M Color

[xrogers]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

??????

 

So I did all this for nothing .......

 

Nope, it was useful to me, and thank you!

 

I still haven't seen side-by-side skin tone samples, however. Some digital cameras clearly make people look better than others.

[Jeff S]

Off color jokes? I'm not sure I like the tone here.

 

Jeff

[Gary Clennan]

I don't buy into all this talk about inaccurate color rendition from the M240. I have taken many shots in all sorts of conditions and everything looks good to my eye. Daylight, indoor light, mixed light, AWB, etc. This is being blown out of proportion....

[dwbell]

Jaap, can a camera manufacturer (no names being mentioned), use your prose as a excuse....um I mean reason why their AWB is appears to be "off" with regards to skin tones? Of course they'll provide you with just compensation in the form of credit for being the originator of such theory...LOL!

 

Dave (D&A)

 

The skin leica shooters shoot is different, more complex than that which other manufacturers cameras shoot.

 

Dur.

[daure]

I am the "neuerste Benutzer" in this post.

That's don't mean i am the younger ! (schade)

I agree that age tend to change color perception.

I agree that not everybody have the same color perception.

That's why they are mesurement tools to avoid any psycho and/or physio bias

It's true for a lot of other things : weight, speed, temperature ...

 

The M is my tenth digital M (and my ninth color digital M)

I have it since beginning of March.

I am not color blind and got 100% on Xrite colortest too.

I am not specialy proud of that. That's my job and i am paid for that.

You cannot resume the problems some see with such argumentation.

 

Color rendition and white balance (auto or not) are two different things.

You can have a perfect white balance and wrong colors.

You can have a perfect white balanced picture/file and apply/use a color profile which improve the rendering of colors. It is better if you use a profile made with the same light quality, the same white balance settings. You can elaborate some profiles working with different white balance/different light source

Or have one profile working with different light sources.

That's right for the .icc profiles you can do for C1 or the .dcp profiles for LR.

[pico]

I don't buy into all this talk about inaccurate color rendition from the M240. I have taken many shots in all sorts of conditions and everything looks good to my eye. Daylight, indoor light, mixed light, AWB, etc. This is being blown out of proportion....

 

One of the 10% with poor color vision?

[Rick]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

You cannot resume the problems some see with such argumentation.

 

This might be directed at me? My point isn't that no problems exist in AWB or accurate color reproduction if you want to measure it. Or, that the issues can be explained by individual perception.

 

My point is that the M produces very eye pleasing color, to my eye. And, there are reasons why others may not perceive the same.

 

I just think the color is very correctable as it is right now. Maybe, Leica will release firmware or LR will update their profile and it will be better.

 

I don't really use(rely) AWB and will eventually set a standard profile(s) and adjust all files from that starting point.

 

Like you, I do see IR leak. I don't have any of my M8 IR/UV filters. Maybe, you could show how these filters you are now routinely using have improved color. My impression is that on the M they would only improve color on certain synthetic fabrics and would not have an effect on other areas of the color spectrum with the M. Don't have a filter to test your impression. Maybe, you could post an example.

 

One of the improvements I am finding with the M over the M9 is that I'm not fighting to correct magenta skin tones that I really hated dealing with on the M9 under tungsten lighting. The M doesn't have this issue. This alone makes the M color better for me. I love the daylight color from the M9 (when corrected with profiles), but to think that the M9 has better color than the new M is to ignore some blatant problems the M9 has. Just as believing that the new M has no problems would be ignoring a few things - we will get through this.

[otto.f]

It's more than a warmer color and a more saturated look ... skin tones are an issue at the moment. Again, I'm certain that it will eventually be resolved but it's difficult to get Asian skin tones to look like they should.

 

Skintones have always been criticical and subject to individual taste and IMHO even cultural different views, I even think there is an American and a European vision/taste on this. To state that this 'problem' will be 'resolved' is to suggest that this would be a scientific, objective matter. Kodak and Fuji have in the past made different choices, also with a broad range within their own assortiment. Velvia, Sensia and Provia have their own skintones, just like EPP, EPN and Elitechrom had. The differences within brand were bigger than between brands.

So I follow Jaap's suggestion in post #8 that you use C1 with the skintone eyedropper tool to make your own choice. That is where RAW shooting is meant for!

[Gary Clennan]

One of the 10% with poor color vision?

 

You must be one of the 90% who don't own one yet think they are an expert based on what others are posting. We all know that color rendition is a personal taste which is typically adjusted to suit. It is not perfect by any means but I personally feel that the results I obtain have been very good. Perhaps a FW update later on may help it even more. I would defer commenting until you have extensively used one.

[thighslapper]

 

My point is that the M produces very eye pleasing color, to my eye. And, there are reasons why others may not perceive the same.

 

 

I agree.

 

But the colour isn't correct ....

 

I'd prefer it to be true out of the camera first ..... then adjustable to be pleasing .... not the other way round.

 

The sad thing about all this is that after 6 weeks use I've had the M240 colour palette imprinted on my brain so it now looks normal and the M9 photos look odd

[otto.f]

I have a feeling the M9s and M9Ps are going to start appreciating in value....

 

Well the skintones of the M9 are not in every situation point and shoot perfect either. The M8 had too reddish skintones, the M9 was only a bit better

[Rick]

I agree.

 

But the colour isn't correct ....

 

I'd prefer it to be true out of the camera first ..... then adjustable to be pleasing .... not the other way round.

 

The sad thing about all this is that after 6 weeks use I've had the M240 colour palette imprinted on my brain so it now looks normal and the M9 photos look odd

 

I also agree that it isn't perfectly correct yet and that as close to true color as possible is the best starting point.

 

I will say that I haven't got it right yet myself either. Although, I like the color I'm getting, something isn't quite right somewhere. I'm just not interested in obsessing over it yet because, there will be an update and then someone like Adan will come up with a real smart profile.

 

I'm the guy that thought I had I had a good profile in my M9 until I used Adan's. I really liked where his profile. It was/is a great starting point for PP in the M9.

 

And, yes I agree that looking at the M files for a while can cause one's perception to change. Heck, I often look away from the screen or outside or at a different color and then back to my screen to try and better see the color balance of pictures I'm adjusting.

[janki]

Thanks for the color test, Rick Leica.

It was an interesting test.

Since I occasionally do some photographing, it's nice to know that I had the highest score for my age.

My not too costly computer screen cannot be completely useless either.

 

Today I have been doing some MIG rust welding work on one of my old cars.

Under such kind of work it is impossible to wear protective mask.

I can hereby tell all of you that my skin now, gradually taking a colorcast that would get any camera sensor and processor to spin totally out of control.

[mjh]

You shouldn't need a profile in a RAW convertor to get reasonable results ....

Well, you do need a profile. Every camera (except a monochrome one) does. Between the raw sensor data and the eventual image, there is always some profile involved for converting colours from the device-dependent colour space of the sensor into a device-independent colour space such as sRGB or Adobe RGB.

 

There are two main factors determining colour rendition, one being the RGB colour filters on the sensor, the other the raw converter (including the raw converter built into the camera that is responsible for the JPEG files). If one believes that one cannot tweak the colour rendition to one’s liking in software then there is nothing Leica could do about it, short of developing a new sensor with a different set of RGB filters. But I don’t see how this would be necessary. The transmission curves of the filters on the Max sensor look just fine; in fact they are an improvement over the filters of the M8 at least (the data on the M9 has never been published). There is less of an overlap between red and blue, except that the red filters have a smaller second maximum around 380 nm which helps to improve the rendition of pure violet hues. There is a known issue with AWB in that it produces overly reddish results, but then that is easy to fix in the raw converter; also I trust that Leica will fix it for JPEG files in a future version of the firmware.

[thighslapper]

Well, the first post says "If there are any significant colour, saturation or other differences then they are negligible" and the second post is about AWB, which is a different problem. AWB is something that Leica can do something about in firmware, but I didn't think that's primarily what this thread was about. So I'm none the wiser....

 

Sorry!

 

Sandy

 

This thread is about AWB.....

 

And what I pointed out was that if you use the M9 AWB settings on M240 AWB files you get identical images .....

 

ie. The M9 AWB assessment on the photograped subject is correct ...... the M240 isn't.

 

any wiser ?

[thighslapper]

Well, you do need a profile. Every camera (except a monochrome one) does. Between the raw sensor data and the eventual image, there is always some profile involved for converting colours from the device-dependent colour space of the sensor into a device-independent colour space such as sRGB or Adobe RGB.

 

There are two main factors determining colour rendition, one being the RGB colour filters on the sensor, the other the raw converter (including the raw converter built into the camera that is responsible for the JPEG files). If one believes that one cannot tweak the colour rendition to one’s liking in software then there is nothing Leica could do about it, short of developing a new sensor with a different set of RGB filters. But I don’t see how this would be necessary. The transmission curves of the filters on the Max sensor look just fine; in fact they are an improvement over the filters of the M8 at least (the data on the M9 has never been published). There is less of an overlap between red and blue, except that the red filters have a smaller second maximum around 380 nm which helps to improve the rendition of pure violet hues. There is a known issue with AWB in that it produces overly reddish results, but then that is easy to fix in the raw converter; also I trust that Leica will fix it for JPEG files in a future version of the firmware.

 

I agree...... and I'm only talking about the embedded profile ...... because that is all there is ...... but it still produces globally warm results..... and the embedded profile from the M9 doesn't. If it didn't none of us would be irritated by the results.

 

At the end of the day it's only a set of correction factors applied to the RAW data ..... it's just that Leica have made a strange choice in firmware.....

 

Leica sell this camera with LR4...... and I rather naively assume that they expect we will use it ......... and if the resulting images look wrong then they have only themselves to blame if customers are not satisfied.

 

I'm sure as you say the basic camera calibration for the Max sensor is absolutely fine..... and no doubt profiles will appear in time...... but I find it rather odd that Leica cannot come up with an embedded one that is better than this......

[kidigital]

First of all, the M color has been covered extensively since the beginning when we first started commenting on the beta camera photos. I was the one of the first to comment that the photos seem very warm. I have been no fan of the first pictures. But, here are some things to consider.

 

Again, my opinion is that it needed it's own thread for a little more exploration. Also, my opinion is that it is more than pictures being a little warm.

 

 

Just because 2 people returned their M does not tell us anything. Maybe, they shoot in JPEG which has good color but is a little too red. We really don't know the facts of why someone would return the camera.

 

You are correct when it is simply an internet meme that is repeated endlessly. But when I say 'personally', I'm relaying the information from two people I know personally who are fellow Leica shooters who use their cameras extensively on a daily basis. For you it might be an inconsequential data point that tells you nothing, but it does have an impact on my decision-making. Their rationale is that they have sold their cameras because they just can't get the color to represent what they are seeing. I can assure you that they don't shoot JPEG.

 

Some of the comments made in this thread are by members that do not have the camera and are working with files from the internet or from shooting the camera for a few hours. You really need to have the camera long enough to shoot different times of the day (temperature) and under different conditions. Then, you need a lot of experience in PP with these varied files before you can start to make conclusions.

 

Possibly very true as I don't know the backstories of all of the thread participants. All I can offer is my own personal experience. I may have only used the camera for half a day, but I can assure you that I do know what I'm doing with Leica digital files. I took the camera out on the streets like I would any other camera that I acquire and shot hundreds of frames. I've spent countless hours working through the files that I personally shot. This isn't my first Leica rodeo. Similarly, the other two people that I've mentioned (who I've had a good many email discussions with regarding the files) also know what they are doing.

 

Also, those reading should take with a grain of salt any comments from posters because nearly 10% of those posting here have color deficiencies. Among the rest, a large percentage think they have good color vision, but they don't We saw this on the online color test Color Test - Online Color Challenge | X-Rite that was posted and few actually got the test 100% correct. A huge number of us have inaccurate normal color vision.

 

Again, I'm not talking about exacting colors that can be debated endlessly on internet fora. I'm simply talking about usable, workable basic colors and auto white balance that need to be there for the M user straight out of the camera. If you shoot a lot of images in a variety of lighting conditions, working with the M and it's current files are problematic as one is forced to spend a lot of time on each individual file just to find the right color combination. Simply put, that's unacceptable.

 

There's a lot to like about the camera especially for its excellent dynamic range and a number of other well-documented attributes. Sadly, I've come to the conclusion that I just can't use it in its current state on the street to get the type of files that I envision that it will be able to deliver further down the road.

 

As to my observations, I like the M colors a lot ( I got 100% on the color test). Facial tone is redder than my M9. I think it looks more natural and yes I am working on my own profile because, although it is good I wouldn't say it is what I call "eye pleasing color" yet.

 

The Asians that I photographed with the M would be horrified if I showed them how the camera renders their skin tones straight out of the camera. There's a yellow, orangish hue that is cartoonish in appearance. In SE Asia where skin tones are a very important cultural aesthetic, this a major concern.

 

Bottom line on color, for me. M color is starting out way better than the start of the M9. It is much easier to correct than the M9 ESPECIALLY UNDER TUNGSTEN. The M9 had a hard time getting skin even close under tungsten. It sucked. The M does not have this problem. The color issues that some (that often don't own the camera yet) are raising are blown out of proportion and certainly aren't anywhere close to being an issue that would cause me to return the camera.

 

If you have an M or are about to get one, I assure you that this is not being blown out of proportion. It needs to be addressed.

 

It's a shame that it seems to happen over and over again with Leica digital products.

[kidigital]

I have found that the M's raw images are more similar in concept to the Monochrom's than to the M9 -- that is, what comes out of the camera needs a bit of effort to get to one's liking, but the files are incredibly malleable, flexible, filled with potential. If you like the saturated look, as I do, go for it. And if not, adjust to taste. These files are a great starting point -- and while you will surely need to fiddle, as you have to with ANY raw file from ANY digital camera, there is, in my opinion after shooting with one for six weeks, incredible potential. Again, reminds me of the Monochrom.

 

I agree that there is incredible potential. I also own an MM. The files are amazing to work with as they have excellent dynamic range and lovely mid tones that cover a lot of ground. However, let's just say our opinions probably differ as to how much fiddling one is going to need to do with current M files right out of the box compared to MM files.

 

With different software profiles will they get there? Most likely. But for now, I'm of the opinion that Leica M owners and potential owners need to be aware of the issue.

[mjh]

At the end of the day it's only a set of correction factors applied to the RAW data ..... it's just that Leica have made a strange choice in firmware.....

 

Leica sell this camera with LR4...... and I rather naively assume that they expect we will use it ......... and if the resulting images look wrong then they have only themselves to blame if customers are not satisfied.

Camera vendors are storing conversion matrices as part of the meta data, but raw converters generally ignore these and prefer to apply their own, usually more accurate profiles anyway. As does Adobe Lightroom unless you choose to use the embedded profile. But this has nothing to do with white balance and if AWB is off (as it generally is with the M), Adobe’s profile won’t change that. On the other hand I had no difficulty finding a pleasing white balance setting in Lightroom. As a matter of fact I rarely use the camera’s (not just the M’s but any camera’s) white balance setting.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Rick]

Kurt, I can assure that the M colors are fine if you shoot a grey card. If, you are going to use color out of camera as you stated then of course the JPEG colors are way off. AWB is wrong. Way wrong. But, if corrected with a grey card the color is very good. It is not a shame, it is not happening again... please rest assured that the color is good from the M, but for now you will need to shoot RAW with a grey card if you want to make it easy on yourself.