Post processing

[Guest stnami]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The m8 should be generic to post processing, restricting it to one or two and set profiles where it works best defeats the purpose and produces a sameness just as camera in-house jpegs do which are configured to suit certain consumers.

The lens is what makes the real difference with Leica not the m8, But in saying that I can get a lets say canon raw file from their top notch lens and pass the final image either in electronic or print form to look like a m8 image or any other camera by post processing to suit. I put a old pentax lens on a K100 and tried to emulate this shot http://www.leica-camera-user.com/digital-forum/15850-43-year-old-lens-meets-contemporary.html not hard at all due to the innate quality of the old lenses and a bit of digital juggling.

Then again if you know what a leica lens can do you will see some subtle differences in its feel for the light. How many of those people are out there can tell .... not many.

Yes I know all about sensor differences but the margin of difference in the high end camers doesn't come into play as much. I am not talking about MF here... but when playing with them ...hmmm more possibilities

Me I am happy to accept anything that technology throws at me that will assist me

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Camera brand fans and those with a lean towards tradition will dispute all this..... so be it

ps Have fun with this

[Advertisement]

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

[sdai]

Not sure what you're talking about, Imants ... your hyperlink was truncated for some reason and when I clicked it bounced me to the board's homepage.

[Jamie Roberts]

Imants,

 

I agree with you, actually--many pro cameras are very similar as a base for post processing.

 

But, importantly, the plasticity of the M8 file (in other words, the degree to which you can manipulate it in terms of exposure latitude and colour depth, not to mention contrast) is unmatched by any other digitial 35 system I've seen, and makes it natural for even more extreme post processing where other files would just give up.

 

Maybe it's the lenses (which do have their own signature), but I actually do think it's the combination of lens and sensor.

 

For example, I've shot many, many of the R lenses on Canon pro bodies, and I like my 5d (and liked my 1ds2, too). But none of them handled harsh light like the DMR; and none of them, including the DMR, have near the plasticity of the M8.

 

In other words, it's the lenses and sensor.

 

Of course, you can post-process the colour and DR differences away, too

 

I don't even believe, personally, that Leica is taking full advantage of the information they have from the sensor / lens combo yet. It's early days still. From playing with the raw files now since they've been available, I suspect there's a lot more there to come.

 

(yes, and your link is broken!)

[sdai]

I agree, Jamie ... the M8 DNGs are really steel-made and will sustain any torture. However, I can not live with the IR filters. And shooting with film saved me a lot of time wasted in front of the computer.

[Guest stnami]

That link should be restored

[Jamie Roberts]

Simon, I hear you on the filters. But I still haven't used any yet (though I have one for my 24 now!)

 

I expect even the *need* for filters might change if the colour in the camera engine gets tweaked. We'll see! I also suspect Leica might make completely uncompressed DNGs an option too (boy--remember when that was the biggest worry about the M8 ) ?

[sdai]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Pretty cool shot ... never mind which lens or camera were used.

[LJL]

Imants,

I am not quite sure I understand what you are asking about or suggesting. My impressions so far have been that the M8 delivers a very robust image file. The data in that file gets handled differently by different processing algorithms in the various RAW converters. To me, they are not the same, and the results are not the same. I tend to look upon them more like types of films to some degree, with some yielding very good color renderings, while other miss a bit here and there, or amplifiy noise or something.

 

If there is a "one best way" to process the image data, what is that way? Is C1 the best? Because Leica recommends it and ships a copy with the camera, is that the tool to deconvolute the data from the sensor the best? (Not looking for a RAW converter discussion here, nor flaming, just opening up some thinking and discussion channels.)

 

One thing that I have seen with several different lines of cameras is that the software shipped to process the RAW files sometimes does a bit better job for some aspect than any other processor. Canon's DPP does some interesting things with the reds and yellows from 1-series files that others do not quite get the same. Not sure why.

 

A question one has to ask is more around how much time do you want to spend with each file? Also, are you after a "plain vanilla" rendering, and then adding in the tweaks you want? What algorithms are able to best extract the details in highlights and shadows that best advantage the same qualities that the lenses transmit and the sensor captures?

 

For me, there is some connection between the lens and the sensor, and some work better together than others. Since the sensor is the now the camera, for the most part, the overall capture is different, depending upon how they interact, and that gets furhter complexed by which RAW processing algorithms are used to pull that captured information into an image file.

 

Not sure all of that is coming out the way I am thinking about it, but I do not think that one can use any converter and duplicate any other. I have yet to get ACR to produce images and some colors that Aperture can with Canon files. RAW Developer seems to handle some M8 files quite nicely, while C1 does a very nice "average" job for the same shots. A lot of it comes down to personal tastes also. That is why there seems to be so much effort and emphasis put into profiles and things.

 

With respect to emulating an old lens....it that is the art you seek, be very happy that you can get it. At the same time, others may seek razor sharpness and a gazillion gray tones in the shadows of their B/W shots. The M8 seems capable of delivering a file that preserves the relationship with the lens used, and then you have the option of playing with it to your heart's content with a variety of converters. That is pretty awesome in my book, as I really have not seen that same level of plasticity with other files from other cameras. Some can still capture outstanding data, but few seem to have the overall flexibility for variety as the M8 at this point. Just my opinion.

 

LJ

 

P.S. One more thing....it is so much easier to post process information OUT (e.g., sharpness, detail, texture, etc.), than it is to put that IN. If you do not have it to start and want/need it, you are out of luck. If you want a smoothed, lower detailed shot, you can always use post processing tools to achieve that, dependant upon the effort you put in.

[Guest stnami]

Just chasing a more robust and varied thread on post processing, beyond... do this and get a good image and to remind some that there are some mind blowing images out there produced by other cameras and techniques.

[LJL]

Just chasing a more robust and varied thread on post processing, beyond... do this and get a good image and to remind some that there are some mind blowing images out there produced by other cameras and techniques.

 

O.K. I agree with you. I have taken some shots with a Canon 1-series and a 400/2.8 lens that have amazed me with what I could do with them. Maybe not as consistently as some other shots, but the potential is there. They are all just tools, but some are more fun to use and make the work easier.

 

LJ

[Guest stnami]

Some of the most impressive stuff I have seen of late comes from scanned film. A lot of the students (18-23) I am associated with are using film for the first time. With excellent computer skills, they really push the parameters without spending too much time in front of the computer as the understand what is possible and what isn't

[LJL]

Imants,

I think that is a critical thing...."understanding what is possible and what isn't". There are things to really learn from film about exposure, latitude, color balance, etc. The one real difference is that with film it is pretty much "fixed", and you can get some latitude in the printing process, especailly with B/W. If the information is not there, you are more limited with what you can do. With digital, it seems like you get two chances....one when you process (more control than we ever have with most film), and another in post, which is equivalent to the printing part (although we still have that to contend with also).

 

Shooting film realy teaches one to hopefully look for and understand the relatonships in the composition, so that by the time you are putting it up on the screen, it should be pretty much baked how you wanted it, because you do not have as much opportunity to change things. When I first started shooting digital, I went crazy, and got sloppy. Now I tend to shoot less, but have more "keepers" and less work on each file. Just going back to thinking like I am shooting film, but knowing I have more to work with later.

 

LJ

[Riley]

I used to think that yes lenses offered different qualities

so you could use any body with 'that' lens and be ok

maybe thats an idea from the film era, we could all buy the same film

 

now the digital processor is the film

and I noticed immediately with M8 that it is reliably sharper and I realized it wasn't always the glass

on researching the qualities of AA filters I knew that it made the difference

[Guest stnami]

THose shares in the Deaf Ears dept.Pty.Ltd are looking good, should rise sharpley when the market opens and remain fluid over the next 6 months

[Guest stnami]

................ so that's how Mick and Shiela got the slab of XXXX, got married, and are waitin for that guy the fly to return