Bad M240 colors - a fairy tale

[elmars]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hello to everybody,

 

I am German, so forgive my bad english.

 

There was a big discussion about the colors of the M240 and if there are differences to the color rendition of the M9. See here:

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m9-forum/280887-m-color.html

 

The Leica Customer Service was so kind, to rent me a M240 for a few hours, so I could make a short color comparison to my M9. I used two different color testcharts, the Color Checker Passport from X-rite and the SypderCheckr from Datacolor. The color fields of both are a bit different; as I understood are the color fields from the Color Checker Passport identical to the so called Gretag Macbeth Card.

 

I made two examples: I shot green leaves, because I am green critical, and a shop window with many colors in it. I imported the pictures in LR5 and changed nothing but the color rendition: Adobe Standard as the reference, the the color profiles from the Color Checker Passport and the SpyderCheckr.

 

My conclusion: There are differences, but they are subtle, visible only in a direct comparison. The colors from the M9 are also not much different from the ones of the M240. To me there is no superior color rendition of the M9 or the CCD-sensor.

 

But one picture in every series catches the eye, it seems to have other colors. The picture was taken with the M9. But not the colors are different, different is the color temperature. When I took the shots, both cameras were set to daylight (not AWB). LR5 interpretes daylight from the M9 as 4350 K and daylight from the M240 as 5400 K. Wenn the color temerature of the pictures from the M9 is set to 5400 K, they look nearly the same to the ones from the M240.

 

Next conclusion: Some here in the forum think, the AWB of the M240 is bad; perhaps it is not the AWB but simply a wrong correlation of color temperature values between Lightroom and the M240.

 

Elmar

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!

[Advertisement]

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

[elmars]

More pictures:

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!

[algrove]

Elmar-

 

Most interesting. Thanks for your hard work. Interesting conclusion to say the least. I liked my M9 and also like my M. No color problems when using AWB.

[01af]

So with a few poorly chosen test targets, you tricked yourself into thinking that the M (Typ 240) Adobe Standard colours aren't that bad—and only subtly different from the M9's. Oh well ... as a matter of fact, the M9 standard colours are just terrible, and the M (Typ 240) standard colours are even worse. Wait until you see actual living human beings' skin tones!

 

Fortunately, you can tame the colours through custom-made camera profiles. And no—unless you're colour-blind, the differences to the DNG-embedded or Adobe Standard profiles are nowhere near to being "subtle" ...

[jaapv]

Come on Olaf - you know as well as I do that with a bit of post-processing skill and a decent profile the colours of the M9 can be excellent, and the M even better....

The only complaint you can lay at Leica's, Adobe's and Phase One's doorstep is that it takes a bit of effort, too much maybe if one has better things to do than to sit at a keyboard.

 

No need to bite Elmars' head off. His conclusion is that the difference between the M9 and M is not too big - and that is correct, regardless of the test targets chosen.

[russell]

Fortunately, you can tame the colours through custom-made camera profiles.:

What's the best approach for the M9 to make a colour-taming camera profile?

[01af]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

What's the best approach for the M9 to make a colour-taming camera profile?

I am fairly happy—for both the M9 and the M (Typ 240)—with dual-illuminant camera profiles created with a Gretag-Macbeth Color Checker 24-patch chart and Adobe DNG Profile Editor 1.04. However it took three or four attempts to get the chart shots right. The quality of the final profiles delicately depends on the quality of the captures of the colour chart—in particular, on proper lighting and exposure.

 

The main issues with the standard profiles in Adobe Camera Raw and Lightroom—i. e. "Embedded" and "Adobe Standard"—are reds in general and skin tones in particular being too magenta, and all colours being way too saturated. Also blues are leaning towards the reddish side.

[elmars]

Oh Olaf, I like Your style! Always so gentle.

 

1.

I would not call the motives on my pictures test targets. The test targets are the color cards, which are the basic for the color profiles.

 

2.

I had not even two hours to do my test. Mostly it was sunny, I thought shade would be better. Hard to find in time.

 

3.

The circumstances of photographing the color cards were not optimal too. My home made profile for the M9 is better; but I wanted profiles for both cameras under the same conditions to get a true comparison of the colors.

 

4.

My goal was not true color (like for reproduction) or pleasing color (like for portrait), but a comparison.

 

5.

I did not say that the colors of the M240 are good (the header is a bit misleading; it refers to former threads). But they are comparable to the ones of the M9, what was doubted by several members here or bloggers. They need a bit of work - for me, others are satisfied with the colors as they are with Adobe standard profile. There is no superiority of the CCD sensor.

 

6.

We can argue about the meaning of "subtle". There are of course differences between the profiles and the cameras. But they are not eye catching. To my opinion You can mix the pictures of both cameras and You are not able to find out, which is from the M9 or the M240. I have a little Sony RX 100. The colors of this camera are (in a bad way, but this is a matter of taste) different from the colors of the M9 with my selfmade, good camera profile.

 

Elmar

[dwbell]

Elmar, ich mag deine 'Blicke auf den Kölner Dom' Serie.

[elmars]

Danke! Ich habe noch mehr in der Pipeline, aber im Moment ist die Zeit knapp.

 

Elmar

 

 

http://www.elmarstreyl.de

[01af]

I would not call the motives on my pictures test targets.

It doesn't matter what you are calling them. In this thread's context of demonstrating colour rendition, you are using them as test targets.

 

 

I had not even two hours to do my test. Mostly it was sunny, I thought shade would be better. Hard to find in time.

So you admit that you hardly had the time to do any meaningful evaluation of the M's colour rendition, yet you feel entitled to call other people's assessments thereof "a fairy tale"!?

 

 

My goal was not true color (like for reproduction) or pleasing color (like for portrait), but a comparison.

Yes—what I keep saying. The difference in colour rendition between M9 and M isn't that big. The M9's colour (using the standard profiles in Camera Raw and Lightroom) is poor, and so is the M's. So both cameras desperately need customised colour profiles—with those, their colour renditions can be very nice.

 

So the fault for the poor colour renditions is not a property of cameras' sensors—that's a common misconception. The sensors are just fine. Instead, it's the poor profiles provided with the Adobe image-processing software products.

 

 

I did not say that the colors of the M (Typ 240) are good [...]. But they are comparable to the ones of the M9 ...

Comparable—yes. Similar—yes. Equal—no.

 

 

There is no superiority of the CCD sensor.

Of course there isn't.

 

 

There are of course differences between the profiles and the cameras. But they are not eye-catching.

In my opinion, they are. In some cases, depending on the subject, you can clearly tell the M pictures from the M9 pictures—when using the Adobe camera profiles, that is (not to be confused with the lens profiles). In other cases, you cannot. Anyway, the deviations of the colour renditions of M9 and M are going in the same direction basically but are even worse in the M.

 

When using customised camera profiles then both cameras are capable of very nice colour renditions. Unfortunately, creating proper profiles is not as easy and straightforward as it seems.

[Guest malland]

Basically, I don't think that the type of test done here is meaningful; and my judgment on the two cameras comes from the shots on the web that I see coming out of the M9 and the M240 — a comparison that may not be fair to the latter, as there are still few that have the new camera.

 

Essentially, in my view, the best work that's come of the M9 are images that look like they were shot with slide film, of which I see precious little from the M240. Time will tell; all I can say now is that it looks like it's much easier to get the look I like from the M9. My own view is that the M240 pictures will still look different, and that some people will like them more as they do now; but I am still a skeptic as far as my own taste is concerned.

 

—Mitch/Bangkok

Surabaya-Johnny

[MarkP]

Essentially, in my view, the best work that's come of the M9 are images that look like they were shot with slide film, of which I see precious little from the M240.

—Mitch/Bangkok

Surabaya-Johnny

 

I keep going back to these two M240 R-lens photographs by Algrove (post #21) which to me look like they were shot on transparency film (albeit just a touch excess magenta in the skies):

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/other/275160-m-photos-r-lenses-open-all-2.html

[Robert Q Wong Jr.]

Elmars

 

Thank you for publishing your tests.

 

I have both the M9 and M. Subtle may be a subjective word but that's also exactly how I feel about the output of both bodies. It's really no big deal.

 

M files do have colors that look more neutral, more relaxed, and much more realistic. Some folks mistake this look to be Canikon-like, but that's the look of a higher dynamic range photograph. The potential is just below the surface. If they wish, it can be the starting point for something more aggressive in post. But for me, I'm enjoying the M's output which I'm convinced will re-position what folks consider to be the gold standard.

 

Bobby

 

 

 

 

Oh Olaf' date=' I like Your style! Always so gentle.

 

1.

I would not call the motives on my pictures test targets. The test targets are the color cards, which are the basic for the color profiles.

 

2.

I had not even two hours to do my test. Mostly it was sunny, I thought shade would be better. Hard to find in time.

 

3.

The circumstances of photographing the color cards were not optimal too. My home made profile for the M9 is better; but I wanted profiles for both cameras under the same conditions to get a true comparison of the colors.

 

4.

My goal was not true color (like for reproduction) or pleasing color (like for portrait), but a comparison.

 

5.

I did not say that the colors of the M240 are good (the header is a bit misleading; it refers to former threads). But they are comparable to the ones of the M9, what was doubted by several members here or bloggers. They need a bit of work - for me, others are satisfied with the colors as they are with Adobe standard profile. There is no superiority of the CCD sensor.

 

6.

We can argue about the meaning of "subtle". There are of course differences between the profiles and the cameras. But they are not eye catching. To my opinion You can mix the pictures of both cameras and You are not able to find out, which is from the M9 or the M240. I have a little Sony RX 100. The colors of this camera are (in a bad way, but this is a matter of taste) different from the colors of the M9 with my selfmade, good camera profile.

 

Elmar[/quote']

 

Sent from my iPad using Forum Runner

[dwbell]

I agree with all of what 0laf says, just not always with his way of saying it.

 

Having said that, I've been shooting heavily with my M240 for a week now and my subjective opinion is that the Auto WB is not as bad as I was expecting (it's off, sure but this is Leica - you come to expect that) and the colour is equally not as far off as expected. I'm profiling this weekend but the shots to date weren't "OH CRIKEY THAT'S DREADFUL" but rather "Nice, could use a tweak".

 

The DR increase is very noticeable in post, and does seem to render the image "flat". I have a flatter profile for the M9 and this is my preference so it doesn't disturb me. If I was someone who liked crushed blacks, deep contrast and bold saturation I might initially feel the M240 was a step in the wrong direction.

 

Cannot emphasise enough 0laf's point about profiling. Exposure of the card is critical, as is angle to light source(s). Very easy to clip red and skew results.

[jaapv]

That is true. The camera does not handle overexposure well in the reds. I have a 0.3 underexposure dialed in and it helps prevent clipping the reds.

[jaapv]

 

So the fault for the poor colour renditions is not a property of cameras' sensors—that's a common misconception. The sensors are just fine. Instead, it's the poor profiles provided with the Adobe image-processing software products.

 

This should be repeated in bold red letters in every colour rendering thread.

[Guest malland]

...The DR increase is very noticeable in post, and does seem to render the image "flat". I have a flatter profile for the M9 and this is my preference so it doesn't disturb me. If I was someone who liked crushed blacks, deep contrast and bold saturation I might initially feel the M240 was a step in the wrong direction...

For me, the issue is not flatter-looking files from increased dynamic range compared to the M9 — it's trivial to increase contrast to the level desired, the same as with the M-Monochrom. Rather, I find that, essentially, the M9 can easily be shot and processed to have the feel or color rendition of slide film; and I don't see that (at least as yet) from the M240. When I say this people point to me to someone's pictures that are supposed to have that look, but none of the ones I've seen have the feel of any slide film that I've seen or like.

 

When Leica and Kodak were designing the M9 they apparently used Kodachrome 64 as the color model, which presumably was not the case with the M240. But we'll see how all this develops as far as the M240 color rendition is concerned. In the meantime, I don't think this issue will go away: not exactly a fairy tale.

 

—Mitch/Bangkok

Surabaya-Johnny

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[dwbell]

I don't think this issue will go away: not exactly a fairy tale.

 

—Mitch/Bangkok

 

It's clearly based on personal opinion. The OP considers the 'problem' trivial. You see it as a show stopper. I can easily see myself working with this camera image-wise and find the hardware improvements considerable.

[elmars]

When Leica and Kodak were designing the M9 they apparently used Kodachrome 64 as the

Surabaya-Johnny

 

Overgaard wrote this. But is this assured information or speculation? I think speculation. If the colors of Kodachrome would have been so bad like the colors of the M9 without profiling, nobody wuld have boucht it.

 

Elmar

 

 

http://www.elmarstreyl.de