lct Posted May 8, 2013 Share #521 Posted May 8, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) ...Is iCorrect an app for Apple Aperture?... There are one stand-alone program and plug-ins for Photoshop and Photoshop Elements AFAIK. http://www.pictocolor.com/downloads/iCEditLabProDemoInstaller.hqx Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted May 8, 2013 Posted May 8, 2013 Hi lct, Take a look here M Color. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Thomas Chen Posted May 8, 2013 Share #522 Posted May 8, 2013 There are one stand-alone program and plug-ins for Photoshop and Photoshop Elements AFAIK.http://www.pictocolor.com/downloads/iCEditLabProDemoInstaller.hqx Thanks for the information. Thomas Chen Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
verbivore Posted May 10, 2013 Share #523 Posted May 10, 2013 In general I’ve been happy with the output of the Leica M Type 240, particularly the high resolution and low noise. Here are three galleries with of landscapes, seascapes, wildlife, a ghost town, urban landscapes, and street scenes: Cape Cod Leica - Steven Pinker's Photographs Boston Leica - Steven Pinker's Photographs Netherlands - Steven Pinker's Photographs I have, however, noticed some shortcomings in the raw DNGs (the files in the Web galleries have all been processed in ACR and PS6; links to the raw files are available upon request). One problem is that highlights often get blown out. The other is that color rendition is sometimes hard to control: reds and oranges are oversaturated; skin tones are ashen if the image is left unsaturated or orange-pink if vibrance is increased; greens can come out yellowish; local contrast is low and often needs a curves or clarity boost. I also find that metering appears to be biased toward overexposure. I often have to compensate by -1 stop, either while shooting, or in ACR. All this pertains to the raw DNGs. Jpegs are worse. Contrast is excessive, with the shadows way too dark. Corrections for vignetting and distortion from the 6-bit codes are not apparent. Images from the 16-18-21 Wide-Angle-Tri-Elmar had horribly warped horizons, which I could correct in ACR only with a profile I manually downloaded from a user Web site I came across. The Vivid film simulation style is postcard-garish and unusable. In my view this is a camera for raw shooters. Despite its quirks, I'm mostly happy with the camera. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted May 10, 2013 Share #524 Posted May 10, 2013 No color problems with the M240 and the current version (7.1.1) of Capture One so far but some previous versions of same show oversatured red, cyan and magenta. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thighslapper Posted May 10, 2013 Share #525 Posted May 10, 2013 The Vivid film simulation style is postcard-garish and unusable. In my view this is a camera for raw shooters. Despite its quirks, I'm mostly happy with the camera. No idea how you have managed to get these fluorescent colours out of the M240..... My images using LR with a dual illuminant profile and manually set WB (5000K for sunny and 5600K for overcast) produces much more mild mannered and natural photos...... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sblitz Posted May 10, 2013 Share #526 Posted May 10, 2013 all this seems like a lot of work for such an expensive camera. i would think the dng file would start in pp at an acceptable base and then one's artistic view can go from there. here everyone is breaking a sweat to just get to even. btw, my experience with the m9 is that the photos come out a bit too saturated in lr4 and better in capture one. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicashot Posted May 11, 2013 Share #527 Posted May 11, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) No idea how you have managed to get these fluorescent colours out of the M240..... My images using LR with a dual illuminant profile and manually set WB (5000K for sunny and 5600K for overcast) produces much more mild mannered and natural photos...... My experience is that you cannot use the WB presets in the camera or lightroom. They add too much yellow and magenta. In camera, AWB is still the best, or manual. Then in LR, I manually tweak as I go per image. My gallery is here if you'd like to see. Using AWB (which I previously never used much) is what all these were shot on, and outdoors it's very accurate, requiring little color shifting. http://kristiandowling.com/galleries/ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted May 11, 2013 Share #528 Posted May 11, 2013 Kristiand - I agree, outdoors the camera does a pretty good to ok job with AWB. In general I agree that the images are Yellow/Magenta, but, these are correctable with temp and tint in the WB. I seem to routinely move to more blue(temp) and less magenta(tint). AWB in my M does a better job outdoors than my RX1 most of the time. So far I am getting used to working with my M's color (RAW) in LR and I still say I like the color very much. I don't have any problems with blown highlights like Steven mentioned above. But, I don't use exposure compensation and I shoot manual exposure almost 100% of the time. I do have a problem that involves not getting to go on vacation with my M to Solms this month. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thighslapper Posted May 11, 2013 Share #529 Posted May 11, 2013 Kristiand - I agree, outdoors the camera does a pretty good to ok job with AWB. I don't have any problems with blown highlights like Steven mentioned above. But, I don't use exposure compensation and I shoot manual exposure almost 100% of the time. Yup, AWB outdoors when its sunny is usually ok .... anything else ... particularly overcast etc. and it struggles. Ditto with blown highlights ....... and when they are there is a suprising amount of recoverable data when dialled down in LR...... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thighslapper Posted May 11, 2013 Share #530 Posted May 11, 2013 In general I’ve been happy with the output of the Leica M Type 240, particularly the high resolution and low noise. Here are three galleries with of landscapes, seascapes, wildlife, a ghost town, urban landscapes, and street scenes: Despite its quirks, I'm mostly happy with the camera. ....... ps ...... very nice photos by the way ...... irrespective of the colour ...... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted May 11, 2013 Share #531 Posted May 11, 2013 ...i would think the dng file would start in pp at an acceptable base and then one's artistic view can go from there... Exactly what happens with the M240 is my couple-of-hours experience. Shooting raw in AWB and using the same raw converter (C1), i don't need to tweak my files any more than out of my M8.2. I keep my UV/IR filters on BTW and i don't get disturbing color shifts from 24mm to 90mm so far. My dear little CV 21/4 will stay in the M8.2 bag though and i did not try my 21/2.8 asph yet. Aside from the useless Olympus EVF on moving subjects, i find this cam pretty impressive so far and its so called color problems remain a non issue for me. But i don't rely on AWB, never did it and i won't begin with the M240 so YMMW about that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Chen Posted May 11, 2013 Share #532 Posted May 11, 2013 In general I’ve been happy with the output of the Leica M Type 240, particularly the high resolution and low noise. .... Despite its quirks, I'm mostly happy with the camera. Professor Pinker, Kristian mentioned in the thread "Leica m(type 240) field test and review"-link #1: "......The files don't have that typical CMOS look that many describe as looking like 'plastic'. If anything, they look a little rough at base ISO, quite like the M9, which takes away the smooth 'digital look.", with which I agree. Would you please make comment on his point, from the perspective of a scientist of world renown in the field of visual percetion. Thanks. Thomas Chen Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Chen Posted May 11, 2013 Share #533 Posted May 11, 2013 Exactly what happens with the M240 is my couple-of-hours experience. Shooting raw in AWB and using the same raw converter (C1), i don't need to tweak my files any more than out of my M8.2....... i find this cam pretty impressive so far and its so called color problems remain a non issue for me. . Does this suggest that if Leica bundle M (type 240) with Capture One Ver. 7.11 then all major color issues can be turned into non-issues? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
k-hawinkler Posted May 11, 2013 Share #534 Posted May 11, 2013 Exactly what happens with the M240 is my couple-of-hours experience. Shooting raw in AWB and using the same raw converter (C1), i don't need to tweak my files any more than out of my M8.2. I keep my UV/IR filters on BTW and i don't get disturbing color shifts from 24mm to 90mm so far. My dear little CV 21/4 will stay in the M8.2 bag though and i did not try my 21/2.8 asph yet. Aside from the useless Olympus EVF on moving subjects, i find this cam pretty impressive so far and its so called color problems remain a non issue for me. But i don't rely on AWB, never did it and i won't begin with the M240 so YMMW about that. Thanks. How important is use of an UV/IR filter for getting great colors? What WB values do you use for some typical situations? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wlaidlaw Posted May 11, 2013 Share #535 Posted May 11, 2013 Does this suggest that if Leica bundle M (type 240) with Capture One Ver. 7.11 then all major color issues can be turned into non-issues? I am afraid I disagree and I am a long time Capture One enthusiast. At the moment, Lightroom with a custom dual illuminance profile is nearer to reality than C1 and you can batch process. You can get a decent image on C1 but it is too much work on each individual image at the moment to be practical. I keep hoping that either someone will publish an accurate ICC profile for the M240, Phase One will update their own profile from actual work with a camera (the current profile was I believe, made without having a camera in their possession) or that Phase One will complete their negotiations with X-Rite and build an ICC profile maker from a CC24 chart into C1. Being realistic, that will probably not be until V.8. Wilson Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thighslapper Posted May 11, 2013 Share #536 Posted May 11, 2013 I am afraid I disagree and I am a long time Capture One enthusiast. At the moment, Lightroom with a custom dual illuminance profile is nearer to reality than C1 and you can batch process. You can get a decent image on C1 but it is too much work on each individual image at the moment to be practical. I keep hoping that either someone will publish an accurate ICC profile for the M240, Phase One will update their own profile from actual work with a camera (the current profile was I believe, made without having a camera in their possession) or that Phase One will complete their negotiations with X-Rite and build an ICC profile maker from a CC24 chart into C1. Being realistic, that will probably not be until V.8. Wilson I agree. I trialed C1 and couldn't get satisfactory results. Aperture ditto. My X-Rite generated dual illuminant profile + LR does just fine. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Chen Posted May 11, 2013 Share #537 Posted May 11, 2013 Being realistic, that will probably not be until V.8. Wilson, Thank you very much, it helps a lot. Thomas Chen Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted May 11, 2013 Share #538 Posted May 11, 2013 Interesting discussion indeed as my findings are somewhat contrary to what has been said above. No disrespect folks as my experience with the M240 (# 47015**) is limited to a couple of hours and with LR4 to a dozen of minutes at best. Let alone that i'm in my country house now w/o any chart nor tripod on hand. Anyway, my feeling for what it's worth is that the camera's AWB shows indeed too saturated colours (mainly but not only reds) and that LR 4.4's default settings are useless to fix the problem whilst those of C1 7.1.1 show more accurate results by far. See a mix of daylight, halogen and tungsten pic below in the following formats: - Out of camera jpg: http://tinyurl.com/c3mptem (4 MB file) - Out of LR tif converted to jpg: http://tinyurl.com/bqej7vj (29 MB file) - Out of C1 tif converted to jpg: http://tinyurl.com/c8ms3yl (30 MB file) For those interested, the original dng file can be downloaded here until May 18, 2013 09:33: http://tinyurl.com/ckpteut (28 MB file) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted May 11, 2013 Share #539 Posted May 11, 2013 Like K-H, I'm also interested in results without UV-IR compared to with UV/IR. And, similarly, how you feel about b/w versus the M8.2. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted May 11, 2013 Share #540 Posted May 11, 2013 Wilson - When I got my M at the end of March I shot a color checker and was unable to get a better profile than LR Adobe Standard. The Passport Checker would work ok for specific files, but the color MacBeth card had to be in pretty much each lighting scene and it still needed correction. But, it did show me that good color was possible and that the AWB was usually the problem. I learned to set color in LR at 5000-5200K for outdoor sun and the Tint to -8 to -15. This provided a pretty good starting point. In early April I made some LR camera profiles shooting the color card in two different color temperatures and used the LR stand alone program to make a LR profile, the one you refer to as the dual illuminance profile (I think all of the LR camera profiles are dual illuminance). None of these profiles proved to be as good as the LR Adobe Standard camera profile. By the time I got done with all of this screwing around I ended up having a good idea how to make adjustments on my own from Adobe Standard which I ended up deciding wasn't that bad after all. I suspect that there will be an updated profile in the future like the M9 at some point. But, even the updated program from the M9 was consistently too cold (blue) and needed correction with a profile and adjustment from there if, you really wanted to make it perfect. Overall, I think the color is better than the M9 for skin tones and about the same if you shoot landscapes - very good to excellent. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.