chris_tribble Posted November 20, 2009 Share #21 Posted November 20, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) Well - it's nice to know that others are stuck infront of computer screens this Friday morning - what a USEFUL community this can be at times. I think the answer is to with JPEG compression - I really should have thought this through before. With so little data to play with at the black end of the histogram, it's obvious that things would go in this direction (and Jaap - I'm working with the 5D2 AND the M9 on this and there's the same problem with both images). Work around seems to be to set black clipping to zero and up the fill light to 10 (in Lightroom). This can be applied to the complete batch purely for JPEG generation - for archive / print I will revert to the settings where it looked good on screen. This gives some slightly uncomfortable transitions in mid-tones, but is a hell of a lot better than the results I was getting. ALSO - really important for me to be processing these in LR 3 beta. Noise handling is infinitely better than with LR 2.5... The downside here is that it's really slow in its beta implementation - but at least the images will be useable for client purpose. Examples below - first one is 5D2. Second is M9. I'm TOTALLY aware of the limitations of these images as they appear on screen. However, 1/ they print really well. 2/ for personal work in this light I'd use B&W - but in this instance the client wants colour and this is what I need to deliver, 3/ these will do the job for the client's purpose. Some will say "why don't you use flash to fix the problem...?" Answer - it would have been unacceptable in this context + with on-camera (or even off camera bounced) I'm not sure I'd have got the results I wanted overall. The issue is to do with JPEGS. I'm not able to post TIFFS to the forum - but they tell the story. BTW - if anyone wants to play with the DNG, I'm posting a copy to: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/871768/L1002820.DNG Interested to see what you can get out of this...! V Best Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/104219-m9-auto-white-balance-work-in-progress/?do=findComment&comment=1123757'>More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted November 20, 2009 Posted November 20, 2009 Hi chris_tribble, Take a look here M9 Auto White Balance - work in progress?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
jaapv Posted November 20, 2009 Share #22 Posted November 20, 2009 This one gave me a lot of work - each time I tried to lighten the shadows it went either to blue or to yellow - in the end curves in the L channel helped. The skins are so much darker too than we see in our latitudes. And yes - I know about fill flash or reflective screens - but those are not really an option going into the slums - my face and camera take enough habituating as it is I tend to wear a very light shirt and use that for a small amount of reflecting the light, like here. It just gave me the highlights in the eyes:) Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/104219-m9-auto-white-balance-work-in-progress/?do=findComment&comment=1123813'>More sharing options...
jaapv Posted November 20, 2009 Share #23 Posted November 20, 2009 Just to be clear - I don't think there is a question of worse or better here- I just find the files of the M8 and M9 are more different than one would expect. It is a matter of getting the processing tweaked imo. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wlaidlaw Posted November 20, 2009 Author Share #24 Posted November 20, 2009 Would it work to put a light green filter on the camera and then subtract this progressively in PS after conversion. This might force the reds to handle better in camera. This would be rather like you can get better clouds by using an orange filter and then correcting/subtracting in PS. Wilson Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted November 20, 2009 Share #25 Posted November 20, 2009 I feel the problem is rather that the camera handles the reds rather well, but that the RAW converters don't, compensating for a "lack"of reds that is not there. In that sense your idea might work, but it would be treating the symptom rather than the cause. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted November 20, 2009 Share #26 Posted November 20, 2009 BTW - if anyone wants to play with the DNG, I'm posting a copy to: I've had a quick play but I'm not sure there's an awful lot that can be done here. I guess the shot represents what the scene was like and if it was so dark there's no point trying to make it look different in post. Better to make it look different in-camera but if you are forbidden to use flash there's not an awful lot you can do. Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/104219-m9-auto-white-balance-work-in-progress/?do=findComment&comment=1123951'>More sharing options...
chris_tribble Posted November 20, 2009 Share #27 Posted November 20, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) Ian - this is interesting. I'm not sure about the white balance but the shadows are MUCH better - and this is from JPEG on screen. What raw processor were you using? If you say Apertuer I'll be tearing my hair out - if you say C1 I'll be thinking OUCH - do I really want to convert to a different processor. Grateful for insights. BTW - this is still on topic because the shot I posted was AUTO colour WB - and what Ian's done is very interesting in terms of mid tone values... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_tribble Posted November 20, 2009 Share #28 Posted November 20, 2009 Jaap - have you tried LR3 Beta - I feel very encouraged by how it deals with the M9 files? re the issue of tonal range - I hit similar problems when I was living in Sri Lanka. Overhead sun, very dark skin AND guys wearing broad-brimmed white cricket hats. HORRIBLE .... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wlaidlaw Posted November 20, 2009 Author Share #29 Posted November 20, 2009 Chris, Here is my version of it. I converted your JPEG original to lab mode and adjusted the shadows and highlights on the lightness channel only. I then did a few tweaks on curves after going back into RGB. Wilson Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/104219-m9-auto-white-balance-work-in-progress/?do=findComment&comment=1124046'>More sharing options...
jaapv Posted November 20, 2009 Share #30 Posted November 20, 2009 Jaap - have you tried LR3 Beta - I feel very encouraged by how it deals with the M9 files? re the issue of tonal range - I hit similar problems when I was living in Sri Lanka. Overhead sun, very dark skin AND guys wearing broad-brimmed white cricket hats. HORRIBLE .... Thanks, Chris - I am still inC1.4.8.3.-CS4 mode I'll give it a try. Yes- the locals are very inconsiderate to us photographers Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Roberts Posted November 20, 2009 Share #31 Posted November 20, 2009 Chris-- ETA--I just downloaded the DNG....but C1 v5 won't open it up (neither will BreezeBrowser)... so it's corrupted, maybe? Dunno...did you convert it or something in LR? Jaap--get to C1 V5. There, you can adjust individually the colour channels for clipping, so you can actually raise the highlights without them shifting or clipping. Of course, in these shots you need to 1) raise the lower quartertone and 2) lower contrast to get some more shadow detail back (if that's what you like). I wonder--are these compressed DNGs? I wonder if the black point clip level on the M9 is having any affect here (the way the RAW converter converts... ) Of course, Jaap, you also have some blown areas in the shots you showed; not much you can do about that... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_tribble Posted November 20, 2009 Share #32 Posted November 20, 2009 Chris, Here is my version of it. I converted your JPEG original to lab mode and adjusted the shadows and highlights on the lightness channel only. I then did a few tweaks on curves after going back into RGB. Wilson Wilson thanks... I suppose the issue here is that it was uber dark in the space (the crypt at St Martin's in the Fields - lit by dimmed halogen spots. What I really want to retain in the images is the overall darkness of the space BUT to stop the loss of all detail in the shadows. As I say, RAW / TIFF it's not a problem - the issues arise when I convert to JPEG. Ian's approach was interesting as he'd been able to keep the shadow detail - though I'd still prefer it darker.... SO much more satisfying just to do prints - but that's not what the client wants - and they also want images that are no more than a couple of megabytes in size (or even less...) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_tribble Posted November 20, 2009 Share #33 Posted November 20, 2009 Chris-- ETA--I just downloaded the DNG.... so I'm going to play a bit... Jaap--get to C1 V5. There, you can adjust individually the colour channels for clipping, so you can actually raise the highlights without them shifting or clipping. Of course, in these shots you need to 1) raise the lower quartertone and 2) lower contrast to get some more shadow detail back (if that's what you like). I wonder--are these compressed DNGs? I wonder if the black point clip level on the M9 is having any affect here (the way the RAW converter converts... ) Of course, Jaap, you also have some blown areas in the shots you showed; not much you can do about that... Jamie - thanks for getting back on this. I'll be interested to see what you get! Got to go to a job soon - but at least this should be stage lit I'll check back later... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted November 20, 2009 Share #34 Posted November 20, 2009 Chris-- ETA--I just downloaded the DNG.... so I'm going to play a bit... Jaap--get to C1 V5. There, you can adjust individually the colour channels for clipping, so you can actually raise the highlights without them shifting or clipping. Of course, in these shots you need to 1) raise the lower quartertone and 2) lower contrast to get some more shadow detail back (if that's what you like). I wonder--are these compressed DNGs? I wonder if the black point clip level on the M9 is having any affect here (the way the RAW converter converts... ) Of course, Jaap, you also have some blown areas in the shots you showed; not much you can do about that... No, I know, Jamie, it was not quite the nice soft light we like:(. No, these were uncompressed DNGs. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Roberts Posted November 20, 2009 Share #35 Posted November 20, 2009 No, I know, Jamie, it was not quite the nice soft light we like:(. No, these were uncompressed DNGs. Jaap--interesting.... if you get a chance, would you mind re-posting the DNG? I can't get a good copy of it evidently (and Chris is out...) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_tribble Posted November 20, 2009 Share #36 Posted November 20, 2009 Chris-- ETA--I just downloaded the DNG....but C1 v5 won't open it up (neither will BreezeBrowser)... so it's corrupted, maybe? Dunno...did you convert it or something in LR? Jamie - woops - the image is converted to DNG on import - I do this to reduce file size. I still have the image on card so I'll put up an out of camera DNG.. The link now is: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/871768/L1002780.DNG (this is uploading as I write - it may be a minute or two...) Interested to see how it goes... I note you don't use Lightroom... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Roberts Posted November 20, 2009 Share #37 Posted November 20, 2009 Jamie - woops - the image is converted to DNG on import - I do this to reduce file size. I still have the image on card so I'll put up an out of camera DNG.. The link now is: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/871768/L1002780.DNG (this is uploading as I write - it may be a minute or two...) Interested to see how it goes... I note you don't use Lightroom... Thanks Chris! No--I don't use LR at all, though I will investigate the latest beta version when it's finally released. Having said that, I find it hard to believe that it could be better than C1 V5 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted November 20, 2009 Share #38 Posted November 20, 2009 Jaap--interesting.... if you get a chance, would you mind re-posting the DNG? I can't get a good copy of it evidently (and Chris is out...) I'm not at home, but I can do you a you-send-it late tonight. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Roberts Posted November 20, 2009 Share #39 Posted November 20, 2009 I'm not at home, but I can do you a you-send-it late tonight. Hey Jaap--it's ok... Chris re-posted a non-LR version of the file...which I guess is still uploading....but thanks! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest EarlBurrellPhoto Posted November 20, 2009 Share #40 Posted November 20, 2009 AWB is the one thing that would never be a deal maker/breaker for me. Sure, it's useful in fast shooting, and the M8's AWB was absolutely unreliable until they finally revamped the firmware, but I don't believe any AWB is ever going to be perfect, any more than Autoexposure or Autofocus. I admit that Canon and Nikon have those pretty darned close to perfect and an order of magnitude better than what Leica has done (AF on the S2 is somewhere in the vicinity of a Canon 1N) but until they can interface them with the photographer's brain...well Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.