Adam Bonn

elmarit 28

No Problem. Perceived differences can be rather image dependant.. Leica profile (left) vs adobe standard (NOT adobe color) Apologies for the screen shots* but if you look closely (or even casually) we see the Leica profile has overall more saturation (yellow is easiest to spot, but it's across all the colours really) but yes, adding or removing contrast could balance these up quite nicely However, When we compare adobe (Left) with Leica here we see quite a difference in the rendering of blue.. on the Leica profile it's bleeding out of the subject and turning into a solid block of colour (this is because of differences in content between the -frankly basic- Leica profile and adobe profile that's full of instructions in handling gamut compression and hue twists at clipping points.) There's no law that says one must use the same profile every time. For my €0.02 if in camera exposure is good, in nice light then the Leica profiles are probably the shortest way to a punchy image. If a lot of editing is required (high DR scene etc) then the adobe profiles will take more pushing around. (*In case anyone is wondering... NO this isn't a suitable DNG from which to produce a colorchecker shot... well not unless anyone's planning a shoot on top of my washing machine... and if you, are be a sweetie and take the clothes and hang them to dry please)

10 R and 35 cron pano

That's not the adobe dcp, looks like you've extracted the Leica one (BTW the tone curve is added by DNG Profile Editor) { "UniqueCameraModel": "LEICA M10-R", "ProfileName": "Adobe Standard Leica M10-R", "ProfileCopyright": "Dugby", "ProfileEmbedPolicy": "Allow copying", "ProfileCalibrationSignature": "com.adobe", "CalibrationIlluminant1": "StdA", "CalibrationIlluminant2": "D65", "ColorMatrix1": [ [ 0.549800, -0.192900, -0.033500 ], [ -0.442800, 1.198000, 0.277500 ], [ -0.084600, 0.225500, 0.597700 ] ], "ColorMatrix2": [ [ 0.493200, -0.130100, -0.049100 ], [ -0.590400, 1.385200, 0.223100 ], [ -0.182400, 0.340600, 0.530900 ] ], "ProfileToneCurve": [ [ 0.000000, 0.000000 ], [ 0.019608, 0.019608 ], [ 0.058824, 0.098039 ], [ 0.196078, 0.419608 ], [ 0.392157, 0.709804 ], [ 0.784314, 0.952941 ], [ 1.000000, 1.000000 ] ] } Here's the real adobe one LEICA M10-R Adobe Standard.dcp

One of the things that I love about my 10r compared to the 240/10 that proceeded it is the true 100 ISO combined with the best highlight recovery of any M up to that point means that I can make photos without having to futz about with ND filters so much. I'm a fan of the M9 'look' and I still have (and use) my M9. I get the whole 'retrospective' thing... when I got the 240 I thought that the M9 probably produced nicer images and certainly needed less PP to do so. I reviewed a bunch of my 240 images over the weekend and I thought the colours/tones were nicer than I remember them being!

The above posts contain excellent advice, so rather than rehash I’m going to suggest a more whimsical view. There’s a repetitive trend with Leica M digital. M8. Base. M9 initial view, the colours are dreadful compared to the M8, which was so lovely and organic and had that true Leica look M240 initial view, the colours are dreadful compared to the M9, which was so lovely and organic and had that true Leica look M10 initial view, the colours are dreadful compared to the M240, which was so lovely and organic and had that true Leica look M10r initial view, the colours are dreadful compared to the M10, which was so lovely and organic and had that true Leica look M11 initial view, the colours are dreadful compared to the M10r, which was so lovely and organic and had that true Leica look (I suspect that anyone unhappy with their M11 colours is eagerly awaiting the M12, not to upgrade but to be happy 😆) This is obviously written in jest…

It’s quite an old picture. The point of the post was to compare what happens when you use the adobe m9 profile on a non m9 camera. Each viewer may reach their own conclusions, but for me the m10 photo with the m9 profile looks 1. nothing like the m9 and 2. looks like shit From what I remember (we no longer have that biscuit tin or that detergent and I no longer have an M10) the m10 colours are closer to reality, but they’d be slightly more vibrant irl

OK I was bored and had 10 mins!! Forgive the slightly different exp settings The M10 (left) has the adobe M9 profile, but adobe thinks it's for the M10... (the M9 has the adobe M9 profiles that's for the M9) For comparison Heres the M10 real/correct adobe profile Vs the M9 You can draw your own conclusions about which looks better between the real m10 profile and the M9 one hacked to make LR think it goes with the M10....

It’s relatively simple to change the unique camera tag in a dcp file (say from Leica M9 to Leica M10) iirc you can do it in exif tag editor. If you also overwrite the ColorMatrices in the M9 adobe profile with the ones from the M10 profile the displayed WB values will be consistent with the M10 too (ie if the adobe m10 profile says that as shot wb is 5000/2 then the modified m9 profile would display the same values. Once a profile has forward matrices and HSMs the part that makes the WB numbers doesn’t have that much bearing on the colours in the profile)

That would be quite a big ask IMHO... Also IMHO what makes the M9 render the way it does is the tonality, yeah sure the colours are nice, but adding sat and pushing red and green (and blue for that matter) towards blue won't an M9 replicant make.. You might get quite far with a dedicated profile design tool like lumariver... If you want to play this game with adobe profile editor, you'll get further starting from scratch that modifying the adobe one. The way adobe weights what the various parts of the profile do has changed a lot between the M9 and M10. I'd personally go about this thusly... 1. convert both M9 and M10 adobe profiles to text and delete everything south of the forward matrices 2. Split each profile into single illuminant (so you'd have 4 profiles, 9 and 10, one with StdA the other D65) and reconvert them back to DCP 3. Use the calibration sliders to eyeball the M10 images to match as close as possible the M9 images (using only the profiles from step 1)* 4. Make the changes you decided on in adobe profile editor 5. repeat the above, but add the appropriate HSM tables back into the M9 profiles and all in adobe profile editor using the eyedropper colour tool to build up the HSM tables in the M10 ones 6. Convert your 2 M10 '9alike' profiles back into text, then combine them to make one dual illuminant profile and convert it back into DCP you will never get an exact match between two different cameras *The adobe M10 forward matrices might never be capable of matching the saturation of the M9 ones... The M9 ones are more or less linear Branford Chromatic Adaptation ones (like adobe recommend in their DNG spec!) the later profiles have somewhat truncated Forward Matrices made using propriety maths.

Local beach!

Elmarit 28

I think it's an adobe thing... profiles on the right, presets (favs) on the left. A preset can contain a specific profile, and/or any mix development settings, but a profile can't (well unless it's one of those newer RGB Colour table things - but those things are baked in when the profile is created, but let's not set side tracked...)

IMHO there is no ‘one size size fits all’ profile or preset, sometimes we can apply a profile/preset (or use the standard settings) upon import and the photo looks ok, other times it takes some work. ”Getting it right in camera” can help, but sometimes the scene is such (high DR normally) that we must shoot in a way that we know will require edits to look good. It’s all about finding what works for one’s style. Oh and trying to extract a profile from one camera and using it for another would be unlikely to look good. Profiles basically work by mapping a particular camera’s native colour space into white balanced XYZ values (well in adobe anyway.. other apps possibly use LAB or something else, same principle though) so what works for one camera is unlikely to work for another

As per the adobe DNG specification, which those utilising DNG must adhere too, Leica embeds a (a basic) profile (a .dcp file) within their DNG files that ARC/LR can read. A small irony here is that over the years adobe have watered down their own dcp files so that they stand up to vigorous exiting at the expense of initial ‘punchiness’ whereas Leica haven’t, ergo the ‘Leica embedded’ profile often looks more satisfying upon first viewing. I made a post a few above this one with some of the differences between profile types and the limitations of a ColorMatrix only profile.