what one could get from extreme sharpening. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nik_nik9 Posted January 2, 2010 Share #7 Posted January 2, 2010 Advertisement (gone after registration) Hi, I used to have the same issue on pics of my M8 - but after processing in Lightroom. This picture looks to me as the sky has been darkend (Lightroom: recovery) and the shadow area has been brighten up (LR: fill light), that would also explain the noise in the shadow area. When you do this two steps to the extreme you'll get exactly this result. So if there was heavy postprocessing, that might be the reason. If not - I have no idea:) But anyway - nice shots! Looking foward to my M9 in about two weeks:) Nik Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
k-hawinkler Posted January 2, 2010 Author Share #8 Posted January 2, 2010 Many thanks for your excellent feedback. I believe most if not all feedback is correct. I have documented my workflow and apparently can trace the problem back to my excessive use of the "Fill Light" parameter in "Adobe Photoshop Camera Raw". I don't believe either the M9 or the 50 1.4 ASPH is at fault. I don't see any banding or posterization in the DNG files. However, please judge for yourself if you can see that in the "Original" size jpg files. Also, both PowerPC and Intel based Macintosh give the same answers. Here is what I have done. The image was shot with f/1.4, 1/250 s, ISO 160, 50 mm. I have uploaded 8 full size images to: 2009.12.31 Debugging - winklers' Photos I copied the image from the SDHC card to my Mac, managed it with "Adobe Bridge CS4" and opened it with "Adobe Photoshop Camera Raw". I didn't use Lightroom. The below described operations successively build on each other. All other parameters were kept at their default values. • Image 1: was saved as a jpg "As Shot". No other processing was done. • Image 2: was "Grab"ed as a window capture to show the clipped shadows and highlights. • Image 3: the "White Balance" was set to Shade. • Image 4: "Auto" was selected, "Fill Light" = 0 • Image 5: "Fill Light" = 25 • Image 6: "Fill Light" = 50 • Image 7: "Fill Light" = 75 • Image 8: "Fill Light" =100 Image 4 and 5 look okay to me, that is without the artifact, but pretty noisy in the underexposed regions. In image 6 the artifact begins to show and is clearly visible in image 7 and 8. What did I learn so far? For a challenging dynamic range situation such as this, I better use my Graduated Neutral Density filter, do a better job with the in camera exposure setting, and be more careful in post processing. I welcome your additional feedback and guidance. Many thanks. With best regards. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted January 2, 2010 Share #9 Posted January 2, 2010 As someone with a lot of experience with ACR 3.4, but only recently upgraded to ACR 5.5/6b - the new fill and recovery controls definitely take a bit of practice. If I don't use them, I don't get quite the same results as I did in ACR 3.4 without them, so obviously the exposure and shadow controls now assume they will be used to some extent - something that was probably "built in" to earlier versions of ACR. I have them set at "5" as defaults, and have generally never gone above 25 - usually 20 or below. The experience I had last year with banding in overexposed skies http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m9-forum/107297-rainbow-skies.html was definitely exagerrated by too high a recovery setting, so I treat it and "fill" now like nitroglycerin - VERY carefully! Glad this was solved - learned more myself through this post. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
k-hawinkler Posted January 2, 2010 Author Share #10 Posted January 2, 2010 As someone with a lot of experience with ACR 3.4, but only recently upgraded to ACR 5.5/6b - the new fill and recovery controls definitely take a bit of practice. If I don't use them, I don't get quite the same results as I did in ACR 3.4 without them, so obviously the exposure and shadow controls now assume they will be used to some extent - something that was probably "built in" to earlier versions of ACR. I have them set at "5" as defaults, and have generally never gone above 25 - usually 20 or below. The experience I had last year with banding in overexposed skies http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m9-forum/107297-rainbow-skies.html was definitely exagerrated by too high a recovery setting, so I treat it and "fill" now like nitroglycerin - VERY carefully! Glad this was solved - learned more myself through this post. Many thanks for your help, from neighbor to neighbor, from New Mexico to Colorado. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jlam Posted January 2, 2010 Share #11 Posted January 2, 2010 Many thanks for your excellent feedback. I believe most if not all feedback is correct. I have documented my workflow and apparently can trace the problem back to my excessive use of the "Fill Light" parameter in "Adobe Photoshop Camera Raw". I don't believe either the M9 or the 50 1.4 ASPH is at fault. I don't see any banding or posterization in the DNG files. However, please judge for yourself if you can see that in the "Original" size jpg files. Also, both PowerPC and Intel based Macintosh give the same answers. Here is what I have done. The image was shot with f/1.4, 1/250 s, ISO 160, 50 mm. I have uploaded 8 full size images to: 2009.12.31 Debugging - winklers' Photos I copied the image from the SDHC card to my Mac, managed it with "Adobe Bridge CS4" and opened it with "Adobe Photoshop Camera Raw". I didn't use Lightroom. The below described operations successively build on each other. All other parameters were kept at their default values. • Image 1: was saved as a jpg "As Shot". No other processing was done. • Image 2: was "Grab"ed as a window capture to show the clipped shadows and highlights. • Image 3: the "White Balance" was set to Shade. • Image 4: "Auto" was selected, "Fill Light" = 0 • Image 5: "Fill Light" = 25 • Image 6: "Fill Light" = 50 • Image 7: "Fill Light" = 75 • Image 8: "Fill Light" =100 Image 4 and 5 look okay to me, that is without the artifact, but pretty noisy in the underexposed regions. In image 6 the artifact begins to show and is clearly visible in image 7 and 8. What did I learn so far? For a challenging dynamic range situation such as this, I better use my Graduated Neutral Density filter, do a better job with the in camera exposure setting, and be more careful in post processing. I welcome your additional feedback and guidance. Many thanks. With best regards. An overdose of Fill Light (for me I rarely push it over 20) will often cause undesirable artifacts like what you're getting. I think there is a RGB threshold below which the exposure gets boosted and artifacts can appear along the boundary areas. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
smoody Posted January 2, 2010 Share #12 Posted January 2, 2010 I have noticed this, too, after applying some processing. I've mostly noticed it on street shots on the edges of peoples' shadows against the sidewalk. It becomes pronounced when I use Nik Silver Efex Pro (on 16 bit images) and I often find myself having to reduce contrast, etc in the problematic areas (thus keeping me from producing the exact photo I envision). The thing is, I've been doing heavy photoshop processing for years using raw images generated by Canon DSLRs (starting with the 10D) and I've never had to deal with those sorts of artifacts. It's not terrible, but it is something I'd like to see fixed. The halos are in the inage even if you don't do much processing, they're just harder to spot. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
woodyspedden Posted January 2, 2010 Share #13 Posted January 2, 2010 What is your processing workflow? There are several things here that I've not seen out of Lightroom, for example, the sky shows posterization (banding) and the boundary looks like overly aggressive JPG processing (50-60%) (which could also account for the banding). I'm surprised that the DNG shows this artifact (most likely it is the processing, not the file). Download Raw Photo Processor or Capture One and see if it shows the same artifact. (RPP is free, you can use the Capture One trial.) c. Download a trial of Raw Developer. The software is totally stable and the profile that Brian developed for the M9 is the best out there. Try it and see. I have no relationship with Brian or his company Iridient Digital. I have however been using Raw Developer for over 3 years and find it superior to anything out there from a Raw Converter perspective. Of course Photoshop, Lightroom and Capture 1 have much more sophisticated processing tools beyond conversion. My preferred workflow is to do the Raw Conversion in Raw Developer then take it to Photoshop, especially if there are local areas which need work. For a lot of those areas I use the Viveza 2 plug in for Photoshop which saves loads of time compared to masking. JMHO and YMMV Woody Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.