1JB Posted February 6, 2012 Share #41 Posted February 6, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) This thread has turned into a very interesting discussion of white balance. I continue to struggle in this area. Auto WB with incadescent lighting does have a definite yellow/warm look, at times much too yellow and very difficult to fix in pp if I can at all. I do use a white balance card to manually set white balance but then the warm glow of a light from a lamp turns into white when it should be warm to the eye. Whites also get a bluish tint. So the off color walls and other colors look great but the white cabinets are bluish and the lamp shades white. Manually setting the kelvin values gives me the most control but I stll end up postprocessing the white balance in certain areas of a print. Throw in theater lighting as some have done here and it's beyond me at times. What the human eye and brain can accomplish can be very difficult if not impossible to do digitally at times. Any given indoor lighting situation takes a skilled photographer to get the best results achievable and I'm still working at it. Thanks for all of the insights provided here. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted February 6, 2012 Posted February 6, 2012 Hi 1JB, Take a look here In praise of 1600 ISO. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
dwbell Posted February 6, 2012 Share #42 Posted February 6, 2012 Might be a good idea to throw in Rick's advice from a while back. http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m9-forum/199476-m9-noise-performance-5.html I find this works well for tungsten lighting, where even with "correct" WB the tones are off. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonoslack Posted February 6, 2012 Share #43 Posted February 6, 2012 Great Shots Chris, and an interesting and useful discussion. I'm absolutely with Chris & Thorsten here - but not just in artificial light. I have one preset for artificial light which I stick to. In natural light I always use 'sunlight' and correct accordingly. I think there is a common misconception that there is a 'correct' WB - the ONLY time this is true is in a controlled, even lighting situation where you want to get accurate colours - and that means NO shadows / highlights. In mixed lighting (and that also means outside daylight), then it seems to me that it's up to the photographer - there are already enough variables in any photo situation without allowing the camera to make decisions about WB! Right is what looks natural. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_tribble Posted February 6, 2012 Author Share #44 Posted February 6, 2012 Case in point - I'm in Paris at the moment round the Bibliotheque Nationale again - white balance set at 3200K using Thorsten's recipe, and the images are remarkably close to what I was seeing... 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/171770-in-praise-of-1600-iso/?do=findComment&comment=1919780'>More sharing options...
roguewave Posted February 6, 2012 Share #45 Posted February 6, 2012 I'm dumbfounded over this discussion. I've very much enjoyed shooting with the M9, but it's a dog in low light. A $7,000 + camera to shoot in low light. It's absurd. I paid less than $2,000 for a very lightly used Nikon D3 that lets me shoot at 6400 iso, with many fine Leica primes, like my Summicron 50 & Summilux 50. This isn't a real tool for low light. Here's an image with the D3 & 50Lux. There's world of difference here. Horses for courses. 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/171770-in-praise-of-1600-iso/?do=findComment&comment=1919825'>More sharing options...
chris_tribble Posted February 7, 2012 Author Share #46 Posted February 7, 2012 Ben - thanks for the contribution -- but I'm not sure where it takes us. Many of us here use DSLRs for a range of work (including low light). I use the 5D2. Jono uses Sony - others Nikon. They're essential tools. The point of the original posting was that though the M9 might not be the best high-iso performer, it's still very very good in low light if you expose correctly. I'd also say that looking at the JPEG you've posted, unless it was taken at some stratospherically high ISO (and then I'd be asking why?) the noise in the shadows isn't that good an advertisment for the Nikon.... Putting my Canon and Leica shots side by side (and for some time Canon was king of the hill for high ISO) I usually a) can't see a difference in prints, and at 100% will often prefer the Leica file between 800 and 1600. Comparing Canon and Leica 2400 most of the time it depends on the exposure. The Canon file may give you a bit more lee-way, but if you've exposed correctly, again, I find the Leica file gives me more data to work with for prints. Obviously, this could be just my opinion against yours, and I don't want to get involved in a theological dispute. That wouldn't be in the spirit of the forum Also, knowing your work (I love the St Nick's Pub set) I know you can work in low light ... and I assume you use the M9 some of the time? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaques Posted February 7, 2012 Share #47 Posted February 7, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) I agree with Chris totally. Just because there is a better camera in low light it doesn't follow that the Leica 'is a dog'? And it is completely wrong- you can get great results- in low light! To suggest is it a sunny day camera only is absurd. Other factors are also involved beyond ISO, fast lenses, low shutter speeds, small size. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikasmg Posted February 7, 2012 Share #48 Posted February 7, 2012 Very Impressive. I have been afraid to go beyond 800 but obviously for no good reason! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_tribble Posted February 7, 2012 Author Share #49 Posted February 7, 2012 Very Impressive. I have been afraid to go beyond 800 but obviously for no good reason! Do experiment - I think you'll be surprised. LR 3 did make an enormous difference to me sense of confidence with high ISO M9 RAW images, but that's still only part of the story. The critical thing is getting the exposure right, and in low / complex light manual is way to go. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinnfell Posted February 7, 2012 Share #50 Posted February 7, 2012 Just a couple of remarks about ISO 1600, since I use it a lot on my M9. Provided you use Lightroom 3 or Cs5 (they have the same engine I think) . - Magenta is quite dominant in the white balance of the M9 sensor (and others as well). I find that if you set the tint balance slightly greener than measured ( Green / magenta) the images become more rounded. They can be a bit harsh in the highlights. You can decrease the yellow saturation by a bit afterwards if it becomes too prominient. - Red can also become too magenta. In the HSL/COLOR/B&W menu, Push the red a bit towards right (orange) if needed. - LR3 really does have excellent noise reduction. But you do have to tweak it to each subject. Its well worth the effort. - Take care not to overexpose. That is easier said than done especially at stage performances. You've done a good job on your example picture though. [EDIT: I see now that my first tip pretty much is the same as "Rick"s recommendation in an earlier post. I guess there is more than one way to Rome :-) ] Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dwbell Posted February 7, 2012 Share #51 Posted February 7, 2012 Just a couple of remarks about ISO 1600, since I use it a lot on my M9. Provided you use Lightroom 3 or Cs5 (they have the same engine I think) . - Magenta is quite dominant in the white balance of the M9 sensor (and others as well). I find that if you set the tint balance slightly greener than measured ( Green / magenta) the images become more rounded. They can be a bit harsh in the highlights. You can decrease the yellow saturation by a bit afterwards if it becomes too prominient. - Red can also become too magenta. In the HSL/COLOR/B&W menu, Push the red a bit towards right (orange) if needed. - LR3 really does have excellent noise reduction. But you do have to tweak it to each subject. Its well worth the effort. - Take care not to overexpose. That is easier said than done especially at stage performances. You've done a good job on your example picture though. [EDIT: I see now that my first tip pretty much is the same as "Rick"s recommendation in an earlier post. I guess there is more than one way to Rome :-) ] To fix a fair number of the colour issues in an automated way, create a dual luminance custom camera profile using a Gretag chart. It has to be dual luminance as that takes into account the sensors different response to tungsten vs day light. Most noticeable as per your findings in the red / magenta. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
roguewave Posted February 8, 2012 Share #52 Posted February 8, 2012 Chris, if you think that your nighttime shoot is a wonderful image, "as you experienced it", god bless you. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_tribble Posted February 8, 2012 Author Share #53 Posted February 8, 2012 Chris, if you think that your nighttime shoot is a wonderful image, "as you experienced it", god bless you. Probably not worth responding - no claim was made that the image was wonderful - all I said was that it was close to what I saw. I find myself gearing up with a number of cutting ripostes - but then I remember this is only an internet forum ... Maybe a tiny 100% crop from the last image posted tells the story better. Look at the shadows, and look at the detail that's retained. This is not an iconic once-in-a-lifetime image. However, it's not a bad performance for a camera that's a dog in low light, fully open and hand held at 1/45th. 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/171770-in-praise-of-1600-iso/?do=findComment&comment=1921143'>More sharing options...
luuca Posted February 8, 2012 Share #54 Posted February 8, 2012 I'm dumbfounded over this discussion. I've very much enjoyed shooting with the M9, but it's a dog in low light. A $7,000 + camera to shoot in low light. It's absurd. I paid less than $2,000 for a very lightly used Nikon D3 that lets me shoot at 6400 iso, with many fine Leica primes, like my Summicron 50 & Summilux 50. This isn't a real tool for low light. Here's an image with the D3 & 50Lux. There's world of difference here. Horses for courses. [ATTACH]299359[/ATTACH] you can do shots like this even with an M9, without iso 6400... super hi-iso are for fast subjects, sports, not for this low light portrait... M9 is not intended for fast action, but it's perfect in low light situations. M9 at iso 1600 in low light conditions: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/24503063/pianto.jpg hi iso doesn't create light where there is no light, it only allow you to raise shutter speed Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrovner Posted February 10, 2012 Share #55 Posted February 10, 2012 I routinely shoot at 1600 ISO, and if I get the exposure correct I'm very happy with the results. Here's an example that (I hope) proves the point: http://jeffrovner.smugmug.com/LeicaM9-1/Thanksmas-2011/20289579_WZN2JX#!i=1604184710&k=RH7xgDW&lb=1&s=A Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mtomalty Posted February 10, 2012 Share #56 Posted February 10, 2012 Just because there is a better camera in low light it doesn't follow that the Leica 'is a dog'?. Also,keep in mind that there are a number of wonderful dogs out there Mark Mark Tomalty Fine Art and Stock Photography Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
digitalpowershot Posted February 10, 2012 Share #57 Posted February 10, 2012 I have even tested ISO 2500... With the right exposure, there is no big deal. I don't think anybody will see any grain on the final print. Looking on the M9-P screen, the image has definitely grain (ISO 2500). Opening the file (DNG uncompressed) in PS/Lightroom/etc. with noise reduction off, there is no noise to worry about. If you just increase a little the noise reduction, the grain is gone, and the details are still there!!! Not exposing corrently, means you have to push the image, ergo you are increasing the ISO and the grain shows up... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ralf Posted February 10, 2012 Share #58 Posted February 10, 2012 Would like to add my two cents: as far as low light is concerned, nothing beats the D3s plus a fast prime, and that is what I use in critical situations. When I got my M9 a few months ago, I was very surprised though, how well it performs even up to ISO 2500, no comparison, no miracels, not saying that there is no room for improvement (M10??), but a lot better than expected. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luuca Posted February 10, 2012 Share #59 Posted February 10, 2012 Ralf, you are right, no miracles, dslr beasts are better, but M9 can be used at 2500 too 1/25 f2 iso2500, lightroom4 http://i1176.photobucket.com/albums/x322/alliluca/high%20iso/2500lr4.jpg crop 100% http://i1176.photobucket.com/albums/x322/alliluca/high%20iso/2500lr4crop.jpg Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxofrome Posted February 10, 2012 Share #60 Posted February 10, 2012 I am amazed by this thread. I too I never use my M9 over 800 ISO being not so happy of its capacity to manage high ISO. Than today this great set of information. I went to Thorsten article, I set up my camera as requested, and wow! 1600 ISO are wonderful. I use my boy as model. Terrible light of my living room and 1600 ISO. Really not bad! 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/171770-in-praise-of-1600-iso/?do=findComment&comment=1923504'>More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.