erl Posted October 1, 2013 Share #61 Posted October 1, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) M9 + C1 ver 7 is IMO a better ballgame. Qualification: I haven't used Lightroom for some years so I am OOD in that dept. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 1, 2013 Posted October 1, 2013 Hi erl, Take a look here M9 ISO Performance - New Life. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Guest malland Posted October 1, 2013 Share #62 Posted October 1, 2013 Come now, Erl, if you haven't used LR for several years your statement is not helpful to anyone, considering that there have been great improvements even just last year: as Jim Kasson states on the first page of this thread, LR4 and LR5 use process PV2012, which compresses like film rather than clipping highlights — a big improvement over the earlier process PV2010. Also, LR5 has a new Radial Filter tool that is very good for dodging and burning. As for me, I haven't used C1 for some three years, so I would not make any comparative claim. —Mitch/Paris Tristes Tropiques [WIP] Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
swamiji Posted October 1, 2013 Share #63 Posted October 1, 2013 (edited) I have LR5, and C1 v7. I am now using C1 almost exclusively. Yes LR new engine is better than the old, but C1 is still better and has more features. To me C1 V6 was a mess, and the LR5 seemed like an improvement. But there are somethings even in LR5 you need PS for, like layers. The dodge and burn in LR5 is an improvement to previous versions of LR, but a joke compared to PS. Now with C1 v7, they have cleaned up C1, and provided a proper catalog, so if you like the LR way of organizing it's there now. C1 also has layers, and dodge and burn (similar to PS). I get better results, and I don't have to deal with PS CC to get the features I want. Edited October 1, 2013 by swamiji Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stealth3kpl Posted October 1, 2013 Share #64 Posted October 1, 2013 Who produces c1? Pete Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdlaing Posted October 1, 2013 Share #65 Posted October 1, 2013 Who produces c1?Pete Capture One is produced by Phase One. They make digital backs for medium format and others. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
erl Posted October 1, 2013 Share #66 Posted October 1, 2013 (edited) Come now, Erl, if you haven't used LR for several years your statement is not helpful to anyone, considering that there have been great improvements even just last year: as Jim Kasson states on the first page of this thread, LR4 and LR5 use process PV2012, which compresses like film rather than clipping highlights — a big improvement over the earlier process PV2010. Also, LR5 has a new Radial Filter tool that is very good for dodging and burning. As for me, I haven't used C1 for some three years, so I would not make any comparative claim. —Mitch/Paris Tristes Tropiques [WIP] Fair go Mitch, I was not trying to be helful to anyone. I was simply stating a preference, which I carefully qualified. My choice was based on comparison at the time. Based on later posts in this thread, it seems the comparison has not really changed much. Both softwares have clearly improved. I am not interested in constantly comparing software. I am perfectly happy with C1. Even if LR is better, the drag of changing over has no appeal. I suggest it's a bit like saying Kodak film is better than Fuji! It's really only a matter taste. Edited October 1, 2013 by erl Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sblitz Posted October 2, 2013 Share #67 Posted October 2, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) i have both, and find C1 v7 better to my taste. Was using LR for a while because C1 was unstable on the mac, they seem to have fixed it, so I am back to C1. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hlockwood Posted October 2, 2013 Share #68 Posted October 2, 2013 This is a terrifically educational thread. It appears that most of it is applicable to the M-Mono as well (except for some of the color fidelity issues, of course.) Would someone care to elaborate on taking a similar approach to exposure/base ISO with the Mono? HFL Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest malland Posted October 2, 2013 Share #69 Posted October 2, 2013 (edited) This is a terrifically educational thread. It appears that most of it is applicable to the M-Mono as well (except for some of the color fidelity issues, of course.)...Would someone care to elaborate on taking a similar approach to exposure/base ISO with the Mono?..Harry, it's likely to be ISO 1250, but requires testing: see this post. I got good results with the M-Monochrom at ISO1250 and pushing in LR5, but I have not run any comparative test against increasing in-camera ISO. Below are three examples pushed 1,2 and 3 stops. Of course, with the M-Monochrom there is less reason to use this technique from the point of view of noise reduction; but it has a great advantage in having much more dynamic range, which can be important for lighting situations in which the "correct" exposure may be difficult to determine — considering that the M-Monochrom shot at ISO5,000 and 10,000 has little dynamic range. Also, using this push technique, you won't blow out highlights. M-Monochrom | Summilux-50 pre-ASPH | ISO 1250 pushed 1 stop | f/4.0 | 1/125 sec Paris M-Monochrom | Summilux-50 pre-ASPH | ISO 1250 pushed 2 stops | f/4.0 | 1/250 sec Paris M-Monochrom | Summilux-50 pre-ASPH | ISO 1250 pushed 3 stops | f/4.0 | 1/250 sec Paris —Mitch/Paris Tristes Tropiques [WIP] Edited October 2, 2013 by malland Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hlockwood Posted October 3, 2013 Share #70 Posted October 3, 2013 Harry, it's likely to be ISO 1250, but requires testing: see this post. I got good results with the M-Monochrom at ISO1250 and pushing in LR5, but I have not run any comparative test against increasing in-camera ISO. Below are three examples pushed 1,2 and 3 stops. Of course, with the M-Monochrom there is less reason to use this technique from the point of view of noise reduction; but it has a great advantage in having much more dynamic range, which can be important for lighting situations in which the "correct" exposure may be difficult to determine — considering that the M-Monochrom shot at ISO5,000 and 10,000 has little dynamic range. Also, using this push technique, you won't blow out highlights. M-Monochrom | Summilux-50 pre-ASPH | ISO 1250 pushed 1 stop | f/4.0 | 1/125 sec Paris M-Monochrom | Summilux-50 pre-ASPH | ISO 1250 pushed 2 stops | f/4.0 | 1/250 sec Paris M-Monochrom | Summilux-50 pre-ASPH | ISO 1250 pushed 3 stops | f/4.0 | 1/250 sec Paris —Mitch/Paris Tristes Tropiques [WIP] Thanks, Mitch. Getting more dynamic range and avoiding blowing the highlights are pretty important. In my case, the final output of creating an image is a B&W print. That also defines what kind of photography interests me. It also pushes me further toward swapping my M9 for an MM. HFL 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FrozenInTime Posted October 5, 2013 Share #71 Posted October 5, 2013 One more possible reason to do a LR push on the MM is the buffer size. Below ISO 2500 I get 7 frames; at and above 2500 only 4 frames continuous. Mind you the MM is more about the single decisive moment than rapid fire; I recon I could rewind the film in a M6 and load a new roll before a MM with full buffer finishes writing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimKasson Posted October 14, 2013 Share #72 Posted October 14, 2013 One more possible reason to do a LR push on the MM is the buffer size. The "pick a low ISO, pick the minimum acceptable shutter speed and the widest acceptable aperture and do the rest in post" approach also means no bracketing, which tends to fill up that tiny buffer PDQ. Jim 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
k-hawinkler Posted September 4, 2014 Share #73 Posted September 4, 2014 (edited) Great thread I had missed back then! Thanks. http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m9-forum/292708-m9-colors-night-best-way-shoot.html Edited September 4, 2014 by k-hawinkler Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Ricard Posted September 5, 2014 Share #74 Posted September 5, 2014 Have you considered that the 'all sorts of lighting' might be responsible, at least in part, for the 'funky looking lips'? Colour is directly influenced by lighting. I think we all know that color is influenced by lighting. However, the M9 clearly has a problem with magenta skin tones and lips in many circumstances. You only have to be standing next to someone who is taking the same photo as you, but using an iPhone to see how bad the M9 sensor is in this regard. It has nothing to do with user ignorance and everything to do with an inconsistent chip -one that is outstanding in many circumstances and terrible in many others. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
erl Posted September 5, 2014 Share #75 Posted September 5, 2014 I think we all know that color is influenced by lighting. However, the M9 clearly has a problem with magenta skin tones and lips in many circumstances. You only have to be standing next to someone who is taking the same photo as you, but using an iPhone to see how bad the M9 sensor is in this regard. It has nothing to do with user ignorance and everything to do with an inconsistent chip -one that is outstanding in many circumstances and terrible in many others. John, I don't know how many pages back you found that comment of mine. Certainly I don't remember the context. Regardless, if you prefer an iPhone to am M9 you are free to use it. My mind boggles at all the attendant limitations of using any phone for what I do, but that is another issue. As for the colour palette of the M9 I can only say, in my experience it is fine, provided I use an IR cut filter (my choice) and I don't ignore the ambient light. Typically, fluorescent light is an obscenity, IMO. Mixed lighting is another issue, also problematic. To believe these lighting scenarios are trouble free is to declare a loose sense of critique, IMO. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
XVarior Posted September 8, 2014 Share #76 Posted September 8, 2014 I've always been an "Underexposurer" and now that I got an M 9, I can't thank you more for this info regarding the exact 640 ISO thing ;-) I didn't know the magic number on the M9 and probably other cameras was 640! I'm using LR 5 and the ability to recover underexposed images is becoming fantastic with each new version. thanks for sharing Colonel. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mantelknopf Posted January 1, 2018 Share #77 Posted January 1, 2018 Hello, I wanted to create a profile for this trick in the M9 for lowlight: Auto ISO with highest value 640, at least 1/60 or even 1/125 shutter speed and an exposure compensation downwards. How many units can I underexpose to get the best effect? 2/3? 1 or even more? Does anyone there have experience that they are willing to share? Thank you very much! Gesendet von iPhone mit Tapatalk Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ko.Fe. Posted January 1, 2018 Share #78 Posted January 1, 2018 (edited) This one was pushed +2 in LR4.4 from 640. Original file was little bit darker for my taste. I pushed it two stops and added blacks, contrast and cut highlights. 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! For me, if I'm limiting my M-E at ISO400 or ISO640, the best way is to leave shutter on auto and no limit. In real life, if it is low light and your camera is limited double (ISO and shutter), then maximum what you will recover is this: It is full frame, no crop. M-E set for 640 and limited at 1/60 on this. It was taken during not late evening in Manhattan on one of the major street. 8th, I think. Edited January 1, 2018 by Ko.Fe. Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! For me, if I'm limiting my M-E at ISO400 or ISO640, the best way is to leave shutter on auto and no limit. In real life, if it is low light and your camera is limited double (ISO and shutter), then maximum what you will recover is this: It is full frame, no crop. M-E set for 640 and limited at 1/60 on this. It was taken during not late evening in Manhattan on one of the major street. 8th, I think. ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/213316-m9-iso-performance-new-life/?do=findComment&comment=3430214'>More sharing options...
mantelknopf Posted January 1, 2018 Share #79 Posted January 1, 2018 Thank you! Pushing by 2 seems to be well possible. I will try and see what‘ll happen Gesendet von iPhone mit Tapatalk Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now