White balance M9

[30R]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I just recived my M9 ( so have not read the M9 forum) and tried it in interiors in Tungsten and fluorscent ligth. I get a yellow cast on every image. This is not present on my M8 which gives a cooler tone to the pictures

Is this color cast that others have noticed ??

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[wparsonsgisnet]

I believe the sensors in the 2 cameras are identical except for size. Therefore, absent any setting in the camera, you should get the same image.

 

Have you checked that both are set to sRGB, that the WB setting is the same (auto, for example), that you are viewing the dng (not the jpg) in similar software with similar settings?

 

What sw are you using?

 

I use C1-pro and both M8 and M9 images have the same color balance.

[viramati]

I posted about this before and have been informed by Leica UK that this should be fixed in a future firmware update which won't be the one coming up but the one after that

[smoody]

I know it's a bit more work, but using the built-in camera functionality to manually set the white balance with an expodisc does an amazing job of nailing a wide range of incandescent color temperatures -- it is certainly a useful solution up until the firmware fix arrives.

[chris_tribble]

Yellow under tungsten (even more so under low-energy light bulb neon) has been commented on a lot. Hoping for a firmware improvement.

 

For me, the good news is that in mixed lighting the M9 does a much better job than my Canon 5D2.

[Mauribix]

I posted about this before and have been informed by Leica UK that this should be fixed in a future firmware update which won't be the one coming up but the one after that

 

 

weird answer IMHO

[sanyasi]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I didn't know about this "yellow" issue, but I tried a Lally cap to set white balance. I found it to be a great tool. For those who are not familiar with this device, it is a gray colored elastic piece of material that you put over your lens. You snap a picture with the cap on in the direction that you will be shooting and then use that photo to set the white balance. Our kitchen has ceiling lighting and under counter lights that always result in a very yellow picture. After using the Lally cap, my photo captured the "true" color.

 

The guys name is Eugene Lally--I am told he invented the first digital camera for NASA in the 60s. He has a Web site. The thing costs $29. Here is the link: Lally Cap. I know there are other tools, one of which I used before, but this was pretty simple and effective for my purposes.

 

By the way, I attended a session with a professor of photographer last year where white balance was discussed. She advised against relying on auto white balance and and then cleaning up in post production. She said she didn't understand the math or the science behind it, but that she had students who were quite adept in such matters. They did some tests and they concluded that there is a difference between a photo taken at a given temperature to a photo that is taken with automatic white balance and then adjusted in an editing program to achieve that same temperature. They told her this had to do with differences in the methods between the camera's firmware (I assume) and the editing software. You can get close, and for many things, close will be good enough, but if you are looking for perfection, you are better getting it right in the field than post production, at least that is what she told us.

[swamiji]

Lally cap... Sounds interesting. Just ordered one. Sanyasi, one question though, it says it fits any size lens. I have one thats 85mm. Do you think it will fit?

[wilfredo]

I just recived my M9 ( so have not read the M9 forum) and tried it in interiors in Tungsten and fluorscent ligth. I get a yellow cast on every image. This is not present on my M8 which gives a cooler tone to the pictures

Is this color cast that others have noticed ??

 

 

Sounds like something you will have to accept for the time being. Good luck with that. This camera still needs to bake a bit more from the threads I've read. The M8 had plenty of issues that got resolved over time.

[Reds]

I get that cast too. The good news is when you pull it back a bit colder in Lightroom - it looks really good with hardly any effort. Just a tweak to the blue !

[xtoph]

By the way, I attended a session with a professor of photographer last year where white balance was discussed. She advised against relying on auto white balance and and then cleaning up in post production. She said she didn't understand the math or the science behind it, but that she had students who were quite adept in such matters. They did some tests and they concluded that there is a difference between a photo taken at a given temperature to a photo that is taken with automatic white balance and then adjusted in an editing program to achieve that same temperature. They told her this had to do with differences in the methods between the camera's firmware (I assume) and the editing software. You can get close, and for many things, close will be good enough, but if you are looking for perfection, you are better getting it right in the field than post production, at least that is what she told us.

 

that will generally be true if and only if you are shooting in jpg. if you shoot raw, it is not a factor. the sensor doesn't know what white balance you've set, and the raw data is the same either way. in fact, since you have much finer control and feedback when you are adjusting the white balance on your computer, you will probably achieve a better final wb shooting raw on auto, than jpg with custom wb set in camera.

 

there is one caveat: i am assuming that the exposure for both images is the same. if you shoot auto exposure, an out of whack white balance might affect that exposure enough that you would end up getting different results when you adjust the wb of the image later.

 

i can appreciate the advocacy for 'getting it right in camera', and i generally agree. but applying that principle to white balance is a bit like telling someone on the zone system that they shouldn't need to apply different development to their negs if they 'get it right in camera'.

[swamiji]

that will generally be true if and only if you are shooting in jpg. if you shoot raw, it is not a factor. the sensor doesn't know what white balance you've set, and the raw data is the same either way.

 

Then how come when the M9 is set to "Compression: DNG" you can set the White Balance? And in fact set manual White Balance, and it really makes a big difference under certain circumstances?

[jaapv]

The colour balance is applied to the embedded JPG, and will give you a starting point in RAW conversion. A manual WB makes life easy, but the preset WB does not limit flexibility in any way.

[xtoph]

Then how come when the M9 is set to "Compression: DNG" you can set the White Balance? And in fact set manual White Balance, and it really makes a big difference under certain circumstances?

 

i have done some testing, and i have found that egregiously incorrectly white balanced raw files match in-camera white balanced raw files (all uncompressed dng) perfectly. if you have examples (shot at the same exposure settings), i'd be very interested to see them. seriously, this would be very interesting. but so far i haven't been able to make it happen.

 

i assume leica allows white balance to be set because it is useful for evaluating correct exposure, and to record a preset so that processing is simpler later.

 

if leica is somehow letting white balance settings affect their raw data or the actual sensor responses, then afaik they would be the only ones doing so. and they don't seem to say anything about it in the manual, fwiw.

[swamiji]

Ok. These were shot ISO 1000, 1000/s F1.4. 35mm Lux. Hand held. DNG uncompressed. The first one is AWB, and the second one is using baLens for Manual WB. Imported into Aperture from the SD card, and directly exported to jpg for display.

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!

[lars_bergquist]

Please remember that 'tungsten' is a compromise: Actual colour temperatures from ordinary tungsten bulbs vary according to wattage, from c. 2800K (high wattage) to c. 2200 (low). The menu setting assumes a fairly high wattage, as a too bluish picture is more disturbing than a slightly orange one, which may in fact be desirable as it can convey an 'indoor' ambiance. If you want exact colour balance, then you must do the balancing yourself.

 

Halogen bulbs burn hotter -- that's the point of them -- so they emit at c. 3400--3200K. Again, you should do a manual WB. But AWB in the M8/M9 handles halogen better than tungsten.

 

The low energy 'bulbs' I have tried are different from both. They create an intense lemon-yellow cast, not orange, at both AWB and 'Tungsten'. The 'Fluorescent' settings are horrible too. It all depends on the phosphors that coat the inside of the tube, and is the actual light emitter (without them, the lamp would emit mainly UV, as in solarium lights). So different brands may well differ. My advice is to create a manual WB from a representative lamp, incorporate in it a user profile and use that when you encounter this kind of lighting. Experience will show if this is a working solution.

 

The picture below (sorry, I have used it for another thread too, but it brings the point over) was taken on AWB. The lighting is mainly halogen (the point-shaped lights) with an admixture of fluorescent in the strip lights high up under the ceiling of the hall -- this shows in parts that are mainly in the shadow of the halogen lights -- see the benches in the foreground, which are actually light neutral grey. So it is a difficult mixed-light situation, but the camera handled it very well, and I don't think manual WB either in-camera or during PP would do better, at least not without extensive fudging, actually painting a new picture.

 

The old man from the Age of Kerosene Lanterns

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!

[swamiji]

Actually that is what I have done. I did the original Manual WB with the baLens and then saved it as a profile. Makes me wish Leica had either allowed more profiles, or allowed us to download the profiles and managed them on our computers, much like my Sekonic Light Meter.

 

The bulbs are "energy efficient", miserable atrocities.

 

But the question is, Why would I get any difference at all, since they were shot in DNG uncompressed?

[LondonM]

Let me understand this. You AWB with the camera alone and take an uncompressed DNG. And you WB with a baLens and take an uncompressed DNG, but AFTER you save as a profile. You load them into Aperture, and you get two different colour casts ?

Let me try that and see what happens. Could it be that Aperture is reading the profile from the M9 when you actually save one ? Your second picture would seem to suggest this, because it is more accurate as it should be.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[xtoph]

Ok. These were shot ISO 1000, 1000/s F1.4. 35mm Lux. Hand held. DNG uncompressed. The first one is AWB, and the second one is using baLens for Manual WB. Imported into Aperture from the SD card, and directly exported to jpg for display.

 

wait--you're complaining that the awb isn't very good? that isn't what i was talking about. the point of shooting raw is that you can change the white balance from whatever awb determined to whatever is most advantageous. use the stamp tool to copy the white balance from the second photo, and then stamp it onto the first one. voila, it will be identical. if it isn't, something is seriously wrong, as i've done exactly what you are showing here many, many times with no problem.

 

when shooting raw, one has the freedom to (mostly) ignore wb, as long as you ensure that it isn't so far off that it is affecting your exposures. just make sure you have some form of reference shot for each lighting condition: this can take the form of a expodisk shot, a whibal card, or for more casual purposes, just something white, grey, black, or even silver or clear (i sometimes get great results using a glass of water on a table--just be careful of whatever might be directly refracted in it, make sure it's in a neutral/ambient light). then in your raw editor, click on the reference shot or reference subject, whether on the same photo or a different one (as long as the light hasn't changed) and paste that back onto the photo you want to whitebalance. that's all. you can then easily tweak to taste (clinically 'correct' wb often isn't what you actually want, visually, which is one problem setting the wb in camera and leaving it).

 

btw, one thing that can throw wb off shot-to-shot is if you are shooting in discontinuous light at a high shutter speed. tungsten is generally fine, but some florescent bulbs and streetlamps will really change color at different points in the hertz cycle. (most high-quality modern lamps compensate for this in various ways, so it is less of a problem than it used to be.)

[swamiji]

First of all, a profile is just a easy way to remember settings. The effect of AWB vs MWB in DNG not really related to using profiles. Simply the first picture is shot with AWB and the second is shot with MWB. I tried both using a profile, and by simply setting MWB, to the same effect.

 

In regard to Poor AWB, it's a known issue. In certain lighting the current firmware just can't handle it.

 

What I am responding to in these post is the assertion that WB has no effect when Shooting to RAW (DNG). If the assertion is correct there should be no difference no matter how WB is set. However thats not what I have found.