Profile comparison images for M8988LoSat

[eronald]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hank Graber sent me these images of firmware 1.092 in action, and kindly gave me permission to post them.

 

He already posted one such comparison in the past, with the same setup.

 

These were taken in the shadow, he states, so the slight bluish cast is objectively correct.

 

You can decide for yourselves which version you prefer. It's obvious that the rendering you want for a portrait is not the one you want for a product shot.

 

 

Edmund

[Advertisement]

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

[pascal_meheut]

Funny because when I compare, mine is less contrasty than yours. I guess we must not have the same exposure/contrast settings in C1.

[wparsonsgisnet]

These are in the sticky thread, along with some other pix using Edmund's priofiles.

[hankg]

The LoSat and Pascal both had same end points, white balance and tone curve. The Linear profile is another story, that one did not work very well for me. I'm liking the LoSat a lot.

[eronald]

Funny because when I compare, mine is less contrasty than yours. I guess we must not have the same exposure/contrast settings in C1.

Pascal, wish me a Happy Birthday ! I'm drunk. Nice Bordeaux ! (In the UK we cal it claret). I didn't make these images, Hank did. BTW, nice photography, Hank ! (thank your daughter for sitting so quietly !).

 

Edmund

[pascal_meheut]

Happy birthday Edmund.

 

I built other profiles with more details in the shadow and and an exposition "darker" than yours because it helps me control the highlights.

 

Here are the examples, first with Edmund low sat profile, then my new one and finally my now one with levels done.

 

The profile is here:

http://pmeheut.free.fr/Leica%20M8%20default%20v2.icc

 

And the same but with more saturation:

 

http://pmeheut.free.fr/Leica%20M8%20default%20sat_plus%20v2.icc

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Three examples of the same foggy shot (it is a lot better cropped and as such in the photoforum, and even then I have done better on occasion ) but I think it shows that Edmunds profile is quite good for this kind of subject. All files have no post-processing done to them, except for the cloning of a few dustbunnies and a straighten, except Edmunds profile where I reduced brightness -5%

 

 

For me, for this kind of shot the 8988losat is the clear winner.

 

M8generic, saturation -10%

 

 

JHRchrome, saturation -20%

 

 

 

8988Losat saturation -5%

 

[jaapv]

And now for a totally different type of shot, detail and soft colours aplenty:

Again, no artistic pretentions ! Here I have a slight preference for the linear profile.

The only thing I touched in processing are the colour profiles:

 

 

M8generic:

 

 

8988linear

 

 

 

8988losat

 

[Riley]

no-one in their right mind would pay me to do a portrait so

the only frames i can comment on are the interiors by jaap, as i do those all the time

and colour wise the losat just looks right to me

it seems to lack bite tho, but i guess thats another process

[hankg]

Funny because when I compare, mine is less contrasty than yours. I guess we must not have the same exposure/contrast settings in C1.

Edmunds profile is more contrasty. The highlights are compressed (- 1/4 tone) giving more contrast to middle tones. This is why with the generic profile and Pascals profile my daughters face which is all midtones looks flat and with the LoSat profile its got highlites. Because the lighter zone in the face that is actually in the midtone is being pushed down into the 1/4 tone. Great for foggy scenes, flat lighting and overcast days or when you want more snap and don't have important hilight detail (like in a white lace wedding dress). Not good for high key, detail in bright highlites and contrasty lighting.

 

If you have lit your portrait with very contrasty dramatic lights (say a flashead with a grid) the LoSat profile will wash out the lighter parts of the face. If however you lit the scene with a softbox and plenty of fill, LoSat will give the face a more 3D look, with more dynamic range.

[pascal_meheut]

Indeed Hank. I made other comparisons myself and for many snapshots, Edmund's profile gives "out of the box" results better than mine.

 

But when I want to work the image a lot in Photoshop, I prefer mine and playing with levels, curves, SHO filter... An old habit from my days of scanning.

 

Both are tools to use depending on the picture and on your taste.

[eronald]

Edmunds profile is more contrasty. The highlights are compressed (- 1/4 tone) giving more contrast to middle tones.

 

If however you lit the scene with a softbox and plenty of fill, LoSat will give the face a more 3D look, with more dynamic range.

 

Indeed, Hank, LoSat is a new "one click" incarnation of my "Portrasa" Style. It makes a flat-lit face look interesting. It can also even out a full-sun direct-light portrait like a sunset portrait. That's why it's so useful *for real-world images of people*. I wouldn't use it for macro-photos of flowers.

 

Let me explain to the audience:

 

Color profiles are as much art as science. They define the rendering of an image.

 

Modern digital cameras such as Leicas have a huge dynamic range, just like modern film. They capture both the shadow and the light.

 

But when an image is reproduced it will be flat, because the extended scene DR is compressed into the reduced DR of the reproduction.

 

In order for the image to be interesting, a rendering or curve needs to be applied to emphasize certain areas of luminance. This can be done by a skilled operator, interactively, with the curves tool and image masks.

 

Thus the best renderings are hand-crafted, just like the best meals are carefully cooked by a chef who looks at the fresh food on the market before defining the menu. They are not applied globally, but locally, like the chef cooking parts of a meal separately before they are served together.

 

However, in practice, a user may want to render quickly and simply, and then apply a "taste sharpener" to his image. This is what existing films like "Velvia" or "Portra" supply, a recipe that like ketchup or mayonnaise emphasizes certain aspects of the image.

 

So, my LoSat curve resembles my "Portrasa" style, it's a recipe which is designed to make underlit people shots work, just like mustard works up the taste of simply prepared steak. It also makes some overlit and completely blown people shots work, like mustard masking some bitterness in a dish.

 

Photographers who set up their own well-modulated and carefully contrasted lighting, with grids and fills, don't need Portrasa : A chef who cooks wine sauce needn't add mustard to the dish.

 

And some images won't work with Portrasa: You wouldn't use mustard on fish ...

 

But if you are not a trained cook-cum-Photoshop-wizard or simply out of time, you may like my bottled styles - just like ketchup, salt, pepper or mustard.

 

I'll gladly talk about this some more, but I guess that all the guys and gals who like "taste sharpeners" are already out of here, and those remaining are the specialists anyway ...

 

 

Edmund

[hankg]

There is a need for different tools to match different requirements. If I was an event or wedding photographer and needed to process a 1,000 images for a client I'd want a set of profiles to choose from that would allow me to have output from the raw processor ready to deliver. If I'm going to be processing a handful of images from a shoot and then manipulating the selects to create a master print or a singular massaged and retouched image for an ad I might want output from the raw processor that requires post-processing but allows for more manipulation and exploration in Photoshop.

 

For me ideally I'd like to see 4 basic profiles:

 

1. A "generic" neutral profile that reproduces a zone grey scale with equally spaced steps. This would not be linear because our eyes can easily discern a 1% shift in the highlight while a 1% shift in the shadow is not perceptable.

 

2. A profile that provides more mid-tone contrast by compressing highlights (like LoSat) for flatter lighting, overcast days, low key lighting.

 

3. A high key profile that does the reverse of LoSat compressing the shadow end to maximize highlight detail.

 

4. A higher saturation version of #2 which would give you output ready for print with lots a "sparkle" and snap.

 

While firmware is still in it's early stages I'd be happy with #1 and #2 or 4. As M8 is still very much a moving target. I will be creating a test target in 2 versions with contrasty and flat/soft lighting. I'll post the DNG as soon as it's ready (later today maybe?)

[eronald]

There is a need for different tools to match different requirements. If I was an event or wedding photographer and needed to process a 1,000 images for a client I'd want a set of profiles to choose from that would allow me to have output from the raw processor ready to deliver. If I'm going to be processing a handful of images from a shoot and then manipulating the selects to create a master print or a singular massaged and retouched image for an ad I might want output from the raw processor that requires post-processing but allows for more manipulation and exploration in Photoshop.

 

For me ideally I'd like to see 4 basic profiles:

 

1. A "generic" neutral profile that reproduces a zone grey scale with equally spaced steps. This would not be linear because our eyes can easily discern a 1% shift in the highlight while a 1% shift in the shadow is not perceptable.

 

2. A profile that provides more mid-tone contrast by compressing highlights (like LoSat) for flatter lighting, overcast days, low key lighting.

 

3. A high key profile that does the reverse of LoSat compressing the shadow end to maximize highlight detail.

 

4. A higher saturation version of #2 which would give you output ready for print with lots a "sparkle" and snap.

 

While firmware is still in it's early stages I'd be happy with #1 and #2 or 4. As M8 is still very much a moving target. I will be creating a test target in 2 versions with contrasty and flat/soft lighting. I'll post the DNG as soon as it's ready (later today maybe?)

 

Ok, Hank !

 

Edmund

[Guest guy_mancuso]

Edmund if you do the 4 profiles name them so there easy to identify like .High Key ,Low key etc or something like that so the user can make it easier to know what would work for that image.

[eronald]

Edmund if you do the 4 profiles name them so there easy to identify like .High Key ,Low key etc or something like that so the user can make it easier to know what would work for that image.

 

Noted.

 

I value my tester's opinions.

 

Edmund