M9 highlight technology

[marcg]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Something else that the LEICA can't do is handle highlight overload. It just clips as priitive digital cameras did 10 years ago. I would hope you folks would know a way to give it a shoulder from DNG.

 

Ken Rockwell's Updates

 

Anyone able to comment on this?

 

Please don't just turn this into a Rockwell lynching. It would be interesting to see what people think about this and if it is correct then why?

[giordano]

Don't all digital sensors do the same thing? It seems an inevitable consequence of the way they catch photons.

 

It would be certainly be possible to have the software fake a shoulder (or a toe at the underexposure end of the response curve) but the inevitable price with today's sensors would be to shorten the straight-line portion of the curve by a couple of stops, maybe more. I'd rather use the exposure meter properly and live with the clipping.

[thrice]

My 5D-II definitely had more highlight headroom, but less recoverability in the shadows. Just have to change the way you expose.

[haroldp]

With modern camera's, ( Leica and Nikon ) in any contrasty lighting situation, I typically shoot 2/3 - 1 EV above base ISO to protect highlight headroom, and then use highlight recovery in RAW processing to adjust the curve if needed. My M9 (or M8s) are no better or worse in this regard than than my Nikons (D700, D3X, D300).

 

Of course, this requires shooting RAW (DNG).

 

KR typically shoots and touts JPG in camera, and his comments about all cameras ( not just Leica ) are usually more about their default parameters than about anything inherent in the camera. Hanging is not necessary, but understanding is useful.

 

Regards ... Harold

[Ario Arioldi]

From KR site:

" I never shoot raw. Why would I? Raw is a waste of time and space, and doesn't look any better than JPG even when you can open the files."

Cheers,

Ario

[lct]

From KR site:

" I never shoot raw. Why would I? Raw is a waste of time and space, and doesn't look any better than JPG even when you can open the files."...

Funny that we simply read comments from 'reviewers' ignoring the obvious.

[250swb]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'd have some sympathy for KR's statement if he said he'd compensated the exposure and then found the shadows were blocked in. As it stands he sounds like 'this is the way I have always metered, and I'm carrying on that way no matter what'. As it is the shadow detail is often rich and negative exposure compensation can be used.

 

It seems like a similar case to Olympus cameras, you read the reviews and predictably Olympus get knocked for highlight clipping and lack of dynamic range, but its only the highlights reviewers looked at, totally ignoring the vast amount of shadow detail rendered.

 

Steve

[jaapv]

It is simply lack of expertise to expose properly and to recover the shadows -something the M9is rather good at. He would have the same problem using any digital camera. I suppose if one shoots Jpeg that some cameras will help the user a bit in the default processing so it may have masked his problem. Lower contrast lenses on other brands may have biased the results as well. A case of a poor workman blaming his tools.

[Guest BigSplash]

It is simply lack of expertise to expose properly and to recover the shadows -something the M9is rather good at. He would have the same problem using any digital camera. I suppose if one shoots Jpeg that some cameras will help the user a bit in the default processing so it may have masked his problem. Lower contrast lenses on other brands may have biased the results as well. A case of a poor workman blaming his tools.

 

On Brett's advice I have been shooting Raw at -1/3 EV when outside in normal sunlight...if it is very bright sunshine then -2/3 EV. This seems to work but here if I understand correctly the suggestion is to set +1/3 to+ 1 EV and that seems counterproductive as the strategy is to underexpose things isn't it?

[Nicoleica]

On Brett's advice I have been shooting Raw at -1/3 EV when outside in normal sunlight...if it is very bright sunshine then -2/3 EV. This seems to work but here if I understand correctly the suggestion is to set +1/3 to+ 1 EV and that seems counterproductive as the strategy is to underexpose things isn't it?

 

I do the same Frank. I've re-read Harold's post, and I think this is what he is saying, just from a different perspective and using film terminology. By increasing the ISO setting with film, you are effectively setting a minus EV exposure. (If your film is ISO 100, but you tell the camera it is ISO 200, you are effectively setting a -1 EV correction.)

[freusen]

It is simply lack of expertise to expose properly and to recover the shadows -something the M9is rather good at. He would have the same problem using any digital camera. I suppose if one shoots Jpeg that some cameras will help the user a bit in the default processing so it may have masked his problem. Lower contrast lenses on other brands may have biased the results as well. A case of a poor workman blaming his tools.

 

Jaap, I fully agree with you. It's sad to see people or even so-called professional photographers on this forum or elsewhere express their opinion, with little expertise and skills and accuse their camera of bad results. Ken Rockwell? Sorry, but I don't read that rubbish.

 

FrankR

[jaapv]

On Brett's advice I have been shooting Raw at -1/3 EV when outside in normal sunlight...if it is very bright sunshine then -2/3 EV. This seems to work but here if I understand correctly the suggestion is to set +1/3 to+ 1 EV and that seems counterproductive as the strategy is to underexpose things isn't it?

The suggestion is to evaluate the histogram. It most useful. There you can see how the light is spread over the gradation curve and adjust exposure values accordingly. I do not believe in fixed EV corrections applied to all situations. Underexposing is also not a good idea. Spot-on is the thing to aim for. Blown specular highlights are OK. The rest should be properly exposed. Although is some situations a blown highlight or two cannot be avoided without resorting to HDR techniques. Not to worry, it is photography, not a scientific recording. Use the histogram!

[Jager]

The suggestion is to evaluate the histogram. It most useful. There you can see how the light is spread over the gradation curve and adjust exposure values accordingly. I do not believe in fixed EV corrections applied to all situations. Underexposing is also not a good idea. Spot-on is the thing to aim for. Blown specular highlights are OK. The rest should be properly exposed. Although is some situations a blown highlight or two cannot be avoided without resorting to HDR techniques. Not to worry, it is photography, not a scientific recording. Use the histogram!

 

+1.

 

On the one hand, folks need to get used to exposure in the digital realm like those of us did who shot lots of slide film back in the day - recognizing that you can't blow any desirable highlights because once you do, they're gone for good. On the other hand, unnecessary underexposure very much reduces the dynamic range of our cameras.

 

Some might find the following article illuminating...

 

https://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/expose-right.shtml

 

Proper exposure is key. Just like it always has been with film. But just noting that the behavior of the media is a little different.

 

And, yes, as others have noted, Mr. Rockwell has come a croppers against his odd insistence on shooting JPEG's rather than RAW...

[noah_addis]

Since I first started shooting digital (with a Kodak NC2000, which had no LCD, no exposure latitude and was something like 1.3MP and cost around $18k), I learned to expose like I was shooting chromes. The other photographers at the paper told me to make sure to hold the highlights and definitely don't overexpose.

 

I've noticed that the M9 files hold highlight detail much better than any other digital camera I've used. And perhaps more importantly, when you do have a blown-out area, say you're shooting a subject in front of a window, the blown-out area looks much more pleasing.

 

I'm not saying it as a true shoulder like film, but the transition from detail to blown-out is much more smooth and graceful.

 

I've been shooting uncompressed DNG and converting in LR or C1 Pro v4.x.

 

In the horizontal photo, there is still detail in the bright background area, and even some in the light fixture. In the vertical, the windows are blown-out but I think the look is very pleasing and film-like. In fact I shot some film on this story and it looked quite similar.

 

Judging a digital camera based on shooting JPEGs is kind of like judging film photography by shooting store-brand film, having it processed and printed by your local discount store and using the snapshot prints as your final product.

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!

[Balivernes]

Judging a digital camera based on shooting JPEGs is kind of like judging film photography by shooting store-brand film, having it processed and printed by your local discount store and using the snapshot prints as your final product.

 

I wonder about that analogy. Truth is some cameras have better developing engines than others, and statistically offer users better quality final files in an immediately useable format (jpeg). They will miss the mark in some shooting situations, but the development can be seen as part of the "auto" shooting process, rather than something to have to do in "post-processing".

 

Shooting RAW and developing pictures by using external tools (computer and specialised software) is a choice that makes sense for users who want to maximise manual control on the whole process (Leica M users are often of that variety).

 

I think it is a legitimate expectation from the market (and reviewers who like that idea) to have efficient and reliable processing in camera. It can be seen as part of the camera design. And some of those processing designs should be applauded for their quality, while others deserve to be criticised.

 

Some cameras routinely produce "high-end lab" results, others produce "local discount store" results. I shoot RAW because I like manual control and I like fiddling with the pictures, and I do not have any opinion on M9 JPEGs, but I totally respect Ken's starting point on the matter.

 

Pushing things to the logical conclusion: if Leica's on board JPEG processing is not to be used, why offer it? Why not a RAW-only M9? If it is there to be used, it should ambition to be among the best.

[noah_addis]

I wonder about that analogy. Truth is some cameras have better developing engines than others, and statistically offer users better quality final files in an immediately useable format (jpeg). ...

 

Well I've occasionally had good results from cheap labs and yesterday I spent the day scanning negs from a pro lab that looked as if the tech spilled coffee on them. So the analogy may stand:D

 

I get your point though, and you're right, the jpeg processing should be better and I guess people expect that these days. I just think that for a reviewer to state that a camera can't do something (hold highlight detail, get good color) that the reviewer should use the camera to its fullest potential. And instead of stating that the camera can't capture highlight details, he should say that the in-camera JPEGs don't hold highlight detail. It's a rather significant difference.

 

I can't speak to the camera's in-camera processing too much because I stopped shooting DNG + JPEG because it makes the camera too slow. The initial JPEGs actually looked pretty good when exposed correctly, but they may not be up to the standards of Canon and Nikon.

 

I'd prefer if the M9 were RAW-only. It would clean up the menus a bit at the very least.