Jump to content
Leica M EV1: Die erste M mit EVF statt Messssucher ×
Leica M EV1: The first M with EVF instead of Rangefinder ×

M Color

kidigital

By kidigital
in Leica M (Type 240 / 262)

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 713
  • Created
  • Last Reply
luigi bertolotti

luigi bertolotti

Posted
Posted
Quite possibly. Hence my desire for more concrete information. Baseline ascertaining. Comparative tests with other "good at skin tones" cameras. Etc

 

Whilst cosidering it a not neglible point... I frankly think that any PC-based comparision would lead to endless and not real useful and/or deep discussions... :rolleyes:;

in view of this... I'm even satisfied that the forum doesn't allow too much "other brands pictures" postings... :o

Link to post
Share on other sites
erl

erl

Posted
Posted
I for one would click on a thread with a subject of ‘M Color’ when I am interested in M colour. Which, as it happens, I am. On the other hand I don’t care that much about detachable bottom plates versus flimsy flap doors. Are you saying I should ignore this thread from now since it is throughly derailed and stands no chance of getting back on track?

No Michael, I am not saying that.

I am saying "if it bores you, don't click on it!"

I am sure you read that carefully.

 

The thread is not derailed, simply taking (took) a short diversion. Not uncommon round here. :D

Link to post
Share on other sites
wlaidlaw

wlaidlaw

Posted
Posted
This thread would have tought me one thing at least, that AWB is important not only for amateurs but also for some pro photographers.

 

I agree. Well sorted AWB is very useful when you are shooting in a situation with rapidly changing lighting conditions.

 

The AWB and saturation seem very lens sensitive on the M240. The extremes seem to be my newly serviced 280/f4.8 Series 3 Telyt V, selected as a 280/f4 Telyt R where the colours seem slightly bluish (a bit M9 like), cool and low saturation. At the other extreme, my 28-85 Vario Sonnar, set as a 28-90 Vario Elmarit R, produces very contrasty and saturated colours. If there are a lot of bright reds and yellows in the image, Capture One is totally unusable and I have to default to LR5, where I have custom DCP profiles for the Vario Sonnar. I don't recall the M9 producing such a wide range of results, even comparing say old Visoflex lenses with modern Leica lenses such as the 35 Summilux ASPH.

 

My feeling is that as well as the AWB needing tweaking in FW updates, the lens profiles need looking at as well.

 

Wilson

Link to post
Share on other sites
wlaidlaw

wlaidlaw

Posted
Posted

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Do you mean Capture One Pro 7.7.1 (current version)?

 

7.1.1 I guess you mean but yes the latest version. I don't know how it will come out but below is a screen print of the CC24 chart as rendered by C1's standard M240 Profile. The numbers are way out compared with what Gretag's crib sheet says they should be. I have sent a couple of CC24 files to Phase One , with the suggestion that they do a bit of work on their standard M240 profile. The problem is that it is much more difficult to generate an ICC profile and you need a very expensive bit of software. This is where LR really wins out as the DCP profile generating software is free.

 

Wilson

 

PS. That is a north light shot with a 75mm Summarit. A sunlight shot with the 28-85 Vario Sonnar is even more garish - the reds hit you straight between the eyes!

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
wlaidlaw

wlaidlaw

Posted
Posted
Yes C1 7.1.1 sorry for the typo. Could your embedded profile (Spyder3Express) play any role in that? Just curious as i don't seem to get such an high saturation with C1.

 

Don't think it is the Spyder 3 Express profile, as I don't have any issues with other cameras, C 1 profiles and say M240 + LR5 + the custom profile generated from the DNG pictured here. I just tried on my MBP with a Monaco Optix screen profile and got very little change in the RGB numbers for the red patches, so either the Spyder profile is coincidentally wrong the same way as the Monaco one or they are both near correct.

 

Wilson

Link to post
Share on other sites
daure

daure

Posted
Posted
The numbers are way out compared with what Gretag's crib sheet says they should be.

 

Don't the numbers you get have to be related to your workingspace ?

Don't ever imagine have the right numbers equal to the gretag sheet.

Link to post
Share on other sites
wlaidlaw

wlaidlaw

Posted
Posted
Don't the numbers you get have to be related to your workingspace ?

Don't ever imagine have the right numbers equal to the gretag sheet.

 

Yes agreed but I am using two calibrated screens and correcting the red to the matrix value by use of brightness only. The balance between R, G & B averaged across the two screens (calibrated with two different colorimeters), which were reasonably in agreement with each other, were a long way off the matrix values, particularly for reds, oranges, magentas and yellows. Now it is not up to laboratory standards but it was good enough to show that the standard M240 profile in C1 is a long way out. I have sent P1, DNG shots in north daylight and full sunlight, taken with my 75 Summarit, which I feel is a very neutral lens, so that they can work on the profile themselves. I also sent the correct matrix values as supplied by Gretag Macbeth.

 

Wilson

Link to post
Share on other sites
daure

daure

Posted
Posted
Yes agreed but I am using two calibrated screens and correcting the red to the matrix value by use of brightness only. The balance between R, G & B averaged across the two screens (calibrated with two different colorimeters), which were reasonably in agreement with each other, were a long way off the matrix values, particularly for reds, oranges, magentas and yellows. Now it is not up to laboratory standards but it was good enough to show that the standard M240 profile in C1 is a long way out. I have sent P1, DNG shots in north daylight and full sunlight, taken with my 75 Summarit, which I feel is a very neutral lens, so that they can work on the profile themselves. I also sent the correct matrix values as supplied by Gretag Macbeth.

 

Wilson

I don't say anything about your display(s) profil(s).

I just mean you cannot use the values supplied by GMB to compare with the value you got with your shots. I think that these are relative to the working space you use to pp the files.

Link to post
Share on other sites
wlaidlaw

wlaidlaw

Posted
Posted
I don't say anything about your display(s) profil(s).

I just mean you cannot use the values supplied by GMB to compare with the value you got with your shots. I think that these are relative to the working space you use to pp the files.

 

I am afraid I disagree. The balance between the numbers for R, G and B is hugely different from the matrix values. My colour space will alter the numbers a bit but not as much as the changes that I see when I apply the C1 M240 profile. If that was the case, I would not get much in the way of correlation between the two different screens calibrated by different colorimeters and software. I got reasonable correlation.

 

Otherwise what is the point of the whole Gretag Macbeth system? My screens are what I use to set up my printer profiles and what I view the images on. If the M240 colours show up wrong on my calibrated screens, calibrated with two of the industry standard methodologies, then the C1 profile is wrong. My screens will look pretty similar to anyone else's calibrated LED screens.

 

Wilson

Link to post
Share on other sites
jonoslack

jonoslack

Posted
Posted
I use AWB quite often - and I don't think that makes me a slob :)

 

I'm sorry Chris - it was a cheap joke . . . but almost irresistible.

 

Please accept my formal apology.

 

. . . and an admission that I also use AWB quite often (shame).

 

all the best

Link to post
Share on other sites
k-hawinkler

k-hawinkler

Posted
Posted

Well, then I am glad I am not the only one who uses AWB a lot.

 

Of course, even on my M9 it often gives unusable values, I find, here in the bright light of New Mexico.

But one can easily correct that in post with DNG files.

Especially partly cloudy bright skies seem to give too much blue (for certain lenses at least).

I will try out and see how much 01af's camera corrections will help in post-processing.

 

Also, lately I started shooting DNG compressed + JPG fine, especially for long distance shots through hazy air.

Comparing an OOC JPG image with the one derived from a DNG file, using auto curves, is pretty interesting.

It's as if the curves made the haze disappear.

Link to post
Share on other sites
sblitz

sblitz

Posted
Posted

sometimes on my M9 i have wb set one way and then the next day shoot and realize i forgot to change it back to daylight or whatever. point is i load into lr4 take the icon over to netural gray spot and, poof!, magic -- shot looks fine as if the wb was set right originally. which brings me to my point -- in non-technical terms wb changes tone but not relative color. if something is too green or red or something vs another color fixing wb doesn't fix that. now i don't have an m240 to compare, camera doesn't interest me, but it seems as if these two concepts are getting confused. is the m240 wb off or are the relative colors?

Link to post
Share on other sites
k-hawinkler

k-hawinkler

Posted
Posted
sometimes on my M9 i have wb set one way and then the next day shoot and realize i forgot to change it back to daylight or whatever. point is i load into lr4 take the icon over to netural gray spot and, poof!, magic -- shot looks fine as if the wb was set right originally. which brings me to my point -- in non-technical terms wb changes tone but not relative color. if something is too green or red or something vs another color fixing wb doesn't fix that. now i don't have an m240 to compare, camera doesn't interest me, but it seems as if these two concepts are getting confused. is the m240 wb off or are the relative colors?

 

 

From reading this forum it's not clear to me whether it's one or the other or both.

Link to post
Share on other sites
ErikP

ErikP

Posted
Posted
I never had a problem with a "flimsy" flap door either on any of my cameras' date=' cheap or expensive!

 

"flimsy" flap door: another example of opinion disguised as fact?[/quote']

 

Well - all doors on my Nikons are working just fine. Also in heavy rain........

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...