CheshireCat Posted May 15, 2013 Share #561 Posted May 15, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) My two cents: 1) Fixing white balance in-camera is useless. In 2013 it does not make any sense to shoot anything but raw, and I find it preposterous that the default setting is JPEG. Furthermore, Leica struggles to fix even trivial firmware issues, no wonder I delegate as much processing as possible to external third-parties applications. 2) If the problem is in the sensor (unlikely), then it cannot be fixed in software. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted May 15, 2013 Posted May 15, 2013 Hi CheshireCat, Take a look here M Color. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
plasticman Posted May 15, 2013 Share #562 Posted May 15, 2013 How about we let Leica gather information about this specific problem without polluting the discussion with opinions about white balance, as has happened in every other thread that's attempted to address the issue. AWB and its (alleged) shortcomings are another issue entirely. For those of us who use our cameras to take (mostly) pictures of people, getting a solution to the specific problem with skintones is key to whether we'll be buying the camera in future. Please leave white balance 'problems' to another thread. PS: didn't realize my post would be re-directed to this thread, as I intended to respond in the sticky thread referencing the skintones problem directly. This is one of the threads where several discussions are simultaneously talking at cross-purposes in my opinion. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted May 15, 2013 Share #563 Posted May 15, 2013 My two cents: 1) Fixing white balance in-camera is useless.... 2) If the problem is in the sensor (unlikely), then it cannot be fixed in software. This is your opinion, and surely has a sense : but, fact is that if a manufacturer does provide an "Auto White Balance" setting... he must do his best to make it a decently usable function... I can agree that many times it is better not to use it, but I suspect that if they had taken the radical decision to NOT implement it at all, we should read lot of complaints about the lack of such a basic function in such a costly camera... (Similar consideration applies to a setting like "JPG standard" : no doubt that is ridicolous to buy a M and using regularly that setting... but, ok, it's there... I never used it on my M8... but suppose it works "right") Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thighslapper Posted May 15, 2013 Share #564 Posted May 15, 2013 My two cents: 1) Fixing white balance in-camera is useless. In 2013 it does not make any sense to shoot anything but raw, and I find it preposterous that the default setting is JPEG. Pardon ?????? Show me a camera without a White Balance Setting ..... The RAW processor uses this info when it renders the picture. If the info is wrong the picture is wrong. If the WB setting (Auto or Manual) is right, the pictures will be right. You may choose to ignore it or alter it later, but most sane photographers would prefer out of camera images that are as near correct as possible to minimise the subsequent processing. As I've said untill I have a headache, the use of a dual illuminant profile corrects the (minimal) colour issues on the M240, and use of custom WB settings (5200K for full sun, 5600K for overcast) instead of the pre-sets solves the WB issue. I then add +15 and +28 tint respectively as a batch process in LR. These values are constant and yield excellent results in almost all cases. With this I consistently have photos that need minimal adjustment ..... and FAR LESS than the M9. Skin tones are excellent. All that's needed is for Leica to implement the WB adjustments in camera and the various RAW processors to adopt the relevant colour profile that suits their rendering. Simples. I took 260 shots the other weekend and only 3 needed additional adjustment and they were with the subject in shadow and a lot of bright reflected sunlight on their faces. As far as I am concerned this is an issue that has been blown up out of proportion and the ultimate solution(s) are relatively simple and will arrive in due course..... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted May 15, 2013 Share #565 Posted May 15, 2013 Oh frankly how many times have we shot with wrong WB folks? Tungsten here... Not a big deal really. 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/203015-m-color/?do=findComment&comment=2322143'>More sharing options...
bybrett Posted May 15, 2013 Share #566 Posted May 15, 2013 This is your opinion, and surely has a sense : but, fact is that if a manufacturer does provide an "Auto White Balance" setting... he must do his best to make it a decently usable function... Agreed, can we please also apply this thinking to the "discreet mode" and "clipping overexposure only" settings on the M9 in FW 1.196 which are currently unusable?! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_tribble Posted May 15, 2013 Share #567 Posted May 15, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) Agreed, can we please also apply this thinking to the "discreet mode" and "clipping overexposure only" settings on the M9 in FW 1.196 which are currently unusable?! I think part of the issue with M9 firmware is that it's done by Jenoptik. The good thing (I hope) with the M typ 240 FW is that it's being done in house and Leica have control. That said, I'd still like to have the update (and dealers would like to have cameras to sell!) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wlaidlaw Posted May 15, 2013 Share #568 Posted May 15, 2013 I think part of the issue with M9 firmware is that it's done by Jenoptik. The good thing (I hope) with the M typ 240 FW is that it's being done in house and Leica have control. That said, I'd still like to have the update (and dealers would like to have cameras to sell!) Chris, I am guessing that "events" have intervened although I would have thought that writing updated firmware is a different skill to disassembling cameras and tightening lugs but maybe it is "all hands to the pumps". The whisper was that updated FW was due out weeks ago. It is not as if it costs anything to post an interim FW with at least some fixes. Wilson Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest tanks Posted May 15, 2013 Share #569 Posted May 15, 2013 Chris, ... It is not as if it costs anything to post an interim FW with at least some fixes. Wilson It actually costs a lot. You have to branch the software for interim release, and go through a complete QA cycle for that release. If you find problems with the interim release than you also have to merge those fixes back into the original branch. A lot of unnecessary manpower expanded. Plus, there is not much of a user base out there that gets affected by not having the software fixes at this point. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrp Posted May 15, 2013 Share #570 Posted May 15, 2013 Anyone tried the new DxO Optics Pro, which has just added M support? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
daure Posted May 15, 2013 Share #571 Posted May 15, 2013 Oh frankly how many times have we shot with wrong WB folks? Tungsten here... Not a big deal really. France Bleu au Havre / France Bleu :) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bybrett Posted May 15, 2013 Share #572 Posted May 15, 2013 I think part of the issue with M9 firmware is that it's done by Jenoptik. The good thing (I hope) with the M typ 240 FW is that it's being done in house and Leica have control. That said, I'd still like to have the update (and dealers would like to have cameras to sell!) It's easy to control, just get on with it and commission Jenoptik to get on with the firmware whilst Leica get on with the lug glue. It would be nice to think that Leica could finish the M9 before the market is flooded with the M10. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bybrett Posted May 15, 2013 Share #573 Posted May 15, 2013 Would be even nicer for M-E buyers if the camera was shipping with a workable discreet and clipping modes. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
daure Posted May 15, 2013 Share #574 Posted May 15, 2013 It would be nice to think that Leica could finish the M9 before the market is flooded with the M10. It would be nice to think that Leica could finish the MM before the market is flooded with the M10 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheshireCat Posted May 17, 2013 Share #575 Posted May 17, 2013 Pardon ??????Show me a camera without a White Balance Setting ..... The Leica M7 Jokes apart, until we get rid of JPEG, we cannot get rid of WB. Therefore I am proposing getting rid of both at the same time Essentiality is what I love in Leica. I wish they were more consistent in this. The RAW processor uses this info when it renders the picture. If the info is wrong the picture is wrong. The picture is independent from the WB info. I.e. the raw sensor data would be the same with different WB settings. WB info is detected post-shot on RAW data by an algorithm. Serious RAW processors have better algorithms than the one Leica is currently using to write the WB info in the DNG. Furthermore, very advanced algorithms may perform WB local adaptation for multiple different light sources in different parts of the image. You may choose to ignore it or alter it later, but most sane photographers would prefer out of camera images that are as near correct as possible to minimise the subsequent processing. Well, subsequent processing is just clicking "Auto WB" in Lightroom. Not a big deal As I've said untill I have a headache, the use of a dual illuminant profile corrects the (minimal) colour issues on the M240, and use of custom WB settings (5200K for full sun, 5600K for overcast) instead of the pre-sets solves the WB issue. I then add +15 and +28 tint respectively as a batch process in LR. These values are constant and yield excellent results in almost all cases. Makes sense. I do something like this when even Lr does not get WB right, then copy&paste WB to all images in the series. It's a matter of 15 seconds. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwilliamsphotography Posted May 18, 2013 Share #576 Posted May 18, 2013 Pardon ?????? Show me a camera without a White Balance Setting ..... The RAW processor uses this info when it renders the picture. If the info is wrong the picture is wrong. If the WB setting (Auto or Manual) is right, the pictures will be right. You may choose to ignore it or alter it later, but most sane photographers would prefer out of camera images that are as near correct as possible to minimise the subsequent processing. As I've said untill I have a headache, the use of a dual illuminant profile corrects the (minimal) colour issues on the M240, and use of custom WB settings (5200K for full sun, 5600K for overcast) instead of the pre-sets solves the WB issue. I then add +15 and +28 tint respectively as a batch process in LR. These values are constant and yield excellent results in almost all cases. With this I consistently have photos that need minimal adjustment ..... and FAR LESS than the M9. Skin tones are excellent. All that's needed is for Leica to implement the WB adjustments in camera and the various RAW processors to adopt the relevant colour profile that suits their rendering. Simples. I took 260 shots the other weekend and only 3 needed additional adjustment and they were with the subject in shadow and a lot of bright reflected sunlight on their faces. As far as I am concerned this is an issue that has been blown up out of proportion and the ultimate solution(s) are relatively simple and will arrive in due course..... If you shot 260 images, only 3 needing adjustment, with skin tones being excellent ... then that is the goal most concerned M users are looking for. However, to keep this on the subject that the OP brought up in post number 1 ... those "excellent" skin tones you tout ... where are your images of people without the yellow green bias that seems to be infecting those skin tones? So far as I have been able to detect, most attempts to correct this skin tone bias seem to alter the other color spectrums, and in a few cases oddly effect the sense of contrast ... some to the point that a few adjusted shots look "colorized". I regularly shoot a lot more than 260 M digital images, and 98% of them have people in them. Skin tones are important, and IMO when a camera can't get it right then discussing it is NOT blowing it out of proportion ... it is the MOST important thing. As you say, it may well be a simple solution ... yet, if it is so simple, then why wasn't it implemented right away? It isn't as if Leica doesn't have any experience in color rendering. I process upwards of 500 to 1000 images per wedding shoot, or hundreds on a commercial shoot. Often from 4 or 5 different wedding cameras including my second shooter's Canons and/or Nikons, often in less than ideal light. I've personally used most every Pro Canon, Nikon, or Sony 35mm FF DSLR made in the past 10 years, before that a Contax N Digital, Contax 645 with a Kodak back, Hassey Vs with CFV back, Hasselblad H cameras from 22 meg through 60 meg, 3 different Leica M9s, and my current S2. Despite the strengths and weakness of each of them, skin tones have not been an issue that I had to give a second thought to from any of them. To date, I'd say the Sony A900 has the best out-of-camera color rendering of any 35mm DSLR, with (as you call them) ... excellent skin tones ... which is a FF 24 meg CMOS sensor in a camera that cost $2,600. So why can't the M flagship at least match that? I realize that color is a subjective subject ... yet there is a pretty universal standard most makers adhere to regarding skin tones ... also, if one sends film or digital files out to a Lab to print ... the standard priority is ... the most aesthetically accurate skin tones possible. That is the priority when I examine proofs for a wedding album, or proofs and progs for any print advertisement I've shot ... and it is also the priority of any Art Director or print production manager. It is no small issue ... it is the MAIN issue. -Marc Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wlaidlaw Posted May 18, 2013 Share #577 Posted May 18, 2013 Marc, I would agree with what you say. Where the M240 seems to be struggling along with LR (using my dual illuminance profile) is younger children, especially using flash. They end up with noticeably magenta coloured skin, which in LR, I find difficult to correct well. It may be that I should be using an IR filter for this task but an 82mm IR filter for my Zeiss Vario Sonnar is an arm and two legs. In the meantime, I am using the generally less than stellar standard M240 profile in Capture One, then tweaking settings using the colour wheel and skin tones tool. This is not a quick process as each image needs separate treatment. Copying and pasting a profile is not good enough. Wilson Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
01af Posted May 18, 2013 Share #578 Posted May 18, 2013 Where the M (Typ 240) seems to be struggling along with Lightroom (using my dual illuminance profile) is ... Wilson, in the profile recipe (the .dcpr file) that you created with Adobe DNG Profile Editor from the two DNG files, go to the Color Matrices tab and enter the following adjustments: Red Primary: Hue -10; Saturation -10 Green Primary: Hue -10; Saturation -15 Blue Primary: Hue -5; Saturation -10 Save the modified recipe under a new name and then export the profile (the .dcp file). Tell me what you think. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wlaidlaw Posted May 18, 2013 Share #579 Posted May 18, 2013 Olaf, Many thanks for your suggestions. I have tried the recipe you suggested and saved it as child's skin tones 1 User Preset. I still think LR5 is too magenta. Look at the finger tips in the photo below developed with your suggested recipe. Now I am not sure that the Zeiss Vario Sonnar lens which I am using is helping in this respect as it is very high contrast. Wilson 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/203015-m-color/?do=findComment&comment=2324153'>More sharing options...
erl Posted May 18, 2013 Share #580 Posted May 18, 2013 My immediate impression is too yellow but I don't know what lighting was used. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.