M9 color (from a newbie)

[Jeff S]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I am brand new to leica too and have had my M9 about a week or so. I am finding that I prefer the Capture One interpretation of the RAW files over Lightroom but am working with Lightroom too. Eleanor

 

I also enjoyed visiting your site and learning a bit about you and your work. I'll be interested to see what you do with the Leica.

 

Just out of curiosity, did you design your own site? I like the layout and interaction.

 

Jeff

[Advertisement]

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

[Per P.]

Hi All,

 

In addition to the Embedded and Adobe Standard calibrations my pull-down list also has one called M9 Digital Camera 18Sept09.

 

Does anyone use this one - and know where it comes from?

 

Thanks, Per.

[eleanorbrown]

Thanks Jamie. I use Lightroom also. Many times I will process my RAW from C1 first then work on the 16 bit tiff in Lightroom.

 

One question, I find that the Pre Sharpening 1 in C1 is too much for the M9 RAW files most especially with high frequency images. Wondering of you or anyone else has a suggestion about pre sharpening the M9 RAW files especially with the newer asph lenses. I have the 35 and 75 cros asph lenses and they are bitingly sharp. Eleanor

 

Welcome, Eleanor! Let us know how you like the M9

 

Lightroom is certainly a better asset management tool than C1. But with V5, C1 has entered new territory in terms of quality of output, IMO.

[Jamie Roberts]

Thanks Jamie. I use Lightroom also. Many times I will process my RAW from C1 first then work on the 16 bit tiff in Lightroom.

 

One question, I find that the Pre Sharpening 1 in C1 is too much for the M9 RAW files most especially with high frequency images. Wondering of you or anyone else has a suggestion about pre sharpening the M9 RAW files especially with the newer asph lenses. I have the 35 and 75 cros asph lenses and they are bitingly sharp. Eleanor

 

Hi Eleanor,

 

I have the 35 Lux and 50 Lux ASPH and they're the same. The CCD of the M8 / M9 is also much more like handling Phase files when it comes to sharpening.

 

So unless I'm simply proofing for the web (and then I just take the defaults) sharpening in C1 goes "off" for output to TIFF.

 

When I have a final print size, then if I need sharpening due to the print method (not usually with the digital Ms) I'll do it (lightly) in Photoshop.

[Fotomiguel]

If you get a chance, try Capture One instead. I know it's not free, but out of the box, the colours (especially red / magenta) for the digital Ms is much better IMO than Lightroom, though it appears the next version of Lightroom will be greatly improved (from the beta develops I've seen to date).

 

+1

[Epimetheus]

Most of the time I get better color with M9 than with any other camera I have used before. Sometimes the color red is just crazy. With most monitors this example here looks normal but with calibrated monitors the phone in the picture is like from another planet. This is jpg straight from the camera resized to web.

 

 

M9 didn't caused the kid to be blurred though

[Per P.]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Sorry, meanwhile I have remembered that the calibration profile called M9 Digital Camera 18Sept09 is the DNG profile I downloaded from Sandy's Chromasoft

 

Apologies for this, but I would still like to hear if anyone else is using it. I find that switching from the Chromasoft profile to the ADOBE profile is a little bit like changing the WB from Daylight to Cloudy. In other words, the ADOBE profile gives an overall warmer glow, and especially quite different green colours.

 

Thoughts anyone?

 

~ Per.

[kipdent]

This Forum is just so helpful! I think the direction this thread is taking is very educational and enlightening. Thank you to everyone.

 

I particularly liked Epimetheus' comment about the red phone--the sample is exactly the "amped up" red I was discussing in my original post.

 

Per P.'s comment about the Chromasoft profile introduces, I hope, a broader discussion about other canned profiles or perhaps custom ones such as those possible with x-rite's Colorchecker Passport. I am eager to hear from other members about their experiences with such profiles.

 

Finally, eleanorbrown's idea of using C1 for the RAW conversion initially, then moving the file for work as a TIFF in Lightroom is brilliant! This would allow better (perhaps, we'll see) color in the RAW-to-TIFF conversion, then the many useful features of LR adjustments on the resulting TIFF. This may be a "best of both worlds" approach.

 

Again, thank you to all--

 

Kip

[jaapv]

In that case this (slightly older) tutorial might interest you:

 

A Workflow Combining Capture One and Lightroom

[Jamie Roberts]

T{snipped}

Finally, eleanorbrown's idea of using C1 for the RAW conversion initially, then moving the file for work as a TIFF in Lightroom is brilliant! This would allow better (perhaps, we'll see) color in the RAW-to-TIFF conversion, then the many useful features of LR adjustments on the resulting TIFF. This may be a "best of both worlds" approach.

 

...and it's even better if you have Photoshop already (and don't want Lightroom's DAM features) to go there instead, where you have even more access to finishing the 'print' than you do in Lightroom.

[adli]

"Embedded" is the camera profile Leica and Jenoptik thought up and write into every .dng.

 

"Adobe Standard" is the camera profile Adobe's engineers created using sample M9 files.

 

I definitely would not assume "embedded" was preferable - Adobe has a far longer history dealing with RAW images and digital imaging in general than Leica. But I've never been satisfied with a "canned" program from any camera maker or Adobe - I always build my own with a MacBeth ColorChecker.

 

And yes, with the M9 (as with every other camera I've shot RAW with) I end up dialing down the red primary saturation by 10 points or so (and usually shifting the red hue towards yellow), as well as other changes to the default profile from Adobe.

 

If you don't have a color checker, you can probably do a back-of-the-napkin "profile" by using these numbers on the sliders of the Camera Calibration pane (as a starting point - you can always reapply a more exact profile to old images later) - have "Adobe Standard" selected in the pull-down:

 

Red Hue +10 (yellower)

Red Sat minus 10-15

 

Green Hue + 20 (bluer)

Green Sat + 10

 

Blue Hue zero

Blue Sat. minus 35-40 (which also cuts the yellow saturation - complementary color - and thus red saturation too (red containing yellow).

 

Hi Andy

 

I tried your settings on some pictures. I find them together with the standard profile to give much more accurate reds than an unmodified embedded profile (which is my default). However, on pictures with people in, I get kind of plastic looking skin tones with your setting. Se attached pictures. Am I missing something in your settings?

 

Example: red, unmodified embedded profile:

 

Example: red: modified standard profile:

 

 

Example: skintone, unmodified embedded profile, crop:

 

(Full version: http://home.vikenfiber.no/adli/Before.jpg)

 

Example: skintone, modified standard profile crop:

 

(Full version: http://home.vikenfiber.no/adli/After.jpg)

[jaapv]

Yes- on in the first shot the lady is too pink - that is true, but in the second shot she is clearly too yellow, which may give that plastic impression.

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!

[adli]

Yes- on in the first shot the lady is too pink - that is true, but in the second shot she is clearly too yellow, which may give that plastic impression.

 

Anyway, I have to say I find that C1 gives the most convincing colors, both when it comes to red and skin tones:

 

Example: red, C1:

 

Example: Skin Tone, C1

 

My problem is, I like the workflow i Lightroom, and so far have not a grip on C1.

[jaapv]

You can integrate C1 in the your LR workflow as an external RAW processor, I understand.

[adli]

You can integrate C1 in the your LR workflow as an external RAW processor, I understand.

 

I have read the article on Luminous Landscape on this, but to me it did more look like using C1 in the first step and LR in the next steps of the workflow. Does not fit the way i do things, I think I will stay with LR even though the colors are not where they should be.

 

Next step will be to buy a colorchecker to see if that solves the problem.

[kipdent]

My Colorchecker arrived yesterday and I will begin implementing it; however, I have a feeling using C1 first then work on the resulting TIFF as the starting point in LR will reap benefits. C1 just seems to do a better job on the DNG file, IMHO. But who knows--maybe Colorchecker will render this difference moot.

[adan]

I'd just note that white balance will also affect skin tones, and the whole of adli's tight portrait looks yellow-greenish to me (and jaap's revision of it looks desaturated and a bit too blue - but there it is - eye of the beholder and all that).

 

The Colorchecker contains gray patches, and the first step in creating a calibration profile is to white-balance off the grays before adjusting the primary colors.

 

On the general subject of correct skin color - a matter of opinion and taste, but in general portrait photographers think that yellow should outweigh magenta by a substantial margin: help - How to get pleasing skin tones on prints

 

It is not a light red, it is a light orange.

[adli]

I'd just note that white balance will also affect skin tones, and the whole of adli's tight portrait looks yellow-greenish to me (and jaap's revision of it looks desaturated and a bit too blue - but there it is - eye of the beholder and all that).

 

The Colorchecker contains gray patches, and the first step in creating a calibration profile is to white-balance off the grays before adjusting the primary colors.

 

On the general subject of correct skin color - a matter of opinion and taste, but in general portrait photographers think that yellow should outweigh magenta by a substantial margin: help - How to get pleasing skin tones on prints

 

It is not a light red, it is a light orange.

 

 

Thank you for the link, interesting reading. I agree that the last version I posted looked very yellow-greenish (the C1 version). I did not look like that on my computer in C1, I don't know what happend on the way, but now I have posted a version which looks the same as my local one. The picture-link should update itself in my old post.

 

However, after this correction, I can't see that the white balance is much off in my posts (Set to "As shot")? And if it is of, it should be off to the "cold" side?

 

According to the article in your link, when using CMYK colors, yellow should not be below magenta in skin tones, but in my pictures yellow seems to be below magenta for in most of the face area.

 

Greatfull for some advice that will get the skin tones right.

Here a link to the raw file if that can be of any interest:

http://home.vikenfiber.no/adli/L1002595.DNG

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[ho_co]

adli--

FYI: The image you mention, L1002595C1.jpg, is in Adobe RGB, so it may not show up properly in non-color-managed browsers.

[adli]

adli--

FYI: The image you mention, L1002595C1.jpg, is in Adobe RGB, so it may not show up properly in non-color-managed browsers.

 

Thanks. All the skin tone pictures should now be in sRGB, which gives more correct looking colors in the browser.

 

Edit:

In the previous posts, they are all with WB as shot. Below, I have tried to manually adjust the WB (this is not my expert field) on both versions. It makes them look more natural, but still the embedded still is too pink and with Andy's settings slightly yellow/green?

 

It also seems to me as when viewed through a browser, the image looks more pink than on my computer?

 

Example: skintone, unmodified embedded profile, crop, adjusted WB:

 

Example: skintone, modified standard profile crop, adjusted WB:

 

 

Sorry, if I ask too many stupid questions about pictures that have little public interest.