wlaidlaw Posted March 17, 2013 Share #41 Posted March 17, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) I should have added that ACR 7.4 Release Candidate does support the M - available here: Adobe Photoshop Camera Raw 7.4 Beta | digital camera raw file support - Adobe Labs. It is what I am using at the moment together with Bridge to batch process but it is a bit limited and clunky compared with what I am used to in C1. Wilson Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted March 17, 2013 Posted March 17, 2013 Hi wlaidlaw, Take a look here M 240 White Balance. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Fgcm Posted March 17, 2013 Share #42 Posted March 17, 2013 Mitch, Wilson, the evidence that what you say is right is that in camera Jpeg and Jpeg from raw converter show very different colors. This is the in camera jpeg (which is much better than M9 jpeg) The color matches the original 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/200549-m-240-white-balance/?do=findComment&comment=2274669'>More sharing options...
Fgcm Posted March 17, 2013 Share #43 Posted March 17, 2013 this is the jpeg from Aperture and the color is different. The grain is smother, but in camera jpeg seems more detailed Interesting. 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/200549-m-240-white-balance/?do=findComment&comment=2274671'>More sharing options...
wlaidlaw Posted March 17, 2013 Share #44 Posted March 17, 2013 this is the jpeg from Aperture and the color is different.The grain is smother, but in camera jpeg seems more detailed Interesting. I have to admit, it had never occurred to me to use in camera JPEG's from the M. The first week-end I had my M8 in January 2007, I had been fiddling around and forgotten to reset it to DNG, when I went on a trip to Barcelona. When I reviewed my first day's takings, I though OMG, what have I paid a lot of money for, as they seemed a lot worse than the Sony R1 I had been using, while waiting for the M8. I think that was the last time I used JPEG's apart from quick shots for posting on forums and things being sold on eBay. I will try out at least DNG+JPEG's as the writing is so fast, unlike the M9, it does not hold you up. Thanks for the heads up. Wilson Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wlaidlaw Posted March 18, 2013 Share #45 Posted March 18, 2013 If it is of any use to folks, here is another .dcp profile I made for the M240 this morning. This one seems better than my inside effort from a couple of days ago, which I kept to myself. It is an outside north light image, using the 75 Summarit at f2.5 and a ColorChecker 24 patch chart, then Adobe DNG Profile Maker 1.0.0.46 Beta. The camera was at compressed DNG, manual speed, daylight WB. https://www.dropbox.com/sh/n8ktnjd30daqcsc/erfebIraHe I am happy to make any other profiles that anyone might require, subject to having the correct lens/light conditions. Now does anyone have a chart and ICC profile making software, that they could do an ICC profile for me to use in C1? PRETTY PLEASE!!! Wilson Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
algrove Posted March 18, 2013 Share #46 Posted March 18, 2013 wlaidlaw- Hey you are much better at all this PP stuff than I will ever be. But nevertheless, your posts are great to read and TRY to understand. My only question, other than for space saving, why compress your DNG's? Also on your jpegs do you use Adobe RGB? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wlaidlaw Posted March 18, 2013 Share #47 Posted March 18, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) wlaidlaw- Hey you are much better at all this PP stuff than I will ever be. But nevertheless, your posts are great to read and TRY to understand. My only question, other than for space saving, why compress your DNG's? Also on your jpegs do you use Adobe RGB? I always used to use uncompressed on the M9. If you read the M240 manual, it claims the compression is lossless, so that you lose nothing by using it. It would speed up writing to the card. I use Adobe RGB for when I take JPEG's but as these are usually just to post on forums or for eBay, it does not seem to make a lot of odds to me, if you were to use sRBG instead. I would guess most modern screens can display a gamut something between sRGB and Adobe unless you go to one of the very expensive Lacie or NEC screens. Wilson Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjh Posted March 18, 2013 Share #48 Posted March 18, 2013 On webpages I always stick to sRGB. Many browsers ignore a colour profile and just assume sRGB, even when it is Adobe RGB or whatever. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pieterpronk Posted March 18, 2013 Share #49 Posted March 18, 2013 this is the jpeg from Aperture and the color is different.The grain is smother, but in camera jpeg seems more detailed Interesting. I don't quite understand this. Are you saying the straight from camera jpg output is grainier but more detailed than the Raw to Aperture to jpg output? And does this mean there is some kind of noise reduction going on in the Raw files? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fgcm Posted March 18, 2013 Share #50 Posted March 18, 2013 I try to give you an idea speaking of a BW film. I would compare an in camera jpeg to a negative developed in Rodinal. Great acutance. On the other hand, jpeg from Aperture and LR4 are smoother, but lack of the punch of Rodinal. Look carefully to the couple of images posted above: Both are a 100% crops. Which one is sharper? Franco Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fgcm Posted March 18, 2013 Share #51 Posted March 18, 2013 Sorry, I forgot to say that the picture was shot at ISO 3200 saving DNG + Jpeg ISO 3200 and that's all the grain you see in a 100% crop. So maybe that "grainy" is not appropriate I should better say "less silky smooth" Franco Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pieterpronk Posted March 18, 2013 Share #52 Posted March 18, 2013 Thanks, Franco. I can see the difference in your picture-samples very clearly. So I am just wondering how that could be. What is making the picture smoother (and less detailed)? Since it is impossible to add detail with software (you can only reduce noise and detail together), it seems to me that the jpg must have less software meddling to it. Is it the camera that puts noise reduction on the raw file? or is it LR that puts noise reduction on the raw file? Or am I on a completely wrong line of reasoning? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
algrove Posted March 18, 2013 Share #53 Posted March 18, 2013 I always used to use uncompressed on the M9. If you read the M240 manual, it claims the compression is lossless, so that you lose nothing by using it. It would speed up writing to the card. I use Adobe RGB for when I take JPEG's but as these are usually just to post on forums or for eBay, it does not seem to make a lot of odds to me, if you were to use sRBG instead. I would guess most modern screens can display a gamut something between sRGB and Adobe unless you go to one of the very expensive Lacie or NEC screens. Wilson Yes, I read that too, but some time ago many were purporting that they would never compress DNG's as it could affect images should a future ACR or other software that comes along which might improve uncompressed files in the future. It's just in my mind if you are compressing something there has to be less than the original or otherwise why use the term compressed? I guess to me "lossless" and "compression" are mutually exclusive events. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
algrove Posted March 18, 2013 Share #54 Posted March 18, 2013 On webpages I always stick to sRGB. Yes, me too. But do you save jpegs when shooting them in the M as sRGB or Adobe RGB? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted March 18, 2013 Share #55 Posted March 18, 2013 I would prefer Profoto. But there is always a risk of colour shifts if you use a larger colour space than your monitor can reproduce. There is much to be said for using Adobe RGB all through the postprocessing chain and only dropping down to sRGB on the end for web use. (And using a quality monitor that will give you Adobe RGB of course) Note that once you convert from a larger space to a smaller one the change is irreversible. Expanding the colour space again will not restore the colours you lost in the conversion. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fgcm Posted March 19, 2013 Share #56 Posted March 19, 2013 it seems to me that the jpg must have less software meddling to it. Is it the camera that puts noise reduction on the raw file? or is it LR that puts noise reduction on the raw file? I don't know, but your reasoning is pretty logic. The point is that whatever is happening within the camera or in the raw converter, this M240 makes great pictures and colors are pleasing. Here we are discussing about very subtle differences between degrees of perfection. I was happy with my M9 for lenses and simplicity, but I was aware that the camera could be much improved. This new M has been "much improved" and now I'm fully happy with it. I think that in the next few weeks the firmware and raw developers will be brought to a final release and we will exploit the full potential of the camera. In the meanwhile my true problem is to find time to go out shooting. Being a CPA, from March to June I have no time neither for breathing. Franco Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjh Posted March 19, 2013 Share #57 Posted March 19, 2013 Yes, I read that too, but some time ago many were purporting that they would never compress DNG's as it could affect images should a future ACR or other software that comes along which might improve uncompressed files in the future. Future improvements will affect (losslessly) compressed DNGs as well. It makes no difference whatsoever. It's just in my mind if you are compressing something there has to be less than the original or otherwise why use the term compressed? I guess to me "lossless" and "compression" are mutually exclusive events. ‘Compressed’ means that the result takes up fewer bits than the original data. ‘Lossless’ means that you can reconstruct the original from the compressed version, with the expanded version being identical bit for bit with the original. ‘Lossless compression’ is a well-defined and well established term in computer science. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
trond Posted March 19, 2013 Share #58 Posted March 19, 2013 Dear Michael, Do you know if the compressed DNGs in the M, really are loss-less, or do we still have the same confusion of "loss-less" as when the M9 was released? Best regards Trond Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wlaidlaw Posted March 19, 2013 Share #59 Posted March 19, 2013 Dear Michael, Do you know if the compressed DNGs in the M, really are loss-less, or do we still have the same confusion of "loss-less" as when the M9 was released? Best regards Trond Trond, That was certainly my understanding, that the compression on the M9 was maybe not as lossless, as might have been implied. I did not therefore use it. From what I hear, the compression on the M is truly lossless and there is therefore zero downside in using it. Wilson Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjh Posted March 19, 2013 Share #60 Posted March 19, 2013 Do you know if the compressed DNGs in the M, really are loss-less, or do we still have the same confusion of "loss-less" as when the M9 was released? No, this time ‘lossless’ is really lossless. Having said that, I have never seen a reason to avoid the lossy compression in the M8 and M9, but this lossy compression scheme wouldn’t work that well with the M, mostly due to its lower noise. Since the lossless compression of the new M is based on eliminating redundance, the compression ratio depends on the image content. Images containing lots of fine detail don’t compress as well as images with blurred backgrounds. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.