M Color

[01af]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

... if that resulted in pure whites not being totally equal RGB numbers.

Don't assume something was "pure white" just because it looks basically white at first sight. In real life, there's many kinds of white.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[01af]

Here's another example from the Leica S2 (proving they know what skin should look like IMO) ...

No, they don't. Here, skin tones are too magenta, too. Not as objectionable as with the M (Typ 240), but still ...

 

Untrained eyes might find this acceptable. But it is not really the way it should be

[lct]

Not the first time i read that such or such image is too "magenta" here. OK so i open the file in Photoshop, i set the magenta saturation and lightness slides to 100% and i don't see any magenta at all, or so few that it sounds like a joke. Same with the hue slide in the bride pic above. Did this twice on two different calibrated monitors before writing this post. Am i becoming daltonian?

[01af]

... I don't see any magenta at all, or so few that it sounds like a joke.

The lady's and the two girls' faces are basically acceptable, but the lady's hand is way off. Don't you see that?

[thighslapper]

I fear we are on a fruitless quest for the Holy Grail........

 

Human perception varies from person to person (and even eye to eye) with our own personal 'white balance' that varies depending on circumstances and expectations.

 

Skin is not a uniform substance like metal or masonry and varies enormously in colouration and tone from person to person even in the same family let alone ethnic groups.

 

Of all the features in an image it seems to be the one that is most sensitive to illumination and in mixed light or with part illumination it is almost impossible to get every bit of exposed skin looking 'right' ....... (Whatever criteria you use to define that).

 

I can't recall a single image taken with any camera posted here where someone hasn't said there is something wrong somewhere with the skin tones

 

I think the best any camera system will manage is producing skin images that are acceptable to most people, most of the time.

 

Most of my recent images with a corrected WB and Colour Profile have skin tones that look ok to ME on MY monitor or printer.

 

You can tell me I'm deluded, half blind or wrong but I don't really care :p

 

It's being personally happy with your images that counts.

[mwilliamsphotography]

It is not unusual for hands to be more red or magenta depending on the person ... if you correct just for magenta tined hands then the rest of the image goes way off color. People do not wear make-up on their hands unless they are a hand-model.

 

Here's another subject with average Caucasian skin tones leaning to the "peachy" ... relatively normal looking skin unlike so many people images from the M240. The read out on this Bride's skin is similar to the others that I mentioned ... very close to an equal percentage of magenta and yellow regardless of exposure levels.

 

How we may each see it on our monitor may differ, but it seems the consistent aspect is that the color read out from the skin is very close to equal percentages of magenta and yellow ... and that the other colors are not polluted by an over-all bias.

 

-Marc

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!

[01af]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Here's another subject with average Caucasian skin tones leaning to the "peachy" ... relatively normal looking skin unlike so many people images from the M (Typ 240).

Yeah—wow! Now these colours look good! What did you use to process the file?

 

And oh, by the way—great shot!

[mwilliamsphotography]

Thanks.

 

This is a shot from the Sony A900 pretty much straight from the camera. Post was done in Light Room 4 using the Adobe standard profile ... one of almost 1,000 images we shot on a long wedding day.

 

As mentioned earlier in this thread, this camera is known for it's faithful color rendering, and seems to have the whole color thing down pat ... which in turn makes post far less labor intense. I'm using it as an example, because it's a 24 meg, full-frame CMOS sensor, so comparable to the M240 in resolution.

 

However, a rangefinder is a rangefinder, and M lenses are wonderful. I'm hoping some adjustments are made to the M240 because I cannot afford the time to sit and fuss with every image. Post work is like chocolate, a little is a lot of fun, a lot is sickening.

 

-Marc

[jaques]

owning an m8 and an m9-p I have always been a little surprised by just how much better the AWB is on the M8- especially for interior shots under artificial lighting. I always wondered 'why is it so'? Sure we can adjust WB in PP- but why should we have to? And why was the m9 not better than the m8? And I always found it is easier if the image is close or correct at the start... the less adjusting the better.

[jaapv]

I must say I never noticed this discrepancy. I did notice a marked improvement during the lifespan of the M8, a short dip when the M9 came out when the raw converters and Leica (and users!) were shooting the colors in, and after that there is little to choose between the two imo.

[erl]

Very slight differences between M8 and M9 colour rendition.

 

M8 is slightly more muted than M9, rather like differences between various films. None are wrong, or right, just what they are. I find uses for both. They are tools at my disposal. The final rendition is up to me, the 'painter'. After PP you would not know which 'tube of paint' I squeezed the picture from!

[k-hawinkler]

Thanks.

 

This is a shot from the Sony A900 pretty much straight from the camera. Post was done in Light Room 4 using the Adobe standard profile ... one of almost 1,000 images we shot on a long wedding day.

 

As mentioned earlier in this thread, this camera is known for it's faithful color rendering, and seems to have the whole color thing down pat ... which in turn makes post far less labor intense. I'm using it as an example, because it's a 24 meg, full-frame CMOS sensor, so comparable to the M240 in resolution.

 

However, a rangefinder is a rangefinder, and M lenses are wonderful. I'm hoping some adjustments are made to the M240 because I cannot afford the time to sit and fuss with every image. Post work is like chocolate, a little is a lot of fun, a lot is sickening.

 

-Marc

 

 

Isn't that - faithful color rendering - what one would want from a Leica camera?

What am I missing?

[dwbell]

Isn't that - faithful color rendering - what one would want from a Leica camera?

What am I missing?

 

I suggest Leica are missing something, not you.

[lct]

Isn't that - faithful color rendering - what one would want from a Leica camera?

What am I missing?

You're surely missing less things than i do by far.

Aside from some happy few here, how many of us can quote a single Leica camera with accurate auto WB so far?

I am glad for Marc and others with their marvelous machines doing this directly if i understand well but aside from my old 5D1 perhaps (with some pinches of salt), it never happened to me with my admittedly non pro Nikons, R-D1s or M8.2 and as clear as i recall the M9 AWB was not marvelous either. Same for the M240 whose AWB is far from perfect but hardly worth than that of the M9 at its beginning at least.

Now what is exactly the big deal about all that? Most of us are using raw converters like LR or C1 aren't we. They allow us to do personal colour profiles very easily don't they. So why don't you do your own profiles folks? I did a simple one in C1, it will improve with experience but it adjusts my main colour issues so far and i just have to do one click tor that.

Tell me that it is too complicated for you folks or explain me what's all this fuss about a mere WB issue on the Leica forum.

[mwilliamsphotography]

You're surely missing less things than i do by far.

Aside from some happy few here, how many of us can quote a single Leica camera with accurate auto WB so far?

I am glad for Marc and others with their marvelous machines doing this directly if i understand well but aside from my old 5D1 perhaps (with some pinches of salt), it never happened to me with my admittedly non pro Nikons, R-D1s or M8.2 and as clear as i recall the M9 AWB was not marvelous either. Same for the M240 whose AWB is far from perfect but hardly worth than that of the M9 at its beginning at least.

Now what is exactly the big deal about all that? Most of us are using raw converters like LR or C1 aren't we. They allow us to do personal colour profiles very easily don't they. So why don't you do your own profiles folks? I did a simple one in C1, it will improve with experience but it adjusts my main colour issues so far and i just have to do one click tor that.

Tell me that it is too complicated for you folks or explain me what's all this fuss about a mere WB issue on the Leica forum.

 

Nothing marvelous about anyone's photographic machine ... it is the photographer that is supposed to be in charge. Getting decent exposure and color rendering right out of the camera DOESN'T mean letting the camera set everything for you ... including auto WB. All it means is that you understand your tools and know how to work with them to get better results, so you spend less time in post. Now, less time in post would indeed be marvelous.

 

In lower and mixed lighting situations I usually used the manual white balance with the M9 ... if the Bride's dress was white I'd just shoot a WB off that ... or I carry a large white micro-cloth. Auto WB in normal daylight was fine with the M9.

 

IMO, the M240 skin tones being discussed on this thread ISN'T JUST AN AWB ISSUE. There seems to be a yellow green skew or cast ... maybe a saturation issue ... I don't know what the cause may be, but it isn't just AWB ... that is a separate issue.

 

-Marc

[lct]

... that i just don't see as i get exactly the results i need... ignorance but me bliss i guess.

[kdriceman]

Nothing marvelous about anyone's photographic machine ... it is the photographer that is supposed to be in charge. Getting decent exposure and color rendering right out of the camera DOESN'T mean letting the camera set everything for you ... including auto WB. All it means is that you understand your tools and know how to work with them to get better results, so you spend less time in post. Now, less time in post would indeed be marvelous.

 

In lower and mixed lighting situations I usually used the manual white balance with the M9 ... if the Bride's dress was white I'd just shoot a WB off that ... or I carry a large white micro-cloth. Auto WB in normal daylight was fine with the M9.

 

IMO, the M240 skin tones being discussed on this thread ISN'T JUST AN AWB ISSUE. There seems to be a yellow green skew or cast ... maybe a saturation issue ... I don't know what the cause may be, but it isn't just AWB ... that is a separate issue.

 

-Marc

 

And why is it that it seems so difficult to find a profile that corrects this on a consistent basis? I don't have my M240 yet so I'm only tossing thoughts out, but are we discussing different human perceptions here... Or are we looking at inconsistent hardware and production issues. Do Jono and Chris (two accomplished photographers) happen to have sensors from a good batch while those that seem to be struggling with color (some also very accomploshed) have sensors from a bad production batch?

 

The seemingly glacial pace of deliveries combined with what seems to be inconsistent color performance makes me wonder.

[zlatkob]

The lady's and the two girls' faces are basically acceptable, but the lady's hand is way off. Don't you see that?

 

It is not unusual for hands to be more red or magenta depending on the person ... if you correct just for magenta tined hands then the rest of the image goes way off color.

 

Marc is right: red or magenta hands are very common in portraits. That is how they appear, although some digital cameras do make them look worse. We don't correct an entire photo for the hands, but may use a selective color adjustment brush to subtract some magenta and add some cyan to the hands. This is done only partially, as removing too much red/magenta doesn't look right either. I have one brush to remove red/magenta from hands, and another to remove yellow from teeth.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[mardag]

 

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.

 

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?

 

 

It is no small issue ... it is the MAIN issue.

 

-Marc

 

I´ve followed this thread for a while and I agree that the M9 has “different color”. I agree with Marc about the M9, Sony and the MFBs and skin tones. Joakim Bengtsson (The Suede) the developer of QP Card, (QPcard - The Key to Color) he´s got a lot of knowledge about sensor development and the algorithms behind profiles of cameras. I found this old discussion over at Fred Miranda forum and thought it explained some things.

 

a850 vs a900, 1 stop better noise performance? - FM Forums

 

As I understand, it boils down to how the different manufacturers design the color filter array (CFA). The CFA seems to have a lot to do with the color fingerprint of different cameras. And also how good the profiles are. Apparently difficult light need better profiles.

 

Here´s some quotes from his replies in the thread:

 

“Better colour is mostly fingerprint related, yes. We generally look at the overall balances, not the detail. “

 

“The way manufacturers make their general "trade-off choices" is a large part of the manufacturer colour fingerprint also, and those chosen trade-offs also affect the way you can post-process your pictures quite strongly. It's said that MDFB's can be PP'd a lot harder than "normal" cameras, and in part this is very much true - due to the choices an MDFB maker is likely to do when choosing a sensor package.”

 

“The P45+ (and some others, like the Leica sensors) have chosen a slightly different approach with a slightly wider separation of the primaries, and slightly wider filters. “

 

“D2x and A900 share two very important characteristics; they have very good (small) metamerism areas, and they have very good hue resolution. Hue resolution is (can be...) measured by how small the hue differences that the camera can distinguish between are, if you place two (say) 10x10 pixel patches of each hue next to eachother.”

 

“Sony chose to not sacrifice anything on the "high-ISO" altar, but concentrated on just getting the relationships between the CFA colours "just right" in stead. Both Nikon and Canon have started to sacrifice some accuracy for better transmittivity > lower noise. “

 

“So, in good light with the right profile, any camera will do. A slightly "worse" camera will need a slightly "sharper" profile to be used for accurate correction, but it's definitely doable. The differences only surface when you get into "difficult" light, or less light. In my opinion, this is also why different raw-conversion engines work better with certain cameras, and worse with others - the algorithms that interpolate the two missing colours per pixel can use many different schemes of weighing luma/chroma (mis)information against eachother to get as close to reality as possible. And some schemes work better for some types of CFA compromises, worse for others.”

[jonoslack]

And why is it that it seems so difficult to find a profile that corrects this on a consistent basis? I don't have my M240 yet so I'm only tossing thoughts out, but are we discussing different human perceptions here... Or are we looking at inconsistent hardware and production issues. Do Jono and Chris (two accomplished photographers) happen to have sensors from a good batch while those that seem to be struggling with color (some also very accomploshed) have sensors from a bad production batch?

 

The seemingly glacial pace of deliveries combined with what seems to be inconsistent color performance makes me wonder.

 

HI There

Well, you should probably stop wondering about variability, and since you brought up my name!

I've used 4 different cameras (or is that 5 - yes, 5) the colour has been the same since the first firmware update in October.

I agree with Marc that the colour in the A900 is peerless, but I do not agree that the AWB issue (such as it is) with the M is serious - and I have 1000s of images as evidence.

 

Not to suggest that it couldn't be improved