An M9 DNG color problem? & Irresolvable?

[kipdent]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

OK--I'm not really a fan of Mr. Rockwell, either. However, he makes a point that I will admit bothers me a bit, too. I use Lightroom 3 and the workflow and settings that many excellent photographers here on the Forum suggest; but regardless, I think the DNG colors the M9 present are a little strange, at least to my eye, and almost cartoonish initially. It bothers me I have to work as hard as I do to make them look more natural. Again, don't get me wrong--this is my favorite digital camera I've ever used, but it doesn't effortlessly produce images "out of the box" as nice as Fuji Provia from my M6.

 

I'm just saying.

 

Kip

[jaapv]

Kip, the problem you encounter is in fact non-existent. Color in the digital raw workflow is not an absolute, but a decision by the photographer, determined by personal taste and cultural influences. For instance the USA will go for more saturated colors than Europe, Asia seems to have a preference for blue, et. So what you must do is not follow the ideas of others, but set the colors to your taste and save that as a preference in LR. That way you create your own "box".

[01af]

One of the first things I did when I got the M9 was to save a customised Camera Raw (or Lightroom) default for this camera where I increased Brightness from default +50 to +60, reduced Contrast from default +25 to +20, increased Clarity from default 0 to +10, increased Vibrance from default 0 to +5, and (last not least!) reduced Saturation from default 0 to -10.

 

Furthermore, I never use automatic white-balance (with any digital camera). It's virtually always the fixed standard daylight preset for me—that yields the same behaviour as with colour slide film. I switch to another white-balance preset in situations where with film I would attach a colour-conversion filter or switch to tungsten colour film.

 

By the way, AWB cannot properly control white-balance across the whole possible spectrum of colour temperatures! It's meant to be used under varying kinds of daylight (or mixed light which includes a considerable amount of daylight) but not under tungsten or fluorescent light. That holds for any digital camera, not just Leica. For example, under tungsten light the tungsten preset or custom white-balance will always yield better results than AWB, with any digital camera.

[sblitz]

i know this is a subject for the post processing digital section, but since we are drifting in this direction, i find that quality of color from capture one 6 pro to be far superior to lr3. to me, the output is 99 times out of 100 just perfect. when i do fiddle from there it is more about getting look i am interested in creating rather than a problem with the out-of-the-box color.

[Jamie Roberts]

{snipped}Again, don't get me wrong--this is my favorite digital camera I've ever used, but it doesn't effortlessly produce images "out of the box" as nice as Fuji Provia from my M6.

 

Kip,

 

Jaap's good advice notwithstanding, you could also try a different RAW converter. Much like film, each one gives you different interpretations "out of the box." With some little care in shooting (less than with Provia, that's for sure!), I find I have to tweak the M9 way less than other digicams. I also prefer C1, but others here have said Raw Developer is the best (on the Mac).

[Shade]

Well I think he is entitled to say whatever he wants on his site, about his cameras.. Not that I'm defending him, but I guess people will always have different perceptions regarding any camera..

 

However, I have no problems with my dng files with any photo editing softwares..

[pluton]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

White balance is NEVER correct until you adjust it; it wasn't on reversal film either, unless you shot under known studio lights/strobes or the daylight happened to be perfect when you shot it, and prints from color negative film are, by default, color-corrected by the lab. Expecting the electronic camera to do it to one's personal taste is, well, let's say very demanding.

[tobey bilek]

Download the latest DNG converter. There should be M9 profiles included to emulate the M9 camera settings. This is a one stop download.

 

Load into the computer using the DNG converter you just downloaded.

 

That is the whole beauty of DNG as you need not have the latest PP program update to work with DNG.

[Jamie Roberts]

Download the latest DNG converter. There should be M9 profiles included to emulate the M9 camera settings. This is a one stop download.

 

Load into the computer using the DNG converter you just downloaded.

 

That is the whole beauty of DNG as you need not have the latest PP program update to work with DNG.

 

Uh, really? What does the DNG converter convert the DNGs to? JPEGs? TIFFs? Is it interactive or batch?

 

Just curious

[jaapv]

Download the latest DNG converter. There should be M9 profiles included to emulate the M9 camera settings. This is a one stop download.

 

Load into the computer using the DNG converter you just downloaded.

 

That is the whole beauty of DNG as you need not have the latest PP program update to work with DNG.

Ummm... Isn't Adobe's DNG converter meant to convert different RAW files into DNGs?

 

DNG, digital negative | Adobe

[k-hawinkler]

Ummm... Isn't Adobe's DNG converter meant to convert different RAW files into DNGs?

 

DNG, digital negative | Adobe

 

That's my understanding as well, e.g. NEF to DNG, etc...

[01af]

Isn't Adobe's DNG converter meant to convert different raw files into DNG files?

Sure. And DNG files are raw, too. So you can also use it to convert DNG to DNG—which makes more sense than you might think. Leica DNG files are uncompressed DNG 1.0 format; the latest Adobe DNG Converter will create losslessly compressed files in DNG 1.3 format (unless told to do otherwise). So I routinely push all Leica DNG files through the Adobe DNG Converter to save disk space. Uncompressed Leica DNG files will shrink from 34.8 MB to 15 - 20 MB; compressed Leica DNG files will shrink from 17.4 MB to 7 - 10 MB (or somewhat more if you include a JPEG preview image which I don't do for DNG files shot in DNG+JPEG mode).

 

By the way, do not confuse the two different compression methods involved. The in-camera Leica compression is lossy and always cuts size exactly in half. The Adobe DNG compression is lossless and reduces size by various factors, depending on image content. Both compression methods can be applied to the same file and their effects will add up, as they work after entirely different principles.

[Jamie Roberts]

Sure. And DNG files are raw, too. So you can also use it to convert DNG to DNG—which makes more sense than you might think. Leica DNG files are uncompressed DNG 1.0 format; the latest Adobe DNG Converter will create losslessly compressed files in DNG 1.3 format (unless told to do otherwise). So I routinely push all Leica DNG files through the Adobe DNG Converter to save disk space. {snipped}

 

And can I still work with these 1.3 compressed DNGs in C1? Or am I stuck with an Adobe product from then on?

 

Thanks in advance!

[01af]

And can I still work with these 1.3 compressed DNGs in Capture One?

Yes, sure you can.

[sblitz]

as always, nothing is quite so straightforward. i have a bunch of dng's processed through lr3. switched back to c1 pro 6 and so i now have a bunch processed through c1. when i am in c1 and take a look at the dng files that were processed first in lr3, some adjustments are not available in regard to linear standard vs film and it is dng adobe neutral and if try to use an m9 profile colors shift to red. when i open a dng file originally processed by c1 it processed using their leica m9 profile. it is in this corner of c1 where the adjustments are limited, elsewhere everything appears the same. sorry i can't be more specific, but i am at work and not in front of my c1 software where i could be more exact in describing the difference.

[01af]

This sounds rather confused ... it seems to me you're trying to process a file in one raw converter and then continue processing in another raw converter. However that doesn't work. Always process a raw file (be it DNG format or any other raw format) in one raw converter only. Do not try to use several raw converters on the same file in succession. If you do then you'll effectively start over from zero every time.

 

You CAN continue your work started in one raw converter in another raw converter when you save the intermediate result in the so-called Linear DNG format—but that format isn't raw anymore. It basically is demosaiced TIFF-RGB in a DNG-format wrapper. So this way you inevitably will lose some degrees of freedom. Not generally recommended.

[sblitz]

i am not re-processing the raw file. i was looking to make adjustments to dng files, color balance, contrast, etc, that were originally processed in lr3. in going through capture one pro i noted there were certain changes I could not make because the file was originally processed in lr3 and could make if it was originally processed in capture one. it isn't a deal killer, but when jamie asked whether you process in lr3 or photoshop and go to capture one I thought it would be some value to point this out. right now, i do all the work in capture one but am discovering through these threads that final processing to print is better done in photoshop but that moves us to whole different topic.

[jaapv]

Sure. And DNG files are raw, too. So you can also use it to convert DNG to DNG—which makes more sense than you might think. Leica DNG files are uncompressed DNG 1.0 format; the latest Adobe DNG Converter will create losslessly compressed files in DNG 1.3 format (unless told to do otherwise). So I routinely push all Leica DNG files through the Adobe DNG Converter to save disk space. Uncompressed Leica DNG files will shrink from 34.8 MB to 15 - 20 MB; compressed Leica DNG files will shrink from 17.4 MB to 7 - 10 MB (or somewhat more if you include a JPEG preview image which I don't do for DNG files shot in DNG+JPEG mode).

 

By the way, do not confuse the two different compression methods involved. The in-camera Leica compression is lossy and always cuts size exactly in half. The Adobe DNG compression is lossless and reduces size by various factors, depending on image content. Both compression methods can be applied to the same file and their effects will add up, as they work after entirely different principles.

Why should I save disk space? I've got terabytes of it....This is extra time and work, which is of more interest to me .

[jaapv]

i am not re-processing the raw file. i was looking to make adjustments to dng files, color balance, contrast, etc, that were originally processed in lr3. in going through capture one pro i noted there were certain changes I could not make because the file was originally processed in lr3 and could make if it was originally processed in capture one. it isn't a deal killer, but when jamie asked whether you process in lr3 or photoshop and go to capture one I thought it would be some value to point this out. right now, i do all the work in capture one but am discovering through these threads that final processing to print is better done in photoshop but that moves us to whole different topic.

That depends on how you have set the handling of XMP and IPTC files on importing. Look in the Preferences of C1.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[sblitz]

i will take a look, but fwiw i am just going to file section of c1 finding the file through the tree and double clicking as opposed to using the explicit file import function. not sure it matters, but i will check out the preferences you note. thanks again. i would in truth love to reprocess the raw dng files as i think they look better in capture one but i think that is impossible based on what i have read here. not the end of the world, adjustments can be made, but it is a thought.