carstenw Posted December 10, 2006 Share #21 Posted December 10, 2006 Advertisement (gone after registration) Carsten, those are by far the worst images I've seen out of an M8, so I can understand your concernes with the camera you had. Did you try any other RAW conversion software. As you point out Lightroom is a beta and as such _will_ have bugs in it - or to be more accurate more bugs than the final release :-). Who knows if there was a combination of colour temperature and actual colours that was causing it problems? Steve Steve, check out my edit. It turns out that Lightroom was at least partially responsible, although I generally find it easier to get good colours in Lightroom than in C1. Here is a link to the DNG for anyone who wants to try. http://download.yousendit.com/886E58CF3B2B8EC7 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted December 10, 2006 Posted December 10, 2006 Hi carstenw, Take a look here M8 Skin tones . I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
robertwright Posted December 10, 2006 Share #22 Posted December 10, 2006 Hmmm. Carsten--is the M8 even supported by LightRoom? I mean officially? Because that looks like a broken camera to me. Did you try those same shots in ACR if not C1? If not, I wouldn't worry about it, because LightRoom is still beta software, to boot, and we know that the M8 is not a plain-jane DNG implementation. Robert--yes, there is a WB dropper in ACR, so I'm not sure what your point is. I've never had trouble white balancing in C1, which *does* in fact have a kelvin and tint slider (and presets if the camera's raw format supports it. So the Canons do; the Leicas don't). .. my point was I posted before checking to see if I was right... I see the wb eyedropper in ACR now. ACR is not my primary converter which is how I missed it. I don't see how to set its sampling, I would assume it is fixed or inherits the setting from photoshop? I have found different converters give different results and handle edge cases differently, otherwise I would do everything in Aperture. But sometimes DPP does it and sometimes ACR does it, so you sort of have to keep a foot in all these programs to work sometimes. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosuna Posted December 10, 2006 Share #23 Posted December 10, 2006 Try Raw Developer. It is very good. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
valis Posted December 10, 2006 Share #24 Posted December 10, 2006 Hi, same DNG picture converted with dcraw. It seems your software is responsible for the colors. valis Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
valis Posted December 10, 2006 Share #25 Posted December 10, 2006 ok, the picture ( I am new here ) 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/11019-m8-skin-tones/?do=findComment&comment=115154'>More sharing options...
j. borger Posted December 10, 2006 Share #26 Posted December 10, 2006 Carsten, Your picture looks normal converted with C1 LE ....... opening it in ACR on the other hand also shows the cyan cast as you posted ... so it looks like it is just the lack of a correct profile Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
eronald Posted December 10, 2006 Share #27 Posted December 10, 2006 Advertisement (gone after registration) Hey Edmund--heh--these were just out of C1 is all I understand Ferdinand's point about the warmth though. But for a print you can take them anywhere--and some clients like punchy, certainly! Nicely done. Still, skin tones are good, no? Jamie, The skin *texture* is good. Certainly better than the 1DsII . Do you really care about the color ? You can fix that ! When the magenta filters are come, I guess you'll be building a custom skin profile - I will certainly build a "look" at that point. At the moment I have almost no people shots from the M8 that are not deliberate false color. The M8 I saw at Photokina seemed to have very good skin tone - I wonder what happened to that firmware release. Edmund Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Roberts Posted December 10, 2006 Author Share #28 Posted December 10, 2006 Steve, check out my edit. It turns out that Lightroom was at least partially responsible, although I generally find it easier to get good colours in Lightroom than in C1. Here is a link to the DNG for anyone who wants to try. Hey Carsten-- Thanks for sending the DNG on. That makes all the difference. On the face of what I'm seeing, I won't be using LightRoom till they fix the M8 response! Treat as beta, IMO. But there are still a couple of things about this picture that make it a RAW converter torture test One is that it's very dark in tungsten light, so the blue channel (the noisiest, generally) is pumped wayyy up here. But the red channel is also way clipped (not good for colour) and the green is right behind it when you've exposed for the midtones properly. In C1 Pro you can "unlock" the RGB level sliders and deal with them independently (I think it's the same, actually, with LE too). One of the best things you can do in this kind of light after getting a good WB is to set the BP and WP of the colour channels independently till they all clip a bit equally. That will generally take care of weird lighting, and when the BP and WP are in line, then the neutrals go there too, usually... Here's your shot in C1 / Chrome profile. It's still not great, but it's a lot better 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/11019-m8-skin-tones/?do=findComment&comment=115263'>More sharing options...
Jamie Roberts Posted December 10, 2006 Author Share #29 Posted December 10, 2006 Jamie, The skin *texture* is good. Certainly better than the 1DsII . Do you really care about the color ? You can fix that ! When the magenta filters are come, I guess you'll be building a custom skin profile - I will certainly build a "look" at that point. At the moment I have almost no people shots from the M8 that are not deliberate false color. The M8 I saw at Photokina seemed to have very good skin tone - I wonder what happened to that firmware release. Edmund Edmund, you're exactly right of course. The skin colour itself is much more fixable, as we all know, than the skin texture, which I love on the M8 (and the DMR too, come to that). Yes--once I get my filters from Leica I'll build some custom profiles... though between us here, I think the hardware fix from Leica is the key. I think the blue-green issues I'm seeing with the profiles are likely candidates to be fixed by the sensor readout. Man, I can't believe I just said that on the forum! We'll see, I guess--but that would also explain why the M8 at Photokina was shooting completely differently than it is now. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rvaubel Posted December 10, 2006 Share #30 Posted December 10, 2006 Hey Carsten-- Thanks for sending the DNG on. That makes all the difference. On the face of what I'm seeing, I won't be using LightRoom till they fix the M8 response! Treat as beta, IMO. But there are still a couple of things about this picture that make it a RAW converter torture test One is that it's very dark in tungsten light, so the blue channel (the noisiest, generally) is pumped wayyy up here. But the red channel is also way clipped (not good for colour) and the green is right behind it when you've exposed for the midtones properly. In C1 Pro you can "unlock" the RGB level sliders and deal with them independently (I think it's the same, actually, with LE too). One of the best things you can do in this kind of light after getting a good WB is to set the BP and WP of the colour channels independently till they all clip a bit equally. That will generally take care of weird lighting, and when the BP and WP are in line, then the neutrals go there too, usually... Here's your shot in C1 / Chrome profile. It's still not great, but it's a lot better [ATTACH]17955[/ATTACH] Jamie Wow, C1 really did the trick. I really can't believe how much better the results are with the C1/ Chrome profile. I tried the downloaded DNG file in both Lightroom and CS2 and the results were pathetic. I never really believed that their could be such a difference in programs. Wow Rex Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Roberts Posted December 10, 2006 Author Share #31 Posted December 10, 2006 Jamie Wow, C1 really did the trick. I really can't believe how much better the results are with the C1/ Chrome profile. I tried the downloaded DNG file in both Lightroom and CS2 and the results were pathetic. I never really believed that their could be such a difference in programs. Wow Rex Rex, As much as there are things I hate about C1 (like I wish they'd fix their fixed resizing controls!), it really is a wonderful converter and deserves all the praise and support it gets. I think the medium format back pedigree of C1 from Phase is really showing here. They know how to work with high-end sensors. But let's not forget that C1 worked with Leica as well. There may well be things in the way C1 handles the actual DNG compression that really make this work well. The other one to watch is SilkyPix. It's the weirdest converter out there, and its Japanese-English translation leaves a lot to be desired But--and this is a big but--it performs really well with Kodak sensors, and I'm assuming this is because they've licensed the colour engine from Kodak (they've said as much in the past). So while I never really liked it for Canon files, it's great with the DMR, and they've just brought out a beta update for the M8 that I'm going to try later today. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rvaubel Posted December 10, 2006 Share #32 Posted December 10, 2006 Rex, The other one to watch is SilkyPix. It's the weirdest converter out there, and its Japanese-English translation leaves a lot to be desired But--and this is a big but--it performs really well with Kodak sensors, and I'm assuming this is because they've licensed the colour engine from Kodak (they've said as much in the past). So while I never really liked it for Canon files, it's great with the DMR, and they've just brought out a beta update for the M8 that I'm going to try later today. Jamie I have Silkypix floating around on my desktop. I'll give it a whirl too. If it can rescue that marmalade self portrat....but that's probably got as much to do with your great Chrome profile. Hey, is their anyway to get your profiles into CR2? Rex Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
carstenw Posted December 10, 2006 Share #33 Posted December 10, 2006 ok, the picture ( I am new here ) Lightroom makes the picture look exactly like this without processing. Try white balancing on the camera's silver-grey. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
carstenw Posted December 10, 2006 Share #34 Posted December 10, 2006 Here's your shot in C1 / Chrome profile. It's still not great, but it's a lot better [ATTACH]17955[/ATTACH] Yup, this is what I got by white balancing in C1LE. The colours are much too pale and the light is too bright. The place is actually quite dim. This is what I meant with saying that I was still not happy with the C1LE results. I will try again in the same place when I get my camera back next week. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
carstenw Posted December 10, 2006 Share #35 Posted December 10, 2006 Jamie Wow, C1 really did the trick. I really can't believe how much better the results are with the C1/ Chrome profile. I tried the downloaded DNG file in both Lightroom and CS2 and the results were pathetic. I never really believed that their could be such a difference in programs. Wow Rex I have posted the DNG and JPG in Adobe's Lightroom bug forum. Let's see what happens in the next release. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter41951 Posted December 10, 2006 Share #36 Posted December 10, 2006 I had a go with C1Pro trial and Jamie's normal profile taking the hint that the light wasn't too bright. I think you'd have to have been there to get the right result! 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/11019-m8-skin-tones/?do=findComment&comment=115395'>More sharing options...
Peter41951 Posted December 10, 2006 Share #37 Posted December 10, 2006 A more gloomy version to end with: 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/11019-m8-skin-tones/?do=findComment&comment=115413'>More sharing options...
Jamie Roberts Posted December 10, 2006 Author Share #38 Posted December 10, 2006 Peter--interesting interpretations, and they're much closer to the original exposure. They're not magenta, in any case! Carsten--I'm not sure any digicam is going to let you underexpose that much (almost 2 stops for the upper midtones) and give you decent colour, especially at lower ISOs. If it's that dark, then you need to expose more and push the develop back, because essentially you're posterizing the capture by not getting enough light levels onto the sensor. IOW, expose to the right and then adjust; your colour will be much better. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
carstenw Posted December 10, 2006 Share #39 Posted December 10, 2006 Jamie, the shots isn't under-exposed, it actually looks like that in that place. A single bulb in a basement hallway. I could have increased the exposure to make it lighter, but that would have made it less real. It was a test shot, not a beauty-shot, as is clear with my mug smack in the middle. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
carstenw Posted December 10, 2006 Share #40 Posted December 10, 2006 Peter, your second try is actually very close. Nice job. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.