M Color

[mwilliamsphotography]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

ref. Stephens rather caustic post .....

 

I have to agree with Jaap........

 

The sensor is essentially irrelevant.

 

Colour output, white balance, et al are all down to processing of the interpolated sensor output and is software dependent.

 

Currently the M's embedded profile and white balance need fine tuning. We are the usual guinea pigs.... which presumably is a cheaper option than a vast R&D and Software department....

 

.... but as you seem to like almost nothing about the camera anyway then I suppose you have made the right choice..... premature or otherwise...

 

Personally, I didn't think Stephen's post was particularly "caustic", just straightforward feedback based on direct experience from a Leica user, not a new recruit ... at the very least, it won't be confused with wishful thinking, or coulda, woulda, shoulda reactions. He didn't start this thread, it was started by someone else with Leica street cred that experienced the camera, and also found it lacking.

 

The sensor being "irrelevant" is speculative at best. We do not know that yet. It is a new custom sensor from a company not associated with digital camera offerings as we know them. It may be a take it or leave it hardware proposition.

 

As you have suggested, some long time M Rangefinder users hope is that it is something that can be eventually adjusted.

 

I'm in the camp of hoping you are right ... but not to the point of plopping down $7,000 on a wing and prayer ... nor succumbing to a high pressure retail tactic that "if I don't buy now, it'll be a year before I get another chance" ... (which I seriously doubt, BTW).

 

-Marc

[jffielde]

I think a little bold negativity in the forum is refreshing. Leica folks are surprisingly easily impressed / satisfied when it comes to their digital bodies.

 

There are many wonderful things about our Leicas that we know and discuss often, but there continue to be issues that are frankly preposterous that deserve a good roasting now and again. It doesn't bother me in the slightest when someone does so.

[k-hawinkler]

For my taste there is still too much fanboy-ism in these pages!

I don't think that helps anyone.

[jaapv]

Somehow I doubt that stating that the M9 colors leave something to be desired comes under the heading of fanboyism. Up to now the camera that allows me to obtain the colours that are most pleasing to my eyes is the DMR.

[k-hawinkler]

Somehow I doubt that stating that the M9 colors leave something to be desired comes under the heading of fanboyism. Up to now the camera that allows me to obtain the colours that are most pleasing to my eyes is the DMR.

 

 

I agree!

[AlanJW]

So, Mark, what do you think? You have an M. You're technically competent. You're experienced with both the M and M9. Is this an AWB-only issue? Or is it an AWB+profiles issue? Or is it a hardware (sensor) issue?

 

I would put same question to Tim Ashley, Chris Tribble, Jono Slack and others who have worked with both M9 and M. I didn't get the sense from the reviews that we were dealing with an unworkable and unredeemable dud camera that cannot render flesh tones properly (whatever "flesh tones" means) and is impossible to post process. So what is actually going on?

[Photomek]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Isn't it also necessary to tell, which RAW conversion and in the case of Adobe Camera Raw which calibration profile was used (embedded/camera standard or adobe standard)?

 

I've only a M8 and use the embedded camera profile in Lightroom which is satisfying for me. The Adobe Standard profile isn't working for me at all. I wrote about it in this thread. With the M9 and M240 you do have also two choices with ACR.

[Rick]

I like the color from the M. The beta files sucked. But, the camera is capable of producing pleasing color. Skin tones in my estimation are as good as the M9 and are way better at higher ISO where the M9 sucked. Skin tones in the M9 are difficult to PP at higher ISO or in mixed lighting. Or, for that matter, in tungsten lighting that is incorrectly underexposed or is at ISO over 640. I am not sure where anybody is getting that this was not the reported as a normal accepted problem with the M9. The M9 color was never said to be good except at 5000k in bright light where it is excellent.

 

Why are we getting reports of bad color? I'm not sure but some come from those that don't own the camera and I can tell you that you can't dry lab a camera from someone else's files posted on the internet.

 

Next, I'm not sure that people understand PP. Sorry. These files are tricky if you are used to the M9. The WB is way off. It took me a long while to figure out that the color is ok.

 

To start, take the photos into LR and shoot a color chart. Place your cussor over black and align the RGB channels using just Temp and Tint. You should be able to get them to all equal out or pretty close. If, you don't know what I'm talking about then, you don't know what you are talking about.

 

If, you don't have a color chart or you didn't shoot one (I never or rarely do either) then pick something as close to true black and make the same RGB adjustments in LR.

 

You can do this in channels in PS if you want. But, in LR you can get a feel for how the WB needs to be adjusted with Temp and color.

 

Once you do this you are going to like the colors a lot better and you can adjust from there, but I bet you are going to find that they are very close to pleasing.

 

Sorry, I don't have any Asians to shoot skin tone just caucasian and black skin tone and they look fine. I'm not the expert. And, I'm not the fanboy either, this camera has a lot of quirks that need a good firmware kick in the ass. And, mine is going back to Germany on Monday for the lugs to be fixed, so don't get me started.

 

 

 

Just the travel log photo guy.

[rfunnell]

Lets hope we are not experiencing another M5 as the very viability of the company is riding upon this product.

[Photomek]

What remains to be seen is whether the sensor can be tamed ... much as the difference between the Nikon D3X and Sony A900 delivered different results from the same Sony sensor ... with the Sony approach widely regarded as something of a gold standard for out-of camera color rendition. I owned both cameras simultaneously, shot both side by side, and can attest to this.

I can confirm this, by the way. I've had several Canon and Nikon SLRs and after them the Sony A850. That A850 was truly an amazing camera. For me the colors were perfect, no need to fiddle around with. No Canon or especially Nikon SLR came even close to that.

 

A year ago I've traded the A850 for a Leica M8 and I'm very happy with it. But there are times I miss the A850 and if I had to bought a SLR today, I would try to get an A850/A900 again for sure.

[Jeff S]

So what is actually going on?

 

Pretty much the same that was going on in 2009-10, as lct showed here. The forum at work. And if you tune back in three years, all of this will probably be forgotten too.

 

Jeff

[macjonny1]

 

Pretty much the same that was going on in 2009-10' date=' as lct showed here. The forum at work. And if you tune back in three years, all of this will probably be forgotten too.

 

Jeff

 

That's been established many times. Including on this thread.

[Jeff S]

Including on this thread.

 

As I so linked.

 

Jeff

[lct]

My old C1 v4 works fine in neutral mode with M240 files.

I just have to reduce red saturation but less so than with early M9 files like the one above.

DNG file: http://img1.focus-numerique.com/focus/articles/1634/leica-m-exemple7.DNG

JPG file out of C1 v4: http://tinyurl.com/dy6gged

Good enough for me.

[erl]

My old C1 v4 works fine in neutral mode with M240 files.

I just have to reduce red saturation but less so than with early M9 files like the one above.

DNG file: http://img1.focus-numerique.com/focus/articles/1634/leica-m-exemple7.DNG

JPG file out of C1 v4: http://tinyurl.com/dy6gged

Good enough for me.

I just spent 30secs adjusting the DNG in ACR, which is not my usual RAW processor (I prefer C1 Ver 7) and made minor adjustment by reducing blue marginally, and even less reduction of Magenta. The result IMO is totally acceptable, without knowing what the actual subject colouring is.

 

LCT, I found you adjustment too pink, but that may be personal preferences or variations between the calibration of our respective monitors.

[Rick]

Pretty much the same that was going on in 2009-10, as lct showed here. The forum at work. And if you tune back in three years, all of this will probably be forgotten too.

 

Jeff

 

Jeff, I guess I don't understand the joke - won't be the first time. The photo you posted was from the M9. It shows the M9 magenta skin tone that was characteristic of my M9. This is an example of poor M9 color - so, I don't get the reason for the post unless, you are agreeing that the M9 did not have good color.

 

By the way, my M does not have this characteristic which is why I have now sold my M9 and not my M - like some have done, that are not known to have the best judgement around here.

[mwilliamsphotography]

I like the color from the M. The beta files sucked. But, the camera is capable of producing pleasing color. Skin tones in my estimation are as good as the M9 and are way better at higher ISO where the M9 sucked. Skin tones in the M9 are difficult to PP at higher ISO or in mixed lighting. Or, for that matter, in tungsten lighting that is incorrectly underexposed or is at ISO over 640. I am not sure where anybody is getting that this was not the reported as a normal accepted problem with the M9. The M9 color was never said to be good except at 5000k in bright light where it is excellent.

 

Why are we getting reports of bad color? I'm not sure but some come from those that don't own the camera and I can tell you that you can't dry lab a camera from someone else's files posted on the internet.

 

Next, I'm not sure that people understand PP. Sorry. These files are tricky if you are used to the M9. The WB is way off. It took me a long while to figure out that the color is ok.

 

To start, take the photos into LR and shoot a color chart. Place your cussor over black and align the RGB channels using just Temp and Tint. You should be able to get them to all equal out or pretty close. If, you don't know what I'm talking about then, you don't know what you are talking about.

 

If, you don't have a color chart or you didn't shoot one (I never or rarely do either) then pick something as close to true black and make the same RGB adjustments in LR.

 

You can do this in channels in PS if you want. But, in LR you can get a feel for how the WB needs to be adjusted with Temp and color.

 

Once you do this you are going to like the colors a lot better and you can adjust from there, but I bet you are going to find that they are very close to pleasing.

 

Sorry, I don't have any Asians to shoot skin tone just caucasian and black skin tone and they look fine. I'm not the expert. And, I'm not the fanboy either, this camera has a lot of quirks that need a good firmware kick in the ass. And, mine is going back to Germany on Monday for the lugs to be fixed, so don't get me started.

 

 

Just the travel log photo guy.

 

Can't dry lab a camera from someone else's files? Really? Not even well exposed M RAW files sent via Drop Box from 4 different pretty good shooters?

 

After a paying shoot, I have to PP files from 2 to 3 different shooters using as many as 5 or 6 different cameras ... for as many as 1,000 files at a crack, with 95% of those images containing people. After hundreds of such jobs there are few PP tricks you don't get to know. When using a M9 for some of this, I shot a WB off of a white card for every difficult lighting change, and I do understand equalizing RGB on True Black, amongst other PP techniques. Other commercial jobs I shoot have to be color correct and include color charts in frame 1. So please spare me the "PP lessons."

 

What is in question isn't just WB ... it is the relationship of colors to one another, and what is happening to the skin that is more than just an adjustment of temp and tint. So, as Mark Norton indicated, if the filter characteristics are off, no amount of fiddling is going to give the desired color space.

 

I think we all hope that isn't the issue.

 

-Marc

[Rick]

My old C1 v4 works fine in neutral mode with M240 files.

I just have to reduce red saturation but less so than with early M9 files like the one above.

DNG file: http://img1.focus-numerique.com/focus/articles/1634/leica-m-exemple7.DNG

JPG file out of C1 v4: http://tinyurl.com/dy6gged

Good enough for me.

 

I find your posted DNG has very pleasing skin tone and does not exhibit the magenta skin tone of the M9 that was so hard to PP.

 

Can one of the posters above that doesn't like the color of the M comment on what you specifically find so bad about this file - it would be instructive to those of us that do own the camera.

[Rick]

Can't dry lab a camera from someone else's files? Really? Not even well exposed M RAW files sent via Drop Box from 4 different pretty good shooters?

 

After a paying shoot, I have to PP files from 2 to 3 different shooters using as many as 5 or 6 different cameras ... for as many as 1,000 files at a crack, with 95% of those images containing people. After hundreds of such jobs there are few PP tricks you don't get to know. When using a M9 for some of this, I shot a WB off of a white card for every difficult lighting change, and I do understand equalizing RGB on True Black, amongst other PP techniques. Other commercial jobs I shoot have to be color correct and include color charts in frame 1. So please spare me the "PP lessons."

 

What is in question isn't just WB ... it is the relationship of colors to one another, and what is happening to the skin that is more than just an adjustment of temp and tint. So, as Mark Norton indicated, if the filter characteristics are off, no amount of fiddling is going to give the desired color space.

 

I think we all hope that isn't the issue.

 

-Marc

 

No, I think you are wrong. You can not dry lab a camera until you have it and shoot in various lighting and conditions and then you spend time in PP. Then you need to go back out and shoot and re-examine what you learned in PP. Otherwise you are just looking at a file.

 

Also, I can't stress enough that WB is color correction. If, you can't get the WB right you might as well stop right there. Most of the problems with color are created for people right there. Mark Norton has no idea if the color filters are correct, you are fishing.

 

If, you think that you can look at files on the internet then, take lct's DNG into your favorite PP program and tell me what is so bad about the color. I really would like to know. And, before we get into a bitch fight, remember, I respect your opinion, maybe, more than my own. So, please, what are you seeing in LCT's file that I am missing? Remember, I'm just the Travel log guy...

 

edit: By the way, the only thing I've been able to do with the M is to change the camera profile to change the red tint and decrease saturation in general. I still can't produce a more pleasing camera profile other than that and some changes to saturation of blue that is very color temp dependent.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[thompsonkirk]

Was that a neutral gray background in the DNG?

 

Kirk