macjonny1 Posted April 20, 2013 Share #41 Posted April 20, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) I have a feeling the M9s and M9Ps are going to start appreciating in value.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted April 20, 2013 Posted April 20, 2013 Hi macjonny1, Take a look here M Color. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
daure Posted April 20, 2013 Share #42 Posted April 20, 2013 [quote name= Strangely I find that shooting with strobes results in excellent color reproduction and skin tones, and I have talk with other M(240) users who have experienced the same thing when using on camera flash.[/quote] That's why i think it's not a bad idee to give a try to UV/IR filters for all "the other" lightning qualities. If there is a problem that can't be handled via profiles, it would be more likely to be the sensor itself - the actual colors of the dyes used in the Bayer filter. E.g., not enough separation between colors to reconstruct a clean end result - to the extent that the sensor is mushing colors together (metamerism), then neither firmware nor the raw developer can completely recover the situation - lost information is lost forever. Sandy I agree totaly. That was the first quality of the M9 ccd sensor. Not because it was a ccd, but thanks to the Kodak bayer filter. Something else, and not for the youngest, but did somebody remember the color rendition of the cmos of the Kodak DCS 14n ? Does the words "Italian Flag" mean something for You ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rirakuma Posted April 20, 2013 Share #43 Posted April 20, 2013 When I played with the DNGs from the M there were some files that had residual yellow/magenta stains which wasn't fixable even after adjusting temp and tint, kind of like a split tone effect. I don't know much technical info on sensors but I hope this isn't the case for the M. If there is a problem that can't be handled via profiles, it would be more likely to be the sensor itself - the actual colors of the dyes used in the Bayer filter. E.g., not enough separation between colors to reconstruct a clean end result - to the extent that the sensor is mushing colors together (metamerism), then neither firmware nor the raw developer can completely recover the situation - lost information is lost forever. Sandy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thighslapper Posted April 20, 2013 Share #44 Posted April 20, 2013 It seems to me rather humorous that many of the reviewers of the M, in a hurry to be first or to strap the camera on a cube, pull out gray cards and perform exacting side by side comparisons failed to simply take the camera out of the box and use the camera as many M users would use the camera ... with features like AWB engaged. If they did, they would have observed that both the AWB setting and the color profile need work. I'm amazed at how little this has been discussed on this forum. Kurt ...... I've posted dozens of examples to investigate and show this....... The usual reply is ..... 'It will all be solved when the RAW converters have the correct profiles'..... which completely misses the point..... AWB output from the M9 is ok AWB output from the M isn't Use any convertor with the embedded profile set and this is obvious. The results in LR4, Aperture and Capture One are all very similar. On the LCD screen this is obvious as well .... try comparing the M9 and M results on the camera .... the same issues are plainly obvious. You shouldn't need a profile in a RAW convertor to get reasonable results .... a profile is to tweak things a bit to get it perfect.... and to compensate for the idiosyncracies of the convertor in how it decodes things. AWB in LR4 does a reasonable job ...... Leica should be able to do the same. AWB is not rocket science ..... there are multiple algorithms out there that use a variety of methods and most give good results. Embedded AWB in the M consistently produces images that are far too warm. All of the other settings ..... Daylight, Cloud, Shade etc are similarly at variance with reality. All supply an embedded correction factor for the convertor to use and the result is consistently too warm. Every camera is calibrated as the output of the sensor rarely bears any relation to reality ...... and that is a function of the in-camera processing that then takes the basic output and provides correction factors so that the sensor output matches a standard set by the industry ...... and then on top of that are correction factors for different ambient lighting situations for the RAW convertor to use. If you take an AWB M file and dial in the same temp and tint as an identical M9 image you get two pictures that differ imperceptibly. I've posted images that show this. It is a Firmware issue ..... Leica have 'chosen' correction factors that for most of us are too warm Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kdriceman Posted April 20, 2013 Share #45 Posted April 20, 2013 I'm interested in this as I am waiting on an M, but I really like the color rendition of the M9. I would hate to lose that and have something that could not be rectified ultimately with a firmware update or in a profile. Are we talking about just an auto white balance issue or is this a fundamental color problem at the sensor level. To those who have the M and are struggling with the color, does using a White Bal card render colors that fix the issue? I had assumed all along that this was simply an un-calibrated auto white balance issue which would ultimately be corrected with a firmware update. But I am now not so sure and after reading Sandy's comment above, I am alarmed that this could be a hardware issue at the heart of the sensor that really, could not be fixed without completely re-working the sensor design. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted April 20, 2013 Share #46 Posted April 20, 2013 First of all, the M color has been covered extensively since the beginning when we first started commenting on the beta camera photos. I was the one of the first to comment that the photos seem very warm. I have been no fan of the first pictures. But, here are some things to consider. Just because 2 people returned their M does not tell us anything. Maybe, they shoot in JPEG which has good color but is a little too red. We really don't know the facts of why someone would return the camera. Some of the comments made in this thread are by members that do not have the camera and are working with files from the internet or from shooting the camera for a few hours. You really need to have the camera long enough to shoot different times of the day (temperature) and under different conditions. Then, you need a lot of experience in PP with these varied files before you can start to make conclusions. Profiles: It was stated that some have made custom profiles and none have proven either acceptable or universal. One profile can't be universal for all color temperatures shot. It doesn't surprise me that any single profile made by an individual would not seem acceptable. As mentioned above, there is really no color profile that is going to be universally better because color temperature changes throughout the day and our visual system perceive these changes and tries to corrects for this. Color is being judged using our visual system that is constantly trying to "auto-correct" the color. Besides the many factors that make "correct" color difficult to define, age plays an important role. As our eyes age we tend to perceive colors to be warmer and we view "correct" to be less warm. The aging eye would want to compensate by lowering color temp in PP. Leica would be wise to set the AWB a couple hundred degrees cooler not warmer to please its demographic of old geezers. Also, those reading should take with a grain of salt any comments from posters because nearly 10% of those posting here have color deficiencies. Among the rest, a large percentage think they have good color vision, but they don't We saw this on the online color test Color Test - Online Color Challenge | X-Rite that was posted and few actually got the test 100% correct. A huge number of us have inaccurate normal color vision. As to my observations, I like the M colors a lot ( I got 100% on the color test). Facial tone is redder than my M9. I think it looks more natural and yes I am working on my own profile because, although it is good I wouldn't say it is what I call "eye pleasing color" yet. Which isn't to say it is bad. Remember, when the M9 was released we went through this dance and many month after the release I finally got eye pleasing color from a profile posted by Adan. He nailed it. Bottom line on color, for me. M color is starting out way better than the start of the M9. It is much easier to correct than the M9 ESPECIALLY UNDER TUNGSTEN. The M9 had a hard time getting skin even close under tungsten. It sucked. The M does not have this problem. The color issues that some (that often don't own the camera yet) are raising are blown out of proportion and certainly aren't anywhere close to being an issue that would cause me to return the camera. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandymc Posted April 20, 2013 Share #47 Posted April 20, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) Well, really I wouldn't panic yet - I think that what this issue needs is some clear examples of what is concerning people. This thread is rather short of actual images There are numbers of people on this forum that have a very good eye for color, and they may well be able to make some useful comments. I'm not doubting that there people that are having real problems, but what we need are examples, preferably a/b examples that show what the M rendering is versus what it should or could be, e.g., by shooting Nikon or whatever alongside. Sandy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
D&A Posted April 20, 2013 Share #48 Posted April 20, 2013 I recall in the earliest days of the M9 that the AWB under incadescent light was simply horrible, some of the worst I've ever encounterd with any digital camera. As the years and successive firmware updates were applied, it got to the point where the AWB under this sort of lighing became reasonably acceptable. Hopefully the issue of color balance with the new M can also be addressed with firmware. This example of the evolving change of AWB with the M9 gives me hope that its something that's correctable. Dave (D&A) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke_Miller Posted April 20, 2013 Share #49 Posted April 20, 2013 I hope all those ahead of me on my dealer's M waiting list read this thread and decide to pass until the "color problems" are resolved. I'll get mine quicker Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted April 20, 2013 Share #50 Posted April 20, 2013 Had a conversation with some peers last night where AWB was known as Average White Band. Can't get it out of my head! To the point - where is AWB written? To a separate field, right? So one can accept it or not, and substitute his own, correct? Can one apply his own algorithm in place (rather than parameter mods)? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandymc Posted April 20, 2013 Share #51 Posted April 20, 2013 Had a conversation with some peers last night where AWB was known as Average White Band. Can't get it out of my head! To the point - where is AWB written? To a separate field, right? So one can accept it or not, and substitute his own, correct? Can one apply his own algorithm in place (rather than parameter mods)? AWB is entirely separate to anything else - if you override it in the raw developer, what the camera thought WB was no longer has any effect. Sandy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thighslapper Posted April 20, 2013 Share #52 Posted April 20, 2013 Well, really I wouldn't panic yet - I think that what this issue needs is some clear examples of what is concerning people. This thread is rather short of actual images Sandy ?????? So I did all this for nothing ....... http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m9-forum/278105-comparison-m9-m240-3.html#post2362283 http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m9-forum/278105-comparison-m9-m240-4.html#post2365557 etc etc ...... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted April 20, 2013 Share #53 Posted April 20, 2013 At this stage I would like to quote an old post of mine : If we consider the anatomy of skin in as far as it is relevant to photographic rendering we find a layered structure. A fatty base layer, opaque yellowish white, then a layer of capillary veins red to blueish, depending on oxygen saturation and with a density depending on the distribution of veins and arteries. Highly IR reflective. Then Melanin particles which are visible light absorbent, UV reflective and providing toning from Finnish nothing to the blackest African skin, covered by a translucent white layer. This means a large amount of metamerism and a virtually impossible exact rendering. Just my thoughts - feel free to shoot holes in them. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted April 20, 2013 Share #54 Posted April 20, 2013 jaapv - I think the general subject matter of your post has more than a few pores in it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
D&A Posted April 20, 2013 Share #55 Posted April 20, 2013 Jaap, can a camera manufacturer (no names being mentioned), use your prose as a excuse....um I mean reason why their AWB is appears to be "off" with regards to skin tones? Of course they'll provide you with just compensation in the form of credit for being the originator of such theory...LOL! Dave (D&A) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted April 20, 2013 Share #56 Posted April 20, 2013 jaapv - I think the general subject matter of your post has more than a few pores in it. Being? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted April 20, 2013 Share #57 Posted April 20, 2013 Jaap, can a camera manufacturer (no names being mentioned), use your prose as a excuse....um I mean reason why their AWB is appears to be "off" with regards to skind tones? Of course they'll provide you with just compensation in the form of credit for being the originator of such theory...LOL! Ah, one more feature request to add to the impossible! It would be sensors at the focusing eyepiece and shutter release that measures the photographer's eye and skin color, then choose a suitable ethnic aesthetic for skin tones, and fine-tuned up by GPS linked to social data, possibly the CIA ethnics database. I need coffee. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandymc Posted April 20, 2013 Share #58 Posted April 20, 2013 ?????? So I did all this for nothing ....... http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m9-forum/278105-comparison-m9-m240-3.html#post2362283 http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m9-forum/278105-comparison-m9-m240-4.html#post2365557 etc etc ...... Well, the first post says "If there are any significant colour, saturation or other differences then they are negligible" and the second post is about AWB, which is a different problem. AWB is something that Leica can do something about in firmware, but I didn't think that's primarily what this thread was about. So I'm none the wiser.... Sorry! Sandy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted April 20, 2013 Share #59 Posted April 20, 2013 Jaap, can a camera manufacturer (no names being mentioned), use your prose as a excuse....um I mean reason why their AWB is appears to be "off" with regards to skind tones? Of course they'll provide you with just compensation in the form of credit for being the originator of such theory...LOL! Dave (D&A) i quite agree, it is more comfortable to criticize from a position of ignorance ... However accepted anatomy is not a theory, but a fact. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted April 20, 2013 Share #60 Posted April 20, 2013 Being? pore 1 |pôr| noun a minute opening in a surface, esp. the skin or integument of an organism, through which gases, liquids, or microscopic particles can pass. ORIGIN late Middle English: from Old French, via Latin from Greek poros ‘passage, pore.’ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.